Kerkeslager, 'Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9503
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9503-kerkeslager-philo
@@@@95.3.16, Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature
David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A
Survey. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
section 3, volume 3. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993. Pp. xvi + 419. $35.00. ISBN 90-232-2713-1 bound (Van
Gorcum); 0-8006-2828-4, Code AC1-2828 (Fortress).
Reviewed by Allen Kerkeslager -- University of Pennsylvania
akerkesl@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
David Runia is well known in the field of scholarship on the
first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Once again
he has rendered a service to students of Philo. Philo in Early
Christian Literature: A Survey is an indispensable tool for
anyone studying the history of the transmission and influence of
Philo's works. The focus of the book is the impact of Philo on
Christian literature until 400 CE. But Runia also briefly traces
the use of Philo in Christian, Jewish, and other circles until
the rise of critical research on Philo in the 19th century.
The opening chapter describes the rise and development of
the legend that claimed Philo was a convert to Christianity.
Runia places the origin of this legend in a lost work of Clement
of Alexandria (p. 7). The chapter includes an overview of the
influence of Philo on Jewish and other western traditions. This
chapter also contains an important discussion of the textual
transmission of Philo's works with good photographs of the key
manuscript evidence. Runia argues that copies of Origen's volumes
of Philo that were made in Caesarea in the late fourth century
played the dominant role in the later textual history of Philo's
works (cf. p. 158). Chapter 2 presents general statements of
scope and methodology, expressing the unfortunate need to rely on
secondary sources in view of the vast terrain involved. Chapter 3
gives a brief critique of other major attempts to evaluate
Philo's impact on later western traditions. Chapters 4-15 survey
the use and influence of Philo from the first century to the
beginning of the fifth century. The concluding chapter 16
synthesizes the results of the study. This chapter notes how the
variety of relations between Christians and Jews often may have
been partly the cause for the variety of ways in which Philo was
used by early Christian authors (p. 345). An appendix lists
explicit references to Philo in Christian literature to ca. 1000
CE. The bibliography does double duty as an index by listing
after each bibliographical entry the pages on which the source
was used. The book ends with an index of biblical passages, an
index of Philonic passages, and a general index. There is
unfortunately no index of passages in ancient texts outside of
Philo and the Bible. One of the editing errors that is
potentially confusing is on p. 180 note 130, where the second
"Philo" should be replaced with "Origen."
The book is primarily an adroit synthesis of the state of
research on a wide variety of textual, thematic, and historical
issues. The vast body of secondary material surveyed in this book
would be enough in itself to render the book useful. Quotations
from secondary sources are usually well chosen and illuminating.
But Runia does attempt to contribute some of his own thoughts to
the study of each ancient author's use of Philo. Runia tries as
much as possible to treat each ancient author on the author's own
terms. This approach precludes the extended pursuit of a unifying
thesis throughout the book. The absence of any more than an
inchoate thesis coupled with the lengthy summaries and critiques
of secondary research often make for tedious reading. One
breathes a sigh of relief when Runia discusses ancient works on
which little relevant research has been done. In these cases
Runia is able to present some of his own fresh insights supported
by helpful quotations of neglected ancient sources (e.g., pp.
184-89; 266-70). Most quotations from Latin and Greek are given
in both the original and in modern (not necessarily English)
translation. Occasionally untranslated German and French do
appear within the body of the text, especially in the lengthy
quotations from modern scholarship.
Despite the limitations imposed by the nature of the study,
Runia is able to come to a number of general conclusions that few
will dispute (pp. 335-42). (1) Philo was used by early Christian
authors as a source for historical and apologetic material. (2)
Philo was important to early Christian authors because of his
role as an interpreter of the Bible. (3) Philo was important in
early Christianity as a philosopher and theologian. Runia
concludes, "The importance of Philo's contribution to Patristic
thought lies above all in his role as a mediator between the
biblical and the philosophical tradition" (p. 339; cf. pp.
155-56, 169-70, 174-78).
Runia recognizes that the study of an ancient text is
inseparable from the study of its transmission and preservation.
This point is made especially clear in the instances in which he
discusses how an ancient author's comments provide a witness to
the text of Philo (e.g., pp. 297-300). One might even suggest
that Runia's book is largely an elaboration of the stemma of the
textual transmission of Philo's works presented at the beginning
of the book (p. 18). Not all will agree with Runia's emphasis on
the pivotal role of Origen in the history of Philo's text and
ideas. But Runia's manner of presentation makes it difficult to
criticize him on this issue. He qualifies every tenuous point in
his argument with characteristic caution and with discussions of
other possible avenues of development. He indicates that one of
these avenues is the direct access to Philonic material in
Alexandrian traditions that were not mediated through Origen (pp.
184-211). He does not hesitate to supply evidence for other
possible indications of variant textual traditions (pp. 275,
297-300). One is left wondering if these discussions do not
indicate that the transmission of Philo's works and ideas might
be a bit more complicated than Runia would like to admit. The
departure of Origen from Alexandria did not bring to an end
either the intellectual ferment in Alexandria or the intense
trade between Alexandria and other intellectual centers of Late
Antiquity.[[1]]
Runia's emphasis on the model of textual transmission and
literary dependence for explaining Philo's "reception" in
Christian literature is occasionally frustrating because of the
kinds of questions it fails to raise. Word counts and parallel
columns that set the language, ideas, and words of one author
next to those of another are extremely helpful tools when one is
seeking to trace the direct dependence of one author on another
(pp. 108-109; 115; 117; 223, 227; 257; 263; 287; 303). It is
definitely one of the safest ways to demonstrate historical
relationship. It preserves Runia from the need to argue the more
ambitious kinds of theses such as those proposed by Wolfson and
others criticized in chapter 3. But literary dependence or its
absence does not necessarily provide an accurate index of the
influence of an author. Freud's impact on modern literature goes
well beyond what may be discerned by the use of quotations or
phraseology. Philo's impact on Christian literature also may go
well beyond what Runia has been able to identify through his
approach.
