Stephen Louy MWOP Philo's Barbarians

8/2/2019 Stephen Louy MWOP Philo's Barbarians

1/26

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the

language of Philo

By Stephen D. Louy *

Marys Well Occasional Papers

are published by Nazareth

Evangelical Theological

Seminary

Director of Publications and Editor: Duane Alexander Miller

Citation:

Louy, Stephen D. Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo in MarysWell Occasional Papers , 1:2, March (Nazareth, Israel: Nazareth Evangelical Theologi-cal Seminary 2012).


2/26

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo

Stephen D. Louy

Marys Well Occasional Papers 1:2 March 2012

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary Nazareth, Israel

1

Abstract : This paper is intended to contribute to the continued effort to

understand Philo of Alexandrias ethnic self-identification. Scholarshiphas long sought to determine whether Philo would be better understood

in terms of Jewish or Greek identity, noting that he displays characteris-

tic features of both groups. This paper examines Philos use of the Greek

word barbaros , barbarian, in order to highlight the dual nature of Philos

self-identification, and suggests that his writings would best be under-

stood as deriving from a person who possessed what Philip Esler calls

multiple identities.

Key Words : Philo, barbarian, ethnicity, identity, Esler, Judaism


3/26


Stephen D. Louy



2

Despite the fact that modern scholarship has struggled to understand him, very little is

known about Philo of Alexandria. We have no autobiography of his life, though we are able

to draw some conclusions about the person from his works. Philo wrote of himself in Legatio

ad Gaium that he is by birth a Jew, and my native city is Jerusalem.... It fell to me to have

for my grandparents and ancestors kings... (2.278). 1 Additionally, there are two references to

Philo in the writings Josephus, the only such references known from contemporaries of Philo

in the first-century CE. 2 We learn from both Philos own works and from the references of

Josephus that Philo led the embassy of Alexandrian Jews to meet the Emperor GaiusCaligula. 3 These facts tell us that Philo either was born in or felt a deep connection to the city

of Jerusalem, but lived in Alexandria and was a prominent member of the Jewish community

there. In fact, he is known as Philo the Jew 4 in many later Christian works. Much of the rest

of what we know, or think we know about Philo has been gleaned from his writings by

scholars, very far removed from him, and this has given rise to much debate. Ellen Birnbaum

sums up one aspect of this debate quite nicely when she writes, [s]o prominent is the mix of

*Stephen D. Louy holds an MA in Biblical Languages from the Graduate Theological Union inBerkeley, CA, and recently completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Edinburgh. His dissertationis entitled The Origins of Christian Identity in the Letters of Paul. Currently, Louy is researching projectsexploring Pauls use of mixing language with regard to creating purity-based outsiders for his communities. Incoming research, he intends to explore the establishment of a Christian counter-narrative to the Roman Empirein the first three centuries CE.

1. Philos Legatio Ad Gaium details this embassy. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Philo arefrom the Loeb Classical Library Series: Philo, Works , vol. I-X, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W.Earp (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 195062).

2. The Josephus references are found in Antiquitates Iudaeorum , 18.8.257-260, 4.186. Written in thefirst century CE, both occurences refer to Philo, leader of the Embassy of Alexandrian Jews to the Emperor Gaius. The next earliest reference to Philo comes from Clement of Alexandria, writing in the late secondcentury CE. David T. Runia, References to Philo from Josephus Until 1000 AD, The Studia Philonica

Annual VI (1994): 132. 3. C. D. Yonge, trans., David M. Scholer, The Works of Philo (United States of America: Hendrickson

Publishers, Inc., 2000), xii. 4. Yonge and Scholer, Philo , xi.


4/26


Stephen D. Louy



3

Greek and Jewish elements in his works that scholars have often debated whether Philo was

more a Greek or a Jew. 5 It is precisely this debate over Philos ethnic identity which I wish

to address in this paper, in an attempt to shed new light on an old topic. Where does Philo fall

on the spectrum of identification? Is he best understood as a Jew, or as a Greek? Philos

primary concern, notes Francesca Calabi, was with the translation and interpretation of

language, 6 and we would be remiss as scholars if we did not afford his works the same

attention he afforded them himself. Given that all we have by which to assess Philo and his

life, it is his use of language that provides the most insights to understanding his self-

identification.

Modern scholarship has struggled to better understand Philo, but has done so by

attempting to categorize him as either a Greek or a Jew based on his writings, and then to

understand his writings in light of that categorization. However, this approach leaves much to

be desired. It is clear, both from examples within Philos work itself and from the scholarship

which exists on both sides of the Greek/Jew debate that Philo is neither one nor the other.

