Philo of Alexandria on the Obligations of Wealth

Abstract

The views of Philo of Alexandria on wealth have been a source of controversy between those who argue that Philo was at times critical of wealth and those who contend that these criticisms were not of wealth but of the dangers posed by wealth. This article evaluates Philo’s position first by examining the evidence for his own wealth and then by considering two sets of texts from the Exposition of the Law: one set that interprets the biblical prohibitions against interest on loans (Spec. 2.74-78; Virt. 82-87) and another that evaluates the use of wealth (Spec. 2.16-23). The former set of texts are evaluated against the realia of Jewish loan practices in Egypt, while the second set is evaluated against Philo’s own family situation. The conclusion is that Philo was not critical of wealth per se, but of the misuse of wealth and the neglect of the poor.

Keywords

Alexandrian Jewish community Gaius Julius Alexander loans Philo of Alexandria poverty wealth

In his account of the embassies that appeared before Gaius following the riots in Alexandria, Josephus introduced Philo with four phrases. He described Philo as the man ‘who led the embassy of the Jews, a most distinguished man, brother of Alexander the alabarch, and an expert in philosophy’ (A.J. 18.259).¹ Eusebius preserved a similar judgment in his treatment of Philo in his Ecclesiastical History: ‘In his reign (i.e., Gaius’s), Philo became widely known as a most distinguished man not only among our own people but also among those who are keen about pagan education. He was a Hebrew by ancestral race but inferior to none of the distinguished persons in office in Alexandria’ (2.4.2-3).² These testimonia and others like them have led scholars to assume that Philo was a wealthy individual, an assumption that is a consensus.

Philo’s comments on wealth have not, however, been uniformly assessed. David Mealand (1978) opened the debate with an article in which he contrasted Philo’s personal wealth and his critiques of wealth. Mealand attempted to solve this perceived disjuncture by exploring a wide range of parallels between Philo’s statements and those of Seneca, other Stoics, the Cynics, Aristotle, Plato and Jewish sources. He suggested that Philo’s indebtedness to these sources explained the tension (Mealand 1978: 264). Thomas E. Schmidt (1983; 1987: 191-95) took exception to Mealand’s conclusion through a careful study of the key words for wealth, especially πλοῦτος but also ἄργυρος, χρυσός and χρῆμα. Schmidt argued that 80% of the texts containing these words were critical of wealth and developed a five-stage schema to explain Philo’s statements: the equation of greed and injustice, the equation of wealth and injustice, the comparative devaluation of wealth to virtue, an alternative devaluation in which virtue is valued over wealth, and a teleological devaluation or dispossession of wealth as a means to cultivate virtue. The key for Schmidt was the human will: Philo viewed wealth negatively when acquired by deliberate acquisition but positively when it was acquired involuntarily.³ Mealand published a rejoinder by repeating his contention that there is a lack of harmony between Philo’s personal wealth and his views on wealth. He argued that Philo’s social position was more ambiguous than Schmidt allowed: he was an elite but was sympathetic to his people who were disadvantaged (Mealand 1985). Gerald Downing (1985) joined the fray by pointing out – in agreement with Mealand – that Philo was more sensitive to the plight of the poor than Schmidt allowed. The final voice in the debate came almost two decades later when Thomas Phillips (2001) countered Schmidt’s claim that Philo opposed wealth obtained deliberately but not involuntarily. Phillips wrote: ‘Philo’s apparent criticism of wealth should not be interpreted as criticisms of the possession of wealth itself, but rather as criticisms of the unbridled desire for wealth’ (2001: 114).⁴

How did Philo view wealth? The survey of this debate suggests that the answer is not simple. Philo is famous for his inconcinnities – so much so that Arthur Darby Nock once called him a ‘jackdaw’ (1928: 142).⁵ Was Philo really this inconsistent? I propose to answer this question by examining two key texts carefully. It is imperative that the exegetical context of Philo’s statements be taken into account when analyzing his statements, a procedure that is often ignored. Before we do this, however, I would like to summarize what we know about his social position rather than assume it. His own standing will help us understand his expositions.

