Philonic studies have experienced a restored momentum in the last few decades, thanks to collected volumes that seek to place the Alexandrian thinker and his work within ancient thought and his intellectual posterity. Cover and Doering’s Philo of Alexandria and Philosophical Discourse proposes reading the corpus Philonicum in dialogue with Hellenistic traditions (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Scepticism and Pythagoreanism) and with a plausible philosophical reorientation of his thought after his stay in Rome as an ambassador in the presence of emperor Caligula. Alongside this contextual and relational perspective, The Reception of Philo of Alexandria by Friesen, Lincicum and Runia builds upon the interest of situating the author within the intellectual transmission networks by examining how his persona and his works were received, reinterpreted and repositioned over the centuries after their production. Considering complementary approaches, the two volumes contribute to redefining Philo’s place within the history of ancient philosophy.

Cover and Doering begin their introduction by explaining the title of their volume along with its objective and scope: ‘we have deliberately not entitled this collection “Philo the philosopher” or “Philo and philosophy”, but “Philo and philosophical discourse”’ (p. 10). The thirteen chapters in the collection manage to fulfil the editors’ purpose to a greater or lesser extent.

G.E. Sterling contributes the most crucial essay in the volume, concerning Philo’s library. He explores the parallels between the Alexandrian author’s library and the libraries of private philosophical schools. He proposes that a private school is the most likely setting for most of Philo’s writings. Beyond this hypothesis, Sterling seeks to reconstruct the Philonic library. He assumes that most of its shelves were filled with Philo’s own writings, scrolls of the Pentateuch, commentaries on works and literature by Jewish authors (Aristobulus, Letter of Aristeas; Ezekiel, Exagoge) and Plato’s dialogues. Sterling deems as almost improbable the presence of writings by Aristotle or the Stoics, although he considers that Philo had access to Neopythagorean arithmologies. He also mentions other more certain cases, such as Heraclitus, Empedocles, Aenesidemus as well as Homer, Hesiod and Euripides. He concludes that Philo’s library was not for exhibition, but it was rather built for his students, so considering their role alongside Philo’s position as a teacher would answer the question of how his legacy was transmitted.

The contributions by S. Weisser, C. Lévy, G. Roskam and J.M. Zurawski address the relationship between Philo’s thought and philosophical traditions. Weisser explains Philo’s Socratic and intellectualist view regarding piety (εὐσέβεια or ὁσιότης). Based on this premise, she proposes a comparative analysis of Philo’s treatise Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Det.) with the end of Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro. Although there is not an exact correspondence between Philo’s piety and Socrates’ view, Weisser perceives the intellectualist integration of piety as well as the knowledge of the divine in Det. to be ‘a Socratic move’ (p. 80). Lévy asserts that Philo was the first known author in alluding to the Neo-Pyrrhonian sceptical doctrine. He explores possible terminological and conceptual doxographical connections of Pyrrho and the Neo-Pyrrhonian thinker Aenesidemus in De ebrietate (Ebr.) and De somniis (Somn.), He concludes that, through the figure of Moses, Philo works with Pyrrhonism in an introduction to faith, according to which ‘the devotee is reminded to greet the God with the word εἶ (“Thou art”) – thereby acknowledging one’s own complete nothingness (οὐδένεια) and thus the need to assimilate oneself to this God who is true being’ (pp. 244–5), as observed in the Allegorical Commentary and De vita Mosis (Mos.) Roskam evaluates the relevance of Epicurus for Philo. He shows that among the passages that scholars have considered most influenced by the Epicurean tradition (especially Opif. 161–3; Leg. 3.61–2; 3.141, 143, 160; Det. 156–7; Deus 17–18; Fug. 148; Somn. 2.207–8), Fug. 148 is the only passage that contains a clear reference to said philosophy. Taking that into account, he makes it clear that Philo’s view on pleasure is conditioned by the Pentateuch, allegorically reinterpreted. Zurawski focuses on paideia as a means for the suppression or control of the passions, primarily desire. In an intermediate position between Platonism and Stoicism, represented by the therapeutic or ascetic role of Mosaic education as a means for the suppression (Stoic tradition) or moderation (Platonic tradition) of the passions, he introduces a new analysis: the allegory of the rod or ῥάβδος (of Moses or Jacob) as a symbol of paideia to achieve ethical correction and change. God’s discipline and education are achieved through ὀρθὸς λόγος, conscience and the laws of Moses, not through physical punishment.

