Abstract
This study intends to elucidate the chronology of Philo’s writing using both the intertextual and external evidence. Given the scarcity of information on Philo’s life at our disposal, both relative and absolute chronology need to be parallelly assessed. The study proceeds by the analysis of two cases which provide somewhat clearer evidence. The lost treatise on numbers is frequently quoted in Philo’s other works, allowing for the suggestion of a relative chronology. The two books of De somniis contain both allusions to contemporary historical realities and references to other treatises. The analysis of this data can be combined with other evidence at our disposal leading up to the crucial question of the relative chronology of the Allegorical Interpretation and the Exposition of the Law series.
1 Introduction1
The chronology of Philo’s treatises has been a subject of debate for a long time. The question of chronology is tightly related to the issue of the division of Philonic texts into groups. Given the scarcity of biographical data, most of the debate is focused on dating the most representative groups of Philo’s writings, such as the Allegorical Commentary, the Exposition of the Law and the Questions. The dating of individual treatises—although possible in some cases—is largely dependent on our estimates of the time that the sequences they belong to were written. Needless to say, chronology and grouping are indispensable for our attempts to understand the Alexandrian’s philosophy and to construe its evolution.
In order to advance in this field, I will start by looking at the methodology of extracting the chronological data. Once the method is clear, I proceed to discuss two case studies: the chronological setting of Philo’s De somniis and that of his lost treatise on numbers. The latter, although lost, is an important key to the chronology, being the work Philo cited most frequently in the whole corpus of his writings. The dating of these texts has a bearing on the chronology of larger segments within the Philonic corpus: the assessment of its impact will be presented in the conclusion.
2 Overview of Earlier Scholarship
The foundations of Philo’s chronology were laid by Louis Massebieau (1840–1904) and Philo’s editor, Leopold Cohn (1856–1915). The conclusions the two scholars came up with already show a significant divergence. Massebieau first dealt with the classification of Philo’s work,2 turning to chronology in a later study finished and completed on his behalf by Émil Bréhier.3 According to Massebieau, Philo’s Allegorical Commentary series is much posterior to Exposition of the Law. Furthermore, based on the mentions of civil discord occurring in the Allegorical Commentary series, Massebieau proceeds to identify the time of their composition: the first part (Leg. 1–3 to De agricultura) must have been written in the earlier years of Flaccus’s prefecture (ca. AD 32–37); the second part (up to De confusione linguarum) under the troubled period of Caligula’s reign (AD 37–41); the remaining part in the calmer Claudian era.4
Massebieau’s approach is worthy of appreciation. Besides historical reconstruction, he relies on the analysis of cross-references within Philo’s work. In addition to that, Massebieau bases his chronology on what he perceives as an evolution in Philo’s attitude to social life (active involvement versus detachment) and his increasingly (or at least variably) confident use of the allegorical method.5 Whether this variation can be a valid criterion for dating remains dubious, but neither Massebieau nor his critic Cohn ever specified the methodological rules for this type of chronological research.
Cohn’s assessment of the Philonic corpus yielded an altogether different picture.6 In his view, the Allegorical Commentary was the first to be written, followed by the Questions and, lastly, by the Exposition of the Law.7 For Cohn, the first two divisions are generally lacking reference to contemporary issues, whereas the Exposition of the Law is somewhat closer to real life.8 Nevertheless, Cohn is very prudent about his conclusions and admits an alternative possibility of Philo having worked on all three groups of writings simultaneously.9 It is noteworthy that this idea was later taken over in Valentin Nikiprowetzky’s study of Philo’s hermeneutics.10 Although Nikiprowetzky did not really elaborate his argumentation in favour of this view, we will return to his input later in this paper. I must limit myself to mentioning in passing two other important studies that have bearing on Philonic chronology research, and which will be dealt with infra. First, Abraham Terian’s research on the Questions, which made a strong impact on modern scholarship, firmly establishing this text’s position as one of Philo’s earliest writings;11 second, Gregory Sterling’s study of cross-references in Philo’s two greater sets of treatises, which offers an important tool for the dating of the Philonic oeuvre.12
A recent monograph by Maren Niehoff suggested a significant change of paradigm.13 Niehoff portrays Philo’s path as an evolution from abstruse Platonism towards realistic and down-to-earth Stoicism. Philo’s sojourn in Rome during the embassy to Caligula plays a pivotal role in this intellectual development. In Rome Philo acquires a more moralizing and educational approach to religion (manifest in De opificio mundi and De decalogo), as well as an interest in biography writing (manifest in his biographies of Moses, Abraham and Joseph). Based on this reading, Niehoff tried to provide a coherent chronology of Philo’s oeuvre. Integrating the achievements of earlier scholarship, she asserts the priority of the Allegorical Commentary, followed by the Questions, and capped by the Exposition of the Law written after the embassy to Rome. The chronological list of Philo’s works in the appendix of her book14 has achieved a nearly authoritative status since its publication.15
The problem with Niehoff’s reconstruction consists in its purely hermeneutical nature: the main evidence in support of the new chronology stems from the author’s reading of Philo’s philosophy.16 This understanding implies the direction in which Philo’s thinking should have evolved. However, remaining on purely speculative grounds, this movement could just as well have gone the other way around. One could just as well see in Philo a development from Stoic utilitarianism towards middle Platonic or Neoplatonic metaphysics. In other words, as soon as any interpretation of Philo’s ideas—perhaps not implausible in itself—gets presented as his biography, we run up against the possibility of competing readings, none of which are securely anchored in historical evidence.
To write a biography with just one historical fact at one’s disposal is a difficult predicament. Yet, with Philo, this is exactly the case: his embassy to Rome described in Legatio ad Gaium (with its antecedents described in In Flaccum) is the only historical element we can safely locate in time. It is also the unique part of his biography that Philo deemed worthy to consign to writing. The temptation to attribute to this event a formative role in Philo’s life is accordingly great. Yet, even though we may consider the embassy as an important milestone in Philo’s public career, nothing proves its importance for his intellectual development. To make an alternative suggestion, Philo’s “meeting” with the book of Jeremiah (eloquently described in Cher. 48–49) or his pilgrimage to Jerusalem (mentioned in Prov. 2.64, 107) could have made a greater impact on the philosopher than meeting Emperor Caligula in Rome.
We can thus see that the main weakness of Niehoff’s approach to Philo’s intellectual biography is her relying at once on two hypothetical constructs—a hypothetical map of Philo’s intellectual progress and an assumption that the embassy to Rome was crucial in Philo’s life. The two are meant to support each other, but in fact they do not, since both need firm evidence to be justified. On the other hand—and it is only fair to say so—what other options do we have?
This seeming impasse leads us to the recognition that the books written by Philo are practically the only certified “events” of his life. Reconstructing their relative chronology and locating them in time is the best possible approximation to Philo’s biography we can achieve. Yet, this reconstruction must follow strictly philological and historical methodology. For once, this chronology must be made independent of our preconceptions about Philo’s philosophy and operate with historical and textual evidence only. This study will attempt to work out precisely such a chronology. It will naturally begin with the assessment of a methodology of handling the chronological data.
3 Sources and Methodology for Establishing Philo’s Chronology
In this section I will give a quick overview of the philological and historical means at our disposal. The illustrations will be kept to a minimum so as not to outweigh the subsequent discussion. Although absolute and relative chronology should ideally be treated separately, in Philo’s case the scarcity of data allows only for a mixed presentation. From a purely methodological point of view, relative and absolute chronology are complementary and can be usefully combined for the purposes of fuller reconstruction. In the case of Philo, the main types of data we can build upon are:
-
Several of Philo’s writings contain historical details that can be identified with a great degree of certainty. Some cases make absolute chronology possible: In Flaccum must have been written after AD 41, since it contains an explicit attack on Caligula (Flacc. 180). Legatio ad Gaium could only have been written after the ascension of Claudius, which is mentioned in Legat. 206. However, these indications, although unambiguous, provide us with no terminus ante quem of these works.