Instead, he views himself as both a Greek and a Jew, and demonstrates this Greco-Jewish

ethnicity throughout his writings, exhibiting what Philip F. Esler describes as nested or

multiple identities. 7 Scholarship has approached Philo as either a Greek or Jew, and in

order to do so has overlooked or dismissed characteristics representing the other side of his

Greco-Jewish identity. We will begin this discussion with an examination of Philos use of

the word barbarian, which provides a clear example of Philos nested identities, and will

5. Ellen Birnbaum, Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in First-CenturyAlexandria, The Studia Philonica Annual XIII (2001): 28.

6. Francesca Calabi, The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of Alexandria (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 1.

7. Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter (Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 2003), 49.


5/26


Stephen D. Louy



4

provide a new understanding of how Philo viewed himself as a Greco-Jew, and how

scholarship should, in turn, view him.

1. Barbarians in Philo

The Greek word is defined primarily as speaking a foreign language, and

also as one who is not Greek, foreign, barbarous. 8 However, despite originally being the

term by which Greeks referred to non-Greeks, came to carry with it very negative

connotations, much as it does today. Philip Esler notes that [t]he cardinal Greek virtues as

defined in fourth-century philosophy normally included wisdom or intelligence, manliness or courage, discipline or restraint, and justice. Conversely, stupidity, cowardice, abandonment

and lawlessness are ascribed to barbarian characters, 9 and Eslers citation of fourth-

century philosophy suggests that barbarian took on its negative connotations following the

attempted Persian invasion of Greece. Additionally, Robert Jewett observes: In the bilingual

context of Rome (i.e., in the first-centuries BCE and CE), Greek means Greco-Roman

while barbarians refers to alien tribes who cannot speak Greek or Latin and are uncultured,

wild, crude, fierce and, in a basic sense, uncivilized. 10 In short, barbarian was a very

Greek way to refer to the rest of the world in a very negative manner.

Three derivations of the Greek word for may be found in the works of

Philo, these being (as seen above, the Greek adjective meaning barbarous or,

used substantively, non-Greek, foreign, barbarian) and two substantive participle forms

derived from the Greek verb (meaning to behave or speak like a barbarian):

8. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 132.

9. Esler, Conflict , 61. 10. Robert Jewett, Eldon Jay Epp, ed., Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

2007), 13031.


6/26


Stephen D. Louy



5

and . Forms of these three words occur a total of 53 times, 11 and it

is helpful for this discussion to place each usage into one of three categories: a whole world

reference; a derogatory reference; or, a positive reference.

By far the most common use of the word barbarian, occurring 43 times, is in

tandem with a form of the word for Greek or Greece, a set phrase used by the Greeks to

denote the whole world. In this construction, Greek refers to the civilized Greek speaking

part of the world, while barbarian encompasses the uncivilized non-Greek speakers.

Thus, everyone is included. 12

The second most common use of barbarian, appearing seven times, is the

derogatory reference. In these passages, Philo is criticizing some aspect of barbarian life or

culture, using a sweeping generalization to encompass all barbarians, or non-Greek

speakers. 13 This derogatory use is actually not far removed from the whole world reference,

where barbarian is used to mean the uncivilized peoples who were not viewed as

Greeks. However, in the derogatory classification, Philo specifically refers to barbarians or

barbarian culture as cruel or uncivilized, rather than using the term merely as a means of

identifying non-Greeks in conjunction with Greek. For example, a whole world reference

reads, For the majority of wars...have consumed the greatest and choicest part of the Greek

race and the barbarian also.... ( Ios. 56), while a derogatory reference reads, Barbarian

nations...have for long admitted child sacrifice as a holy deed...and this practice is...an

abomination. ( Abr. 181)

11. Peder Borgen, Kre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Indexto the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 63.

12. The word barbarian with Greek to denote the whole world are found in the following passages:Opif. 128; Ebr. 193; Conf. 6, 6, 190; Mut. 35; Plant. 67; Cher. 91; Abr. 136, 267; Ios. 30, 30, 56, 134; Mos.2:12, 18, 19, 20; Decal. 153; Spec 1:211; Spec. 2:44, 165; Spec. 4:120; Praem. 165; Prob. 73, 94, 98, 138;Contempl. 21, 48; Legat. 8, 8, 83, 102, 141, 145, 147, 162, 292; Prov. 2:15, 66, 68; QE isf 4.

13. The derogatory uses of barbarian are found in the following passages: Legat. 116, 215; Abr. 181,184; Spec. 3:17, 163.


7/26


Stephen D. Louy



6

Philo also offers an occasional positive comment regarding barbarians, and this use

comprises two of the appearances of barbarian in Philos work. Rather than criticize

something about barbarian life, Philo instead holds some aspect of barbarism up as an

example of correctness. 14 For example, Philo writes (lit. Among the

barbarian [nation])...we find large associations of men of the highest excellence. ( Prob. 74)

For greater ease, Table 1 illustrates the categorical break down of each of the words defined

above.

