Philo of Alexandria

[Sargon]

I've read that Philo has discussed the "Logos" as being a second deity, but it seems that he also is a strict monotheist.

What do LDS need to know about Philo? Any good resources?

I'm quite new to post-exilic Judaism, but I'm interested to learn more about it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I can't give you a bibliography off the top of my head -- the literature by and about Philo (and on Middle Platonism generally) is considerable (e.g., David Runia, etc.) -- but I think he's an extraordinarily important figure and a key to understanding not only the intellectual side of the Great Apostasy but also, rather ironically, John 1 and early Christology.

[David Bokovoy]

What do LDS need to know about him?

Answer: That he's not nearly as interesting as Philo of Byblos?

[Daniel Peterson]

Philo of Byblos is definitely interesting. I'll give you that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Philo T. Farnsworth.

[Chris Smith]

I've read that Philo has discussed the "Logos" as being a second deity, but it seems that he also is a strict monotheist.

What do LDS need to know about Philo? Any good resources?

I'm quite new to post-exilic Judaism, but I'm interested to learn more about it.

Philo's theology has rightly been identified as a close relative of John's logos Christology. Philo also held a number beliefs that have been claimed as ancient Jewish parallels to Mormonism, including pre-existence, spiritual pre-creation, and the "second god" doctrine. In every case, however, the logic from which these beliefs arise within Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic and would not be amenable to post-1834 Mormonism. (The Book of Moses and Sections 88 and 93-- pre-1834 revelations-- are a different matter in that their theology is actually quite Hellenistic.) Philo was deeply hostile to anthropomorphism and conceived of God in transcendent terms. Far from seeing this as an apostasy or a syncretism, he believed that the incorporeality of God was the plain doctrine of Reason and of the Scriptures themselves.

If nothing else, the case of Philo illustrates how apparent ancient parallels may be coincidental or not really parallels at all upon closer examination. He also illustrates how traditional Trinitarian dogma is in fact much closer to the heartbeat of the philosophical logic undergirding first-century Jewish binitarianism than modern Mormonism is.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ah, so he proves Chris right. Not the Mormons. Good to know.

[Chris Smith]

Ah, so he proves Chris right. Not the Mormons. Good to know.

Haha! Hi, LoaP! I'm a pluralist, not a Trinitarian. But if you're implying that I'd be more in agreement with Philo's Platonic cosmology than with your anthropomorphic one, you're not far off.

I'm also in agreement with the general practice of using reason and philosophy to illuminate religious questions and interpret traditional superstitions, a practice whose reputation the Great Apostasy mythos has unfortunately blackened.

All the best!

-Chris

[Daniel Peterson]

Philo's theology has rightly been identified as a close relative of John's logos Christology. Philo also held a number beliefs that have been claimed as ancient Jewish parallels to Mormonism, including pre-existence, spiritual pre-creation, and the "second god" doctrine. In every case, however, the logic from which these beliefs arise within Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic and would not be amenable to post-1834 Mormonism. (The Book of Moses and Sections 88 and 93-- pre-1834 revelations-- are a different matter in that their theology is actually quite Hellenistic.) Philo was deeply hostile to anthropomorphism and conceived of God in transcendent terms. Far from seeing this as an apostasy or a syncretism, he believed that the incorporeality of God was the plain doctrine of Reason and of the Scriptures themselves.

If nothing else, the case of Philo illustrates how apparent ancient parallels may be coincidental or not really parallels at all upon closer examination. He also illustrates how traditional Trinitarian dogma is in fact much closer to the heartbeat of the philosophical logic undergirding first-century Jewish binitarianism than modern Mormonism is.

I agree with some of this. Other parts of it are debatable on multiple levels.

[David Waltz]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:

>>Philo's theology has rightly been identified as a close relative of John's logos Christology. Philo also held a number beliefs that have been claimed as ancient Jewish parallels to Mormonism, including pre-existence, spiritual pre-creation, and the "second god" doctrine. In every case, however, the logic from which these beliefs arise within Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic and would not be amenable to post-1834 Mormonism.>>

Me: I concur; and for the record, I think Margaret Barkerâ??s take on Philo has not been accurately understood by many members of the CoJCoLDS, for she clearly has Middle Platonic concepts behind many of her theological constructs.

Grace and peace,

David

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, David. I'm curious about your signature. Why that particular Nibley quote?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Philo's theology has rightly been identified as a close relative of John's logos Christology. Philo also held a number beliefs that have been claimed as ancient Jewish parallels to Mormonism, including pre-existence, spiritual pre-creation, and the "second god" doctrine. In every case, however, the logic from which these beliefs arise within Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic and would not be amenable to post-1834 Mormonism. (The Book of Moses and Sections 88 and 93-- pre-1834 revelations-- are a different matter in that their theology is actually quite Hellenistic.) Philo was deeply hostile to anthropomorphism and conceived of God in transcendent terms. Far from seeing this as an apostasy or a syncretism, he believed that the incorporeality of God was the plain doctrine of Reason and of the Scriptures themselves.

