Book Review: Rediscovering Philo of Alexandria, by Michael Leo Samuel

In recent years, no one has done more to reintroduce Philo to modern Jews than Michael Leo Samuel.^[1] Samuel's enthusiasm for Philo began decades ago while still a student in yeshiva, and it is this enthusiasm that he shares with us in his Rediscovering Philo of Alexandria, a five volume set that adapts Philo's extensive corpus into a line-by-line Torah commentary.^[2] This review will focus on the first volume, which includes the commentary to Genesis and Samuel's introduction to Philo's life and thought.

Introducing Philo

Samuel's introduction offers valuable context for those unfamiliar with Philo, and even the initiated will gain something here. We begin with a portrayal of Alexandria's Jewish community, its unique synthesis of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy, and the birth of the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Torah that was central to Philo's exegetical project. Samuel then tackles the obvious questions pertaining to Philo himself. Who was this first century Jewish philosopher, and for whom were his writings intended? Was his synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Torah study a true innovation or already a well-trodden path in Jewish Alexandria? Did he have a connection to Chazal? Did he even know Hebrew?

Samuel rightly acknowledges that these questions are still largely debated among scholars, and he provides a helpful overview of their arguments and where he believes the evidence inclines. We thereby gain a portrait of Philo as a Jewish community leader, deeply committed to his faith and fellow Jews, but also quite worldly and interested in the culture and politics of his times. Samuel acknowledges that neither Philo nor Chazal ever cite each other by name, but he does offer midrashic parallels that he believes indicate an “indirect influence” of Philo on the later rabbis. His ultimate claim that “almost all of the most famous midrashic teachings found in the early midrashim appear to have borrowed their ideas from Philo” (53) is unsubstantiated and almost certainly overreaching.

Despite the lack of direct influence, Samuel is eager to show that Philo anticipated many of the important trends and insights that we find in later Torah commentators. For example, Samuel writes that “the reason Philo often opts for the allegorical interpretation in many of his essays is because the meaning of the biblical story makes little sense if interpreted literally. Maimonides, Gersonides, and Joseph Albo each arrived at a similar conclusion and taught that the Edenic story ought to be interpreted as a parable” (27). This statement, though not without some merit, paints with too broad a brush. Although Philo's allegories are often introduced by noting difficulties with the literal reading, Philo happily turns to allegory even when the text does not seem to demand it. In some cases, Philo even acknowledges that a non-allegorical reading is reasonable, but he then downplays its relevance. We will see an example of this later.

Similarly regarding the medieval rabbis cited by Samuel, it is somewhat misleading to claim that they read the story as a parable. For example, Gersonides’ general approach is to interpret these events literally and limit allegorization to where it is absolutely necessary.^[3] Most likely, these rabbis would have been uneasy with how quickly and absolutely Philo is willing to sideline the peshat. Samuel later notes that Philo's reading of biblical characters as psychological archetypes parallels trends in kabbalistic and Hasidic literature (28), which seems to be a more apt comparison.

Samuel makes a more substantial error a few pages later when citing an important passage from Philo regarding the importance of adhering to the letter of the law. Here, Samuel includes an endnote referencing an unlikely source – the responsa Beis Mordechai of Rabbi Mordechai Fogelman (1899-1984), whom he claims “credits Philo and his academy for criticizing the scholars of his day who believed the philosophical rationale of the precepts made the practical observance of the precepts expendable.”^[4] Though Philo certainly makes this critique, Samuel has made a mistake in claiming that R. Fogelman recognized it. A look at the responsum reveals that R. Fogelman is actually saying the exact opposite, reproaching Philo for endangering practical observance.^[5]

Inaccuracies such as these do not distract from the work as a whole, but given that Samuel wishes to show “students of the weekly Torah portion… how Philo anticipated numerous ideas found in the medieval and modern Jewish exegetes,”^[6] they give us reason to take these supposed parallelisms with a grain of salt.

Philo – Purveyor of Peshat?

At the end of Samuel's introduction, we are informed of Philo's enduring relevance and the unique aspect of Philo's work that Samuel wishes to highlight. Though Philo is commonly recognized for his contributions to philosophy and allegorical exegesis, Samuel believes it is time to recognize Philo's contribution to peshat – the straightforward, contextual meaning of a text. It is worth pausing for a moment to appreciate how daunting of a task Samuel has set for himself.

As Samuel notes, Philo unquestionably prefers the allegorical approach, but the literal meaning retains its rightful place (34). The balance between the two will often depend on Philo's goals in a particular treatise. Scholars generally divide Philo's corpus into three major “commentary series” – the Allegorical Commentary, the Exposition of the Law, and the Questions and Answers. The first deals primarily with the allegorical meaning of the Torah and was likely intended for more advanced students. The Exposition is comparably light on allegory and focuses on conveying the morality and universality of Jewish law. The Questions and Answers is perhaps the best source material for Samuel's unique project. In it, Philo often takes just one verse at a time and explains it according to both its literal and allegorical meaning.^[7]Unfortunately, it is only extant on parts of Genesis and Exodus.

Samuel draws on all three series in creating his restructured Philo commentary, and this requires not only scouring Philo's large body of work but deciphering his sometimes difficult style. Though often beginning with a certain verse or episode in the Torah, Philo's treatises are thematic and will gleefully race through a series of seemingly unrelated verses and subjects in order to pursue a particular line of thought. The result is that, even with a good index of biblical references, it can be a challenge to determine precisely what Philo is extracting from each verse. This challenge is then compounded for Samuel by the question of whether Philo actually intends to convey peshat in each case.