Philo’s Social Position

We know very little about Philo as a person; we know considerably more about his more famous brother Alexander, but even here the evidence is limited and some of it is not entirely secure.⁶ Philo and Alexander were scions of one of the most prestigious and wealthiest families in the Jewish community of Alexandria.

Josephus tells us that Alexander ‘was pre-eminent in family and wealth among his contemporaries’ (A.J. 20.100). Since his family and his wealth are related, I will say a brief word about each. Alexander is probably the same individual mentioned in two papyri that refer to a wealthy landowner in Euhemereia or modern Qasr el-Banat in the Fayyum. The name of the landowner was Gaius Julius Alexander (CPJ 420a ll. 3-6 and 420b ll. 5-8). While the identification of Alexander the alabarch with Gaius Julius Alexander is not beyond question, it both fits the circumstances and explains the names of his sons: Tiberius Julius Alexander⁷ and Marcus Julius Alexander.⁸ The name Gaius Julius Alexander suggests that Alexander’s father or grandfather received Roman citizenship from either Julius Caesar or Augustus. The more likely of the two is Caesar, who was freer than the first emperor in rewarding citizenship to foreigners who performed a notable service (Goodfellow 1935: 90ff.). I suggest that Alexander’s father or grandfather assisted Caesar in the Alexandrian war (48–47 bce) and was given Roman citizenship and the praenomen and nomen Gaius Julius. This means that the family, including Philo, were Roman citizens.

The family may have had ties to the Herodians. Josephus tells us that Alexander loaned Agrippa I 200,000 drachmas, a considerable amount to loan to a well-known spender (A.J. 18.159-60).⁹ He also informs us that when Claudius succeeded Gaius to the imperial throne, Claudius freed both Agrippa I and Alexander from prison. Josephus added that Alexander was a long-time friend of Claudius and that, shortly after the release of Alexander and Agrippa I, their children married: Marcus, Alexander’s son, married Berenice, Agrippa I’s daughter (A.J. 19.276-77). What should we make of these statements? There is no evidence that Claudius spent time in Egypt as a young man which means that Alexander must have spent time in Rome – at least if Josephus’s report is reliable. How did Alexander make his way into imperial circles? The best explanation is that Berenice, the daughter-in-law of Herod the Great and mother of Agrippa I and friend of Antonia, the mother of Claudius, introduced Alexander to Antonia and Claudius. This would explain why Claudius knew and released both Agrippa I and Alexander and why Alexander is said to have become the manager of Antonia’s Egyptian estates (Josephus, A.J. 19.276). While there is no evidence that Philo moved in these circles, the fact that his brother did says something about his family.

According to Josephus, Alexander became a very wealthy man. We know of three sources for his wealth. As we have seen, he was a significant landowner. This was likely a hereditary source of wealth. We also know that he was active in business. The Nicanor archive contains a series of ostraca that acknowledge the receipt of goods through Nicanor’s shipping company that transported goods overland from Coptos to Berenike or Mysos-Hormos on the Red Sea. Only two out of the twenty names in the archive received goods at both ports. One of these two was Marcus Julius Alexander who received goods in 37, 43 and 43–44 ce. This Marcus was most probably the son of Gaius Julius Alexander.¹⁰ The family was apparently in the import/export business.

Finally, Josephus identified Alexander as the alabarch (A.J. 20.100). This was probably the chief of customs in Alexandria, a position that would have given Alexander a steady flow of wealth (Modrzejewski 1995: 135, 185). It may be that Tiberius appointed him to this office, an appointment that would explain why Alexander named his eldest son Tiberius Julius Alexander.