Table 1 Whole World Derogatory Positive

37 2 2

6 4 0

0 1 0

Total 43 7 2

It should be noted, however, that Table 1 accounts for only 52 of the 53 total uses of

barbarian. The final appearance of the word barbarian in the Philonic corpus proves

difficult to place into one of these three categories. Found in De Vita Moysis , during Philos

discussion of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, this last appearance of

barbarian reads as follows: Then it was that some people, thinking it a shame that the laws

should be found in one half only of the human race, ([in] the barbarian [half]),

and denied altogether to the Greeks, took steps to have them translated. ( Mos. 2.27) This use

is neither positive nor negative in its meaning, neither degrading nor uplifting some aspect of

barbarian society, and thus it cannot be placed in either the derogatory or positive

14. The positive uses of barbarian are found in the following texts: Spec. 1:313; Prob. 74.


8/26


9/26


Stephen D. Louy



8

Greek, and did not consider Jews to be part of that group. By suggesting that Philo called the

Jews barbarians merely because that is the terminology that would have been used

commonly to refer to Jews, Niehoff is overlooking the fact that Philo demonstrates an ample

vocabulary with which to refer to the Jews as a specific group throughout his body of work,

and uses this vocabulary in every instance except the one in question. In addition to this one

instance of barbarian, Philo uses three different terms to refer to Jews: and related

forms 63 times; 17 and related forms 112 times; 18 and and related forms 38

times, 19 of which 18 uses refer to the Jews. 20

Niehoff also assumes that Philo thought of himself as a Greek, and did not consider

the Jewish people to be Greek. The passage in question, rendered above, in which Philo

distinguishes the Jews as barbarians, implies that Philo did not consider the Jews to be part

of the Greek world, as Niehoff suggests. While it is not unfair to claim that Philo thought of

himself as a Greek, it is unfair to claim that he did not consider the Jews to be part of this

category. There is ample evidence to support the notion that Philo understood himself and

other Jews to have elements of both Greek and Jewish identity. For example, Philo himself

spoke Greek and was living in Alexandria, a highly Hellenized city; in many Hellenized

cities within the Mediterranean region, notably Alexandria, use of the Greek language

became the way many people designated Greekness, and barbarian became the term which

referred to non-Greek speaking people. 21 Moreover, these cities contained substantial

populations [that] considered themselves Greeks, that is, they had this ethnic identity,

marked by the use of the Greek language and involvement in other features of Greek

17. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index , 101. 18. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index , 179. 19. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index , 359. 20. C. K. Wong, Philos Use of Chaldaioi , The Studia Philonica Annual IV (1992): 3. 21. Esler, Conflict , 59.


10/26


Stephen D. Louy



9

culture.... 22 And Philo was almost certainly aware of a large Greek-speaking Jewish

population outside his Alexandrian community. David Winston posits that Philos audience

was, in fact, the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora. 23 Philo himself was conversant with the LXX

tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures, and he probably had very little knowledge of the Hebrew

language. 24 Ellen Birnbaum even observes that, in two of his works, Philo actually includes

Jews among the Greek speaking world by referring to the Greek language as our

language, 25 thus identifying both himself and other Jews living throughout the

Mediterranean as Greeks. Niehoffs implication that Philo did not consider Jews to belong to

the Greek classification carries little weight in light of this evidence.

It would appear that Niehoff falls on the Greek side of the Greek/Jew debate.

However, he concludes his work by stating that Philos discussion of the Greeks (and thus his

Greek ethnic identity) reveals a keen sense of cultural competition between Greeks and

Jews, which was based on a comparison between the achievements of the two nations. 26

This almost seems like a statement in support of a theory of nested identity in Philo, but we

have already seen that Niehoffs discussion dismisses Philos striking use of barbarian in

De Vita Moysis as nothing more than an example of his Greekness and a dismissal of

Jewishness, and glosses over evidence which suggests this usage was unusual in Philos

works and that Philo did consider Jews to be part of the Greek world.

Similarly, Birnbaum seems to be siding with the Greek faction of the debate,

providing ample evidence of Philos Hellenistic ethnicity, as noted above. She eventually

22. Esler, Conflict , 75. 23. David Winston, Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philos Thought, The Studia

Philonica Annual II (1990): 1. 24. Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 8890. 25. Birnbaum, Perspective, 47. The texts in question are: Conf . 129; and Congr. 44.

26. Niehoff, Identity & Culture , 143.


11/26


Stephen D. Louy



10

concludes, however, that there is a current in his thinking that may be seen as critical of the

Greeks.... This current, moreover, is but part of a larger stance, whereby Philo presents the

Jews as better than everyone .... 27 According to Birnbaum, Philo does not think of the Jews as

either Greeks or barbarians, but as something altogether different from and superior to both

Greeks and barbarians. Given the earlier citations of Birnbaums argument, notably that Philo

did include the Jews among the Greeks twice in his writings, this seems like an odd

conclusion to draw. Indeed, such a statement blatantly dismisses evidence, noted by

Birnbaum in her own writings, that the Greeks were esteemed by Philo, 28 giving the

impression that Birnbaum is overlooking even her own observations in order to classify Philo

as a Jew. While Birnbaum does not state that Philo regards himself as solely a member of the

Jewish identity group, or that he does not display elements of Greek identity, she does not

address the issue of multiple identities which are evident in Philos works.

