Barbarian

Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo

By Stephen D. Louy* Marys Well Occasional Papers are published by Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

Director of Publications and Editor: Duane Alexander Miller

Citation:

Louy, Stephen D. Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo in Marys Well Occasional Papers, 1:2, March (Nazareth, Israel: Nazareth Evangelical Theologi- cal Seminary 2012).

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Abstract: This paper is intended to contribute to the continued effort to understand Philo of Alexandrias ethnic self-identification. Scholarship has long sought to determine whether Philo would be better understood in terms of Jewish or Greek identity, noting that he displays characteris- tic features of both groups. This paper examines Philos use of the Greek word barbaros, barbarian, in order to highlight the dual nature of Philos self-identification, and suggests that his writings would best be under- stood as deriving from a person who possessed what Philip Esler calls multiple identities. Key Words: Philo, barbarian, ethnicity, identity, Esler, Judaism

1 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Despite the fact that modern scholarship has struggled to understand him, very little is known about Philo of Alexandria. We have no autobiography of his life, though we are able to draw some conclusions about the person from his works. Philo wrote of himself in Legatio ad Gaium that he is by birth a Jew, and my native city is Jerusalem.... It fell to me to have for my grandparents and ancestors kings... (2.278).1 Additionally, there are two references to Philo in the writings Josephus, the only such references known from contemporaries of Philo in the first-century CE.2 We learn from both Philos own works and from the references of Josephus that Philo led the embassy of Alexandrian Jews to meet the Emperor Gaius Caligula.3 These facts tell us that Philo either was born in or felt a deep connection to the city of Jerusalem, but lived in Alexandria and was a prominent member of the Jewish community there. In fact, he is known as Philo the Jew4 in many later Christian works. Much of the rest of what we know, or think we know about Philo has been gleaned from his writings by scholars, very far removed from him, and this has given rise to much debate. Ellen Birnbaum sums up one aspect of this debate quite nicely when she writes, [s]o prominent is the mix of
*Stephen D. Louy holds an MA in Biblical Languages from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA, and recently completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Edinburgh. His dissertation is entitled The Origins of Christian Identity in the Letters of Paul. Currently, Louy is researching projects exploring Pauls use of mixing language with regard to creating purity-based outsiders for his communities. In coming research, he intends to explore the establishment of a Christian counter-narrative to the Roman Empire in the first three centuries CE. 1. Philos Legatio Ad Gaium details this embassy. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Philo are from the Loeb Classical Library Series: Philo, Works, vol. I-X, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 195062). 2. The Josephus references are found in Antiquitates Iudaeorum, 18.8.257-260, 4.186. Written in the first century CE, both occurences refer to Philo, leader of the Embassy of Alexandrian Jews to the Emperor Gaius. The next earliest reference to Philo comes from Clement of Alexandria, writing in the late second century CE. David T. Runia, References to Philo from Josephus Until 1000 AD, The Studia Philonica Annual VI (1994): 132. 3. C. D. Yonge, trans., David M. Scholer, The Works of Philo (United States of America: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2000), xii. 4. Yonge and Scholer, Philo, xi.

2 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Greek and Jewish elements in his works that scholars have often debated whether Philo was more a Greek or a Jew.5 It is precisely this debate over Philos ethnic identity which I wish to address in this paper, in an attempt to shed new light on an old topic. Where does Philo fall on the spectrum of identification? Is he best understood as a Jew, or as a Greek? Philos primary concern, notes Francesca Calabi, was with the translation and interpretation of language,6 and we would be remiss as scholars if we did not afford his works the same attention he afforded them himself. Given that all we have by which to assess Philo and his life, it is his use of language that provides the most insights to understanding his selfidentification. Modern scholarship has struggled to better understand Philo, but has done so by attempting to categorize him as either a Greek or a Jew based on his writings, and then to understand his writings in light of that categorization. However, this approach leaves much to be desired. It is clear, both from examples within Philos work itself and from the scholarship which exists on both sides of the Greek/Jew debate that Philo is neither one nor the other. Instead, he views himself as both a Greek and a Jew, and demonstrates this Greco-Jewish ethnicity throughout his writings, exhibiting what Philip F. Esler describes as nested or multiple identities.7 Scholarship has approached Philo as either a Greek or Jew, and in order to do so has overlooked or dismissed characteristics representing the other side of his Greco-Jewish identity. We will begin this discussion with an examination of Philos use of the word barbarian, which provides a clear example of Philos nested identities, and will
5. Ellen Birnbaum, Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in First-Century Alexandria, The Studia Philonica Annual XIII (2001): 28. 6. Francesca Calabi, The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of Alexandria (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 1. 7. Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 49.