Alexander was generous with his wealth. In addition to his loan to Agrippa I, Josephus tells us that he plated nine gates of the Jerusalem temple with silver and gold, a donation that would have been felt even by a very wealthy individual.¹¹

What about Philo? How wealthy was he? It seems likely from what we have said about Alexander that Philo would have inherited wealth in the form of property. It also seems likely that he was not as wealthy as his brother. In a famous passage in which he uses the first person, he contrasted his present circumstances with his former life ‘when he had leisure for philosophy, the contemplation of the cosmos, and the things in it … I did not think mundane or pedestrian thoughts or grovel after glory or wealth or bodily comforts’. Rather he said: ‘I seemed to be in mid-air always carried away by an inspiration of the soul, a traveling companion with the sun, the moon, the entire heaven, and cosmos’. But now, envy stalked him and led him into the abyss of civil concerns so that he could barely keep his head above the water (Spec. 3.1-6).¹² Even if we allow for the rhetorical need to emphasize a disconnection with wealth for one who has dedicated his life to the philosophical interpretation of the Pentateuch, this is not the statement of someone who dedicated his life to the pursuit of wealth; Philo’s agenda was different than his brother’s.

This does not mean Philo was poor or celebrated poverty; on the contrary, the evidence that we have suggests that he enjoyed a degree of wealth. There are at least five pieces of indirect evidence for his wealth. He was exceptionally well educated (Congr. 74-76).¹³ He must have attended a primary school, processed through the ephebate and then either attended lectures or hired tutors for rhetoric and philosophy or both. Anyone who reads Philo’s Greek understands his level of education. With a vocabulary of approximately 12,000 words, he wrote sophisticated and clean Atticizing Greek.

In his adult years, Philo devoted himself to the study and exposition of the Pentateuch. He wrote more than 70 treatises of which roughly two-thirds have come down to us. In the process of his education and teaching, he built a considerable library that required significant means.¹⁴ This library would have included not only scrolls of the books of the Pentateuch but possibly scrolls for the Psalter, Proverbs, 1 Samuel and Jeremiah. He probably had copies of Jewish authors such as Aristobulus and the Letter of Aristeas and may have owned a copy of Ezekiel’s Exagoge. He appears to have had six works of Plato (Laws, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Theaetetus and Timaeus) and perhaps another three (Cratylus, Gorgias and the Symposium) as well as Pseudo-Aristotle’s De mundo. He must have had some works of Zeno and Poseidonius among the Stoics, Neopythagorean arithmologies and perhaps Pseudo-Ocellus’s On the Nature of the Universe, Heracleitus’s On Nature and Empedocles among the pre-Socratics, and Aenesidemus’s Tropes for the Suspension of Judgment among the sceptics. Like the library in Herculaneum, he also had literary works such as the poems of Homer and Hesiod and two plays of Euripides as well perhaps as some of Aeschylus and Sophocles. The most likely social setting for the production of his corpus and his own library would have been a private school in a house with a room for the library and a room in which to meet with five to fifteen students.¹⁵ The library was not only for his reading and reflection, but for the students as well. While the school setting is only a hypothesis, it suggests that Philo was – like his brother – generous (Sterling 1999, 2017a, 2017b and forthcoming).¹⁶

Philo was broad in his interests. While he tells us very little about himself, he clearly enjoyed some of the aspects of Alexandrian cultural life. He enjoyed athletics and mentioned watching wrestling matches, boxing matches, foot races and chariot races.¹⁷ On several occasions he refers to performances in the theater.¹⁸ He also enjoyed a banquet, but cautioned against overindulgence: ‘When I have attended a very poorly arranged social gathering or expensive dinner and have arrived without reason, I have become a slave of what has been prepared, led away by untamed masters’. On the other hand, ‘when I arrive with reason as my guide, I am a master instead of a slave and I vigorously fight the good fight of endurance and moderation, resisting and eagerly striving against all of those which excite the unruly lusts’.¹⁹ His advice was not abstinence, but moderation.

