In his monograph K. argues the following: Greek wisdom plays a ‘propaedeutic role’ in Philo's education (p. 293). Not only does the Alexandrian likely enrol in a gymnasium, Greek authors nurture Philo before his years as an ephebe. As a result, Philo's knowledge of Greek literature exceeds the estimation of scholars. In contrast, several recent scholars overestimate the depth of Josephus’ Greek education. The Jerusalemite grows up within a ‘traditionalistic segment’ of his city; consequently, he resists acculturation and does not enrol in a gymnasium. Greek wisdom, thus, plays a ‘prophylactic role’ in Josephus’ studies (p. 293). By arguing for these proposals K. strides one step towards scholarship prior to M. Hengel's Judentum und Hellenismus (1969).

K. organises his monograph into four chapters. In the introduction he examines the facets of a Graeco-Roman education. This includes a discussion of the evolution, purpose and polyvalence of gymnasiums; the relationship between gymnasiums and ancient Greek schools; and the ‘core curriculum’ (ἐγκύκλια παιδεία) most ephebes encountered. K. also clarifies his method and defines key terms. Chapters 2 and 3 comprise the meat of the monograph. In these chapters K. invests most of his space with an analysis of each Greek poet, dramatist, historian and philosopher explicitly quoted or referenced by Philo (Chapter 2) or Josephus (Chapter 3). He surveys each Greek author consecutively, he offers key background information relating to each author, and he explores the context of each citation. To close these chapters, respectively, K. addresses broader questions: how do Philo and Josephus describe their own education? What are their education ideals? Do they possess a sophisticated knowledge of the Greek language? How much may we generalise, from the education of these two writers, regarding the pedagogic options in their respective societies? In the two pages that comprise Chapter 4, K. summarises his conclusions.

Many of K.’s proposals should rapidly become dogma. For instance, K. demonstrates Philo's probable enrolment in a gymnasium. As one piece of evidence, K. demonstrates the congruity between the Greek school papyri found in Egypt and Philo's most cited Greek authors: Homer, Euripides and Menander (pp. 52, 66, 137). This is no coincidence. Amidst the 400 Greek school papyri, the writings of Homer, Euripides and Menander permeate 83% of the literary texts (p. 137 n. 389).

K. makes a second impressive argument. He suggests that Philo begins his secular education before enrolling in a gymnasium (p. 147). To be sure, Philo remarks that one cannot be educated during life's preliminary decade (Congr. 81–8). Yet, K. contends, Philo must here refer to a specific kind of formal instruction (p. 147). Why? In order for a young male to earn his place in a gymnasium, a foundation in Greek education need already be established. And since one cannot apply for admission into a gymnasium until about the age of 12–14, this training necessarily foregoes the eiskrisis and ephebate (pp. 147–8). In other words, parents cannot wait until their son's second decade to begin his secular education; it is simply too late. Thus, years of preliminary Greek learning precede Philo's admittance into a gymnasium.

Yet, how normative is Philo's pedagogic experience? According to K. Philo was not ‘a lone wolf’ among his compatriots (p. 150). His brother (Alexander) and nephew (Tiberius Julius Alexander) likely enrolled in a gymnasium (p. 143). In addition, Philo's remarks in Spec. 2.229–30 assume his audience's familiarity with aspects of Greek education (p. 138). Finally, the initial preservation of Philo's writings suggest the existence of a Philonic school (pp. 147–50). However, did the Alexandrian pogroms of ad 38 restrict Jews from gymnasiums? Probably. Still, Jews could receive a Greek education outside of gymnasiums (p. 148). After all, this institution covers just one year of the ephebate (p. 147). Much was learned before and much was learned after.