3 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

provide a new understanding of how Philo viewed himself as a Greco-Jew, and how scholarship should, in turn, view him. 1. Barbarians in Philo The Greek word is defined primarily as speaking a foreign language, and also as one who is not Greek, foreign, barbarous.8 However, despite originally being the term by which Greeks referred to non-Greeks, came to carry with it very negative connotations, much as it does today. Philip Esler notes that [t]he cardinal Greek virtues as defined in fourth-century philosophy normally included wisdom or intelligence, manliness or courage, discipline or restraint, and justice. Conversely, stupidity, cowardice, abandonment and lawlessness are ascribed to barbarian characters,9 and Eslers citation of fourthcentury philosophy suggests that barbarian took on its negative connotations following the attempted Persian invasion of Greece. Additionally, Robert Jewett observes: In the bilingual context of Rome (i.e., in the first-centuries BCE and CE), Greek means Greco-Roman while barbarians refers to alien tribes who cannot speak Greek or Latin and are uncultured, wild, crude, fierce and, in a basic sense, uncivilized.10 In short, barbarian was a very Greek way to refer to the rest of the world in a very negative manner. Three derivations of the Greek word for may be found in the works of Philo, these being (as seen above, the Greek adjective meaning barbarous or, used substantively, non-Greek, foreign, barbarian) and two substantive participle forms derived from the Greek verb (meaning to behave or speak like a barbarian):
8. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 132. 9. Esler, Conflict, 61. 10. Robert Jewett, Eldon Jay Epp, ed., Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 13031.

4 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

and . Forms of these three words occur a total of 53 times,11 and it is helpful for this discussion to place each usage into one of three categories: a whole world reference; a derogatory reference; or, a positive reference. By far the most common use of the word barbarian, occurring 43 times, is in tandem with a form of the word for Greek or Greece, a set phrase used by the Greeks to denote the whole world. In this construction, Greek refers to the civilized Greek speaking part of the world, while barbarian encompasses the uncivilized non-Greek speakers. Thus, everyone is included.12 The second most common use of barbarian, appearing seven times, is the derogatory reference. In these passages, Philo is criticizing some aspect of barbarian life or culture, using a sweeping generalization to encompass all barbarians, or non-Greek speakers.13 This derogatory use is actually not far removed from the whole world reference, where barbarian is used to mean the uncivilized peoples who were not viewed as Greeks. However, in the derogatory classification, Philo specifically refers to barbarians or barbarian culture as cruel or uncivilized, rather than using the term merely as a means of identifying non-Greeks in conjunction with Greek. For example, a whole world reference reads, For the majority of wars...have consumed the greatest and choicest part of the Greek race and the barbarian also.... (Ios. 56), while a derogatory reference reads, Barbarian nations...have for long admitted child sacrifice as a holy deed...and this practice is...an abomination. (Abr. 181)
11. Peder Borgen, Kre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 63. 12. The word barbarian with Greek to denote the whole world are found in the following passages: Opif. 128; Ebr. 193; Conf. 6, 6, 190; Mut. 35; Plant. 67; Cher. 91; Abr. 136, 267; Ios. 30, 30, 56, 134; Mos. 2:12, 18, 19, 20; Decal. 153; Spec 1:211; Spec. 2:44, 165; Spec. 4:120; Praem. 165; Prob. 73, 94, 98, 138; Contempl. 21, 48; Legat. 8, 8, 83, 102, 141, 145, 147, 162, 292; Prov. 2:15, 66, 68; QE isf 4. 13. The derogatory uses of barbarian are found in the following passages: Legat. 116, 215; Abr. 181, 184; Spec. 3:17, 163.

5 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Philo also offers an occasional positive comment regarding barbarians, and this use comprises two of the appearances of barbarian in Philos work. Rather than criticize something about barbarian life, Philo instead holds some aspect of barbarism up as an example of correctness.14 For example, Philo writes (lit. Among the barbarian [nation])...we find large associations of men of the highest excellence. (Prob. 74) For greater ease, Table 1 illustrates the categorical break down of each of the words defined above.

Table 1 Total

Whole World 37 6 0 43

Derogatory 2 4 1 7

Positive 2 0 0 2

It should be noted, however, that Table 1 accounts for only 52 of the 53 total uses of barbarian. The final appearance of the word barbarian in the Philonic corpus proves difficult to place into one of these three categories. Found in De Vita Moysis, during Philos discussion of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, this last appearance of barbarian reads as follows: Then it was that some people, thinking it a shame that the laws should be found in one half only of the human race, ([in] the barbarian [half]), and denied altogether to the Greeks, took steps to have them translated. (Mos. 2.27) This use is neither positive nor negative in its meaning, neither degrading nor uplifting some aspect of barbarian society, and thus it cannot be placed in either the derogatory or positive
14. The positive uses of barbarian are found in the following texts: Spec. 1:313; Prob. 74.