Finally, the Jewish community in Alexandria selected Philo, Alexander and Tiberius Julius Alexander (Alexander’s older son) to serve on the embassy to Gaius after the disastrous events in 38 ce. They must have been selected in part because they were Roman citizens who had connections with the imperial family and were well placed in Alexandrian society.²⁰

In short, Philo appears to have been wealthy, but probably not as wealthy as his brother. I will return to specifics in my conclusions. We now need to address how he thought wealth should be handled.

Philo on Wealth

What did Philo say about wealth? Rather than attempting to provide a survey of texts in which Philo mentioned wealth, we will consider two texts that are explicitly devoted to the use of wealth. The texts that we will examine come from Philo’s 15 treatise Exposition of the Law of which we have 12 works. More specifically, they appear in the third part of the Exposition where Philo treated the law in detail in On special laws and On virtue. The former uses the Ten Words as a structural device to analyze the laws thematically. The latter uses Greek virtues to do the same as a means of arguing for a form of virtue ethics. There is a good deal of repetition between the two sets of treatments. The audience and function of the commentaries on laws is a point of some controversy, especially the material in Spec. E.R. Goodenough (1929) argued that the laws reflected the jurisprudence of Jewish courts in Egypt. Samuel Belkin (1940) and Naomi Cohen (1995) compared Philo’s treatments to Palestinian halakah. More recently, Maren Niehoff (2011, 2017) has situated the entire Exposition of the Law in Rome and argued that it reflects Roman influence.²¹ I has a different understanding. In keeping with his school hypothesis, I have suggested that the Exposition of the Law was based on addresses that Philo made to larger audiences in much the same way that Aristotle²² and Theophrastus²³ were said to offer public lectures in Athens or that Epictetus did in Nicopolis²⁴ (Lynch 1972: 91-92). Plutarch also offered public lectures in his school (That it is not possible to live a pleasant life according to Epicurus 1986D). Fortunately, it is not necessary to adjudicate this debate, but to recognize that these texts reflect the social practices of the community or resonate with their social values of the community. More specifically, the practices that Philo anticipates are similar to those we know about in Egypt, but the values are shared across a wider range of locales including values championed in Rome. I have selected one text that addresses the concern for the poor and another that speaks directly to the use of wealth.

No Interest on Loans to Fellow Jews

The first law or cluster of laws that we will consider is Philo’s treatment of the prohibition of charging interest on a loan made to a fellow Jew. The issue of usury was a major concern both to ancient Jews and to peoples in the Greco-Roman world more broadly. Loans were often personal, i.e., made by one person to another person, a situation that opened the door to abuse.²⁵ All of the cases that we will consider presume personal loans rather than bank loans or loans from another source.²⁶ The LXX has three law codes that prohibit interest on loans. The first is from the Book of the Covenant and is embedded in a series of laws that reflect concern for those who are suffering misfortune (Exod. 22.25). The second is from the Holiness Code and is part of a larger concern for how an Israelite might slip into poverty through a series of worsening stages: in the first stage, the Israelite is forced to sell property (Lev. 25.25-34); in the second stage, the Israelite has lost property and become so reduced economically that they are in need of a loan (Lev. 25.35-38); in the third stage, the Israelite is reduced to slavery (Lev. 25.39-55).²⁷ The third biblical text is from Deuteronomy and introduces a distinction between the prohibition against charging interest to a fellow Israelite and permission to charge interest to a foreigner (Deut. 23.19-20).

Philo addresses these laws in two different texts.²⁸ The first is part of his explanation of the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath. Philo introduced the seventh year and the cancellation of debts in that year which led him to a broader discussion of lending practices (Spec. 2.74-78). He opened his discussion with the simple statement: ‘to lend at interest is a blameworthy act’. He explained: ‘for someone who borrows is not living with abundance, but is clearly in need’ (§74).²⁹ He then turned to the lender and rebuked the lender for taking advantage of someone who was down and out: ‘Why do you pretend to appear to be kind and philanthropic, but in your actions you display an inhumanity and terrible brutality, exacting more than you lend – sometimes double – driving the poor into greater poverty’ (§75). He concluded with a warning to the creditor that no one will sympathize if they lose the entire loan or only retrieve the principal. Each creditor should remember that the scales may one day be reversed, and they may be in need (§§76-78).