K.’s largest contribution arrives in Chapter 3. Here K. argues the following: although Josephus’ use of Greek authors seems impressive, a closer look reveals the converse (pp. 252–4). Poets and philosophers seldom appear in Josephus’ writings – dramatists are absent altogether (p. 171). The absence of dramatists, in particular, corresponds with Josephus’ critical attitude towards Herod's construction of a theatre in Jerusalem (p. 280; AJ 15.267–8). Moreover, when Josephus does cite poets and philosophers, he usually stereotypes (pp. 195, 197) or misquotes them (pp. 248, 249). Still, we could object, Josephus refers to multiple Greek historians – especially in Jewish Antiquities. Yet, K. invites us to consider the length of Antiquities (pp. 248, 253). If we do, then the citation of historians turns out to be quite exiguous. Not to mention, Josephus knows most historians indirectly; he depends upon mediators, such as Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo of Amaseia and Alexander Polyhistor (pp. 213, 235, 288, 290, 292).

K. accurately attributes Josephus’ shallow Greek education, in part, to his absence from a gymnasium (pp. 278–9). Not only does Josephus learn from different Jewish ‘philosophical schools’ during the usual period an ephebe spends in a gymnasium (Vita 9–13), the gymnasium in Jerusalem may never have reached completion (pp. 274, 278). Still, Josephus could have earned a Greek education without this edifice. With the acculturations of Herod, Jerusalem presented a young male with opportunities for Greek pedagogy (p. 275). However, Josephus’ pro-Hasmonean account of the Maccabean revolt reveals that he was raised within in a conservative segment of the Judean ruling class. This segment owns the revolt, resists acculturation and disdains the heart of Greek identity – the gymnasium (pp. 265, 269, 273, 275, 277, 289).

In such an audacious study, occasional oversights are unavoidable. Therefore, the following adjustments would refine K.’s solid scholarship. First, far too many typographical errors remain. Quotations from primary literature, in particular, suffer from numerous spelling mistakes. Second, K. rightly points out that Josephus never alludes to a Greek historian in his earliest extant writing: Jewish War (p. 247). (The exception here is Nicolaus, whom he refers to as an assistant in Herod's court.) This silence, moreover, diverges from his multiple mentions of historians in Antiquities (p. 247). Based upon this difference, K. concludes that ‘Nothing but ignorance’ prevents Josephus from referencing historians in War – especially since he had access to public and private libraries in Rome (pp. 239, 249, 252). K. may be correct. However, he predicates his inference upon the following assumption: Josephus’ familiarity with historians necessarily implies his display of such knowledge. As a result, K. fails to consider alternative possibilities. For example, might Josephus deliberately omit historians from War? In the preface, Josephus lambasts Greek writers for their mediocre historiography (BJ 1.13–16). Would it not be strange, therefore, if he openly relies on the very sources which he castigates? Additionally, Josephus bolsters his veracity with claims to eyewitness testimony (BJ 1.3). Thus, mentioning Greek sources would undercut this historiographic tactic. Finally, in BJ 2.184–7.455 Josephus likely does not depend on Nicolaus as a source. Therefore, attributing Josephus’ omission of historians to his dependence on Nicolaus (a historian who is not in the habit of naming his sources) does not apply to most of the narrative (pp. 213, 238, 247, 252). For these reasons, I hesitate correlating Josephus’ omission of historians with his ignorance of such writers.

To proffer adjustments by no means diminishes the sophistication of K.’s study. He definitively demonstrates Philo's command of the Greek language, as well as Philo's mastery of poetry, drama and philosophy. Moreover, K.’s proposal in Chapter 3 will continue to stir debate. After all, he challenges scholars who advocate for Josephus’ intimate knowledge of Greek literature. Finally, K.’s general conclusion illustrates how some cities in the Hellenised world (including Alexandria) absorbed more Greek culture than others (including Jerusalem). This final point, in particular, substantiates M. Goodman's inference in the epilogue of Hellenism in the Land of Israel (2002, pp. 302–5); it also advances our understanding of the complex relationship between Judaism and Greek culture in the late Second Temple period. Scholars of Jewish and Classical studies, therefore, will appreciate K.’s contributions to the field.