Other scholars have tackled the issue of Philos ethnic identity head-on. In his work

Philos Jewish Identity , Alan Mendelson puts forth the view, rather surreptitiously, that Philo

was more a Greek than a Jew. However, what is striking about his argument is that

Mendelson makes this claim in a discussion about Philos Jewish identity. Citing Philos

Quod Deus sit immutabilis (On the Unchangeableness of God ) 61-64, Mendelson theorizes

that there were two groups of Jews in Philos community, those who were capable of

appreciating philosophical wisdom (with whom Philo himself would have associated), and

those who were incapable of grasping the higher truths of theology. 29 Continuing his

thinking, Mendelson concludes that Philo held two complementary beliefs: first, that theBible was written on the level of the philosophically unsophisticated; and second, that the

27. Birnbaum, Perspective, 4041. 28. Birnbaum, Perspective, 39, 41, 47, 57. 29. Alan Mendelson, Philos Jewish Identity (Atlanta: Fortress Press, 1988), 4.


12/26


Stephen D. Louy



11

truth of Scripture could be approached, if not reached, by allegory. 30 Though he seems to be

saying that Philo thought of himself as a Jew, albeit one of the better class of Jews,

Mendelson is actually making a case for a dominant Greek identity in Philo by suggesting

that the more sophisticated Jews were those who, like Philo, approached Jewish tradition

through Greek philosophy. Mendelson does not address nested ethnic identity in Philo, but

instead presents a figure steeped in Hellenism and opposed to Judaism; the only good

Judaism, according to Mendelsons theory, is highly Hellenized Judaism. However, despite

the lack of direct address by Mendelson, this view does highlight the multiple layers of

identity which Philo held.

David Winston provides perhaps the most frustrating example of Philonic scholarship

regarding ethnic identity. Winston observes that Philo produced a remarkable synthesis of

Judaism and Hellenism, 31 in his writings. Surprisingly, Winston seems torn as to how to

classify Philo, and even comes close to suggesting the concept of nested identity within

Philos writings; he does not overlook or dismiss elements of Philos identity on one side in

favor of the other. It is in Winstons work that scholarship begins to understand Philo in

terms of Eslers concept of nested identities which are not in conflict but coexistence with

one another. Yet Winston still aligns himself with the polarities of the Greek/Jew debate,

drawing the conclusion that: although he allows the Jewish side of his thought the dominant

place in his presentation, Philo invariably tones it down by introducing some philosophical

(i.e., Greek) twist and by allowing the perceptive reader a glimpse of his true position. 32

Winston clearly understands that Philo is neither a Greek nor a Jew, but possesses elementsof both identities, and yet still concludes his work by placing Philo into one of the categories

30. Mendelson, Identity , 8. 31. Winston, Tensions, 19. 32. Winston, Tensions, 18.


13/26


Stephen D. Louy



12

that he himself understands are inadequate in describing Philo. Though he comes close to

taking a balanced, nuanced approach to understanding Philos ethnic identity, Winston, too,

fails to appreciate the prevalent Greco-Jewish identity in the works of Philo.

Though scholarship has tried to place Philo into one of these categories, as we have

seen in a small sampling of said scholarship, one cannot identify Philo as Greek to the

exclusion of Jew, and neither can one identify Philo as Jew to the exclusion of Greek. Rather,

Philo is best described as a Greco-Jew. If we return to our barbarian example, Philo is

demonstrating neither competition nor superiority in his ethnic identities. Rather, he is

demonstrating a balance or harmony between his ethnic identities, and thus their equal

prominence in Philos view of himself. In this passage from De Vita Moysis , Philo makes

reference to both his Greek and Jewish roots without trying to show that one was better than

the other; with one stroke of his pen, he called the Jewish people barbarians, and with the

next he upheld their Scriptures as authoritative truth of importance and public utility ( Mos.

2.28) for all people. This is perhaps the most striking example of the balanced portrayal of the

Greek and Jewish aspects of Philos identity within his works, and is indicative of a Greco-

Jewish identity.

3. Nested Identities in Homer, Histories , and the First-Century

In his work Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter , Dr.

Esler explores the multiple ethnic identities of the Greco-Roman world. His discussion

proves to be quite helpful in examining Philos ethnic identity. To begin, Esler lists six

criteria by which an individual may identify him-or-herself or another with a particular ethnic

group:

1) a common proper name to identify the group; 2) a myth of common ancestry (notemyth, since the genealogical accuracy of the claimed descent is irrelevant; 3) a sharedhistory or shared memories of a common past, including heroes, events and their commemoration; 4) a common culture, embracing such things as customs, language, andreligion; 5) a link with a homeland, either through actual occupation or by symbolic


14/26


Stephen D. Louy



13

attachment to the ancestral land, as with Diaspora peoples, and 6) a sense of communalsolidarity. 33

Esler suggests that the two most useful of these criteria in identifying ones own

ethnic identity in the ancient world were a myth of common ancestry and a connection, real

or symbolic, with a homeland, 34 while the most widely used criterion in assigning ethnic

identity to another person was the language which that person used in day-to-day life.