The second text is part of Philo’s discussion of humanity or ϕιλανθρωπία in Virt. 82-87.³⁰ This is the first law that Philo addresses in his treatment of ϕιλανθρωπία, indicating its paradigmatic importance to him. Philo’s explanation is similar to his treatment in Spec. 2 but varies in several aspects. He opened with the prohibition against interest and explained that ἀδελϕός refers to a citizen or compatriot (ἀστὸς καὶ ὁμόϕυλος) (§82). He then warned that the prohibition against interest should not be a reason to avoid granting a loan. Rather, ‘with free hands and heart give to those in need, reasoning that a gift is in a certain way a loan that will be repaid in a better time without constraint by the willing disposition of the one who received it’. If someone is unwilling to offer a gift, they should lend without interest. Philo appears to have incorporated Deut. 15.10 in this exposition: ‘You will certainly give him and loan him a loan, however much he needs. You will not grieve in your heart when you give him a gift.’ Philo played with the language of gift and loan in the same way that Deut. 15 does. Philo then pointed out that instead of interest, the lender received the best and most honored qualities among humans: ‘gentleness, a community-minded spirit, kindness, magnanimity, a good reputation, and good fame’ (§§83-84). The Alexandrian argued that this is better than a filthy rich king who lacks virtue, a wealthy lender, or the loan shark who stoops so low as to lend food (§§85-86). Philo argued that Moses forbade all such approaches to making money (§87).

There are several observations that we need to make about this text. It is quite clear that Philo reflected the biblical text’s injunctions to take care of the poor. It is difficult to read through the Exposition of the Law and not realize his consistent expressions of support for those who are in need. What was the reality that he addressed?

Unfortunately, we do not have any records from Jewish courts in Alexandria.³¹ Presumably the war in 115–117 ce resulted in the destruction of all official documents in Jewish institutions.³² If we turn to the papyri, we find Jews following standard practices.³³ The papyri from the Ptolemaic period suggest that Jews loaned money to Jews at the standard rate of interest or 24%, the fixed rate in the Ptolemaic period.³⁴ In one third-century bce papyrus, Mousaios loaned to Lasiates 108 drachmai of copper with interest at the rate of 2 drachmai per month or 24% (CPJ 20).³⁵ In a second-century bce contract, Judas renewed a loan to Agathokles of two talents, five hundred drachmai of copper, for 12 months at the standard interest rate of 2 drachmai per mina per month. This is the amount that was not repaid from a previous loan of 5 talents. If Agathokles defaulted, he was liable for the principle increased by half (CPJ 24)! This could be an example of an interest-free loan that had penalties attached to it when it was renewed and not fully repaid, although this is only an assumption. We do not know the terms of the first loan. We have one example of an interest-free loan in a one-year mortgage. Yet even here, the loan specifies that if the borrower defaults, he will be liable to the lender, for the principle plus half and now at the standard 24% rate of interest (CPJ 23). This is by no means the only interest-free loan that we have. There are a number of examples among Greeks and Egyptians. The penalties are also typical. A loan of 140 drachmai to a group of Jews in the late first century bce specified that, if they failed to repay it on time, they were liable to the principle plus 50% and interest of 2 drachmai (CPJ 149). It appears that Philo’s comment about ‘doubling a loan’ (Spec. 2.75) may not be hypothetical; it may reflect the penalty and interest attached to loans that were not fully repaid on time.