-
The evidence of the so-called lesser proems (also known as secondary prefaces) is the most conclusive for establishing the chronological and thematic connection between Philo’s treatises.17 The second book of De vita Mosis opens with a reference to book 1; De Abrahamo (§ 2) refers back to De opificio mundi. Unlike references to a specific content—often difficult to localise exactly because the same content may feature in several texts18—the connection indicators’ testimony is unambiguous. Furthermore, from a biographical point of view, the author’s willingness to signal the link between various writings indicates if not the writing order, then at least the contiguity in time of their composition.
-
Very narrow links on the level of the content also indicate temporal proximity. For example, the treatises from the Allegorical Commentary series closely follow the biblical narrative. Thus, Leg. 1 covers Gen 2:1–12, Leg. 2 deals with Gen 2:18–13:1, and Leg. 3 deals with Gen 3:8–19. Such close following would suggest a coordinated writing strategy, whence the contiguity in time. However, this consideration may not apply universally. While being plausible for longer discursive writings, the temporal proximity of the entries in a commentary—such as Philo’s Questions—is much more questionable. One can easily imagine the author interrupting his work and then resuming it much later without any perceptible seams.
-
Stylistic proximity: the literary form adopted by Philo for some of his works is often an indicator of their chronological interrelation. The two dialogues featuring Tiberius Iulius Alexander (De providentia and De animalibus) seem to reflect the same period of Philo’s creativity. The same can be said about Philo’s historical writings (In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium) or about his biographies (De vita Mosis, De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, and the lost works on Isaac and Jacob). These groups of treatises seem to be parts of the same writing project and thus can be qualified as relatively synchronic.
-
Cross-references between treatises also point towards a temporal proximity of different pieces of writing. This supposition is based on the idea that a writer would normally make reference to works from the same period of his creativity. Besides intellectual continuity, this is implied by the fact that the author supposes his earlier works to be accessible to the reader of the later ones.
The main problem with this type of evidence is the vague nature of many of the references involved. Nevertheless, some references can be used with a high degree of certainty. To give an example, in Virt. 5219 Philo remarks after mentioning Moses:
τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας ἄχρι γήρως εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου καὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων πεπραγμένα αὐτῷ δεδήλωται πρότερον ἐν δυσὶ συντάξεσιν ,ἃς ἀνέγραψα περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωυσέως .
The things that he did from his early years to old age for the attention and care of each person and for all people have been shown earlier in two treatises that I wrote about the life of Moses.
trans. Colson
This reference leaves little room for doubt: indeed, the well-known two books of De vita Mosis are meant here. An equally unambiguous reference to the same treatise occurs in Praem. 53: Moses is said here to have possessed piety, cardinal virtue among the others “mentioned in the writings about his life” (
Already Sterling’s 2012 study of Philonic self-references suggested that the timeframe of the writing can to some extent be reconstructed owing to them:
The explicit reference to the work (viz. to Mos.) in De virtutibus and De praemiis et poenis makes it clear that Philo wrote De vita Mosis prior to these works. The fact that the two treatises are part of the Exposition suggests that he may have written De vita Mosis at approximately the same time that he wrote the Exposition and expected his readers to be able to access the two volumes along with other treatises in the Exposition.20
This overview of methodology consciously omits the method widely employed by Niehoff in her monograph.21 Niehoff’s intellectual biography of Philo uses philosophical content as a chronological marker. In this way the author can relate Philonic thematics to the philosopher’s residence and activity in Rome during and after the embassy to Gaius. As we said above, although not implausible in itself, this approach carries an inevitable subjectivity when it comes to understanding Philo’s ideas and especially when it comes to demonstrating their origin. It could work, however, if the content-based chronology were supported by philological arguments. In the following pages we will attempt to assess the historical and philological data that might substantiate or contradict Niehoff’s conclusions and/or explore the alternatives.
4 Case Study I: Dating of a Lost Treatise
Philo’s treatise on numbers has not been preserved. Yet, references to it occur in various Philonic writings and offer an interesting pattern, which may help us towards a better understanding of the chronology of Philo’s opus. The existence of the treatise is firmly attested by a reference in Mos. 2.115. Speaking of the tetragrammaton, Philo comes to the special significance of the number four and proceeds to say:
ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀμυθήτους ἀρετὰς ἡ τετράς ,ὧν τὰς πλείστας ἠκριβώσαμεν ἐν τῇ περὶ ἀριθμῶν πραγματείᾳ .
Four, too, has countless other virtues, most of which I have set forth in detail in my treatise on numbers.
trans. Colson
This reference adds plausibility to the reference in Opif. 52, where Philo also offers an explanation of the number four, ending it by the statement:
πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις κέχρηται δυνάμεσι τετράς ,ἃς ἀκριβέστερον καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτῆς ἰδίῳ λόγῳ προσυποδεικτέον .
There are several other powers of which four has the command, which we shall have to point out in fuller detail in the special treatise devoted to it.
trans. Colson
Of course,
The verbal adjective in Opif. 52 (
There is yet another passage in De opificio mundi that suggests a reference to a treatise on numbers (called, henceforth, De numeris). De opificio mundi 15 refers, for the detailed treatment of the Monad, to a special treatise on the matter (
Back to the number four, in Abr. 13 Philo declares that Moses called four “holy and worthy of praise” (LXX Lev 19.24). Instead of elaborating on this, Philo goes on to say “and why he so called it has been shewn in the former treatise”—
Our investigations of the relative chronology of De numeris can be pursued further. De plantatione 117–125 contains an extensive discussion of the virtues of the number four. This discussion—although in content and essence close to what Philo says in Opif. 52 and Mos. 2.115—bears no reference to any other work on numbers. The plausible conclusion to this omission is that Philo wrote De plantatione either before conceiving a longer work on numbers or perhaps long after the sequence including De opificio mundi // De numeris → De vita Mosis // De Abrahamo. The former supposition is in line with the standard view that the Allegorical Commentary series was written before the Exposition of the Law. The latter hypothesis involves overturning this view: we will get back to this capital question later in this paper.
References to De numeris can also be found in Philo’s Questions. Not all of the cases are equally conclusive:
-
QG 4.110 explicitly cites the title
περὶ ἀριθμῶν as the source of further information about the decad. -
QG 3.49 mentions one more treatment of the ogdoad, giving no further detail.
-
QG 4.151 refers to an earlier treatment of the hebdomad, which could point to De numeris, but could also signal the discussion in Opif. 89–128.
-
QE 2.87 mentions an earlier treatment of the number four: the text is not clear, otherwise one might think it refers to the same writing as do Mos. 2.115, Opif. 52 and Abr. 13.
There is a reference to the numerical lore in Spec. 2.39–40, which further contributes to uncertainty. In this passage Philo elaborates on the significance of the number seven, remarking casually that “the part played by seven among the numbers has been discussed at length in an earlier place, where we have discussed the properties that it possesses within the decad, and its close connection with ten itself and with four.” This allusion is normally taken to refer to Opif. 89–128,29 but a reference to De numeris can by no means be excluded. Actually, the latter option may even appear more plausible: unlike modern scholars, the ancient reader had no other means to find the relevant passage within a book except by reading it through. Referring to a whole treatise would be more helpful than pointing out a passage otherwise hard to find.
There is yet another passage in Spec. 2.200 which deals with the decad and refers back to a detailed discussion of this number. This may be taken to point to the extensive passage on the decad in Decal. 20–31. On the other hand, it can point to De numeris, especially since another treatment of the decad in QG 4.110 explicitly refers to this treatise.
