in its own right. Philo’s style in theAllegorical Commentaryis properly ap-
preciated if we consider that he wished to put allegory on an academic
footing, thus combining two genres which had hitherto not been con-
nected. Academic investigations into foundational texts had a long tradi-
tion in Alexandria, having been practiced by both Homeric scholars and
Jewish exegetes in the spirit of theAporemata Homerica(works dealing
with interpretive “difficulties” raised by Homer’s epic poems, theIliadand
theOdyssey). In the second centuryb.c.e., the Jewish writer Demetrius
provides crucial glimpses into this world of Jewish scholarship, which
identified and solved problems of the biblical text, especially apparent con-
tradictions between verses (Eusebius,Praep. Evang.9.21.1-9; 9.29.1-3). This
kind of literal and surprisingly critical scholarship on the biblical text be-
came established in Alexandria at a very early stage, when Jewish exegesis
in the land of Israel still proceeded in the style of “rewritten Bible” and the
pesher commentaries from Qumran.
Philo was well aware of the scholarly enterprise of his colleagues, em-
bracing some of it while vehemently opposing its more critical varieties.
Overall he considered it very seriously, attempting to show that his own fa-
vored approach, namely spiritual allegory, was consistent with academic
inquiry and even a natural continuation of it. This was a revolutionary
step because allegorical interpretations had thus far been suggested rather
freely, being justified at the most by etymological references. Philo’s Jewish
predecessors in the allegorical mode, such as Aristobulus and Aristeas,
started with a question but offered their solution without providing an in-
depth study of the literal meaning of the text. This is precisely what Philo
aimed at in hisAllegorical Commentary,thus setting new standards for al-
legorical interpretation.
The nature and origin of the allegorical method among Jews and
Greeks are debated in modern scholarship. It is disputed whether allegory
served merely as an apologetic means of defending a canonical text or
whether it had a more creative function. Scholars have often identified al-
legory as a method invented by the Stoics, who sought ways of defending
Homer’s epics and thus suggested a more elevated, philosophical meaning
to replace the literal, mythical level. This approach has been challenged
with the observation that the Stoics did not introduce allegory, but were
rather concerned with etymology, which investigated the root meanings of
key words and eventually also led to allegory (Long 1992). Similarly, Philo
has often been seen as adopting Stoic allegory in order to defend Scripture
and render it more philosophical as well as Greek. This approach, too, has264sterling, runia, niehoff, and van den hoekEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:07 PM