However, none of these criteria, at first glance, helps to shed light on the question of Philos

ethnic identity; Philo was a Greek-speaking Jew, and a Greek or Roman might have

considered him a Greek because of this.35

However, even though he lived in an Egyptian city,surrounded by Greek influence and ruled by Rome, he clearly felt some sort of connection to

Jerusalem and the ancestral land of the Jews. In addition to writing that Jerusalem was my

native city, as cited above in Legat. 2.278, Philo also writes that ...the city of God is called

in Hebrew Jerusalem and its name when translated is vision of peace ( Somn. 2.250). 36

There are ethnic identifiers throughout Philos work that point to both Greek and Jewish

identity, but none which point to either Greek or Jewish ethnic identity exclusively. However,

Eslers discussion of ethnic identity suggests the possibility of a different approach to the

subject, expanding beyond the notion that an individual belongs to only one identity group

with what Esler calls nested or multiple identities: Ethnic identities, Esler writes, are

not exclusive. 37 Focusing most of his discussion on primarily Hellenistic people in the

ancient world, he turns to the writings of Homer, a seventh-century poet, and Herodotus, a

fifth-century BCE historian, to provide examples of nested Greek identities.

33. Esler, Conflict , 4344. 34. Esler, Conflict , 44. 35. Esler, Conflict , 59. 36. Philo, Works . 37. Esler, Conflict , 50.


15/26


Stephen D. Louy



14

A list of Grecian ethnic subgroups can be found in Homers epic The Iliad , in the

famous Catalogue of Ships passage. 38 Here, Homer describes all the different Greek

subgroups that sailed to the Trojan War, often providing details about their homelands and

rulers. This is a clear demonstration of several independent groups who shared common ties

of culture, language and ancestry; Agamemnon, King of Mycenae, is the supreme

commander of the Greek forces, but Odysseus, King of Ithaca, is a major character, and

Achilles, the main character of Homers tale, is the son of Peleus, King of the Myrmidons.

Though all are Greeks, each comes from a different ethnic background to unite as the

common group Greeks. Similarly, in passages from Herodotus Histories we find several

examples of nested Greek identity. Histories deals mostly with the attempted Persian

conquest of Greece, and at one point Herodotus describes how the Athenians explain to a

Spartan envoy why they have rejected an offer of peace from Xerxes, king of Persia, before

the battle of Plataea in 479 BCE. In so doing, he provides an example which contains the

ethnic identifiers laid out by Esler: Then there is the Greek people, which has the same

blood and the same language, together with the common cult places, the sacrifices and the

similar customs, which it would be ignoble for Athens to betray (8.144.2). 39 Four of the six

criteria to identify ethnic identity are stated in this passage: 1) a common proper name,

, also rendered ; 2) a claim to common ancestry (which has the same

blood ); 3) a common culture (with the common cult places, sacrifices and the similar

customs); and 4) a sense of communal solidarity (which it would be ignoble for Athens to

betray).40

The last two criteria are both implied in the passage, a common Greek history inthe acknowledgement of a common name, ancestry, culture and sense of solidarity, and the

38. From the Loeb Classical Library, translated by A. T. Murray: Homer, The Iliad (London: WilliamHeinemann, Ltd., 1924), 2.492785.

39. Esler, Conflict , 56. 40. Esler, Conflict , 56.


16/26


Stephen D. Louy



15

name , by which the Greek lands were known, in the proper name of the Greek

people. Yet this passage also provides evidence to support Eslers notion of nested identities

by identifying the people of Athens as a subgroup of the larger group called Greek. Earlier

in this text Herodotus provides additional evidence of nested Greek identity when he

describes the different Greek ethnicities that band together to fight the invading Persian force

in 480 BCE. In his account, those gathered at Thermopylae to repel Xerxes forces are as

follows: Spartans; Tegeans; Mantineans; Arcadians; Corinthians; Phlians; Mycenaeans,

Peloponnesians; Boetians; Thespians; Thebans; Locrians; Phocians; and Athenians ( Histories

202-203). 41 Though Greece would not be united by Philip II and later his son Alexander the

Great for another century, each of these subgroups of Grecian identity rose to defend the

common nation of Greece, despite being somewhat ethnically separate from one another.