6 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

reference categories. Conversely, this use does not fall into the whole world reference category, wherein Philo uses the term Greek to mean Greek speakers and barbarian to mean all non-Greeks; instead, Philo here is referring to one specific group of barbarians, and it is not difficult to figure out which group he means. Given his Jewish background and the subsequent recounting of the translation of the LXX, Philos use of the phrase the laws clearly indicates that he is referring to the Torah. Part of the Hebrew Scriptures, this set of laws was unique to the Jewish people in the ancient world;15 when Philo here said barbarian, he meant Jew. When viewed as nothing more than the word by which Greeks referred to non-Greeks, as in the whole world reference discussed above, Philos use of barbarian does not seem in any way abnormal. In the words of Maren Niehoff, Philo identified with the Greek language to such an extent that he once called Hebrew speakers barbarians.16 But this statement falls short of a suitable explanation. Here we arrive at the focal point of this paper. This statement is a prime example of modern scholarships shortcomings in addressing Philos ethnic identity. It is the tendency of Philonic scholarship to focus on examples of one ethnic identity only, to assume that Philo thought of himself in these same terms, and thus to overlook or dismiss examples of the other. 2. Scholarship Falls Short Niehoff suggests, as seen above, that Philo used barbarian to mean non-Greek, and that he naturally included the Jews in this category, thus excluding them from any form of Greek identity. Niehoffs statement assumes two things: first, that this use of vocabulary would not be uncommon in Philos writings, and second, that Philo thought of himself as a
15. During his lifetime, the emerging Christian movement also claimed the Hebrew Scriptures as part of their faith tradition; however, given that Philo lived at the end of the First Century BCE and the beginning of the First Century CE (Calabi, Language, 1), it seems unlikely that the Christian movement would have spread far enough to have had an influence on Philo. 16. Maren R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 139.

7 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Greek, and did not consider Jews to be part of that group. By suggesting that Philo called the Jews barbarians merely because that is the terminology that would have been used commonly to refer to Jews, Niehoff is overlooking the fact that Philo demonstrates an ample vocabulary with which to refer to the Jews as a specific group throughout his body of work, and uses this vocabulary in every instance except the one in question. In addition to this one instance of barbarian, Philo uses three different terms to refer to Jews: and related forms 63 times;17 and related forms 112 times;18 and and related forms 38 times,19 of which 18 uses refer to the Jews.20 Niehoff also assumes that Philo thought of himself as a Greek, and did not consider the Jewish people to be Greek. The passage in question, rendered above, in which Philo distinguishes the Jews as barbarians, implies that Philo did not consider the Jews to be part of the Greek world, as Niehoff suggests. While it is not unfair to claim that Philo thought of himself as a Greek, it is unfair to claim that he did not consider the Jews to be part of this category. There is ample evidence to support the notion that Philo understood himself and other Jews to have elements of both Greek and Jewish identity. For example, Philo himself spoke Greek and was living in Alexandria, a highly Hellenized city; in many Hellenized cities within the Mediterranean region, notably Alexandria, use of the Greek language became the way many people designated Greekness, and barbarian became the term which referred to non-Greek speaking people.21 Moreover, these cities contained substantial populations [that] considered themselves Greeks, that is, they had this ethnic identity, marked by the use of the Greek language and involvement in other features of Greek
17. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index, 101. 18. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index, 179. 19. Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, Index, 359. 20. C. K. Wong, Philos Use of Chaldaioi, The Studia Philonica Annual IV (1992): 3. 21. Esler, Conflict, 59.

8 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

culture....22 And Philo was almost certainly aware of a large Greek-speaking Jewish population outside his Alexandrian community. David Winston posits that Philos audience was, in fact, the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora.23 Philo himself was conversant with the LXX tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures, and he probably had very little knowledge of the Hebrew language.24 Ellen Birnbaum even observes that, in two of his works, Philo actually includes Jews among the Greek speaking world by referring to the Greek language as our language,25 thus identifying both himself and other Jews living throughout the Mediterranean as Greeks. Niehoffs implication that Philo did not consider Jews to belong to the Greek classification carries little weight in light of this evidence. It would appear that Niehoff falls on the Greek side of the Greek/Jew debate. However, he concludes his work by stating that Philos discussion of the Greeks (and thus his Greek ethnic identity) reveals a keen sense of cultural competition between Greeks and Jews, which was based on a comparison between the achievements of the two nations.26 This almost seems like a statement in support of a theory of nested identity in Philo, but we have already seen that Niehoffs discussion dismisses Philos striking use of barbarian in De Vita Moysis as nothing more than an example of his Greekness and a dismissal of Jewishness, and glosses over evidence which suggests this usage was unusual in Philos works and that Philo did consider Jews to be part of the Greek world. Similarly, Birnbaum seems to be siding with the Greek faction of the debate, providing ample evidence of Philos Hellenistic ethnicity, as noted above. She eventually
22. Esler, Conflict, 75. 23. David Winston, Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philos Thought, The Studia Philonica Annual II (1990): 1. 24. Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 8890. 25. Birnbaum, Perspective, 47. The texts in question are: Conf. 129; and Congr. 44. 26. Niehoff, Identity & Culture, 143.

