Philo, a Leader with a Vision . . .

As mentioned in an earlier posting, I would like to present and briefly comment on a recent article of Ellen Birnbaum. As it is published in a volume not easily availably in a Norwegian setting, I am very grateful for her sending me a copy:
Ellen Birnbaum,
‘A leader with Vision in the ancient Jewish Diaspora. Philo of Alexandria,’
Jack Wertheimer, (ed.), Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2004) I:57-90.
There are not many studies coming to my mind, that explicitly deals with Philo as a leader; this may be one of the very few, if not the only one that has this topic as its main focus.

But how does one go about in order to write about Philo as a Leader? The first aspect that strikes one is that there is not much material to work with. Well, his book production is voluminous, but there are not much therein that explicitly deals with his role and function as a leader. And there are very few other literary works telling about him. Birnbaum is, of course, aware of these problems. She quite correctly points out that, with the exception of Josephus, we have in fact no other non-philonic sources dealing with Philo. Furthermore, his subsequent influence seems to have been limited both in the religious and political sphere (if I may use this rather anachronistic distinction).

There is, however, something to be found in his writings, and some inferences may be drawn from other aspects of his teachings as known from his writings, a careful reading between the lines. Birnbaum’s article is an interesting effort to make the best out of such a procedure.

Her article has several main headlines: The first one deals with The Political Situation in First Century Alexandria. Here she outlines the development the anti-Jewish activities in the city that resulted in the riots of 38CE. Philo does not tell us much about how this influenced his own life, except for his participation in a delegation to the Emperor. This role probably indicates that he enjoyed a certain position in the Jewish communities of Alexandria, but a closer description is difficult. Furthermore, one can surmise about what impact his family background had on this position (pp. 63-64) and Philo’s character (pp. 64-66). Here Spec. 3,1-6 is important, perhaps the most important passage in his works as it has a strong self-biographical nature.

Birnbaum also draws heavily on the various natures of Philo’s works, i.e., the Allegorical Commentary, the Exposition of the Law, and Questions and Answers as well as the other books less directly concerned with biblical texts: “central to Philo’s thought is the metaphor of vision, because he believed that the highest human goal was to “see God.” Philo’s ideas about God, virtue, and the Jews also constituted for him a vision, not only of the way things were, but also of the way things should have been”(69). This is important for Birnbaum when she further tries to spell out Philo’s message to different groups (71-79).

Her section, Portrayals of Leadership: The Virtues of the Ideal Leader, (80-82), then, presents how Philo evaluates Moses, Joseph, and Pharaoh as leaders, trying to draw lessons for the main topic from how he describes these. Moses is the consummate leader, the one who assumed the comprehensive roles of king, philosopher, legislator, priest and prophet. Hence he is the ideal leader. Joseph, however, is the politicos, the statesman, and Pharaoh the very opposite of a leader. Joseph, as a politicos, is a man of many sides and many forms (Jos34). One might here perhaps wonder if she underexposes the somewhat varied descriptions of Joseph in Philo’s works. De Josepho is probably the one most favorable to this character.

Then, in the last 9 pages of the article (Evaluating Philo’s leadership, 82-90), she comes to grip with a more direct description of Philo’s as a leader. Here she presents three criteria for her evaluation: “the apparent suitability and effectiveness of Philo’s messages for his contemporary situation; the ‘afterlife’ of Philo’s messages – that is what happened to his teachings after his time; and finally, the qualities Philo exhibited that may have enhanced his effectiveness as a leader” (83).
a) Central in Philo’s political message was his pride in the Jewish resistance to Caligula’s plans of erecting a statue in the Jerusalem Temple, his conviction that the Jews were especially protected by God, and that Philo favored peacable relations with the Romans. Furthermore, he presented the Jewish values as of universal importance; the Jewish Law, for instance, was to be considered a copy of the Law of nature. Birnbaum writes: “Philo’s attempt to make Jewish ways relevant, meaningful, and accessible to a broad audience was certainly fitting for his time and had the potential to enrich the commitment of loyal Jews to their religion, to bring alienated Jews back into the fold, and to impress his non-Jewish readers” (85).
b) An observation that may contradict the impact of Philo’s vision for his contemporaries is the fact that Philo’s politics was probably rejected by many of his contemporaries. We know nothing about if he had any followers during his life time, not to speak about after his time. His writings were not kept and cherished by later Jews, but by the Christians. Birnbaum does not, however, want to say that Jews rejected Philo because of his ideas. “It may rather be more correct to say that he was simply neglected” (86). Perhaps so, but I would have liked Birnbaum to have developed this a little more in her article.
c) The last section here, dealing with the qualities Philo exhibited that may have enhanced his effectiveness as a leader, is an effort to evaluate Philo’s (possible) success as a leader by identifying 3 characteristics that may have contributed to his effectiveness: namely “while participating in the surrounding culture, Philo clearly defined his values”; “Philo presented his messages to appeal to a variety of readers”; and “Philo maintained a vision of and commitment to the entire Jewish nation, especially in times of crisis.”

I think it is to correct to say that Birnbaum has a certain admiration for Philo. The last pages of her article certainly demonstrate that: Philo was “a man of great integrity” (88). One might, however, in some sections perhaps have expected a stronger focus on the possible conflict between “image and reality” as seems to be the focus of the volumes the article belongs to.

However, my overall assessment is that the article is informative, stimulating and interesting reading. It will certainly go into my files of articles dealing with the personal life of Philo. Birnbaum has given an informed presentation of aspects of Philo’s life from a perspective that has been neglected, and we are to be grateful for her contribution.