been challenged, with the counterclaim that Philo’s method rather subjects
Greek culture to the Jewish Scriptures (Dawson 1992). While Philo’s alle-
gory was conservative in the sense that it solved problems of the biblical
text without considering radical literary solutions, such as emending the
text, it is clear that he maintained the literal meaning of Scripture as far as
the Law was concerned. It is well known that Philo opposed radical col-
leagues who substituted allegory for observance of laws like those pertain-
ing to circumcision (Migr.89–94). In his interpretations of the narrative
parts of Scripture, the role of allegory varies: sometimes he offers an addi-
tional meaning, enriching Scripture by a further dimension (e.g.,Abr.68–
80), while on other occasions he follows Aristobulus and uses allegory in
order to uproot the mythological level of Scripture (e.g.,Leg.2.19).Place in Philo’s Corpus
The precise place of theAllegorical Commentaryamong Philo’s works is
still disputed today. Special attention has been given to the question of its
relationship to Philo’sQuestions and Answers,which is most similar to it,
because here, too, biblical verses are systematically quoted and then inter-
preted both literally and allegorically. It has been asserted thatQuestions
and Answersis Philo’s earliest work and that in it he was trying out ideas
that he subsequently developed in theAllegorical Commentary(Terian
1991). Yet one could equally interpret theQuestions and Answersas an ab-
breviation of thoughts presented in theAllegorical Commentary.The dif-
ference between the works is best understood as a difference of audience:
while theAllegorical Commentaryaddresses specialized and highly edu-
cated readers, theQuestions and Answersaims at more primary education,
perhaps of young students in the Jewish community.TheAllegory of the Lawas a Representative Treatise
The three books of theAllegory of the Law (Legum allegoriae)are the cen-
tral piece of Philo’sAllegorical Commentary.Philo presents here a close
reading of clusters of running verses from the first two chapters of Genesis.
Somewhat surprisingly he starts with Gen. 2:1, leaving out the creation of
the world as described in Genesis 1. Either Philo’s commentary on that
chapter is lost (so Tobin 2000), or Philo decided not to comment on it alle-265PhiloEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:07 PM