9 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

concludes, however, that there is a current in his thinking that may be seen as critical of the Greeks.... This current, moreover, is but part of a larger stance, whereby Philo presents the Jews as better than everyone....27 According to Birnbaum, Philo does not think of the Jews as either Greeks or barbarians, but as something altogether different from and superior to both Greeks and barbarians. Given the earlier citations of Birnbaums argument, notably that Philo did include the Jews among the Greeks twice in his writings, this seems like an odd conclusion to draw. Indeed, such a statement blatantly dismisses evidence, noted by Birnbaum in her own writings, that the Greeks were esteemed by Philo,28 giving the impression that Birnbaum is overlooking even her own observations in order to classify Philo as a Jew. While Birnbaum does not state that Philo regards himself as solely a member of the Jewish identity group, or that he does not display elements of Greek identity, she does not address the issue of multiple identities which are evident in Philos works. Other scholars have tackled the issue of Philos ethnic identity head-on. In his work Philos Jewish Identity, Alan Mendelson puts forth the view, rather surreptitiously, that Philo was more a Greek than a Jew. However, what is striking about his argument is that Mendelson makes this claim in a discussion about Philos Jewish identity. Citing Philos Quod Deus sit immutabilis (On the Unchangeableness of God) 61-64, Mendelson theorizes that there were two groups of Jews in Philos community, those who were capable of appreciating philosophical wisdom (with whom Philo himself would have associated), and those who were incapable of grasping the higher truths of theology.29 Continuing his thinking, Mendelson concludes that Philo held two complementary beliefs: first, that the Bible was written on the level of the philosophically unsophisticated; and second, that the
27. Birnbaum, Perspective, 4041. 28. Birnbaum, Perspective, 39, 41, 47, 57. 29. Alan Mendelson, Philos Jewish Identity (Atlanta: Fortress Press, 1988), 4.

10 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

truth of Scripture could be approached, if not reached, by allegory.30 Though he seems to be saying that Philo thought of himself as a Jew, albeit one of the better class of Jews, Mendelson is actually making a case for a dominant Greek identity in Philo by suggesting that the more sophisticated Jews were those who, like Philo, approached Jewish tradition through Greek philosophy. Mendelson does not address nested ethnic identity in Philo, but instead presents a figure steeped in Hellenism and opposed to Judaism; the only good Judaism, according to Mendelsons theory, is highly Hellenized Judaism. However, despite the lack of direct address by Mendelson, this view does highlight the multiple layers of identity which Philo held. David Winston provides perhaps the most frustrating example of Philonic scholarship regarding ethnic identity. Winston observes that Philo produced a remarkable synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism,31 in his writings. Surprisingly, Winston seems torn as to how to classify Philo, and even comes close to suggesting the concept of nested identity within Philos writings; he does not overlook or dismiss elements of Philos identity on one side in favor of the other. It is in Winstons work that scholarship begins to understand Philo in terms of Eslers concept of nested identities which are not in conflict but coexistence with one another. Yet Winston still aligns himself with the polarities of the Greek/Jew debate, drawing the conclusion that: although he allows the Jewish side of his thought the dominant place in his presentation, Philo invariably tones it down by introducing some philosophical (i.e., Greek) twist and by allowing the perceptive reader a glimpse of his true position.32 Winston clearly understands that Philo is neither a Greek nor a Jew, but possesses elements of both identities, and yet still concludes his work by placing Philo into one of the categories
30. Mendelson, Identity, 8. 31. Winston, Tensions, 19. 32. Winston, Tensions, 18.

11 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

that he himself understands are inadequate in describing Philo. Though he comes close to taking a balanced, nuanced approach to understanding Philos ethnic identity, Winston, too, fails to appreciate the prevalent Greco-Jewish identity in the works of Philo. Though scholarship has tried to place Philo into one of these categories, as we have seen in a small sampling of said scholarship, one cannot identify Philo as Greek to the exclusion of Jew, and neither can one identify Philo as Jew to the exclusion of Greek. Rather, Philo is best described as a Greco-Jew. If we return to our barbarian example, Philo is demonstrating neither competition nor superiority in his ethnic identities. Rather, he is demonstrating a balance or harmony between his ethnic identities, and thus their equal prominence in Philos view of himself. In this passage from De Vita Moysis, Philo makes reference to both his Greek and Jewish roots without trying to show that one was better than the other; with one stroke of his pen, he called the Jewish people barbarians, and with the next he upheld their Scriptures as authoritative truth of importance and public utility (Mos. 2.28) for all people. This is perhaps the most striking example of the balanced portrayal of the Greek and Jewish aspects of Philos identity within his works, and is indicative of a GrecoJewish identity. 3. Nested Identities in Homer, Histories, and the First-Century In his work Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter, Dr. Esler explores the multiple ethnic identities of the Greco-Roman world. His discussion proves to be quite helpful in examining Philos ethnic identity. To begin, Esler lists six criteria by which an individual may identify him-or-herself or another with a particular ethnic group: 1) a common proper name to identify the group; 2) a myth of common ancestry (note myth, since the genealogical accuracy of the claimed descent is irrelevant; 3) a shared history or shared memories of a common past, including heroes, events and their commemoration; 4) a common culture, embracing such things as customs, language, and religion; 5) a link with a homeland, either through actual occupation or by symbolic
12 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

attachment to the ancestral land, as with Diaspora peoples, and 6) a sense of communal solidarity.33