To sum up our observations on De numeris, we can safely say that it is the most frequently cited work in Philo’s corpus, even if we abide only by the unambiguous references. Royse described the treatise on numbers as “evidently one of Philo’s favourite works.”30 The (nearly) unambiguous references to it are: Mos. 2.115, Opif. 52, Abr. 13, and QG 4.110. The references that may point to other writings as well are: Opif. 15, Spec. 2.39–40, 2.200, QG 3.49, 4.151, and QE 2.87. It is significant that references to De numeris occur in such a wide variety of Philonic texts. It is probably just as significant that no reference to De numeris can be found in the Allegorical Commentary.
If we accept that references imply—in a wide sense—chronological contiguity, it follows that De numeris, De opificio mundi, several treatises of the Exposition of the Law and the Questions belong roughly to the same period in Philo’s writing.
5 Possible Objections
Our conclusion clashes with the generally accepted hypothesis of Terian, who considered the Questions to be the earliest extant work of Philo.31 However, Terian’s views can, and indeed must, be challenged.
In a 1991 paper, Terian formulated the idea that Philo’s Questions must be considered the philosopher’s earliest work (posterior only to the lost De numeris, which Terian declares to be earlier on the basis of QG 4.110). Since then, Terian’s argumentation has never been critically questioned. A closer look at his study shows that while his reasoning and the examples he analyses are sound, the conclusions one can draw may largely differ from his conclusion.
Thus, Terian convincingly demonstrates that all references to the Allegorical Commentary treatises in the Questions can be better explained as internal references to different loci within that same work.32 For Terian, this is one of the grounds to consider that Questions were written earlier than the Allegorical Commentary series. But in fact, this is an argument ex silentio: it can mean that the Questions are earlier, but it can just as well mean that the Questions are much later than the other series. It can also mean that Philo simply did not consider it useful to refer his reader to the other work, which is patently different in style and genre. When it comes to the references to the Questions made in the Allegorical Commentary, it transpires that none of them can be unambiguously traced to that treatise.
For instance, Leg. 3.139 mentions a detailed treatment (logos) of the fourfold nature of pleasure: it can refer to a multitude of loci in the Questions,33 but it can also—and this seems far more plausible—refer to the earlier elaborations on pleasure in Leg. 2.71–108, to the explanation of the number four in De numeris, or to another lost treatise on the matter.
Similarly, Sacr. 51 refers to a more detailed explanation of the meaning of the “tiller of the soil” (Gen 4:2). Terian prefers to think the reference is to QG 1.59 and QG 2.66.34 But Philo could have had in mind Agr. 21–25 or perhaps the lost Leg. 4 which must have covered the subject of Gen 4:2.
The weakness of Terian’s argumentation is particularly patent in the case of Sobr. 52.35 The passage promises an explanation of the name of Shem. A brief exegesis of Shem occurs twice in the Questions (QG 1.88 and QG 2.79). But in comparison with the descriptive explanatory style of the Allegorical Commentary these explanations are too short to be of any help to a reader wishing to learn more. It would be only fair to suggest an alternative explanation: the lost treatises covering the deluge and other events from Gen 6:13 to 9:19 would have contained the information referred to here.
The latter point brings us to one of the most serious objections to Terian’s hypothesis. Leaving out further examples of references to the Questions taken from the Exposition of the Law series, which Terian discusses, and which are all ambiguous in a similar way, we must focus on the problem of the referencing in general. Already Jacques Cazeaux and Anita Méasson in their joint paper published together with the study of Terian highlighted the difference between the discourse in the treatises and in the Questions. As Cazeaux puts it:
For us, the “true” Philo is the author of the treatises, because the treatises are finished works, “discourses” which have movement, whereas the Questions, even the richest and most beautiful of them, remain inert—the difference is a bit like that between grammar and the style of a masterpiece … No question has the intentionality of a page of a treatise.36
Given the sprawling nature of treatises and the narrow focus of the Questions, no reference from the former to the latter would seem plausible. These texts were meant for entirely different uses and for different types of audience. It is perfectly anachronistic to imagine that Philo’s references would range all the way through his works, as could have been the case with a modern author. While a reference from the Questions to a specific treatise is possible (cf. QG 4.110), the reference in the opposite direction is infinitely less probable.
Furthermore, the pragmatics of the references to the Questions make the search for the passage in question a “mission impossible” for the ancient readers, unequipped like us with concordances and search engines. How on earth could the ancient reader desirous to know the meaning of Shem’s name (in Sobr. 52) be expected to find QG 2.79?
These considerations and the ambiguous nature of evidence assembled by Terian make us reconsider his idea of the fundamental priority of the Questions. Regardless of priority issues, the chronological proximity of De numeris, of De opificio mundi and several other treatises of the Exposition of the Law and of the Questions series can be maintained. Cross-references existing between these works provide a solid basis for this thesis.
6 Case Study II: The Chronology of De somniis and Its Implications
6.1 Absolute Chronology
De somniis is one of Philo’s rare treatises with a chronological clue: Somn. 2.123–132 describes an attempt to prohibit the Jews in Egypt from observing the Sabbath.37 The episode is not a part of a historical narrative but is introduced only as an illustration of what human presumption is capable of. Philo quotes several cases of hybris: Xerxes shooting arrows at the sun (Somn. 2.117–120), the barbarian Germans trying to fight against the sea tide (Somn. 2.121–122), and finally the attempt to hamper the Sabbath observance. While other examples of impertinence are given in outline only, this last one receives a much longer treatment. The attempt on the Sabbath was perpetrated by a certain member of the ruling class (
The character appears to be surprisingly well informed about the Jewish religion. Contained in a rhetorical question, his description of what the Jews do on the Sabbath (if it is not an embellishment by Philo) gives a clear picture:
καὶ καθεδεῖσθε ἐν τοῖς συναγωγίοις ὑμῶν ,τὸν εἰωθότα θίασον ἀγείροντες καὶ ἀσφαλῶς τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους ἀναγινώσκοντες κἂν εἴ τι μὴ τρανὲς εἴη διαπτύσσοντες καὶ τῇ πατρίῳ φιλοσοφίᾳ διὰ μακρηγορίας ἐνευκαιροῦντές τε καὶ ἐνσχολάζοντες ;
And will you sit in your conventicles and assemble your regular company and read in security your holy books, expounding any obscure point and in leisurely comfort discussing at length your ancestral philosophy?
Somn. 2.127; trans. Whitaker and Colson
Furthermore, the unnamed adversary is able to list the reasons legitimating the breach of the Sabbath rules (Somn. 2.125): enemy attack (
καὶ μὴν οὗτος αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τὰ λεχθέντα ,ἔφη ,πάντα εἰμί ,τυφώς ,πόλεμος ,κατακλυσμός ,κεραυνός , ⟨…⟩,εἱμαρμένης ἀνάγκης οὐκ ὄνομα ,ἀλλ ’ἐμφανὴς ἐγγὺς ἑστῶσα δύναμις .
“See then,” he went on, “I, who stand before you, am all the things I have named: I am the whirlwind, the war, the deluge, the lightning ⟨…⟩. I am constraining destiny, not its name but its power, visible to your eyes and standing at your side.”
Somn. 2.129; trans. Whitaker and Colson
This monumental arrogance is the whole point of Philo’s demonstration. Even to think such things, let alone to utter them is plain blasphemy (Somn. 2.130), because it implies equating oneself with God (Somn. 2.131). It remains for us to determine whom Philo meant here.
Before attempting to identify the speaker, we must assess several other details in Philo’s narrative.
-
The outrage he writes about is said to have happened
χθές —“yesterday” (Somn. 2.123), probably better understood metaphorically as “a short while ago.” -
The unnamed villain’s motivation is presented as a wholesale attack on Jewish religion, the attack on the Sabbath being part of a larger plan (Somn. 2.123).
-
The description of the attempts to force people to breach the Sabbath and the mass reaction (Somn. 2.123–124) suggests an Alexandrian setting, since both the power over Egypt and the Jewish community were concentrated there.