The contributions by T. Engberg-Pedersen, M.R. Niehoff and G. Reydams-Schils highlight the influence of the Roman philosophical context on Philo’s production. Engberg-Pedersen examines Philo’s treatise Quod omnis probus liber sit (Prob.) through a careful course that extends from the internal structure of the treatise, its relationship with Stoicism, Platonism and Judaism to its immediate context of reception. In this path from the inside out a key concern arises: who are the recipients of Prob.? After investigating the position of the Essene Jews in Prob. and Hypothetica (Hypoth.), and discussing the Greek and Roman examples used by Philo, he pays special attention to the Roman history of Brutus and the assassination of Julius Caesar in Prob. 118–19. He suggests, though not without reservations, that the treatise ‘was written during his stay in Rome around 40 ce in order to address an audience of well-educated Romans’ (pp. 188–9). For Niehoff the introduction of Prob. (1–15) shows a philosophical reorientation of Philo as a result of that stay in Rome, seen in his adoption of the logos genre, the predominance of Stoic and Cynic motifs, and the choice of the cultured Roman recipient. Niehoff considers this philosophical shift to be evident in Philo’s openness to new stimuli and the adaptation of his thought to introduce Judaism in universally intelligible terms. Based on Niehoff’s thesis, Reydams-Schils examines the role of natural philosophy in Philo. Drawing on her idea of ‘bridge’ texts or concepts (p. 219), she indicates that Plato’s Timaeus fulfils this function by connecting the treatises of the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law. Based on this, she analyses the Philonic critique of Chaldean astronomy and the appraisal of the study of the universe. She points out that, although De opificio mundi (Opif.) and De Abrahamo (Abr.) reflect a greater esteem for natural philosophy of Stoic influence, this does not confirm Philo’s rupture with Platonism.

R. Hirsch-Luipold and M. Bonazzi focus their studies on philosophical concerns contemporary with Philo. Hirsch-Luipold brings Philo into dialogue with Plutarch. He views them ‘not as “preparers of Neoplatonism”, but rather as inaugurating a new form of Platonism’ (p. 236). This is because they both share two essential characteristics: the monotheistic conception and the hermeneutics of religion as a philosophical search for truth. Bonazzi reviews the way in which Philo contributes to the philosophical discussion of his time about the best life to pursue happiness, within the tension between the active and the contemplative life. Philo remains indebted to his predecessors in his high regard of exegesis as a method for reaching the truth. However, Philo is not systematic. His combination of biblical tradition and Hellenistic philosophy allows him to articulate a singular model of happy life based on contemplation.

Cover, Doering and I.L.E. Ramelli place their essays in the field of exegesis. Cover presents a development of the name changes in Gn 17.5 (Abram > Abraham; Sarai > Sarah) as interpreted by Philo in QG 3.43 and Mut. 60–71. In the first case, the Alexandrian’s literalist explanation is Neopythagorean; in the second, Philo leans towards an allegorical reading of the Platonic tradition. Cover concludes that this hermeneutic change responds to a chronological issue (QG is earlier than Mut.) and to a Philonic ability to elaborate exegetical strategies against the criticisms of his time, directed at ‘“quarrelsome” exegetes, who take passages like Gen 17 as occasions to laugh not only at God, but also at Moses’ (p. 274). Doering works with the Philonic interpretation of the number seven (hebdomad) to understand Philo’s interaction with Pythagoreanism and the Neopythagorean arithmology of his time in Leg. 1 and Opif. His study shows the originality of the Philonic treatment of the Pythagorean tradition in the early Roman Empire. Ramelli finishes the volume by exploring soteriology in Philo’s doctrine of the ‘double creation’ of the human being in connection with apokatastasis and the problem of metensōmatōsis. As a preface to each of the sections dedicated to these significant themes, Ramelli recovers the reception of Philo in Patristic Platonism (Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Oriental Syrian), with special emphasis on Origen’s hermeneutics.