Esler suggests that the two most useful of these criteria in identifying ones own ethnic identity in the ancient world were a myth of common ancestry and a connection, real or symbolic, with a homeland,34 while the most widely used criterion in assigning ethnic identity to another person was the language which that person used in day-to-day life. However, none of these criteria, at first glance, helps to shed light on the question of Philos ethnic identity; Philo was a Greek-speaking Jew, and a Greek or Roman might have considered him a Greek because of this.35 However, even though he lived in an Egyptian city, surrounded by Greek influence and ruled by Rome, he clearly felt some sort of connection to Jerusalem and the ancestral land of the Jews. In addition to writing that Jerusalem was my native city, as cited above in Legat. 2.278, Philo also writes that ...the city of God is called in Hebrew Jerusalem and its name when translated is vision of peace (Somn. 2.250).36 There are ethnic identifiers throughout Philos work that point to both Greek and Jewish identity, but none which point to either Greek or Jewish ethnic identity exclusively. However, Eslers discussion of ethnic identity suggests the possibility of a different approach to the subject, expanding beyond the notion that an individual belongs to only one identity group with what Esler calls nested or multiple identities: Ethnic identities, Esler writes, are not exclusive.37 Focusing most of his discussion on primarily Hellenistic people in the ancient world, he turns to the writings of Homer, a seventh-century poet, and Herodotus, a fifth-century BCE historian, to provide examples of nested Greek identities.
33. Esler, Conflict, 4344. 34. Esler, Conflict, 44. 35. Esler, Conflict, 59. 36. Philo, Works. 37. Esler, Conflict, 50.

13 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

A list of Grecian ethnic subgroups can be found in Homers epic The Iliad, in the famous Catalogue of Ships passage.38 Here, Homer describes all the different Greek subgroups that sailed to the Trojan War, often providing details about their homelands and rulers. This is a clear demonstration of several independent groups who shared common ties of culture, language and ancestry; Agamemnon, King of Mycenae, is the supreme commander of the Greek forces, but Odysseus, King of Ithaca, is a major character, and Achilles, the main character of Homers tale, is the son of Peleus, King of the Myrmidons. Though all are Greeks, each comes from a different ethnic background to unite as the common group Greeks. Similarly, in passages from Herodotus Histories we find several examples of nested Greek identity. Histories deals mostly with the attempted Persian conquest of Greece, and at one point Herodotus describes how the Athenians explain to a Spartan envoy why they have rejected an offer of peace from Xerxes, king of Persia, before the battle of Plataea in 479 BCE. In so doing, he provides an example which contains the ethnic identifiers laid out by Esler: Then there is the Greek people, which has the same blood and the same language, together with the common cult places, the sacrifices and the similar customs, which it would be ignoble for Athens to betray (8.144.2).39 Four of the six criteria to identify ethnic identity are stated in this passage: 1) a common proper name, , also rendered ; 2) a claim to common ancestry (which has the same blood); 3) a common culture (with the common cult places, sacrifices and the similar customs); and 4) a sense of communal solidarity (which it would be ignoble for Athens to betray).40 The last two criteria are both implied in the passage, a common Greek history in the acknowledgement of a common name, ancestry, culture and sense of solidarity, and the
38. From the Loeb Classical Library, translated by A. T. Murray: Homer, The Iliad (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1924), 2.492785. 39. Esler, Conflict, 56. 40. Esler, Conflict, 56.

14 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

name , by which the Greek lands were known, in the proper name of the Greek people. Yet this passage also provides evidence to support Eslers notion of nested identities by identifying the people of Athens as a subgroup of the larger group called Greek. Earlier in this text Herodotus provides additional evidence of nested Greek identity when he describes the different Greek ethnicities that band together to fight the invading Persian force in 480 BCE. In his account, those gathered at Thermopylae to repel Xerxes forces are as follows: Spartans; Tegeans; Mantineans; Arcadians; Corinthians; Phlians; Mycenaeans, Peloponnesians; Boetians; Thespians; Thebans; Locrians; Phocians; and Athenians (Histories 202-203).41 Though Greece would not be united by Philip II and later his son Alexander the Great for another century, each of these subgroups of Grecian identity rose to defend the common nation of Greece, despite being somewhat ethnically separate from one another. Esler concludes that sometimes the bearers of multiple identities highlight one to conform to the local context and sometimes to express their distinction from it,42 therefore, it is not surprising that the residents of Greece in the ancient world would identify themselves differently in different situations. The Athenians in Herodotus identify themselves as Athenians, distinct from Phocians or Spartans, and also as Greeks, distinct from Persians or Egyptians. In the former example, the Athenians are distinguishing themselves as separate from other similar groups who share similar customs, and in the latter they are identifying themselves as the same as those groups against other distinct outsiders with whom they share no commonality. They were Athenians and Boetians, Macedonians and Phocians, but above all, they were Greeks.

