In her first book, based on her doctoral thesis (McGill, 2014), Jennifer Otto discusses how three protagonists of early Christianity, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, understand Philo's identity. We have extensive knowledge of Philo Alexandrinus and his writings because his works were transmitted to us not by Jews but by Christians. Taking into account the way in which early Christianity has tried to shape itself in “continuous and not seldom acrimonious rivalry with its ‘mother-religion,’”Footnote ¹ it can be surprising that Philo the Alexandrian Jew appears to have been readily adopted by Christian authors. How did they navigate the fact that Philo was a Jew? Later Christian works sought to make a convert out of him (e.g., Acta Johannis), or discussed perceived restrictions of his Jewishness (e.g., Ambrose of Milan). Early Christian witnesses to Philo, such as Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, however, each had their own ways of presenting his identity, so as to not overemphasize his Jewish background. Clement refers to Philo twice as a Pythagorean. Origen may only mention Philo by name three times in his oeuvre, but he alludes to him on several occasions by citing an anonymous “predecessor.” Eusebius, in turn, refers to Philo mainly as a “Hebrew.” These invocations of Philo have often been understood as attempts to adopt him into the Christian tradition. Jennifer Otto challenges this opinion, and suggests that these references to Philo reveal “ongoing efforts by Christians to conceptualize and demarcate the difference between two emerging but fluid collective identities” (4).

In chapter 1, entitled “Christians Reading Philo,” Otto questions how Christians came to possess Philo. Traditionally, scholars have argued that in the course of the first or second century, some of Philo's Jewish successors became followers of Christ. They would then have introduced Christians to Philo, thus securing transmission. Otto, however, also challenges this view and argues that transmission of Philo would have taken place in philosophical schools. She touches on this question several more times in the following chapters. In each of her three main chapters, one Christian writer takes center stage, respectively Clement (chapter 2), Origen (chapter 3), and Eusebius (chapter 4). Each chapter has a similar structure: Otto first offers a detailed analysis of the different epithets each church father uses in reference to Jews, such as Israel, hebraioi, and ioudaioi, before presenting systematically the passages in his works that contain references to Philo. She examines the different designations Clement, Origen, and Eusebius use to characterize Philo, respectively, “Pythagorean,” “predecessor,” and “Hebrew,” with due attention to the rhetorical context and purpose of the reference within the church father’s writings. In the conclusion to each chapter, Otto discusses how each epithet reflects a particular understanding of Philo's identity as neither a Jew nor a Christian within the framework of each of the fathers’ rhetorical programs. In the general conclusion, she reflects on how all three present Philo as a skilled interpreter of the philosophical doctrines of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, as a Jew, he missed the most important truth of the Scriptures, namely that of Christ as the Logos incarnate. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius negotiate Philo's identity in subtle ways as neither “one of them” nor “one of their own.” Otto successfully shows how the epithets they use in reference to Philo function as a mediation between the categories of Jew and Christian.

Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings is a valuable scholarly work that is pleasant to read. Otto's engagement with primary texts and secondary literature does not weigh down the narrative of the argument. The book reflects contemporary interests in the reception of Philo as well as in identity construction and Jewish-Christian relations in late antiquity. Otto goes beyond the presumption of a Jewish/Christian dichotomy often characteristic of earlier scholarship and shows apt awareness of the nuances of identity formation and intercultural dynamics. The book is equally relevant to scholars of Philo and of patristics, as well as to those interested in Jewish-Christian relations in the first centuries of the common era. It represents a fascinating case study of how early Christian intellectuals dealt with their Jewish origins.