This research into the reception of Philo, which in Cover and Doering’s volume receives treatment reduced to Patristic Platonism in the last chapter, gains prominence in Friesen, Lincicum and Runia’s book. The editors present the volume as ‘the first to give a comprehensive account of its subject, sets out to delineate the ways in which knowledge about Philo, his writings, and his thought was obtained, utilized, studied, and discussed over a period of nearly two millennia’ (p. 1). Although some of the 35 essays organised into the book’s six parts offer more novelty than others, all fully meet the general objective and scope of the volume.

The eight essays in the first part, ‘The First Centuries’, are set in the early Roman Empire. They study Philo’s reception in the writings of the historian Flavius Josephus (K. Berthelot), first-century Christians (T. Seland), early Patristic literature and Christian apologetics (J. Carleton Paget) as well as in the Alexandrian catechetical school and its master Clement (A. van den Hoek). They also discuss exegesis and the theological thought in Origen (Cover) and Gnostic currents (M.D. Litwa). Furthermore, they address the reception of his work in the Platonic philosophical tradition (Sterling) and in the exegesis of Rabbinic Judaism (S.D. Fraade). The main contribution of the first part belongs to Berthelot, whose essay is particularly useful because it opens the debate on the direct or indirect reception of the corpus Philonicum. Her careful reading shows Josephus’ possible dependence on the treatises De virtutibus (Virt.), Hypoth., Opif., Mos. and, especially, on the historical events set forth in Legatio ad Gaium (Legat.), even when the events Josephus narrates differ from what Philo describes.

The seven contributions in the second part, ‘Late Antiquity’, cover Greek and Latin authors of post-Constantinian Christianity (from Eusebius to Augustine) during its cultural consolidation in the East and West. They recover Philonic reception in the Christian historiographical construction of Eusebius (S. Inowlocki), in the Alexandrian biblical exegesis of Didymus the Blind (J.M. Rogers) and in the Cappadocian theology of Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus (A.C. Geljon). Also, they examine the traces of Philo in the pastoral correspondence of Isidore of Pelusium (M. Toca and J. Leemans) and investigate his influence in the Latin writings of Ambrose (M.E. Doerfler), in the biblical scholarship and translation of Jerome (M.A. Kraus) and in Augustinian production (Ramelli). Among the essays in this section, the chapter by Toca and Leemans offers a novel perspective due to the scarce research on Philo’s reception in the epistolary corpus of Isidore of Pelusium. The authors work from previous studies by L. Früchtel and Runia, additional parallels drawn from the L. Cohn–P. Wendland edition of Philo and the use of Philo in catenae literature. With the sole exception of the examples addressed by Runia, the rest of the cases investigated by Toca and Leemans had not been previously studied. They conclude that ‘the data … seems to indicate beyond doubt that Isidore knew (at least to some extent) and used several Philonic works, in particular QG, Mos. (which he uses four times each), and Ios. (twice)’ (p. 209).

The six chapters in the third part, ‘The Middle Ages’, cover the period from the third century to the fifteenth century. They consider the Greek and Latin manuscript transmission through the analysis of papyri, codices, patristic quotes and florilegia (J.R. Royse), medieval Jewish reception, Midrashic literature and mystical traditions (E. Morlok and Z. Strauss), the translation of the Corpus Philoneum Armeniacum (O. Vardazaryan) and the translations and quotes of Philo in the Christian Arabic context (A. Treiger). They also assess the use of Philo by Byzantine scholars (Runia) and in the Western Latin reception and Patristic mediation, the Liber Philonis (Runia and F. van Liere). Treiger’s chapter is distinguished by its novelty since the Christian Arabic reception of Philo has received limited attention so far. Treiger provides an updated review of the known testimonies up to the moment of translations and references to Philo in Christian Arabic literature, including in particular his finding of seven Philonic fragments of De vita contemplativa, preserved in an ‘appendix’ to the Arabic Dionysian corpus, which Treiger translates and recognises as authentic evidence of the use of Philo’s legacy in that tradition.

