Works of Philo of Alexandria

[Mr Dave]

I was just wondering, as he discusses things which have been brought up in this forum, how many here have read Philo's 'On the Creation of the World' (De Opificio Munid) and/or Allegorical Interpretation (Legum Allegoriae)?

Edit: Any of Philo's works which concern Genesis, or Biblical Interpretation, not just those two.

You can read his works here http://cornerstonepublications.org/Philo/

 

[Jedidia]

No but I would like to hear more about them.

 

[Mr Dave]

Having made this, the relevant famous bits might actually be in another of his works

But Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria at the time of Christ. He wrote against taking the Bible completely literally. For him every passage had a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning; sometimes one was more important the other. For him, due to the two creation narratives in Genesis, this was a sign not to read the text literally, but a sign that there was a deeper meaning contained within the text that was more important.

 

[Mr Dave]

Having made this, the relevant famous bits might actually be in another of his works

Actually, because of this, I am going to amend the OP.

 

[Assyrian]

I am a TE and am reading them but haven't finished.

By 'am reading them' I mean I have read bits in the past and will probably read more. A lot of the time the problem is understanding what he was on about.

One thing I have come across is that is interesting is his use of tupos or 'type' where OT characters or events serve as moral lessons, which seem quite similar to the way Jesus and Paul used Genesis.

Having made this, the relevant famous bits might actually be in another of his works

But Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria at the time of Christ. He wrote against taking the Bible completely literally. For him every passage had a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning; sometimes one was more important the other. For him, due to the two creation narratives in Genesis, this was a sign not to read the text literally, but a sign that there was a deeper meaning contained within the text that was more important.

Do you have any reference where he comments on there being two creation accounts and that it show they should be interpreted allegorically??

 

[Mr Dave]

Do you have any reference where he comments on there being two creation accounts and that it show they should be interpreted allegorically??

I originally heard it on a TV programme during the BBCc Darwin celebrations.

Here's a bit which acknowledges double creation

(19) Why the creation of animals and flying creatures is mentioned a second time, when the account of their creation had already been given in the history of the six days? (Genesis 2:19). Perhaps those things which were created in the six days were incorporeal angels, indicated under these symbolical expressions, being the appearances of terrestrial and flying animals, but now they were produced in reality, being the copies of what had been created before, images perceptible by the outward senses of invisible models.

Here he acknowledges that there are two stories, the former he calls 'the history of the six days'

He also argues against the 6 days being 6 days

II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.
Philo


I'll have a more thorough look tomorrow for more relevant parts


This site says http://biologos.org/blog/israels-two-creation-stories-part-1;
For example, the ancient Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to AD 50) understood Genesis 1 and 2 to be contradictory. This was not a problem for Philo, however. Rather, it signaled to him that the two stories were not meant to be understood historically. God meant them to be understood as pointing to realities deeper than the merely historical.

 

[Mr Dave]

Do you have any reference where he comments on there being two creation accounts and that it show they should be interpreted allegorically??

I'm struggling to find a bit that combines the two in a nice handy quote.

He certainly didn't read Genesis as a literal 6 day historical creation. Another quote would be;

"There is an end then, of the notion that the universe came to being in six days." Allegorical interpretation i.20

Here's a quote where he handily expresses his view that passages had both a literal and an allegorical meaning;

"(20) What is the meaning of the expression, "And the water was greatly increased, and bore up the ark which floated upon the water?" (Genesis 7:17). The literal meaning is plain enough, but it contains an allegorical reference to our bodies, which ought to be borne up as if on the water, and by fluctuating with our necessities to subdue hunger and thirst, cold and heat, by which it is agitated, disturbed, and kept in motion." Philo


This is the programme where I first heard, the Philo bit starts at 6:03 Unfortunately, he indirectly quotes, not directly quotes.
BBC Did Darwin Kill God? 2009 - YouTube