41. From the Loeb Classical Library, translated by A. D. Godley: Herodotus, Histories (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1982). 42. Esler, Conflict, 49.

15 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

It should be noted that both of these examples predate the time of Philo by several centuries; as observed above, Herodotus was writing in the fifth-century BCE, while Homer is believed to have been writing in the seventh-century BCE. To make the case that a nested ethnic identity can be applied to our understanding of Philo, who was writing during the first half of the first-century CE,43 we must find examples of nested identities from this same time period. In the works of the Jewish historian Josephus, a first-century contemporary of Philo,44 we find several descriptions of ethnic subgroups, not unlike those in Homer and Herodotus. Most important for our discussion, Josephus in Against Apion describes the following groups in various amounts of detail: Greeks; Attikoi (people of Attica); Argolikoi (people of Argolis); Athenians; Arcadians; Macedonians; Cretans; and non-Greeks (, lit. barbarians).45 Though the list reproduced here is incomplete in recording all the peoples discussed by Josephus in this work, I have chosen to list these eight groups for one reason: all of these are Greek ethnicities (or, in the case of barbarians, a Greek manner of identification), many of which can also be found in Homers Catalogue of Ships and/or Herodotus Histories. Josephus has given us evidence that these groups existed well into the first-century CE and, by also discussing Greeks, has shown that these groups still existed within a larger Greek identity. All of these examples, however, demonstrate the idea of nested identity only within a purely Greek context and from a Greek perspective. This discussion would benefit from examples of nested identity in a Jewish context, particularly if these examples can be found during the time of Philo, i.e., the first-century CE. Fortunately, such examples can be found in the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles, and the Biblical letters of the apostle Paul.
43. Calabi, Language, 1. 44. See note 2. 45. Esler, Conflict, 59.

16 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

The Acts of the Apostles chronicles the early years of the Christian Church, from the death of Christ in around 30 CE until shortly after Pauls arrest and imprisonment in Rome in around 60 CE.46 This 30 year period overlaps the years Philo is believed to have written most of his works, and in Acts 2, wherein the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples at Pentecost, we find evidence that Jews of this period often laid claim to more than one ethnic identity. Esler cites Acts 2:5-11 as evidence of this:
5

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs -- we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!47 This passage is rich with clues regarding the ethnic identities of the people gathered in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. It begins by stating that there were Jews from every nation under heaven in Jerusalem for this event, a fact that is not surprising given that the Jewish people had been a people in Diaspora for centuries by the time of Philo and the New Testament, and were living throughout the known world in the first-century CE. This, however, does indicate that these Jews thought of themselves as being something other than or in addition to Jews. The first indication of nested ethnic identities within this passage from Acts is the question asked by the Jews from every nation under heaven in v.7, when these foreign Jews refer to the disciples, natives of Palestine, as Galileans. This term is taken
46. The NIV Study Bible provides a useful timeline of the early years of the Church. Kenneth Barker, ed., The New International Version Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995). 47. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotes are taken from the New International Version Study Bible: Barker, NIV.

17 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

from the name Galilee, a region in the north of Israel, and though the disciples are clearly Jews, here they are identified as being a particular subgroup of Jews, much like the Athenians of the fifth-century BCE are identified as a particular subgroup of Greeks. Continuing on, the visiting Jews identify themselves based on their countries of origin, which range from Asia in the east to Libya in the west, from Phrygia in modern day Turkey to Egypt, and they twice refer to their amazement at hearing the disciples speaking in their own, native languages. These foreign Jews, like Philo, did not speak Hebrew in day-to-day life, or live in the Holy Land. Instead, they lived in communities scattered throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East, and identified themselves based on their homelands and native tongues, but still are identified within the larger group Jews by the author of the text. As with the Greeks before them, it clearly was possible for a Jew to belong to another ethnic identity as well. Acknowledging that both Greeks and Jews demonstrated nested ethnic identities in the ancient world, it is safe to assume, then, that one could be a Greco-Jew, and we find an example of this Greco-Jewish identity in the figure and writings of Paul. According to Christian tradition, Paul was born as Saul, and took a new name following his conversion to Christianity. We know from Pauls own writings that he was of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), and that he was a Pharisee (Galatians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:5); he clearly comes from a Jewish background. However, as Bart Ehrman notes, he does not tell us when he was born, where he was raised, or how he was educated.48 Much of this information comes from the book of Acts, which also provides some details about Pauls life. According to the author of Acts, Paul is from Tarsus (Acts 21:39), a Greek city in Asia Minor and home to a famous school of Greek rhetoric (something like an Ivy League University, Ehrman observes).49 Additionally, we know
48. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 247. 49. Ehrman, Writings, 24748.

