Philo of Alexandria on the Logos

One of the most fascinating philosophical and theological thinkers who lived during the time of Jesus Christ was a Hellenistic-Jew from Alexandria named Philo.  He was born around 20 BC in the Jewish section of Alexandria where approximately 100,000 Jews worked, worshipped and lived. His family was prestigious and even Biblical.  His brother, Caius Julius Alexander, was the Alabarch of Alexandria (chief Roman tax collector), and his nephew, Marcus Julius Alexander was married to Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (mentioned in Acts 25:13). 

Philo’s strong Jewish and Greek educations shaped him into something of a “Judeo-Hellenic” philosopher.  Such a term would not have existed at the time, for if it had, it would have been contradictory. Neither the Jews nor the Gentiles fancied one another, and to even remotely conjoin the two would have proven paradoxical, given the Jewish insistence on separation.  These two ancient groups, the Jews on one side, the Gentiles (Greeks, Egyptians and Romans) on the other were about as far apart as possible.  Their social and religious circles would never cross paths with their mutually exclusive bias.  Even today, some scholars are prejudiced against applying the title of “philosopher,” to Philo because he was a devout Jew.  By refusing him credibility on the basis of his starting point, (Philo begins with God), they do him an intellectual injustice.

Philo began his philosophical inquiries from the perspective of divine revelation, while the Greeks had started from rational contemplation (Plato) and observation (Aristotle).  Both of these Greek schools (Platonic and Peripatetic) had long since vanquished the gods of Olympus as mythical, though they did conclude “God” in the end; albeit in various ways. To Plato, God was eternal and incorporeal residing, if you will, alongside the eternal realm of “Forms” or “Ideas” (abstracts of real reality).  To Aristotle, God was “the Unmoved Mover,” the necessary beginning, but beyond that, there was nothing special or personal about him.  For Philo, however, the Hebrew Scriptures, (the Septuagint), painted a different picture of God and also provided the litmus test for truth.  What truth?  The truth about God, the beginning of creation, and the concepts of virtue and justice name but a few of the areas explored.  By studying both Hebrew and Greek writings, Philo discovered that there were a number of truths held in common.  This inspired him to reconcile - as much as he could – the truths of philosophy with truths of scripture.  It was a stellar feat that may have been motivated by apologetics (or even conciliatory), and yet, like poor Van Gogh, the wealthy Philo was not to see his genius appreciated during his lifetime.  Indeed, for many centuries after, he was ignored by his own people and disregarded by Gentiles. Thankfully, however, there was another element of the population that not only appreciated his work, but preserved it for future generations: the early Church Fathers.  These Fathers would go on to make good use of Philo during their own interactions with the Greeks; particularly concerning the Logos.  In fact, the work of Philo was so appreciated that he was included in St. Jerome’s fourth century work De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men).

Unlike the Platonic, Peripatetic and Stoic schools of his day, Philo was a school unto himself.  In addition to his work in philosophy, he was also a biblical exegete; keen to use Hebrew Scripture allegorically in his interpretation of scripture while employing Greek philosophical terms and ideas somewhat tweaked in meaning.  For example, he utilized the Stoic concept of the Greek divine “reason” (Logos) by identifying it with the “Word” of Yahweh and describing the Logos/Word as an intermediate divine power (dynameis) between Yahweh and creation.  (The concepts of dynameis and energia are pronounced teachings in Eastern Orthodoxy). What was radically different, however, between the Stoic version of Logos and Philo’s, is that the later added the dimension of actual speaking. For Philo, based on Hebrew Scripture, the Logos/Word literally spoke (ho legon) to humanity at certain times.  Such is unparalleled in Greek thought, for it was Philo who notes that God “spoke” the world into existence and likewise verbally communicated with a human being (e.g. Moses and the burning bush).  This was not even a remote possibility for the Greeks, who, at times, thought of God as limited in power and also quite unaware of himself.  No such being could or would intelligently act as if it were a person.  

Since Philo, there has been much use of his theological and philosophical reconciliation by the earliest of Church Fathers.  Even St. John, who may or may not have known of Philo’s works, describes the Logos/Word in terms that Philo would have understood.  The great leap for Philo would have been the Incarnation of the Logos/Word in Jesus Christ.  As the Apostle John wrote in the beginning of his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God…” and a little further we read, “…and the world through him came to be, and the world did not recognize him.  To his own he came and his own did not receive him.”