Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Philo of Alexandria: On Moses
>
On the Life Of Moses II. : open discussion
date
newest »
newest »
Philo herein depicts Moses in three offices; prophet, priest, and king. As prophet he intercedes for God to his people. As priest he intercedes to God on behalf of his people. As king he intercedes to discharge his office among the people.To me the element that sets Moses apart in Philo's work is that he is a "servant king". He does not lord over his subjects, but is subject to the true Lord, who actually monitors, directs and judges all people in all times. Moses thus becomes an "instrument of God" in all three stations.
Eric wrote: "Philo herein depicts Moses in three offices; prophet, priest, and king. As prophet he intercedes for God to his people. As priest he intercedes to God on behalf of his people. As king he intercedes..."I agree. It also reminds me of how Moses is depicted as a type of Christ in the New Testament.
Philo believes that Moses possessed the gift of prophesy, such that, when he was near death, he not only prophesied about the future of each tribe of Israel, but also what would happen to him after his own death.
Then, indeed, we find him possessed by the spirit, no longer uttering general truths to the whole nation but prophesying to each tribe in particular the things which were to be and hereafter must come to pass. Some of these have already taken place, others are still looked for, since confidence in the future is assured by fulfilment in the past.
When he was already being exalted and stood at the very barrier, ready at the signal to direct his upward flight to heaven, the divine spirit fell upon him and he prophesied with discernment while still alive the story of his own death ; told ere the end how the end came; told how he was buried with none present, surely by no mortal hands but by immortal powers;
I never imagined that the latter was humanly possible, but, now that I think about it, if a person has the gift of prophesy, and can predict the future of an entire nation, it is not impossible for him to predict his own afterlife.
Philo was born around 20 BC and died around 40 AD. An Egyptian Jew, he is only known to have been once in Jerusalem. He was as much a Greek philosopher as a devout Jew. He may have known Hebrew, but evidence suggests he read, studied and reflected on the Septuagint. He strikes me as akin to a liberal professor taking liberties with the actual Torah. He views Adam, Noah, and most Hebrew patriarchs as allegorical figures but presents "his Moses" as though he, himself, was given special revelation of the man.I love his work, and he confirms much of my own logical presupposition concerning Scripture and theology, but I give him no more credence than the writer of Thomas or other lesser known commentators on the Bible.
He was not accorded any esteem among leading Jews at the Temple in his day. Nor was he entertained by the early Church fathers. His work really only gained acceptance upon the passing of his contemporaries. It seems to me, that should cause us to pause and reflect on his true value in framing our beliefs.
Eric wrote: "He was not accorded any esteem among leading Jews at the Temple in his day. Nor was he entertained by the early Church fathers. His work really only gained acceptance upon the passing of his contemporaries. It seems to me, that should cause us to pause and reflect on his true value in framing our beliefs. "But couldn't that be said about lots of people who were later recognized as speaking important truths, not to mention Jesus as the biggest example of someone who was not accorded any esteem among leading Jews at the Temple?
Ruth wrote: "But couldn't that be said about lots of people who were later recognized as speaking important truths, not to mention Jesus as the biggest example of someone who was not accorded any esteem among leading Jews at the Temple? ..."Very good point, Ruth. But I still don't accord Philo the same standing as Jesus and the apostles when he describes Moses as though he (Philo) has been given peculiar revelation in describing Moses like he is seen nowhere else in Scripture or contemporary historical literature. I like your argument though. I'll ponder it.
Eric wrote: "He was not accorded any esteem among leading Jews at the Temple in his day. ..."You comment raised a few questions in my mind: How do we know that Philo wasn't esteemed among second-temple Jews? If he wasn't, who was?
Nemo wrote: " How do we know that Philo wasn't esteemed among second-temple Jews? If he wasn't, who was?..."Just going by what I've read, Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. It is routinely alleged the "keepers of the Temple" looked down on anyone outside Jerusalem who presumed standing in matters over which they had singular jurisdiction.
Philo did not regurgitate the Temple leaders' talking points and held distinctive views. That would not have gained him favor, and he did not come to Jerusalem to review or debate his interpretations and opinions regarding the Holy Scriptures. Even his view of Moses was an "outsider's perspective".
His work gained favor after the diaspora, when the fraternity of elites was broken up. Is that consistent with your exposure?
Like many noble scholars, his contributions proved invaluable and quite possibly inspired. Which, to me, says the institutional church and elite clergy of our day have no lock on truth either. God reveals what He will to whom He will when He wills as He will. If Our Lord can speak to His servants through as ass...
Eric wrote: "... It is routinely alleged the "keepers of the Temple" looked down on anyone outside Jerusalem who presumed standing in matters over which they had singular jurisdiction..."I have very little knowledge of second-temple Judaism. So I’m wondering if there are any Jewish writings from that period that reflect which Jewish writers were influential among his contemporaries, and the attitude of the religious “elite” toward “outsiders”.
