Philo as background for NT studies

Mentoring a study on 1 Cor 8-10, I had to review some studies dealing with these passages. In several of these, but not in all, Philo and his works are dealt with as part of the Jewish background to Paul's attitudes. A recent study, however, made me think a little about how we go on when we use Philo in this way, and how we teach our students to use Philo.

In the particular study I am here thinking about, Philo is dealt with as part of the "Background to Paul's attitudes to Idol food in Early Judaism." But Philo is dealt with primarily only on 5 pages, being characterized as "a Jew who fully assimilated Hellenistic culture and yet remained loyal enough to his Jewish heritage to risk his life in pleading the cause of Alexandrian Judaism before Gaius Caligula." I have my reservations about characterizing Philo as "a Jew who fully assimilated Hellenistic culture", but that depends upon how I/you define assimilation, and is not my issue here.

My main point here, however, is the fact that the author deals only with a few passages from Philo in this 'background' section; accordingly he provides a very limited view of Philo's views and attitudes concerning the issues focused in the letter of Paul. One gets the impression that the author, in fact, do not know Philo's works as well as he should. This impression of the authors lack of knowledge and use of Philo in the background section is confirmed in a disturbingly way when one proceeds and reads the main sections of this study. For Philo is never dealt with again in that study!

This raises some questions of methods both related to research procedures and presentation:
- when should we draw upon Philo as part of the Jewish background to a particular chosen topic?
- when Philo is not found worthy of further discussion in the main part of a study, why should there then be any need to focus on his views in a 'background' section? When he is not found relevant, why care about him?
- or is it sufficient reason to deal with him in an introductory section, only to demonstrate that he is not relevant? I would hardly think so.