Esler concludes that sometimes the bearers of multiple identities highlight one to conform to

the local context and sometimes to express their distinction from it, 42 therefore, it is not

surprising that the residents of Greece in the ancient world would identify themselves

differently in different situations. The Athenians in Herodotus identify themselves as

Athenians, distinct from Phocians or Spartans, and also as Greeks, distinct from Persians or

Egyptians. In the former example, the Athenians are distinguishing themselves as separate

from other similar groups who share similar customs, and in the latter they are identifying

themselves as the same as those groups against other distinct outsiders with whom they share

no commonality. They were Athenians and Boetians, Macedonians and Phocians, but above

all, they were Greeks.

41. From the Loeb Classical Library, translated by A. D. Godley: Herodotus, Histories (London:William Heinemann, Ltd., 1982).

42. Esler, Conflict , 49.


17/26


Stephen D. Louy



16

It should be noted that both of these examples predate the time of Philo by several

centuries; as observed above, Herodotus was writing in the fifth-century BCE, while Homer

is believed to have been writing in the seventh-century BCE. To make the case that a nested

ethnic identity can be applied to our understanding of Philo, who was writing during the first

half of the first-century CE, 43 we must find examples of nested identities from this same time

period. In the works of the Jewish historian Josephus, a first-century contemporary of Philo, 44

we find several descriptions of ethnic subgroups, not unlike those in Homer and Herodotus.

Most important for our discussion, Josephus in Against Apion describes the following groups

in various amounts of detail: Greeks; Attikoi (people of Attica); Argolikoi (people of

Argolis); Athenians; Arcadians; Macedonians; Cretans; and non-Greeks ( , lit.

barbarians). 45 Though the list reproduced here is incomplete in recording all the peoples

discussed by Josephus in this work, I have chosen to list these eight groups for one reason: all

of these are Greek ethnicities (or, in the case of barbarians, a Greek manner of

identification), many of which can also be found in Homers Catalogue of Ships and/or

Herodotus Histories . Josephus has given us evidence that these groups existed well into the

first-century CE and, by also discussing Greeks, has shown that these groups still existed

within a larger Greek identity. All of these examples, however, demonstrate the idea of

nested identity only within a purely Greek context and from a Greek perspective. This

discussion would benefit from examples of nested identity in a Jewish context, particularly if

these examples can be found during the time of Philo, i.e., the first-century CE. Fortunately,

such examples can be found in the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles, and theBiblical letters of the apostle Paul.

43. Calabi, Language , 1. 44. See note 2. 45. Esler, Conflict , 59.


18/26


Stephen D. Louy



17

The Acts of the Apostles chronicles the early years of the Christian Church, from the

death of Christ in around 30 CE until shortly after Pauls arrest and imprisonment in Rome in

around 60 CE. 46 This 30 year period overlaps the years Philo is believed to have written most

of his works, and in Acts 2, wherein the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples at Pentecost,

we find evidence that Jews of this period often laid claim to more than one ethnic identity.

Esler cites Acts 2:5-11 as evidence of this:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each

one heard them speaking in his own language.7 Utterly amazed, they asked: Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,Pontus and Asia,10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors fromRome11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs -- we hear them declaringthe wonders of God in our own tongues! 47

This passage is rich with clues regarding the ethnic identities of the people gathered in

Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. It begins by stating that there were Jews from every

nation under heaven in Jerusalem for this event, a fact that is not surprising given that the

Jewish people had been a people in Diaspora for centuries by the time of Philo and the New

Testament, and were living throughout the known world in the first-century CE. This,

however, does indicate that these Jews thought of themselves as being something other than

or in addition to Jews. The first indication of nested ethnic identities within this passage from

Acts is the question asked by the Jews from every nation under heaven in v.7, when these

foreign Jews refer to the disciples, natives of Palestine, as Galileans. This term is taken

46. The NIV Study Bible provides a useful timeline of the early years of the Church. Kenneth Barker,ed., The New International Version Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995).

47. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotes are taken from the New International Version Study Bible:Barker, NIV .


19/26


Stephen D. Louy



18

from the name Galilee, a region in the north of Israel, and though the disciples are clearly

Jews, here they are identified as being a particular subgroup of Jews, much like the Athenians

of the fifth-century BCE are identified as a particular subgroup of Greeks. Continuing on, the

visiting Jews identify themselves based on their countries of origin, which range from Asia in

the east to Libya in the west, from Phrygia in modern day Turkey to Egypt, and they twice

refer to their amazement at hearing the disciples speaking in their own, native languages.

These foreign Jews, like Philo, did not speak Hebrew in day-to-day life, or live in the Holy

Land. Instead, they lived in communities scattered throughout the Mediterranean and Middle

East, and identified themselves based on their homelands and native tongues, but still are

identified within the larger group Jews by the author of the text. As with the Greeks before

them, it clearly was possible for a Jew to belong to another ethnic identity as well.

Acknowledging that both Greeks and Jews demonstrated nested ethnic identities in the

ancient world, it is safe to assume, then, that one could be a Greco-Jew, and we find an

example of this Greco-Jewish identity in the figure and writings of Paul.