Several candidates for the role of the “villain” can be considered. The image of supreme arrogance makes one immediately think of Caligula, whose presumption to equal the demi-gods and the gods of the pagan pantheon Philo eloquently denounces in Legat. 77–113. Continuing the same train of thought, Philo explains that Caligula’s conflict with Judaism and its strict monotheism logically followed from this hubris. In fact, Caligula considered himself a law and was naturally inclined to consider other laws null and void (
Avillius Flaccus, whose misdeeds Philo had exhaustively covered in In Flaccum is another candidate for the blasphemer in Somn. 2.123–132. Yet, one can agree with L. Cohn38 and F.H. Colson39 that it is highly implausible that an extra head of accusation against Flaccus could have escaped mention in the treatise bearing his name (unless of course we recognize that In Flaccum is posterior to De somniis). Besides, Philo himself stated in Flacc. 8 that the prefect was friendly to the Jews during the first six years of his administration. This leaves very little time between the developments described in De somniis and the dramatic events in In Flaccum. But of course, implausible does not mean impossible …
Other prefects of Egypt can be considered: L. Seius Strabo (attested around AD 15), Aemilius Rectus, C. Galerius (AD 16–31), Vitrasius Pollio (attested in AD 32), Hiberus and C. Vitrasius Pollio (attested in 38–41).40 Unfortunately we have no evidence at hand to suggest, let alone support, an identification.
Two more “candidates” can be mentioned in addition. We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.5.1, 7) that Philo wrote five books about the persecution of the Jews, of which only In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium have been preserved. The adversary whom Philo mentions several times is Sejanus (Flacc. 1, Leg. 159–160) and it is thus conjectured that one of the lost books from this series could have dealt with him.41 Can Sejanus be the adversary mentioned in De somniis? This seems to be contradicted only by the fact that Sejanus has no known connection with Egypt.42
Another hypothesis had been advanced by D.R. Schwartz, according to which the Sabbath opponent in Somn. 2.123–132 is none else than Tiberius Julius Alexander, Philo’s own nephew.43 However, this identification seems unlikely for a number of reasons. Alexander served as prefect of Egypt between AD 66 and 69. This would make the dating of the De somniis impossibly late. Besides, no matter how great the disagreement between nephew and uncle, it is difficult to imagine Philo presenting his close relative and former disciple as the epitome of godlessness.
Our investigations into the historical background of Somn. 2.123–132 seems to have come to an impasse. One thing is clear, though: the persecution Philo mentions is somehow related to the crisis, different phases of which are narrated in In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium.
Fortunately, there is yet another important piece of evidence that we can rely upon. The well-known letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P.Lond. 6.1912) issued in early AD 41 expressly forbids to interfere with the religious observances of the Jews. The lines 85–88 of the letter urge the Alexandrians:
μηδὲν τῶν πρὸς θρησκείαν αὐτοῖς νενομισμένων τοῦ θεοῦ λοιμένωνται ,ἀλλὰ ἐῶσιν αὐτοὺς τοῖς ἔθεσιν χρῆσθαι [o]ὗς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ,ἅπερ καὶ ἐγὼι διακούσας ἀμφοτέρων ἐβεβαίωσα ·
not to dishonour any of their customs in their worship of their god, but to allow them to keep their own ways, as they did in the time of the god Augustus and as I too, having heard both sides, have confirmed.44
Trying to discern what Jewish customs are here referred to, we necessarily come to the Sabbath observance, which stands out because of its central importance to the Jewish religion. It is also an observance one can easily disturb. Thus, the official mentioned in Somn. 2.123–132 must have been active before the Claudian era. Furthermore, the ease with which Philo writes about the attack on the Jews in terms of blasphemy and godless hybris is only plausible in the period after the ascension of Claudius. Even if the second book of Legatio ad Gaium is lost, we know that the new emperor brought the reversal of fortunes for Philo’s family in particular and for Alexandrian Jewry in general.45
We can see that the dating of De somniis may be established regardless of the identity of the opponent portrayed in § 2.123–132. The presentation of the Sabbath’s opponent as a blasphemer and a madman seems only plausible after AD 41, when the Jewish observances became protected by the imperial patent and Philo’s family’s high position confirmed. Philo’s
This conclusion may seem difficult to reconcile with the accepted view according to which De somniis is a part of the Allegorical Commentary series. But one must distinguish between the question of attribution to a series and the issue of chronology. The evidence discussed so far concerns only the latter. Besides, we have no clear evidence about the time of writing of the Allegorical Commentary treatises, so the clash cannot be substantiated.
On the other hand, De somniis belonging to the Allegorical Commentary series can be questioned. Its position as the closing piece of the series (attested already by Eusebius47) makes one think that the treatise may be an autonomous unit inserted there for convenience’s sake. Its organisation does not follow the usual pattern of the Allegorical Commentary: the discussion does not adhere to the scriptural sequence. On the contrary, the organisation of De somniis is topical (by the type of dreams), similar in this aspect to De vita Mosis (the four functions of Moses), De specialibus legibus (the ten commandments), De virtutibus and De praemiis et poenis. If the suggested dating of De somniis is correct, we either have to revise its belonging to the Allegorical Commentary series or—horribile dictu—to situate the whole series in the post-embassy period.
6.2 Relative Chronology
In the wake of a detailed explanation of the different names for God that occur in Jacob’s dreams, Somn. 1.169–172 expounds the well-known equation of the three patriarchs with the triad of teaching, nature, and practice. As would be expected, Philo begins with Abraham (Somn. 1.168):
ὁ μὲν γὰρ πρεσβύτατος αὐτῶν Ἀβραὰμ ἡγεμόνι ὁδοῦ τῆς πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ἀγούσης ἐχρήσατο διδασκαλίᾳ ,ὡς ἐν ἑτέροις ,ὡς ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ ,δείξομεν ,ὁ δὲ μέσος Ἰσαὰκ αὐτηκόῳ καὶ αὐτομαθεῖ τῇ φύσει ,ὁ δὲ τρίτος Ἰακὼβ ἀσκητικαῖς μελέταις ,καθ ’ἃς οἱ ἔναθλοι καὶ ἐναγώνιοι πόνοι .
Abraham, the earliest of them, had teaching as his guide on the way that leads to the good and beautiful, as we shall shew to the best of our ability in another treatise. Isaac who comes between him and Jacob had as his guide a nature which listens to and learns from itself alone. Jacob, the third of them, relied on exercises and practisings preparatory for the strenuous toil of the arena.
trans. Whitaker and Colson
The reference Philo makes seems unambiguous: the three types of learning get the full coverage in the De Abrahamo and in the lost treatises devoted to Isaac and Jacob. What is significant for us in the quoted passage is the future tense of
This is an interesting conclusion, but its implications are even more wide-ranging. Several treatises mention, in the proems, the three biographies as their “prequel.” Thus, in De Iosepho, Philo unambiguously states that the three patriarchs’ lives are already written: it follows that De Iosepho also belongs to the period after AD 41 (Ios. 1):
Τρεῖς μέν εἰσιν ἰδέαι ,δι ’ὧν τὸ ἄριστον τέλος ,μάθησις ,φύσις ,ἄσκησις ,τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σοφῶν οἱ πρεσβύτατοι κατὰ Μωυσῆν ἐπώνυμοι τούτων ·ὧν τοὺς βίους ἀναγεγραφώς ,τόν τε ἐκ διδασκαλίας καὶ τὸν αὐτομαθῆ καὶ τὸν ἀσκητικόν ,τέταρτον κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς ἀναγράψω τὸν πολιτικόν ,οὗ πάλιν ἐπώνυμον ἕνα τῶν φυλάρχων διασυνίστησιν ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας συγκροτηθέντα .