18 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

from the book of Acts that Paul was a Roman citizen; after getting into some trouble, Paul is confronted by Roman officials and is able to demand a trial because he was born a [Roman] citizen (Acts 22:27-28). It is also worth noting that Paul, like Philo, most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew (though both were most likely familiar with Hebrew in a worship context), the languages commonly associated with Judaism in the first-centuries BCE and CE; both of these authors spoke Greek, and were familiar with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though we cannot say for sure, it is not unlikely that Paul was indeed from Tarsus. Here, as in Philo, we find elements of both Greek and Jewish ethnic identity, and even an additional element of Roman citizenship. But regardless of assumptions regarding his birthplace, background, education or status as a citizen, Paul reveals in one of his undisputed letters50 that he thought of himself not as either Greek or Jew, but as both Greek and Jew. Following his conversion, Pauls mission, as he saw it, was to spread the gospel of Christ and to win converts to Christianity. In order to do this, he had to be able to approach people of all different backgrounds, and convince them of his message. Thus he writes in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21: 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law...so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law..., so as to win those not having the law. The term Jews obviously refers to the Hebrew people, as does those under the law, which refers, as does Philo in the previously discussed passage, to the Law of Moses. Those not having the law, conversely, is Pauls way of referring to everyone else, those who did not follow the Law of Moses; this is a Pauline equivalent of the whole world Greek/barbarian construction discussed above. There is no ambiguity in this passage; Paul is
50. Ehrman, Writings, 243.

19 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

not presenting either his Greek or Jewish background as being in conflict with the other at all. Instead, by his own statements, Paul understood himself as being able to belong to more than one ethnic group in the first-century CE. Based on the evidence supporting the concept of nested identities provided by Greek history and Philos first-century contemporaries Josephus and Paul, it seems quite logical that approaching Philo as a bearer of nested identity is not only justifiable, but is in fact necessary in order to better understand his identity and his writings. In light of Eslers ethnic identity criteria, we find that Philo was, in fact, both a Greek and a Jew. Philo easily fits the criteria laid out to identify ethnic identity on both sides of the Greek/Jew debate. We have already seen that Philo identified himself as a Jew (Legat. 2.278), and included himself among the Greeks (Conf. 129 and Congr. 44). We know that he felt some link to Jerusalem (Legat. 2.278), and was a prominent member of the Jewish community living in the Hellenized city of Alexandria (Philos Legatio ad Gaium; Josephus Antiquitates Iudaeorum 18.8.257-260, 4.186); we also know simply from reading his works that Philo spoke Greek, and wrote in Greek about the Jewish religion, customs and heroes (e.g., De Abrahamo, De Ioseph, De Vita Moysis, et alia). Here we have satisfied three of the six criteria laid out by Esler to identify Philo as both a Greek and a Jew, a common proper name to identify the group, a common culture (including customs, language and religion), and a link to a homeland. This leaves three criteria to be examined: a myth of common ancestry; a shared history (including heroes, events and their commemoration); and a sense of communal solidarity. These latter two are easily addressed by examining Philos works, while the former, a myth of common ancestry, proves more difficult. Philo clearly takes part in the shared history of the Jewish people, evident throughout his writings. Notably, one need only examine his treatises De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De Vita Moysis and De Plantatione to find discussions about the Jewish Patriarchs and their
20 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

places within the Jewish tradition which, according to Eslers theory, suggests that Philo identified himself as a Jew. However, a close examination of Philos Legatio ad Gaium reveals that Philo makes reference to a shared Greek history, as well, when he discusses Greek heroes like Castor, Pollux and Hercules, and the myths associated with them. Addressing the Emperor Gaius Caligula, Philo compares Caligulas works to the fabled Ten Labors of Hercules: But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue.... (Legat. 1.90) Philo was engaged with both a Jewish and a Greek shared history, at least to the extent that he was able to use said history as a reference point in his writings. Similarly, he clearly felt a sense of communal solidarity with both the Greek and Jewish communities of which he was a part. Philos sense of solidarity with the Jewish community of Alexandria is not surprising, having seen already in Legatio ad Gaium that he led the Jewish delegation from Alexandria to Rome. He also discusses in this treatise those persons he describes as opponents to the Jewish community in Alexandria, and never refers to his Jewish opponents as Greeks; instead, he calls them Alexandrians and Egyptians.51 This distinction is important for our discussion, as it demonstrates that Philo did not wish members of the Greek identity, in which he included himself, with those who were opposed to the Jewish identity, in which he also included himself. Instead, by designating these opponents Egyptians, Philo is demonstrating communal solidarity with his Greek identity, and expressing a bias against the Egyptian people that began following the failed Persian invasion of Greece in the fifth-century BCE.52 As with the other criteria, here Philo demonstrates aspects of both a Greek and Jewish identity.

51. Philo seems to use Alexandrian and Egyptian interchangeably. Birnbaum, Perspective, 51. 52. Niehoff, Identity & Culture, 5255.