According to Christian tradition, Paul was born as Saul, and took a new name

following his conversion to Christianity. We know from Pauls own writings that he was of

the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), and that he was a Pharisee

(Galatians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:5); he clearly comes from a Jewish background. However,

as Bart Ehrman notes, he does not tell us when he was born, where he was raised, or how he

was educated. 48 Much of this information comes from the book of Acts, which also provides

some details about Pauls life. According to the author of Acts, Paul is from Tarsus (Acts21:39), a Greek city in Asia Minor and home to a famous school of Greek rhetoric

(something like an Ivy League University, Ehrman observes). 49 Additionally, we know

48. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 247.

49. Ehrman, Writings , 24748.


20/26


21/26


Stephen D. Louy



20

not presenting either his Greek or Jewish background as being in conflict with the other at all.

Instead, by his own statements, Paul understood himself as being able to belong to more than

one ethnic group in the first-century CE. Based on the evidence supporting the concept of

nested identities provided by Greek history and Philos first-century contemporaries Josephus

and Paul, it seems quite logical that approaching Philo as a bearer of nested identity is not

only justifiable, but is in fact necessary in order to better understand his identity and his

writings. In light of Eslers ethnic identity criteria, we find that Philo was, in fact, both a

Greek and a Jew.

Philo easily fits the criteria laid out to identify ethnic identity on both sides of the

Greek/Jew debate. We have already seen that Philo identified himself as a Jew ( Legat . 2.278),

and included himself among the Greeks ( Conf. 129 and Congr. 44). We know that he felt

some link to Jerusalem ( Legat. 2.278), and was a prominent member of the Jewish

community living in the Hellenized city of Alexandria (Philos Legatio ad Gaium ; Josephus

Antiquitates Iudaeorum 18.8.257-260, 4.186); we also know simply from reading his works

that Philo spoke Greek, and wrote in Greek about the Jewish religion, customs and heroes

(e.g., De Abrahamo, De Ioseph, De Vita Moysis , et alia). Here we have satisfied three of the

six criteria laid out by Esler to identify Philo as both a Greek and a Jew, a common proper

name to identify the group, a common culture (including customs, language and religion),

and a link to a homeland. This leaves three criteria to be examined: a myth of common

ancestry; a shared history (including heroes, events and their commemoration); and a sense of

communal solidarity. These latter two are easily addressed by examining Philos works,while the former, a myth of common ancestry, proves more difficult.

Philo clearly takes part in the shared history of the Jewish people, evident throughout

his writings. Notably, one need only examine his treatises De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De

Vita Moysis and De Plantatione to find discussions about the Jewish Patriarchs and their


22/26


Stephen D. Louy



21

places within the Jewish tradition which, according to Eslers theory, suggests that Philo

identified himself as a Jew. However, a close examination of Philos Legatio ad Gaium

reveals that Philo makes reference to a shared Greek history, as well, when he discusses

Greek heroes like Castor, Pollux and Hercules, and the myths associated with them.

Addressing the Emperor Gaius Caligula, Philo compares Caligulas works to the fabled Ten

Labors of Hercules: But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and

your incessant displays of valour and virtue.... ( Legat . 1.90) Philo was engaged with both a

Jewish and a Greek shared history, at least to the extent that he was able to use said history as

a reference point in his writings. Similarly, he clearly felt a sense of communal solidarity

with both the Greek and Jewish communities of which he was a part. Philos sense of

solidarity with the Jewish community of Alexandria is not surprising, having seen already in

Legatio ad Gaium that he led the Jewish delegation from Alexandria to Rome. He also

discusses in this treatise those persons he describes as opponents to the Jewish community

in Alexandria, and never refers to his Jewish opponents as Greeks; instead, he calls them

Alexandrians and Egyptians. 51 This distinction is important for our discussion, as it

demonstrates that Philo did not wish members of the Greek identity, in which he included

himself, with those who were opposed to the Jewish identity, in which he also included

himself. Instead, by designating these opponents Egyptians, Philo is demonstrating

communal solidarity with his Greek identity, and expressing a bias against the Egyptian

people that began following the failed Persian invasion of Greece in the fifth-century BCE. 52

As with the other criteria, here Philo demonstrates aspects of both a Greek and Jewishidentity.

51. Philo seems to use Alexandrian and Egyptian interchangeably. Birnbaum, Perspective, 51. 52. Niehoff, Identity & Culture , 5255.