The factors which produce consummate excellence are three in number: learning, nature, practice. And these names are represented in three of the wise men to whom Moses gives the senior place. Since I have described the lives of these three, the life which results from teaching, the life of the self-taught and the life of practice, I will carry on the series by describing a fourth life, that of the statesman.
trans. Colson
This connection is after all not surprising, De Iosepho being a natural sequel to the lives of the three patriarchs. What is more important is that a similar conclusion clearly follows from the proem to De decalogo (Decal. 1):
Τοὺς βίους τῶν κατὰ Μωυσέα σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν ,οὓς ἀρχηγέτας τοῦ ἡμετέρου ἔθνους καὶ νόμους ἀγράφους αἱ ἱεραὶ βίβλοι δηλοῦσιν ,ἐν ταῖς προτέραις συντάξεσι μεμηνυκὼς κατὰ τὰ ἀκόλουθα ἑξῆς τῶν ἀναγραφέντων νόμων τὰς ἰδέας ἀκριβώσω
Having related in the preceding treatises the lives of those whom Moses judged to be men of wisdom, who are set before us in the Sacred Books as founders of our nation and in themselves unwritten laws, I shall now proceed in due course to give full descriptions of the written laws.
trans. Colson
If we accept this indication at face value (and there is no reason to doubt it), then the writing of De decalogo must have followed after the patriarchs’ biographies and thus also falls in the Claudian era. The chronological order of Philo’s writing will then appear as follows: De somniis → De Abrahamo (+ De Isaaco and De Iacobo) → De Iosepho // De decalogo.
But the chain does not end here: De decalogo is signalled as a “preceding treatise” in the proem to Spec. 1.1. Likewise, Spec. 2.1 points to Spec. 1, Spec. 3.7 refers back to Spec. 2, and finally Spec. 4.1 mentions Spec. 3 as its antecedent. Furthermore, we can continue this sequence: Virt. 16–17 is aware of “earlier books” (
So far, we have been able to consider the sequence which begins with De somniis, continues with De Abrahamo, De Iosepho (and the lost lives), and goes on to the sequence De decalogo—De specialibus legibus 1–4—De virtutibus—De praemiis et poenis. Two important treatises have not been mentioned so far, although references to them occur frequently in the works discussed.
-
De opificio mundi is mentioned as “the preceding treatise” in Abr. 2:
Ὃν μὲν οὖν τρόπον ἡ κοσμοποιία διατέτακται ,διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως ,ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ,ἠκριβώσαμεν .The story of the order in which the world was made has been set forth in detail by us as well as was possible in the preceding treatise. (trans. Colson)
Apart from this, two more references to De opificio mundi appear in Abr. 13 and 258.
-
De vita Mosis is mentioned as already existent in Virt. 52:
τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας ἄχρι γήρως εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου καὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων πεπραγμένα αὐτῷ δεδήλωται πρότερον ἐν δυσὶ συντάξεσιν ,ἃς ἀνέγραψα περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωυσέως .Now the actions which he (Moses) performed from his earliest years to old age for the care and protection of each single man and of them all have been set forth already in two treatises in which I wrote about the life of Moses. (trans. Colson)
These references compel us to revise our relative chronology: De opificio mundi will come before De Abrahamo although we have no data to position it before or after De somniis. The De vita Mosis will have to be situated somewhere before De virtutibus. It stands to reason to suppose its writing to have been more or less synchronic with the other biographical treatises.
Before attempting a conclusion—even a preliminary—to this quest, we must look back at what has been said about De numeris. As we have noted, this treatise is quoted in a fairly unambiguous way in Mos. 2.115, Opif. 52, Abr. 13, and QG 4.110. This means that we cannot only suggest temporal proximity between De numeris, De somniis, most of the Exposition of the Law treatises, and the Questions but also indicate De numeris, De opificio mundi, and De somniis as the earliest in the sequence. Furthermore, starting with De somniis, all other treatises (De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De decalogo, De specialibus legibus, De virtutibus, De praemiis et poenis) must have been composed after AD 41. Although De numeris and De opificio mundi can be assigned to an earlier date, they cannot be very much earlier, since the references to these treatises in later works clearly suggest proximity in time.
7 Possible Objections
De specialibus legibus 3.1–6 famously recounts Philo’s experience of having to abandon purely contemplative pursuits and of plunging into the quagmire of political life.49 Yet, even in this unenviable condition, explains Philo, he still manages to rise above the waves and dares to contemplate higher things, exploring and explaining the meaning of the sacred oracles of Moses. At first glance, this autobiographical overture can be taken to mean that Philo is writing in the middle of the civil trouble described in In Flaccum or in Legatio ad Gaium. But an attentive reading yields a slightly more nuanced conclusion: Philo does not only speak of his fall into civil turmoil, but also of his capacity to cope with it. Being thus able to reflect on both the fall and the (however partial) restoration implies that Philo is already past that experience at the time of composition.
Méasson rightly signals the literary allusion behind the formula introducing the narrative in Spec. 3.1:
8 Conclusion to the Case Studies: What Did Philo Write after AD 41?
Using different types of evidence, the two preceding case studies have been able to demonstrate that the Quaestiones et solutiones, De opificio mundi, De vita Mosis, De Abrahamo, and De numeris must have originated roughly in the same epoch. Furthermore, building on the chronological indication in De somniis and upon the witness of the lesser proems of the Exposition of the Law, it became clear that all these writings stem from the post-AD 41 period. Yet these works are by far not the only ones that one can assign to the Claudian era.
Here is the tentative list of other texts presupposing a similar dating:
-
In Flaccum: written after AD 41, since it contains an explicit attack on Caligula (Flacc. 180);52 no terminus ante quem.
-
Legatio ad Gaium: written after the ascension of Claudius, which is mentioned in Leg. 206; no terminus ante quem.
-
De animalibus: the treatise preserved only in Armenian offers a complicated timeframe. Philo and his younger relative Lysimachus discuss the talk Tiberius Julius Alexander gave in Alexandria a short while ago (Anim. 1–2). Tiberius Julius Alexander is himself not present, being away on some business (Anim. 3–4). One can thus distinguish three “time planes” involved in the narrative: the time of Tiberius Julius Alexander delivering the talk, the time of its discussion by Philo and Lysimachus, and finally the time of setting in writing of the treatise in its present form. Tiberius Julius Alexander, as his name clearly indicates, must have been born after AD 14. Yet his birth must have occurred before AD 20, for him to be able to hold his first documented public function—epistrategos of the Thebaid—attested in an inscription dated from AD 42.53 One of Lysimachos’s remarks in the dialogue provides a further chronological clue: Lysimachos is engaged to Alexander’s daughter, whose age is unspecified, but whose birth is possible around AD 40 at the earliest.54 This consideration pushes the date of the conversation between Philo and Lysimachus to the second half of the forties or even later. The date of the composition of the dialogue must then be later still. Terian estimates it to be written around AD 5055 and that seems plausible as the lower limit. Apart from this, one can consider the evidence of the chariot race accident described in Anim. 58. If this episode is indeed the same as described by Pliny the Elder (Nat. 8.160–161), the date of De animalibus must be posterior to AD 47.56 But from this follows that we must move the time of Alexander’s talk to after AD 47 as well.57 As such, the evidence in favour of the late dating is overwhelming.58
-
De Providentia is another treatise preserved in its entirety in Armenian, and containing in its second book a dialogue between Philo and Tiberius Julius Alexander. This again implies a double timeframe of the dialogue itself and of its writing. The dialogue itself (whether imaginary or real) presupposes that Alexander has reached maturity (terminus post quem being ca. AD 35); it also presents Philo as a busy man, ready to interrupt teaching in favour of other preoccupations (Prov. 2.115). The formal resemblance between Prov. 2 and De animalibus—both being a dialogue between Philo and his sceptical nephew—is a strong argument in favour of their synchronicity and thus of the late dating also for De Providentia. However, the dialogue ends with the conversion and repentance of Alexander (Prov. 2.113, 115–116), a detail which contradicts what we otherwise know about his religious attitude from Josephus (A.J. 20.100). This disparity seems to indicate that the composition of De providentia (or at least of certain parts of the work) must fall in the period when Alexander was a relatively young person. Alternatively, Alexander could have been absent at the moment of writing. The latter version is not improbable, since we know that Alexander was active in the Thebaid from AD 42 and later in Syria and Palestine between AD 46 and 66.59
To sum up all the cases discussed above, we arrive at an impressive list of what Philo must have written after AD 41: In Flaccum, Legatio ad Gaium, De animalibus, De providentia, De somniis 1–2, De opificio mundi, De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De vita Mosis, De decalogo, De specialibus legibus 1–4, De virtutibus, De praemiis et poenis, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesis and Exodum, and three lost treatises—De numeris, De Isaaco and De Iacobo. The suspicion arises whether Philo had written anything at all before AD 41? And what about the Allegorical Commentary series—when did Philo write it?