If nothing else, the case of Philo illustrates how apparent ancient parallels may be coincidental or not really parallels at all upon closer examination. He also illustrates how traditional Trinitarian dogma is in fact much closer to the heartbeat of the philosophical logic undergirding first-century Jewish binitarianism than modern Mormonism is.

I personally don't agree with the idea that Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic. As far as the rest, I doubt it makes much difference. I think John's logos Christology was probably shaped to some extent by the same issues that shape Philo's theology, but more as a response to it than as a close relative.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Haha! Hi, LoaP! I'm a pluralist, not a Trinitarian. But if you're implying that I'd be more in agreement with Philo's Platonic cosmology than with your anthropomorphic one, you're not far off.

I'm also in agreement with the general practice of using reason and philosophy to illuminate religious questions and interpret traditional superstitions, a practice whose reputation the Great Apostasy mythos has unfortunately blackened.

All the best!

-Chris

Darn it, can't someone just get things straight and tell me what to believe based on old Jews and patristic fathers?

[Bill Hamblin]

I personally don't agree with the idea that Philo's system is fundamentally Middle Platonic. As far as the rest, I doubt it makes much difference. I think John's logos Christology was probably shaped to some extent by the same issues that shape Philo's theology, but more as a response to it than as a close relative.

Ben M.

Another important factor was the memra (word) ideology in Targum Onkelos, where whenever God is said to have appeared, Onkelos says the memra/word of God appeared.

[ghedmondson]

I can't add very much more to what has been said already, other than to say that the study of Philo helped me to understand philosophical environment that would, in a few centuries, influence the evolution of traditional Christianity and to some degree modern Islam and Judaism.

Most of his writings can be found on the net, however I thoroughly enjoyed the book "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham". It includes a large section dedicated to Philo. I gained great insight into his methodology by comparing his interpretations of Abraham to those of others.

Peace and Grace

Bro. Edmondson

ps I hope that this won't distract you too much from your studies

[ERayR]

Philo T. Farnsworth.

Didn't he invent the television?

[Marmonboy]

Yes, which is why most of us hold him in such high esteem.

[mfbukowski]

Didn't he invent the television?

I usta watch Howdy Doody on a Philco TV, and yes, he was one of the inventors, and was LDS.

[Chris Smith]

Another important factor was the memra (word) ideology in Targum Onkelos, where whenever God is said to have appeared, Onkelos says the memra/word of God appeared.

Memra is just the Aramaic word for Logos. Obviously different ancient writers conceived of Memra/Logos a little differently, but the basic thrust of Memra theology is the same as the basic thrust of Logos-theology. I think it's fallacious to try to make a hard distinction between the two. Over on MDB I cited T. H. Tobin in defense of the view that John's Logos-theology is basically Middle Platonic, like Philo's. Mak responded by arguing that Memra is a more likely backdrop for it, and pointed me to an essay by Daniel Boyarin as support for his view. After reading the article, I replied,

I must admit that in the context of the present discussion I feel I've been sent down something of a rabbit trail. Boyarin's understanding of the content and function of Logos does not differ fundamentally from Tobin's, and in fact Tobin is cited approvingly in the paper. Boyarin is simply arguing that "Hellenistic" Judaism was far more mainstream than the term might seem to imply-- that, indeed, nearly all Judaism in the first century was "Hellenistic". Rather than presenting Memra as an alternative to Logos, the two are presented as more or less identical: Memra is simply Logos in Aramaic. Boyarin seems very much to agree with Tobin-- and with me-- that Philo and John sprang from more or less the same theological tradition.

[...]

With respect to the question of anthropomorphism, my point still stands. I argued that Logos-theology relies on a Middle Platonic concept of God as transcendent. Boyarin suggests that Middle Platonism's Logos-theology may actually be more derived from Judaism than the other way around, but he agrees on the fundamental principle that Logos-theology implies a transcendent God. On page 255 we read, "Indeed, as pointed out by Burton Mack, the very purpose for which Sophia/Logos theology developed within Judaism was precisely to enable 'a theology of the transcendence of God.'" My interpretation of pleroma as the divine light of God's being is also perfectly compatible with the Jewish Memra-texts Boyarin cites, which say among other things that "The Word of the Lord was the light, and it shone" (260).

Best,-Chris

Darn it, can't someone just get things straight and tell me what to believe based on old Jews and patristic fathers?

Ah. Well, in that case, I recommend you believe that Plato plagiarized Moses and that the Phoenix is a type of Christ.

Best,-Chris

[Benjamin McGuire]

The problem, of course, Chris, is that you then have to consider most of second temple Judaism as being platonic. But the current trends in scholarship have been to divorce second temple judaism from platonism and even from stoicism. And while Boyarin is certainly interesting (and I am assuming that you are referring to his article on binitarianism), his views aren't as close as you might think. Probably he is most explicit in his book length treatment of the material (which ought to be read by anyone who wants to dig into this discussion). And when dealing specifically with Philo, he notes this: "Given the mediation by Logos is central to Philo's theology, it becomes less and less plausible to speak of him as having been "influenced" by Middle Platonism." (Border Lines The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, 114.) There is actually a lot of literature on the subject - particularly as you get into the discussion of wisdom traditions in Judaism: Jey Kanagaraj, David Reed, Crispin Fletcher-Louis (I am not in front of my library, so I don't have all of that available to me - primarily just a few of my notes on the topic). Don't get me wrong, you still have Pate, Dunn, Stuhlmacher, Scott, and a host of others who take your view. But I do not accept it. And there is anything but consensus in the literature right now.