Samuel navigates this maze by making a number of concessions. He tells us that he has “purposefully abbreviated many of Philo's rambling thoughts to make it fit a more peshat-oriented type of exegetical exposition” (50). He has also “utilized Philonic material that had only a thematic relevance to a given verse, even though Philo did not directly comment on a specific verse” (51). These concessions, combined with explanatory notes that shed light on Philo's broader patterns of thought, are intended to make Philo more accessible for a modern audience.

What is the result? There is no question that Samuel has provided us with a valuable resource. The explanatory notes are quite helpful, and Samuel has clearly put tremendous effort into combing through Philo's works for the relevant commentary. The interested reader will encounter an accessible, clearly-written, and interesting Torah commentary – based on Philo's works.             

Whether or not one will encounter Philo's Torah commentary is another question. Philo's explanation of the Tower of Babel provides a useful litmus test. Philo begins his treatise on this story by underscoring how problematic it appears. Drawing on his broad education, Philo lists the contemporary critiques, including the story's similarity to certain mythological folktales and the fact that a diversity of languages seems to increase evil in the world, not reverse it. Philo's response to these challenges reveals a great deal about his exegetical approach:

Those who take the letter of law in its outward sense and provide for each question as it arises the explanation which lies on the surface, will no doubt refute on their own principles the authors of these insidious criticisms. But we shall take the line of allegorical interpretation…^[8]

Philo does not deny that there is a peshat-level refutation of these challenges and concedes that one could read the story as a historical account of the origin of languages.^[9] At the same time, he is uninterested in taking that approach himself. For Philo, the story is best understood as an allegory for various conflicts within the human soul.

When we come to Samuel's adapted commentary on these verses, we find that he has retained some of the challenges listed by Philo, but he has entirely omitted Philo's response regarding the primacy of allegory. The reader is left with the impression that Philo either did not address these challenges or that the following comments present his peshat-level resolution. Neither option is correct, and both seem to obscure precisely what Philo wanted us to appreciate about his approach here – that there is a deeper truth to the Torah that bypasses shallow critiques and awakens us to our own inner nature.   

In his introduction, Samuel acknowledges that his various liberties with the text and its interpretation may leave “Philo purists” feeling uncomfortable. They “may find this type of repackaging inauthentic” (51), or they “may argue that I am extending Philo's interpretation beyond what the author intended” (49). Samuel's response is that such a repackaging is necessary if Philo is to speak to a contemporary audience, and in any case, there is always some aspect of the reader's voice that surfaces when we articulate a modern understanding of a text. Samuel sees his repackaging as both helpful and unavoidable.

I am largely sympathetic to Samuel's points, and I agree that much would need to be done to successfully reintroduce Philo to a modern audience. But Samuel's solution, to cast Philo as a teacher of peshat – a role that Philo never requested and even explicitly disparaged – seems to distance us from Philo even as it seeks to acquaint us with him. To truly rediscover the Alexandrian sage, we may have to embrace some of the curiosity and complexity that characterized Philo himself. Until then, Samuel's work offers us an engaging reimagining of Philo as an ancient purveyor of peshat.

---

For a good anthology and thorough introduction to Philo's thought, I recommend Professor David Winston's "Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections."

See here for a short article highlighting Philo's spiritual approach to daily experience.

For an overview of Philo's reception among Jewish thinkers of the modern era, see my forthcoming article on the Lehrhaus or my recent article in Tradition here.

---

Dovid Campbell studied at Yeshivas HaTurim under HaRav Shimon Green before making aliyah with his wife and children. He currently studies in kollel and writes on Jewish thought and history. His articles have appeared in the journals Hakirah and Tradition, and online at numerous Jewish content sites, including the Lehrhaus, Beyond Belief, and Aish.com.

---

^[1] According to his website, Samuel received rabbinic ordination from a Lubavitch seminary and currently serves as rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom, a Conservative congregation in Chula Vista, California. https://www.rabbimichaelsamuel.com/about-the-webmaster-2/

^[2] Rediscovering Philo of Alexandria: A First Century Torah Commentator, Volume I – Genesis (First Edition Design Publishing, 2017), [ebook]. All page references are to this volume.

^[3]Gersonides to Genesis 3:24:

וראוי שתדע שאין ראוי שיֵּעָשׂה ציור בדברי התורה, אלא במקומות אשר יחוייב בהם שיהיו לפי המשל.

^[4] Endnote lx.

^[5] Responsa Beis Mordechai 2:23:

חז"ל התנגדו, כידוע, לפירושים והסברים סמליים של מצות התורה, כדרכם של הקרובים לחכמת יונית, כפילון האלכסנדרוני ובית מדרשו. הם ראו בשיטה זו סכנה לקיומן ולביצוען למעשה של מצות התורה וחוקיה.

^[6] From Samuel's “Author's Note.” On p. 52, Samuel writes, “The rabbinic parallels discussed in the series are perhaps one of the most important aspects of this particular Philo series.”

^[7] Although even here, the allegorical interpretations receive far more attention than the literal.

^[8] On the Confusion of Tongues, 14. Translation by F. H. Colson in the Loeb Classical Library edition.

^[9] Towards the end of the same treatise: “This is our explanation, but those who merely follow the outward and obvious think that we have at this point a reference to the origin of the Greek and barbarian languages. I would not censure such persons, for perhaps the truth is with them also. Still I would exhort them not to halt there, but to press on to allegorical interpretations… the higher values therein revealed are what really and truly exist” (On the Confusion of Tongues, 190).