Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography

Abstract

As the Professor of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Maren Niehoff has carefully studied Philo of Alexandria for many years and is well suited to contribute this volume to the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. At the encouragement of John J. Collins, Niehoff has written this full-length biography of Philo, addressing a significant deficiency in the scholarship. Apart from the present volume, there is very little written by way of biography on Philo because there is such scant evidence (both autobiographical or secondary reports). Consequently, Niehoff starts her biography by reconstructing the chronology of Philo’s life and places his extant works within this timeline (see the excellent summary in Appendix 1 at the end of the book).The book’s introduction sets out the nature of the task and addresses the methodological problems faced in writing such a biography. Niehoff starts with what is known about Philo—his geographical movement from Alexandria to Rome in AD 38, where he acted as the head of a Jewish embassy to Gaius. Then she reads each of Philo’s works, places them within this chronology, and finds in them reflections of the changes that took place in Philo’s life on the basis of his situation.The three main sections of the book, which follow the introduction, apply this method in detail. The first section is a discussion of Philo the ambassador and author in Rome. The second section explores Philo’s biblical exposition while in Rome. The final section is an overview of Philo’s earlier writings while he was in Alexandria. Each of these three sections outlines Philo’s writings of the period but also investigates what can be learned about Philo while he was writing. Niehoff shows how Philo was influenced by, or adapted his writing to, the context in which he found himself. In doing this, Niehoff finds the relevant evidence to support her reconstruction and explains the different tones and methods for writing evident in Philo at different points in his life. The book concludes with an epilogue that draws together Niehoff’s arguments, two appendixes, endnotes, a bibliography, and indexes.This is well-written and thoroughly researched biography. Niehoff displays her magisterial knowledge of Philo’s writings and the historical and philosophical movements of the period. The book is built on a close reading of Philo’s works and as such presents a strong consistent reconstruction of the life of Philo and the Sitz im Leben of his works. Its attention to detail is evident throughout as are its links to Philo’s historical and philosophical milieu. Reading it is a tour of Philo led by an expert, which effects a deeper appreciation of both Philo and Niehoff.However, there is one potentially significant criticism that can be leveled at the work and seen as a weakness—the method Niehoff follows is circular. The absence of explicit evidence about the life of Philo forces Niehoff to look at his works for shards of biographical information, and once these are isolated, the work is then read in light of the reconstructed historical setting. At times, this cuts across the nature of the individual works that were not written to explicate Philo’s historical situation. Consequently, once the reconstruction is posited, all the information in the work is then made to fit this reconstruction. In defense of Niehoff, the absence of evidence necessitates such an approach (and it appears this is a major reason so few have attempted to write a biography of Philo in the past). Given this criticism, the value of the exercise can only be assessed on the ability of Niehoff’s reconstruction to explain the evidence that we do possess while acknowledging the limited nature of such evidence. That is, circularity is a problem if it is unable to explain Philo’s writings and/or its reconstruction fails to be logically consistent. Niehoff’s case would find more support if there were more evidence outside of Philo, but sadly such evidence is wanting. As such, even though this is a potential weakness, Niehoff’s methods seems to be the only option open to us at the present time, and she should be commended for her valuable work.Overall, this is a valuable work built on years of reflective thinking. It fills a significant void in Philonic scholarship.