University
of Nebraska Press
Shofar
- Books Received
Shofar
- Advertising &
Mailing List Info
Shofar
- Book Reviews |
Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism, by Louis H. Feldman. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series, Vol. 15 . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. 542 pp. $80.00.
Professor Feldman is widely acknowledged to be the leading Josephus scholar of our generation. In this volume Feldman applies to Philo’s Moses the kind of analysis he brought to bear on Josephus’ study of biblical personalities.
Why should Feldman devote such careful scrutiny to Philo? Because Philo is a unique figure in late antiquity, a devout Jew, but well versed in the Greek translation of the Bible at a time when many of the rabbis lamented the existence of this translation. He was from a noble Jewish family respected in Alexandria, the leading cultural center of the Hellenistic world. He was the uncle of Tiberius Julius Alexander, a general in the clean-up operation of Titus, the emperor Vespasian’s son, who led the final destruction of Jerusalem and its Second Temple in Jerusalem. He was a passionate defender of his people, personally going to Rome to intercede with the emperor after a brutal pogrom erupted in Alexandria in 38 CE. He was a learned philosopher who wrote of the Torah for the benefit of Judaism’s “cultured despisers.” Whereas Josephus was not highly esteemed by his people, Philo bears no such onus. Much of what he wrote has been preserved. His influence on early Christianity is obvious. For these reasons Feldman’s study of Philo’s Moses is welcome.
Feldman here studies Philo’s Moses in “the Context of Ancient Judaism.” This is a large arena. He studies not only Philo’s Life of Moses but also what Philo writes of Moses in others of his works.
Ancient Judaism refers to a period of history as well as to a religious development within the saga of a people. Technically speaking, Feldman embraces Rabbinic Judaism too, an evolution of Judaism out of the ancient Judaism that began after the destruction of the first Temple. Some of this literature (e.g., the Apocrypha) was included in the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It included the so-called Pseudepigrapha too, as well as Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible and the works of several other Hellenistic Jews who wrote of Moses. (During this period of history many non-Jewish writers wrote about Moses.)
What is Philo’s place in this broad spectrum? What connections may be seen between Philo and others who wrote of Moses, particularly Josephus, his best known contemporary? More than that, how does Philo exhibit a world-view shaped not only by his Jewish identity but also by his place as a sophisticated philosopher in a rich Platonic tradition? Since those that wrote of Moses did not mention one another, except for those that, like Josephus, reply specifically to various canards against the Jews, the way to identify Philo’s place in this broad spectrum requires looking in detail at what he wrote and what others from this period wrote, and then drawing inferences from the details. This is Feldman’s accomplishment in this book.
This is a book packed with detail and analysis that would seem to be primarily of interest to a scholar of ancient Judaism. But the generally biblically literate reader interested in late antiquity would find this detail intriguing. Why? First because Feldman is a master teacher, clear in method, succint and pertinent in detail. Second, he is never overwhelming as he draws on the multiplicity of sources. Many of these sources are unfamiliar to the average person, but Feldman explains who these ancient writers were and why they are important. This book is like an encyclopedia, clearly organized, lucidly written.
Philo’s Portrayal is divided into four sections:
I. General Considerations. This section includes such themes as “the Importance of Moses in Classical Antiquity,” “Philo’s Audience,” “Philo’s Moses as an Aretology (study of virtue) and Encomium (praise),” “Philo’s Knowledge of Oral Tradition,” that is, the rabbis, and “Philo as a Midrashist.”
II. The Life of Moses. The heart of the book, this section includes twenty-five categories, from Moses’ genealogy to his death. Items seven through the end are sub-categories studying Moses’ career as leader of the Israelites. The final category, Moses’ death, includes eight subcategories having to do with death accounts in the Bible and in literature of late antiquity. This longest section of the book ends each aspect of Moses life with a one-paragraph summary. For example after describing Balaam, the Moabite prophet, Feldman writes (p. 196), “In sum, Philo devotes much space to the story of Balaam in Mos., despite the fact that it has little to do with Moses, because he felt that he had to show that Moses was superior in prophecy even to Balaam, the greatest of non-Jewish prophets.”
Because of my own interest in Josephus’ account of the Tabernacle described in Exodus, which Philo also described in Book II of his Life of Moses, I expected Feldman to dig deeply here. But just as he did not do so in his extensive study of Josephus’ biography of Moses, so he does not here. Feldman mentions the Tabernacle as part of Philo’s account of Moses both in his book on Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (pp. 53–54) and in the notes to his recent translation of the first four books of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities published by E. J. Brill (2000). But he does not probe these two accounts in detail. No doubt this is because to compare Philo’s and Josephus accounts of the Tabernacle side by side would require a book-length treatment—which he has in mind for his students to write! It is an intentional omission to goad those whom he has taught to continue his work!
III. The Virtues of Moses. This third part includes studies of how Philo’s Moses exemplifies the five cardinal virtues, wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and piety, together with Philo’s asssessment of Moses’ success as Lawgiver, King, Sufferer, etc., and finally “The Divinity of Moses,” which includes ten sub-categories having to do with the idea of deification in Judaism and in the ancient world.
IV. Conclusion. Feldman writes eighteen pages that summarize point by point the substance of his study of Philo’s Moses.
Professor Feldman wrote of Josephus with a clear agenda, to see how Josephus applied Hellenistic models to his retelling the story of the Bible. But Josephus’ first language was no doubt Aramaic, and he knew Hebrew well. He was a Jerusalem Jew of a priestly family, although not a natural at Greek composition. So Feldman’s application of a Hellenistic grid to Josephus was very demanding.
Philo, by contrast, did not know Hebrew and had to use Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures. We don’t know his pedigree. What we do know was that he was steeped in Greek philosophy as well as in the study of the Bible, in particular the Torah—in Greek. So this new study of Philo’s Moses in the context of the currents of literature in late antiquity, Jewish and non-Jewish, is enormously important.
Professor Feldman has accomplished this study with characteristic detail, intensity of focus, reserve, and erudite good judgment. Furthermore, the University of Notre Dame Press has presented this book, so far as I could see, flawlessly—not a virtue of all publishers of books on this period of history.
Stuart D. Robertson
Purdue University
|