9 Going Ahead: What about the Allegorical Commentary?
The further we go, the more difficult it becomes to find clear evidence. Unlike several minor treatises that cannot be easily located on a timeline (e.g., De vita contemplativa, Quod omnis probus liber sit, De aeternitate mundi), the Allegorical Commentary series offers a unified block of writing, whose chronology is decisive for establishing Philo’s intellectual biography. The series is cohesive on exegetic and stylistic levels, occasional lesser proems60 confirming its unity and shedding light on the order of composition. All this suggests the idea of a continuous, uninterrupted creative effort: its sheer extent makes it vital to identify the writing time. In light of our previous investigations, three hypotheses must be considered:
-
the composition of the Allegorical Commentary series preceded all the treatises we have been able to date after AD 41;
-
the Allegorical Commentary was written simultaneously with at least some of the treatises involved;
-
the Allegorical Commentary was written after all those treatises.
What evidence do we have in favour of any of these hypotheses?
9.1 Evidence for Earlier Composition of the Allegorical Commentary
-
Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 167–173 gives an overview of the Ten Commandments without any mention of the treatise specifically dedicated to the matter. A similar summary appears in Decal. 50–51 without any reference back (or forth?) to the former. While the latter case does not require explanation (after all, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit is not primarily concerned with the Decalogue), the absence of a reference to De decalogo in Quis rerum divinarum heres is more significant. It seems to indicate that while writing Quis heres Philo did not have another special work on the Ten Commandments on the radar. Yet, this is an argument ex silentio: after all Philo was not obliged to mention his other work.
-
The allusion to De vita Mosis in Gig. 56–57 will be discussed in the next section. Although technically it suggests that De Gigantibus must have been written prior to De vita Mosis, one is rather inclined to see this reference as an indication of a simultaneous origin (see infra 9.2.a).
-
The same logic applies to the possible reference to Mos. 1.114–118 and/or Mos. 2.194–195 in Fug. 180–181. I defer its discussion to the next section, keeping in mind that it can be used to advocate the priority of De fuga et inventione as well as the parallel composition of these texts (see infra 9.2.d).
9.2 Evidence for Simultaneous Composition
The hypothesis of simultaneous origin for the two Philonic collections was advocated by Nikiprowetzky,61 whose arguments we will now repeat and try to complement by our own.
-
De gigantibus 56–57 seems to mention the De vita Mosis as not yet written. It introduces the theme of Moses’s age at death (Gig. 56) and proceeds to say:
τὸν δὲ ἀκριβῆ λόγον τῶν εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν ὑπερθησόμεθα εἰς τὴν τοῦ προφητικοῦ βίου παντὸς ἐξέτασιν ,ὅταν αὐτὸν ἱκανοὶ γενώμεθα μυεῖσθαι But the closer discussion of this matter of a hundred and twenty years we will postpone till we inquire into the prophet’s life as a whole, when we have become fit to learn its mystery. (trans. Colson and Whitaker)
Does the “prophetic life” mentioned here refer to De vita Mosis? The treatise does indeed focus on Moses’s prophethood (Mos. 2.187–287), even though the section on the death of Moses, which follows directly after (Mos. 2.288–292) does not discuss the prophet’s age at the time of his passing (cf. Deut 34:7).62 However, Nikiprowetzky can connect this reference with the longer title of De vita Mosis (or of its first book) preserved in several MSS. Besides the standard title
περὶ βίου Μωυσέως , one finds the longer versionπερὶ βίου Μωυσέως ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ θεολογίας καὶ προφητείας (Parisinus gr. 433, Turnebus [= F2]) orπερὶ βίου μωυσέως ⟨…⟩θεολόγου καὶ προφήτου (Venetus gr. 40).63 Nikiprowetzky64 is right in suggesting that Philo’s allusion in Gig. 57 may carry a relatively precise reference to this kind of title. This is further supported by a certain parallelism, which can be observed between theπροφητικοῦ βίου ἐξέτασις in Gig. 57 and theβίος πολιτικοῦ , which is the title of De Iosepho. If one accepts the cumulative evidence of these details, the reference in Gig. 57 really concerns the De vita Mosis and we can conclude that De gigantibus must have been written before De vita Mosis and yet the two treatises may belong to the same period of writing. -
In Her. 49–50 Philo elaborates on the Deuteronomistic law (Deut 21:15–17), which regulates the legal situation of a man with two wives, one loved, one hated. Giving a quick outline of the allegorical meaning of the two, Philo proceeds to remark that he has already treated the matter elsewhere (
ἐν ἑτέροις , Her. 50), where he provided a more elaborate or figurative account (τὴν δὲ τροπικωτέραν τούτων ἀπόδοσιν ). This reference can concern two loci: Sacr. 19–42, where Philo expounds the allegory of the two wives as signifying nothing else but pleasure and toil, and Spec. 2.133–140, where Philo explains in detail the succession law of Deut 21:15–17. Two further discussions of the same Deuteronomy passage in Leg. 2.48 and Sobr. 21–25 also come in question, but they are significantly shorter and therefore less worthy of attention. If the reference in Her. 49–50 concerns De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, it proves at least the continuity of the Allegorical Commentary series. The case is strong, since Her. 49 interprets the two wives as pleasure and prudence in a rather similar way to Sacr. 19–42. However, a reference to De specialibus legibus—a treatise expressly devoted to the interpretation of the Law—might have been more appropriate on this occasion. If we try to think in terms of the scope of referencing (i.e., chances the reader had to profit by the reference), we find the hypothesis more plausible, especially since Philo’s explanation in Spec. 2.133–139 combines elements of the allegorical reading (virtue/pleasure contrast) with wider ethical explanations. One might object that the adjectiveτροπικωτέρα (translated as “allegorical” by Colson) points in the direction of the treatises on allegorical interpretation. Yet, Philo freely uses this term in the texts from the Exposition of the Law series (Ios. 125, 151, Virt. 57, Praem. 80). This case may not bring decisive evidence to our quest, but it certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. -
In Fug. 33–36 Philo elaborates on necessity to make experience of household management (
οἰκονομικός ) and of statesmanship (πολιτικός ) before turning towards pure spirituality. Does Philo speak from experience or is this mere rhetoric? A mixture of rhetoric and experience would seem the most plausible answer, but can we entirely exclude the possibility of pure rhetoric? If yes, the reference here clearly concerns Philo’s own experience of political life, culminating in the embassy to Caligula. If so, the treatise must have been written in the period after it. -
Another passage of De fuga et inventione explains the specificity of the Egyptian climate (Fug. 180): unlike other lands, Egypt does not get rain in winter, but an inundation of the Nile instead. This reversal of above and below is, according to Philo, the reason why Moses branded the Egyptians atheists. This train of thought is interrupted by the following remark (Fug. 181):
ἀλλὰ μὴν περὶ τούτων καὶ αὖθίς ποτε ἐνέσται λέγειν ,ὅταν ἐπιτρέπωσιν οἱ καιροί However, it will be possible to speak of this hereafter, when opportunity permits. (trans. Colson and Whitaker)
An obvious opportunity to deal with the Egyptians presents itself in the De vita Mosis. Two different passages in this book may be considered as possible continuations of the reasoning entered upon in De fuga et inventione: there is a long description of Egyptian climate specially focusing on winter in Mos. 1.114–118, while Mos. 2.194–195 offers a more detailed explanation of Egyptian atheism presented as the direct outcome of local climate. It has already been said that this particular case can be equally regarded as a proof of the priority of the Allegorical Commentary in general and De fuga et inventione in particular compared to the De vita Mosis. Even so, it does not seem plausible that a long period of time separated the composition of these two texts.65
-
The fragment of the treatise De Deo studied by Folker Siegert66 is most probably a part of a lost treatise from the Allegorical Commentary series.67 Its source could be situated somewhere between De mutatione nominum and the lost books of De somniis. This is vouchsafed by the fact that the treatment of the cherubim in Deo 52–63 is more elaborate than in the treatise bearing the same name.68 Yet, the content of this fragment suggests a setting in the later period of Philo’s writing. Besides the comparison with De cherubim, Siegert adduces two more arguments in support of this thesis: the formula
ὥσπερ δὴ ἔλεγον πολλάκις (Deo 149 f.) generally indicates the pre-existence of a context. The treatment of Abraham’s visitors in Gen 18 (Deo 42–50) is an abridged version, a retractatio of similar materials in De Abrahamo.69 Now, the existence of a treatise from the Allegorical Commentary, which is later than De Abrahamo is yet another argument in favour of the whole series being created simultaneously with or later than the Exposition of the Law series. -
We can repeat here what has already been said about the dating of Somn. 1–2. Sufficiently strong arguments (supra 3a–b) support the treatise’s composition in the post-Caligulan period. As we have said before, there are two ways to deal with this dating. We can consider De somniis as a separate work non-aligned to the Allegorical Commentary, in which case its dating does not affect the dating of the whole series. Alternatively, if we regard De somniis as part of the Allegorical Commentary, the evidence we have assembled to prove its later date will inevitably bear on the series as a whole, pushing its composition to the AD 40s and making it more or less synchronic with the writing of the Exposition of the Law.