Ben M.

[Chris Smith]

Probably he is most explicit in his book length treatment of the material (which ought to be read by anyone who wants to dig into this discussion). And when dealing specifically with Philo, he notes this: "Given the mediation by Logos is central to Philo's theology, it becomes less and less plausible to speak of him as having been "influenced" by Middle Platonism." (Border Lines The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, 114.)

Like I said above, "Boyarin suggests that Middle Platonism's Logos-theology may actually be more derived from Judaism than the other way around, but he agrees on the fundamental principle that Logos-theology implies a transcendent God." He actually goes so far as to say that Middle Platonism may be a fundamentally Jewish invention. So he hardly "divorce second temple judaism from platonism and even from stoicism"!

Note that I have made no claim about Philo having been "influenced" by Greek Middle Platonic thinkers. My statement that "John's Logos-theology is basically Middle Platonic, like Philo's," does not require that the Middle Platonic view have invaded Judaism from outside, or that it be more Greek than Jewish, or that it be predicated on something other than Scripture. While I do think that the Jews of the Second Temple era absorbed some Platonic and Stoic language and concepts, and that scholars who argue against this view are in complete and laughable denial, my view is that Second Temple Judaism modified these concepts, predicated them on Scripture, and interpreted them through a Scriptural lens, such that the content of these appropriated concepts and terminologies was as much or more of Jewish than of Hellenistic invention. But whether Middle Platonism was of Hellenistic invention or not, we still call it Middle Platonism, and it still conceived of God as transcendent with the Logos as a mediating entity between God and the world, and that was still Philo's view. So my statement that Philo's view of God was "basically Middle Platonic" still stands, regardless of whether you think the inventors of the Middle Platonic Logos-doctrine were Jews or Greeks.

I hope I am correctly understanding your objection to my view. If not, perhaps you can enlighten me and clarify your own view.

Best,

-Chris

[Benjamin McGuire]

Christ -

I suppose we could find some middle ground and suggest that perhaps Philo was a producer of Middle Platonism then? It all depends on your definitions ... but I will continue to strongly disagree with you on some points - namely this section:

While I do think that the Jews of the Second Temple era absorbed some Platonic and Stoic language and concepts, and that scholars who argue against this view are in complete and laughable denial, my view is that Second Temple Judaism modified these concepts, predicated them on Scripture, and interpreted them through a Scriptural lens, such that the content of these appropriated concepts and terminologies was as much or more of Jewish than of Hellenistic invention.

And we can leave it there, since I doubt that this discussion is going to get that far, and truth be told, I don't have an interest in debating the subject with you.

Ben M.

[Chris Smith]

Hi, Ben!

I suppose we could find some middle ground and suggest that perhaps Philo was a producer of Middle Platonism then?

I think that's fair to say.

As for the rest, I presume this was the part that bothered you:

[...] I do think that the Jews of the Second Temple era absorbed some Platonic and Stoic language and concepts, and that scholars who argue against this view are in complete and laughable denial [...]

I would offer as an example the concept of "forms". This concept shows up in a great many Second Temple thinkers (including Philo) and pseudepigraphal narratives. Any suggestion that the Jews invented this concept out of thin air would be... well, misguided. (I admit "laughable" might have been too strong a word. Sorry; sometimes I get carried away.)

Best,

-Chris

[David Waltz]

Hi Chris,

You asked:

>> I'm curious about your signature. Why that particular Nibley quote?>>

I do not wish to go off-topic, but I also do not want to start a new thread, so, I have chosen the former.

First, I have a great deal of respect for the late Dr. Nibley; and second, I find the quote quite a refreshing view concerning the nature and integrity of the Bible.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I suspect that Nibleyâ??s stance on the Bible is more a bit more â??conservativeâ?? than yours.

Grace and peace,

David

[Chris Smith]

Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I suspect that Nibleyâ??s stance on the Bible is more a bit more â??conservativeâ?? than yours.

I'm sure it was. Frankly, I can sympathize with the cited view that the Book of Mormon threatens to undermine the Bible (though I'd hardly say it was intended as a "fiendish attempt" to do so). But I have no principled objection to the view that the Bible is a historical document.

I do disagree with the last statement, that Judeo-Christianity's orientation is "completely" historical. That strikes me as too Baptist and Bibliolatrous a statement to appeal to a Mormon, Pentecostal, pluralist, or Newmanite-Catholic. Surely we'd all agree that we must not worship the past, and that we must be at least partly oriented toward the living Deity and his, present, active Word and revelation?

I was just wondering which part of Nibley's statement particularly resonated with you.