Nemo wrote: "I’m wondering if there are any Jewish writings from that period that reflect which Jewish writers were influential among his contemporaries, and the attitude of the religious “elite” toward “outsiders..."Multiple Qumran scrolls depict the relationship, or lack thereof, with the Temple elite and those who dared to question them or stray from their edicts and opinions. The Bible allows for the inference but only Jesus issues an outright condemnation of the establishment elite. The political correctness of the day is evident. Like all institutions the Temple housed camps as evidenced when Paul did not align with Gamaliel. Some of Philo's thinking was not mainstream, and he was an "outsider". I'm not saying he was not respected and lauded, but it appears his ideas were not generally given much weight. What do you know?
Hi Nemo, you had said that you wanted to read this book because Philo had had such an influence on other church fathers. I was wondering, now that you've read it, was it as you expected, and can you now see why he has had such an influence?
Ruth wrote: "Hi Nemo, you had said that you wanted to read this book because Philo had had such an influence on other church fathers. I was wondering, now that you've read it, was it as you expected, and can y..."
It was as I expected :), and I liked it enough to read the other two works in the same Loeb Classical Library volume, "On Abraham" and "On Joseph".
Philo was a devout Jew and Platonist philosopher, so it is not surprising to find many similarities between him and the early Church Fathers who were also trained in philosophy, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. I'm not sure that he had a direct influence on the Fathers, though. It may very well be that they were drawing from the same source, or that they formulated their ideas independently.
Among other things, Philo's notion of (modal?) Trinity, Moses as the King, Lawgiver, High Priest and Prophet, and Moses as God-bearer are found in the early Fathers as well. In particular, Philo writes that Moses received the imprint of the image of God in himself when he spent 40 days on the mountain. Origen, in his book Against Celsus, elaborated on this motif: every believer bears the image of God in himself, which is far better than the man-made images and statues pagans dedicate to their gods.
Eric wrote: "...Multiple Qumran scrolls depict the relationship, or lack thereof, with the Temple elite and those who dared to question them or stray from their edicts and opinions. ..."The Qumran texts are in my to-read list. Thanks.
Josephus wrote about the three major religious sects among the Jews. Apart from the fact that they disagree on some points of doctrine and practices, I don't know what kind of relationship existed between these sects, or who were the influential figures.
Nemo, Ruth, and Clark... thank you for this thread. I enjoyed reading this work and gleaned much from your posts. I have never dug into the early Fathers and you have wetted my appetite. Thanks and God bless you. Good posts all.
Eric wrote: "Nemo, Ruth, and Clark... thank you for this thread. I enjoyed reading this work and gleaned much from your posts. I have never dug into the early Fathers and you have wetted my appetite. Thanks and..."You're welcome Eric. And welcome to the group!
Speaking of whetting the appetite, here are some excerpts from Philo posted on the group blog.On the Life of Moses Book 1: https://readingthechurchfathers.wordp...
On the Life of Moses Book 2: https://readingthechurchfathers.wordp...
With a study group in my church, we will study "The life of Moses" by Gregory of Nyssa. Now I just read the introduction, and I think it also explains a bit on the background of Philo.Here is a quote from the beginning of that introduction:
"The Christian Church, by receiving freedom and favors from the Empire of Rome, was endowed with a new opportunity and new responsibilities. It was now in a position of addressing itself not only to the simple folk in a few major cities with its "Good News" of the coming Kingdom in the risen Lord Jesus, but the entire world of educated aristocrats and intellectuals, trained in the traditions of syncretic Hellenism, was now ready to listen.
One of the major problems faced by Christianity in these new circumstances was that its Scriptures were Jewish Scriptures, that it claimed that Jesus was the Messiah foretold by Jewish prophets and that, therefore, the message of Jesus was not understandable except against the Old Testament background. Now the Hellenistic mind could hardly be receptive to the religious history of the obscure "barbarian" nation of the Jews. The Greek philosophical tradition and, in particular, the mystagogical trends of Neo-Platonism were open to a syncretistic absorption of Oriental religions, but not to the absolute claims of the Mosaic or Christian faiths.
At the time when Gregory of Nyssa was writing his Life of Moses, others had already tried to build a bridge between Hellenism and the Jewish Scriptures and, among them, particularly the Jew Philo and the Christian Origen. Gregory is indebted to them both."
Ruth wrote: "With a study group in my church, we will study "The life of Moses" by Gregory of Nyssa. Now I just read the introduction, and I think it also explains a bit on the background of Philo...."Ruth, after you finish reading "The Life of Moses" with your church group, maybe you can lead a group discussion of it here. :)
Nemo wrote: "Ruth, after you finish reading "The Life of Moses" with your church group, maybe you can lead a group discussion of it here. :) "Haha..hum..
Well, I suggested this book in the 'what shall we read next..' topic. Leading a group discussion is a bit too much for me, currently. Maybe another time..
The Life of Moses, Book I, was chronological. Book II is thematic. It makes a general case under a list of major headings.
From my initial quick scan of Book II it also seems to me to have a lot more Biblical meat in it -- for instance, there was a detailed description of the Tabernacle.
So, we can all take a deep breath and plunge into Book II as if it is a brand new text!