9.3 Evidence for Late Composition of the Allegorical Commentary
This hypothesis is hampered by considerations of time: if much of Philo’s literary output must be dated after AD 41, there is a difficulty pushing the composition of a large and sophisticated body of writing to an even later date. Although we do not know the date of Philo’s death, it is generally thought that he must have passed away sometime before the outbreak of the Jewish war. Josephus, who visited Alexandria in AD 6970 does not mention meeting Philo there, although he knew his nephew Tiberius Iulius Alexander. Furthermore, Josephus’s account of Philo’s embassy to Caligula is drawing on other sources than Legatio ad Gaium,71 which adds weight to the idea that there was no direct contact between the two.
Yet, this line of argument is purely speculative: we have no reason to exclude the option that the Allegorical Commentary belongs to Philo’s senilia. The passage from De fuga et inventione (33–36) discussed in the previous section as possible evidence of simultaneous composition of the two cycles, could also be cited here. If we accepted Philo’s words at face value, these lines could have been written later in his life, perhaps even after the completion of the Exposition of the Law series. Another passage discussed above (Her. 49–50, see the previous section under b) could also be used for this line of reasoning.
10 Conclusions
Drawing conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence resembles walking on thin ice. We can admit that a huge part of Philo’s literary output must be dated to after the Roman embassy period. To repeat our earlier conclusions, this concerns In Flaccum, Legatio ad Gaium, De animalibus, De providentia 1–2, De somniis 1–2, De opificio mundi, De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De vita Mosis, De decalogo, De specialibus legibus 1–4, De virtutibus, De praemiis et poenis, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Exodum, and the three lost treatises—De numeris, De Isaaco and De Iacobo. Turning to the Allegorical Commentary we can see that the hypothesis of its earlier composition is based on an argument from silence, while its simultaneous composition with the Exposition of the Law can muster some positive evidence. The dating of De somniis adds a strong weight to this view, inasmuch as we consider this treatise part of the Allegorical Commentary.
We see that the simultaneous appearance theory is relying on better cumulative evidence, even if each of the proofs is relatively weak in itself. We can say so far that the force of arguments seems to give justice to Nikiprowetzky’s theory of parallel composition, while Niehoff’s reconstruction of Philo’s intellectual progress fails to find sufficient support.
Historically all this means is that Philo’s activity as a writer more or less coincided with the reign of Claudius. Indeed, there is nothing implausible about the philosopher’s literary pursuits intensifying in the last decade/s of his life. Like many others in late antiquity, Philo could have developed his writing after the end of his political career, enjoying imperial peace and protection.
However, the evidence at our disposal is still meagre. The question remains: how clearly can we differentiate between an earlier and a later Philo? How much difference, ultimately, does there have to be? Only upon answering these questions shall we be able to assess the impact on Philo of his sojourn in Rome.
The author is much indebted to Folker Siegert, David T. Runia, and Sámuel Gábor, who have seen this study at different stages of its writing and contributed many a useful remark. Heartfelt thanks!
Massebieau, Classement.
Massebieau and Bréhier, “Essai.”
Massebieau and Bréhier, 180.
Massebieau and Bréhier, 289.
Cohn, “Einteilung.”
Cohn, 433.
Cohn’s main proof of that is the passage in Spec. 3.1–6 (cf. Cohn, 433.), which we will discuss in detail infra.
Cohn, 433.
Cf. Nikiprowetzky, Commentaire de l’Ecriture.
Terian, “Priority.”
Sterling, “Prolific in Expression.”
Niehoff, Philo.
Niehoff, 245–246 (Appendix 1: Philo’s Dates and Works).
Cf. Lévy, “Philo of Alexandria.”.
For a critical analysis of Niehoff’s positions, see the long review by Lévy (“Review of Niehoff”) as well as those by Cover and Bloch. Cf. Niehoff’s answer to some of her critics (“Stellungnahme”).
“Secondary preface” or “prologue” are somewhat misleading terms, because in most cases we deal with simple indicators of the treatise’s position within a sequence, divested of any literary elaboration or summarising typical of a preface in the classical sense. See the detailed study of Royse: “Philo’s Division.”
Cf. examples in Sterling, “Prolific in Expression.”
The textual problems of this passage have been treated in Morris, Jewish Philosopher, 854 n. 176, and Royse, “Philo’s Division,” 64 n. 35 and 72.
Cf. Sterling, “Prolific in Expression,” 74.
Niehoff, Philo.
Terian, “Priority,” 43–44.
Quoted in Staehle, Zahlenmystik, 8 n. 2.
Cf. Staehle, 8–9 and 8 n. 2.
Cf. Runia, “Philo’s Longest Passage,” 155, 159–168, 170–172.
Cf. the detailed analysis of this passage in Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 136–137. Outlining the options discussed Runia states his preference for the translation “as the account concerning it (which I shall give) reveals.” This of course makes the reference to another treatise unnecessary.
The former reading was advocated by Terian, who needed
E.g., Dio 58.10 cites the Timoleon, and Timoleon 13.10 and 33.4 cite the Dio; Brutus 9.9 cites the Caesar, and Caesar 62.8 and 68.7 cite the Brutus. Cf. Jones, “Chronology of Plutarch,” 66.
Cf. Hammerstaedt, “Philologische Anmerkungen,” 361–365.
Royse, “Philo’s Division,” 66. Royse counts seven references to De numeris; I have been able to find nine, although admittedly not all equally convincing.
The expression of this consensus can be found in, e.g., Niehoff, Philo, passim.
Terian, “Priority,” 31–37.
Terian, 37–38.
Terian, 38–40.
Terian, 40–41.
Méasson and Cazeaux, “Grammar to Discourse,” 126.
