Philo's Interpretation Of Genesis Summary
The intersection of Hellenistic philosophy and Judaism present in Philo’s work is extremely interesting. The subsequent impact of such intersections on early doctrinal interpretation is an important component in understanding the philosophical context of the world wherein early Christian thought develops. This perspective was the most interesting to me because of the later significance of Middle Platonism on early Christian movements, particularly supposed Gnostic groups. Philo’s Interpretation of Genesis notably covers the explanation of natural phenomena, support for the established gender norms, and an attempt to reconcile the two creation stories within Genesis using the theory of forms. Philo’s interpretation is marked by his adaption
…show more content…
This explanation of nature can be seen to start with the relationship between animals and man, continues with him likening Adam’s trance to sleep and then using that comparison to elaborate on his beliefs about the nature of sleep, which seems further reminiscent of Greek thought. Notably, Philo also focuses his interpretation of Genesis on support for the traditional gender conventions of the time. This is best illustrated with the question, “Why was not woman, like other animals and man, also formed from earth, instead of the side of man?” Philo answers with several points, most functioning on what we would view as a societal normative level that he claims are actually laws of nature. Interestingly, its the question which shows Philo’s desire to prove the correctness of his gender views, as he notably ignores the first Genesis creation stories more egalitarian beginnings. We know Philo is aware of the two creation stories, he employs the theory of forms to explain why the birds were created twice and why in one story man is placed in Eden and in the other he is not. However, in when it comes to gender relations he decidedly ignoes woman’s first creation and its potential implications. This narrative choice helps Philo fit his interpretation into the gender framework of his time. Which clearly illustrates his overall tendency to read the popular norms and philosophies of his time into the earlier text he’s interpreting, in this case most notably in relation to the theory of forms and gender
This explanation of nature can be seen to start with the relationship between animals and man, continues with him likening Adam’s trance to sleep and then using that comparison to elaborate on his beliefs about the nature of sleep, which seems further reminiscent of Greek thought. Notably, Philo also focuses his interpretation of Genesis on support for the traditional gender conventions of the time. This is best illustrated with the question, “Why was not woman, like other animals and man, also formed from earth, instead of the side of man?” Philo answers with several points, most functioning on what we would view as a societal normative level that he claims are actually laws of nature. Interestingly, its the question which shows Philo’s desire to prove the correctness of his gender views, as he notably ignores the first Genesis creation stories more egalitarian beginnings. We know Philo is aware of the two creation stories, he employs the theory of forms to explain why the birds were created twice and why in one story man is placed in Eden and in the other he is not. However, in when it comes to gender relations he decidedly ignoes woman’s first creation and its potential implications. This narrative choice helps Philo fit his interpretation into the gender framework of his time. Which clearly illustrates his overall tendency to read the popular norms and philosophies of his time into the earlier text he’s interpreting, in this case most notably in relation to the theory of forms and gender