Runia's approach is partly shaped by his expertise in the
study of philosophy and the history of ideas. His approach
assumes that early Christian "literature" may be defined as the
product of thinking authors who are conscious of the intellectual
debt that they owe to the writings of the great thinkers that
they have studied. One may, however, define "literature" in terms
other than the product of a thinking author. Literature also may
be viewed as the epiphenomenon of social developments, as the
instrument of rhetorical strategies, and as the deposit of new
traditions in the history of an artistic form. A socio-historical
approach or some other approach may suggest a number of other
avenues for explaining the influence of Philo.
For example, Runia's discussion of Paul and his opponents
focuses primarily upon parallels and oppositions in the use of
terminology shared with Philo (pp. 66-74). What might have been
more helpful is a discussion of the way that Philo's references
to various social groups that practiced different styles of
hermeneutics may be used to understand the social setting of
Paul's opponents and the rhetorical strategy by which Paul
opposed them.[[2]] In another discussion Runia describes a "gulf
that separates the hermeneutical theory and practice of the
Alexandrian and the Antiochene schools" in the fourth century (p.
269). Philo's references to various hermeneutical groups might
have illuminated an early stage of the developments that led to
this gulf. Runia discusses the influence of Philo on a number of
early Christian apologists. But he only hints at the possible
contribution of Philo to the history of the apologetic enterprise
itself (pp. 97, 116, 337). William Schoedel's work implies that
even Christian apologists who did not read Philo may have been
part of an apologetic tradition that Philo helped to shape.[[3]]
Another weakness is Runia's preference for "canonical"
authors in his definition of "early Christian literature." One
striking example is the complete absence of any discussion of the
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.[[4]] Although the theology
of the Recognitions is quite orthodox, there is no certain
evidence that it was produced by one of the recognized "fathers."
Recognitions 1.32.3-4 may echo Philo when it describes
Abraham's reasoning to the knowledge of God from his
understanding of astrology (Philo, Cher. 4; Ebr.
94; Mig. 177-87; Quis Her. 96-99; Mut.
67-76; Abr. 68-72; Virt. 212-14; Praem. 58).
Recognitions 8.9.1-8.34.8 contains a long philosophical
discussion that climaxes in an argument for the existence of God
from creation (8.20.1-8.34.8). This argument follows Philo in its
favorable use of Plato's Timaeus. It also uses an image of
God as an architect that is similar to Philo's Opificio
Mundi 15-20. The main point of the argument reflects the
Philonic emphasis on the wisdom (sapientia = Gk.
sophia) and reason (ratio = Gk. logos) that
the Creator displayed in creation. The conclusion of the
philosophical discussion epitomizes this major Philonic theme.
The speaker asserts that creation implies "ratio, id est
logos" (Recognitions 8.34.8). The gloss on
ratio was probably inserted by the Latin translator in an
effort to retain the language of the Greek original. The context
places the logos of this passage squarely within the
symbolic universe of Philo.
The absence of texts such as the Recognitions from
Runia's discussion should warn the reader that Runia's book is
only a starting place for research on its stated topic. Runia
himself is quite aware that much remains to be done even on the
authors he does discuss (pp. 342-44).
Despite the weaknesses that are inevitable in a work of this
scope, Philo in Early Christian Literature is essential
reading for anyone engaged in research related to the concerns of
the book. The book is probably too technical and too narrowly
focused for use by most undergraduate students, but it will serve
as a useful tool for advanced scholars who are initiating any
project relating to the use of Philo in later texts. Specialists
interested only in Philo will also not want to miss the book
because of its importance for research on the history of the text
of the Philonic corpus.
NOTES
[[1]] Christopher Haas, Late Roman Alexandria: Social
Structure and Intercommunal Conflict in the Entrepot of the
East (Ph.D. Dissertation; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1988).
[[2]] E.g., in Gal 4:21-31 Paul's use of allegory is
uncharacteristic. Paul may have felt compelled to shift to
allegory because his opponents, like some of the hermeneutical
groups mentioned by Philo, prided themselves on their insight
into the allegorical meaning of the Jewish Scriptures and
denigrated those who emphasized a more "literalistic" hermeneutic
(such as Paul used in Gal 3:13, 16). For a survey of research on
allegorizers, "literalists," and other groups mentioned by Philo,
see Burton L. Mack, "Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in
Alexandria," ANRW II.21.1 (1984) 227-71.
[[3]] William R. Schoedel, "Apologetic Literature and
Ambassadorial Activities," Harvard Theological Review 82
(1989) 55-78. This article is not discussed by Runia, though some
of Schoedel's other work receives attention.
[[4]] The passing mention of "the Pseudo-Clementines" on
p. 327 has little to do with the Recognitions. The context
requires reference to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and a
document known as the Kerygmata Petrou. The Kerygmata
Petrou is a reconstructed source document derived primarily
from material in the Homilies. This reconstructed document
has a very different emphasis than the Recognitions. The
Kerygmata Petrou should not be confused with the
Kerygma Petrou mentioned on p. 122. The Kerygma
Petrou is an entirely different work known from excerpts
quoted by Clement of Alexandria.