21 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

However, the final criteria to be discussed, a myth of common ancestry, offers a stumbling block to our discussion of Greco-Jewish ethnic identifies. Though clearly Philo adheres to the myth of his common Jewish ancestry, as evidenced by his discussion of the Jewish Patriarchs, there is little, if any evidence that Philo embraced a myth of common Greek ancestry. Perhaps the best argument in favor of a notion of common Greek ancestry is Philos use of the words and , Greece and Greek respectively. These proper names for the Greek homeland and people are derived, according to myth, from the name of the ancient Greek king Hellen,53 and it could be argued that Philo, living in a Greek community and speaking the Greek language, would have been aware of this myth when using and . This is at best a stretch of the imagination, and no case suggesting Philo claimed some part in a common Greek ancestry can be made from this observation. Thus, of Eslers six criteria, Philo demonstrates both Greek and Jewish ethnic identifiers for five. Despite being unable to demonstrate nested identities according to each of Eslers criteria, there is still overwhelming evidence within Philos writings which suggests that he was both a Greek and a Jew, rather than one to the exclusion of the other, as scholarship has for years sought to categorize him. 4. In Conclusion Philo of Alexandrias influence in philosophy and religious study cannot be denied, despite the debate surrounding his identity. Through his writings we have what is perhaps the most famous account of the translation of the LXX, a treatise which places the Greek text on the same authoritative level as the original Hebrew text, and though geographically isolated from the mainstream Rabbinic Judaism centred in Palestine during the first-century CE,54
53. Esler, Conflict, 58. 54. Mendelson, Identity, 1.

22 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

Philos works deal almost exclusively with the Jewish tradition; he masterfully combines Jewish faith with Greek philosophy, making Judaism accessible to Greeks and Greek philosophy accessible to Jews. This careful blending of two seemingly incompatible traditions even brought Philos influence beyond either Greeks or Jews, a fact revealed by references to Philo in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of Christianity. Philo is referenced by influential Christian thinkers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, all of whom were writing between the second and fifthcenturies CE,55 and all of whom were very influential in the development of the Christian Church; Philo of Alexandria was so influential among the Church Fathers that he became known as Philo Judaeus, Philo the Jew. However, this is something of a misnomer, as we have seen, for Philo was not just a Jew. Through his nuanced blending of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy, Philo demonstrated that he belonged to both groups, and that he did not hold one to be more valuable than the other; instead, his Greek identity informed and enhanced his Jewish identity, and vice versa. In this light, our understanding of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world may evolve beyond thinking these two cultures were somehow in conflict with one another, allowing us to understand that, often, they were able to coexist, as Philo demonstrates throughout his writings. Traditionally, however, scholars have tried to force Philo into a category, either Greek or Jew, and the debate over which is more fitting has gone on for many years. By approaching Philo under the assumption that he is either a Greek or a Jew, modern scholarship has overlooked or dismissed the carefully crafted nuances which reveal in his writings both sides of his ethnic identity, as with his varied uses of the word barbarian; in fact, placing Philo into one of these categories is as difficult as categorizing Philos use of
55. Runia, References, 11316.

23 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

Barbarian Jews: ethnic identity in the language of Philo Stephen D. Louy

barbarian in De Vita Moysis proved to be at the outset of this paper. This passage, discussed above, features both elements of Jewish identity (identifying the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative truth) and elements of Greek identity (derogatorily referring to non-Greeks, in this case the Jews, as barbarians), and ignoring one in favor of identifying Philo as the other is a great error in Philonic scholarship. A new approach to Philonic scholarship must be adopted, one in which Philo is viewed as he viewed himself, as a mix of both Greek and Jew, a Greco-Jew who belonged to a Greco-Jewish community. Moving beyond the debate over Philos identity will allow Philonic scholarship to better understand not only the person of Philo, but his community and his distinct and well-deserved place in Jewish, Christian and Greek history, as well.

24 Marys Well Occasional Papers Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:2 March 2012 Nazareth, Israel

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barker, Kenneth, ed. The New International Version Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957. Birnbaum, Ellen. Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in FirstCentury Alexandria. The Studia Philonica Annual XIII (2001): 3758. Borgen, Peder, Kre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Calabi, Francesca. The Language and the Law of God: Interpretation and Politics in Philo of Alexandria. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Herodotus. Histories. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1982. Homer. The Iliad. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1924. Jewett, Robert, Eldon Jay Epp, ed. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Mendelson, Alan. Philos Jewish Identity. Atlanta: Fortress Press, 1988. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Philo. Works. Vol. I-X. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 195062. Runia, David T. References to Philo from Josephus Until 1000 AD. The Studia Philonica Annual VI (1994): 11121. Winston, David. Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philos Thought. The Studia Philonica Annual II (1990): 119. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Wong, C. K. Philos Use of Chaldaioi. The Studia Philonica Annual IV (1992): 114. Yonge, C. D., trans., David M. Scholer. The Works of Philo. United States of America: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2000.