The five essays in the fourth part, ‘The Renaissance and Early Modern Period’, reflect upon the reception of Philo between the fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries. They include the first printed editions of Philo (A. Turnebus, D. Hoeschel, S. Gelenius), the textual transmission through spreading in Greek, Latin and vernacular languages (Runia, Sterling and Cover), and the studies of Italian Renaissance scholars (J. Weinberg). They also note the later Catholic reception following the Council of Trent (E.J. DeMeuse), Thomas Mangey’s critical edition (G. Benedetto) and the reception of Philo by German idealist philosophers such as G.W.F. Hegel and F.W.J. Schelling (D. Westerkamp). Weinberg’s contribution provides unpublished evidence about the Jewish rediscovery of Philo in the Italian Renaissance of the sixteenth century, showing the critical role of David Provenzali, Azariah de’ Rossi and Judah Moscato, who ‘read Philo in Latin translation, and began to ponder whether the Hellenistic Jew had any connections with their own rabbinic legacy’ (p. 387).

The fifth part, ‘From the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Centuries’, consists of four chapters. They present Philo’s legacy in the New Testament (Lincicum) and the recognition of Philo as an intellectual predecessor by academics like M. Mendelssohn and S.J.L. Rapoport (Strauss). They also review the critical study of Philo in the works of Z. Frankel, H. Graetz, M. Joël and others, especially the editio critica maior of Cohn and Wendland (G.K. Hasselhoff), and the introduction in modern historical novels and stories (Runia). Two contributions stand out for their originality. One of them is Lincicum’s: he posits that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the project of reconstructing Christian origins led historians to use Philo ‘as in some sense a genealogical predecessor of the early Christian movement that produced the New Testament’ (p. 460). The other is Runia’s essay, which examines a selection of literary works, ranging from Charles Kingsley’s novel (1853) to Herman van Praag’s book (2018). Philo is revealed in these works as a captivating figure set in a context of great historical, political and spiritual relevance.

The five contributions in the sixth and final part, ‘Contemporary Perspectives’, discuss the period from the mid-twentieth century to the present time. They delve into the inclusion of Philo in the classical canon (Friesen), Philo’s relationship with Platonic and Stoic elements present in the exegesis of his work (Reydams-Schils) and the interpretation of his Jewish identity (E. Birnbaum). Finally, they consider his influence on early Christianity (M. Edwards) and Philonic bibliography (Runia). Runia’s chapter has a representative status within the framework of reception proposed by the book. It offers an important review of studies on Philo, which begins with Eusebius and extends to the International Philo Bibliography Project under his direction. He concludes that the current analytical categorisation exceeds 7,000 articles, ‘all of which have been collected, listed, organized, and – for those published since 1937 – summarized’ (p. 586).

The two books allow readers to appreciate the double aspect of Philo’s legacy: its introduction in philosophical debates of his time and the extended history of his reception. The first aspect offers a diverse and complex image of philosophical speeches that explore the corpus Philonicum and proves that any attempt of reducing Philo to a system lacks scholarly grounds. The stimulating chapters encourage readers to explore ancient philosophy’s conceptual density and its influence on Alexandrian thought. On the other hand, the second volume broadens the synchronic scope to a diachronic perspective, resulting in a structural and coherent context of how Philo was read, reinterpreted and appropriated over two millennia. The two books complement each other and reveal the author’s vitality placed between the Hellenistic legacy and the later intellectual tradition.