Cf. Borgen, “Application and Commitment.”
Cohn, “Einteilung,” 429.
In his notes to the translation (LCL, vol. 5, 699).
Cf. Bastianini, “Lista dei prefetti,” 270–272.
Cf. van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 5–6 and 89–91.
Although his father, Seius Strabo, was prefect of Egypt around AD 15.
Cf. Schwartz, “Philonic Anonyms.”
Translation from Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, no. 153.
Cf. Josephus, A.J. 19.276–297.
It must be noted here that on the basis of the same observations Massebieau identifies the bad ruler with Sejanus (†AD 31), which transfers the composition of De somniis to a much earlier period, making it precede all other treatises of the Allegorical Commentary series (Essai, 179–180).
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.4.
See also Philo, Virt. 101.
The rhetoric background of this passage is meticulously analysed in Méasson, Du char ailé, 230–241. One must generally note that utmost care is needed when interpreting Philo’s statements about his or others’ course of life. As Méasson convincingly shows, a seemingly autobiographical passage is in fact a highly rhetorical expression of a philosophical ideal. Similarly, in Fug. 35–36 the philosopher says that practical life comes before contemplative life and is a sort of prelude to a more advanced contest. Rather than a reflection of any specific experience (which would imply that De fuga et inventione was also written in the post-embassy period!) this statement seems to carry ideal value only.
Méasson, Du char ailé, 231.
Méasson, 231.
van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 4.
OGIS 663 (= IGR 1, 1165; CPJ 5, 171a). Cf. Demougin, Prosopographie, no. 693, 583–586.
Philo, Anim. 2.
Terian, Philonis Alexandrini, 31. See also Turner, “Tiberivs Ivlivs.”
Cf. Terian, 168.
Apart from the indicators outlined above, Alexander’s discourse contains a number of allusions to contemporary events, some of which can be dated with some degree of certainty: Anim. 27 speaks of the festivities organised by Germanicus in AD 12; Anim. 54 mentions a visit to Rome, which one is tempted to identify with Philo’s embassy described in Legatio ad Gaium (although it could just as well be another embassy). Another parallelism between Anim. 13 and Pliny’s Nat. 10.120–121 was suggested by Schwartz (“Note sur la famille,” 595 n. 1) and advocated by Terian (31 and 129), but it seems less convincing.
This is also the view of Terian, see “Critical Introduction.”
Alexander was procurator of Judea between AD 46 and 48 and afterwards exercised the same function in Syria. He was active there before returning to Alexandria in 66 in the quality of praefectus Aegypti, cf. Demougin, Prosopographie, 583–584 (no. 693).
Cf. Philo, Plant. 1, Ebr. 1, Sobr. 1, Fug. 2.
In Nikiprowetzky, Commentaire de l’Ecriture
But one must note that there is nothing particularly implausible in Philo’s writing plans having changed in the process of composition.
See the apparatus to Cohn and Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera, 119.
Cf. Nikiprowetzky, Commentaire de l’Ecriture, 196.
Cf. Massebieau, Essai, 285–286.
Cf. Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien. Cf. the alternative reading by Terian: “Philonis De visione.”
Such was already the view of its first publisher Awgerean, accepted and supported by Siegert, 6.
Siegert, 6.
Siegert, 6.
Cf. Josephus, Vita 415.
This is witnessed by the numerous discrepancies between the two accounts, cf. Smallwood, Philonis alexandrini Legatio, 248.
Bibliography
Bastianini, Guido. “Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30a al 299p.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17 (1975), 263–321, 323–328.
Bloch, René. “Review of Maren Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).” AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies 43 (2019), 201–204.
Borgen, Peder. “Application of and Commitment to the Laws of Moses: Observations on Philo’s Treatise On the Embassy to Gaius.” In In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honour of David Hay, ed. David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling (Providence: Brown University Press, 2001), 86–101.
Cohn, Leopold. “Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos.” Philologus Supplementband 7 (1899), 387–436.
Cohn, Leopold, and Paul Wendland. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 4 (Berlin: Reimer, 1902).
Cover, Michael. “Review of Maren Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).” Classical World, 112/1 (2018), 735–737.
Demougin, Ségolène. Prosopographie des chevaliers romains julio-claudiens (43 av. J.-C.–70 ap. J.-C.) (Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 1992).
Hacham, Noah, and Tal Ilan, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 5 The Early-Roman Period (30BCE–117CE) (Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2022).
Hammerstaedt, Jürgen. “Philologische Anmerkungen zu Philon, De Specialibus Legibus II 39—48.” In Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 1.–4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 359–373.
Hilgert, Earle. “A Survey of Previous Scholarship on Philo’s De somniis 1–2.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, vol. 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 394–402.
Horst, Pieter Willem van der. Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Jones, Christopher P. “Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works.” The Journal of Roman Studies 56 (1966), 61–74.
Lévy, Carlos. “Review of Maren Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).” The Studia Philonica Annual 30 (2018), 183–190.
Lévy, Carlos. “Philo of Alexandria.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (2022 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/philo/. Consulted on 07.12.2022.
Massebieau, Louis. Le classement des oeuvres de Philon (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1889).
Massebieau, Louis, and Émile Bréhier. “Essai sur la chronologie de la vie et des oeuvres de Philon.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 53 (1906), 25–64 [1], 164–185 [2], 267–289 [3].
Méasson, Anita. Du char ailé de Zeus à l’Arche d’Alliance: Images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1986).
Méasson, Anita, and Jacques Cazeaux. “From Grammar to Discourse: A Study of the Quaestiones in Genesim in Relation to the Treatises.” In Both Literal and Allegorical. Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. David M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 125–225.
Morris, Jenny. “The Jewish Philosopher Philo.” In Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: A New English Edition, ed. Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 3.2:809–889.
Niehoff, Maren. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).
Niehoff, Maren. “Book under Discussion: Maren R. Niehoff, Philon von Alexandria. Eine intellektuelle Biographie (übersetzt von Claus-Jürgen Thornton und Eva Tyrell; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019): ‘Stellungnahme von Maren R. Niehoff.’” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 24 (2020), 623–631.
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. Le commentaire de l’Ecriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Royse, James R. “Philo’s Division of His Works into Books.” In In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honour of David Hay, ed. David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling (Providence: Brown University Press, 2001), 59–85.
Runia, David T. “Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage: De opificio mundi 89–128.” In De Jérusalem à Rome, Mélanges Jean Riaud, ed. Lucien-Jean Bord and David Hamidovic (Paris: Geuthner, 2000), 155–174.
Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses, Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Schwartz, Daniel R. “Philonic Anonyms of the Roman and Nazi Periods.” The Studia Philonica Annual 1 (1989), 63–69.
Schwartz, Jacques, “Note sur la famille de Philon d’Alexandrie.” In Mélanges Isidore Lévy, Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, XIII (Bruxelles: Secrétariat des Editions de l’Institut, 1955), 591–602.
Siegert, Folker. Philon von Alexandrien: Über die Gottesbezeichnung “wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer” (De Deo). Rückübersetzung des Fragments aus dem Armenischen, deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).
Smallwood, Mary. Philonis alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1961).
Staehle, Karl. Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1931).
Sterling, Gregory E. “‘Prolific in Expression and Broad in Thought’: Internal References to Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and Exposition of the Law.” Euphrosyne 40 (2012), 55–76.
Tcherikover, Viktor A., and Alexander Fuks, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960).
Terian, Abraham. Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981).
Terian, Abraham. “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues.” In Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus, ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 272–294.
Terian, Abraham. “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries.” In Both Literal and Allegorical. Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. David M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 29–46.
Terian, Abraham. “Philonis De visione trium angelorum ad Abraham: A New Translation of the Mistitled De Deo.” The Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016), 77–109.
Turner, Eric Gardner. “Tiberivs Ivlivs Alexander.” The Journal of Roman Studies 44 (1954), 55–56.