23/26


Stephen D. Louy



22

However, the final criteria to be discussed, a myth of common ancestry, offers a

stumbling block to our discussion of Greco-Jewish ethnic identifies. Though clearly Philo

adheres to the myth of his common Jewish ancestry, as evidenced by his discussion of the

Jewish Patriarchs, there is little, if any evidence that Philo embraced a myth of common

Greek ancestry. Perhaps the best argument in favor of a notion of common Greek ancestry is

Philos use of the words and , Greece and Greek respectively. These

proper names for the Greek homeland and people are derived, according to myth, from the

name of the ancient Greek king Hellen, 53 and it could be argued that Philo, living in a Greek

community and speaking the Greek language, would have been aware of this myth when

using and . This is at best a stretch of the imagination, and no case

suggesting Philo claimed some part in a common Greek ancestry can be made from this

observation. Thus, of Eslers six criteria, Philo demonstrates both Greek and Jewish ethnic

identifiers for five. Despite being unable to demonstrate nested identities according to each of

Eslers criteria, there is still overwhelming evidence within Philos writings which suggests

that he was both a Greek and a Jew, rather than one to the exclusion of the other, as

scholarship has for years sought to categorize him.

4. In Conclusion

Philo of Alexandrias influence in philosophy and religious study cannot be denied,

despite the debate surrounding his identity. Through his writings we have what is perhaps the

most famous account of the translation of the LXX, a treatise which places the Greek text on

the same authoritative level as the original Hebrew text, and though geographically isolated

from the mainstream Rabbinic Judaism centred in Palestine during the first-century CE, 54

53. Esler, Conflict , 58. 54. Mendelson, Identity , 1.


24/26


Stephen D. Louy



23

Philos works deal almost exclusively with the Jewish tradition; he masterfully combines

Jewish faith with Greek philosophy, making Judaism accessible to Greeks and Greek

philosophy accessible to Jews. This careful blending of two seemingly incompatible

traditions even brought Philos influence beyond either Greeks or Jews, a fact revealed by

references to Philo in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of Christianity. Philo is referenced

by influential Christian thinkers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa,

Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, all of whom were writing between the second and fifth-

centuries CE, 55 and all of whom were very influential in the development of the Christian

Church; Philo of Alexandria was so influential among the Church Fathers that he became

known as Philo Judaeus , Philo the Jew. However, this is something of a misnomer, as we

have seen, for Philo was not just a Jew. Through his nuanced blending of Jewish tradition and

Greek philosophy, Philo demonstrated that he belonged to both groups, and that he did not

hold one to be more valuable than the other; instead, his Greek identity informed and

enhanced his Jewish identity, and vice versa. In this light, our understanding of Judaism in

the Greco-Roman world may evolve beyond thinking these two cultures were somehow in

conflict with one another, allowing us to understand that, often, they were able to coexist, as

Philo demonstrates throughout his writings.

Traditionally, however, scholars have tried to force Philo into a category, either Greek

or Jew, and the debate over which is more fitting has gone on for many years. By

approaching Philo under the assumption that he is either a Greek or a Jew, modern

scholarship has overlooked or dismissed the carefully crafted nuances which reveal in hiswritings both sides of his ethnic identity, as with his varied uses of the word barbarian; in

fact, placing Philo into one of these categories is as difficult as categorizing Philos use of

55. Runia, References, 11316.


25/26


Stephen D. Louy



24

barbarian in De Vita Moysis proved to be at the outset of this paper. This passage,

discussed above, features both elements of Jewish identity (identifying the Hebrew Scriptures

as authoritative truth) and elements of Greek identity (derogatorily referring to non-Greeks,

in this case the Jews, as barbarians), and ignoring one in favor of identifying Philo as the

other is a great error in Philonic scholarship. A new approach to Philonic scholarship must be

adopted, one in which Philo is viewed as he viewed himself, as a mix of both Greek and Jew,

a Greco-Jew who belonged to a Greco-Jewish community. Moving beyond the debate over

Philos identity will allow Philonic scholarship to better understand not only the person of

Philo, but his community and his distinct and well-deserved place in Jewish, Christian and

Greek history, as well.


26/26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barker, Kenneth, ed. The New International Version Study Bible . Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishing House, 1995.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Birnbaum, Ellen. Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in First-Century Alexandria. The Studia Philonica Annual XIII (2001): 3758.

Borgen, Peder, Kre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria . Cambridge: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 2000.

Calabi, Francesca. The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of

Alexandria . Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian

Writings . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter .Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Herodotus. Histories . London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1982.

Homer. The Iliad . London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1924.

Jewett, Robert, Eldon Jay Epp, ed. Romans: A Commentary . Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2007.

Mendelson, Alan. Philos Jewish Identity . Atlanta: Fortress Press, 1988.

Niehoff, Maren R. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture . Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.

Philo. Works . Vol. I-X. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp. London:William Heinemann, Ltd., 195062.

Runia, David T. References to Philo from Josephus Until 1000 AD. The Studia Philonica Annual VI (1994): 11121.

Winston, David. Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philos Thought. The Studia Philonica Annual II (1990): 119.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,Christianity, and Islam . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Wong, C. K. Philos Use of Chaldaioi . The Studia Philonica Annual IV (1992): 114.

Yonge, C. D., trans., David M. Scholer. The Works of Philo . United States of America:Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2000.

Documents

Stephen Louy MWOP Philo's Barbarians