The evidence for the Roman period is similar. One papyrus has a 12% interest rate rather than the 24% common in the Ptolemaic period (CPJ 413). There is one example of an interest-free loan, but it has penalties if not repaid (CPJ 417).³⁶ Other examples are similar.³⁷ In connection with the riots in Alexandria in 38 ce, Philo mentioned the fact that Jewish lenders lost their deposits (Flacc. 57). A letter dating to 41 ce from a Greek merchant who wrote to a friend in Alexandria warned his colleague against the Jewish lenders, a letter that reminds a modern audience of Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (CPJ 152). As was true in the Ptolemaic period, the evidence suggests that Jews followed Hellenistic practices. These included both interest-free loans and interest-bearing loans.

The papyrological evidence suggests that we should not take Philo’s exhortations as reflecting the status quo, but as urging a concern for justice that not all of his compatriots shared. The concerns were not, however, uniquely Jewish. Besides the examples in the papyri, Plato forbade interest on loans in Laws 742C. Aristotle was similarly emphatic in his opposition to usury in Politics 1258a-b. Livy mentioned a fourth-century bce law, the lex Genucia, that forbade interest (7.42.1). A number of writers were highly critical of those who made money by charging interest. Tacitus captured this sentiment memorably when he wrote: ‘without question usury is a long-standing evil in the City and a most frequent cause of seditions and wranglings’ (Ann. 6.16). Philo was not singular in his concern (Maloney 1971: 79-95). It is especially interesting to note the convergence between Plato and Aristotle, on the one hand, and Philo’s Jewish roots on the other. The convergence means that Philo’s appeal was not simply to the biblical text, but to the ideals expressed among leading philosophers and moralists who argued for an ideal state.

The Proper Use of Wealth

The second text that we will examine addresses the proper use of wealth. It is found in Philo’s interpretation of the prohibition against swearing or taking an oath in God’s name (Spec. 2.1-38). In the course of his explanation, he illustrated different groups who swear wrongly. The first group are the misanthropes who confirm their savage nature with an oath against another human (§§16-17). The second are those who refuse frugality for the sake of luxury and swear that they will indulge in whatever pleasures their wealth can provide (§§18-23). Philo used this group to set up a series of contrasts in which he moved from a negative example to a positive example and back to a negative example. Philo recounted an event that illustrates the first negative example:

Recently someone with a great deal of wealth who had embraced an easy and dissipating life-style was in the company of an older person who was a relative or an old family connection, perhaps a friend, and was encouraging and exhorting him to change to a more sober and more rigorous way of living.

The advice was not well received:

[H]e was thoroughly disgusted with the advice and swore that as long as he had his income and goods, he would make no effort to economize – not in the city, not in the country, not while on ship, not while on the road – but would show his wealth continually in all places.

Philo added: ‘This, it seems, was not a display of wealth but of arrogance and a lack of moderation’ (§19).

Philo contrasted this group with those who have great wealth but live simply and are generous (§§20-22). He fleshed the point out by drawing a comparison between a lifestyle with clay pottery, a simple diet, plain clothes and a willingness to sleep on mother earth, on the one hand, with a lifestyle with ornate beds with elaborate coverings and sumptuous meals, on the other hand. He attributed the difference between the two groups to their formation (παιδεία) ‘that taught them to honor human needs above those of the ruler’. He then spelled out the force of the training: ‘It (παιδεία) takes up residence in their souls; almost a single day does not pass without it reminding them of their common humanity, leading and pushing them away from elite and excessive concerns and healing their inequality with equality’ (§21). This disposition, instilled in their basic formation, leads them to the generous support of the communities ‘they have filled with abundance, surplus, order, and peace: they have held back nothing good, giving everything freely and lavishly’ (§22).

Philo concluded with a final negative example: the nouveau riche or new money, a group he disdained (§23). He described them as follows: ‘But the actions of the nouveaux riches who have acquired wealth by a freak twist of fate are different’. They do not know true wealth but only blind wealth. ‘When they take an oath on an inappropriate occasion, the sacred word rebukes and reproaches them severely. For they are so hard to purify and heal that not even God who is gracious in nature considers them worth forgiving’ (§23) – harsh words.

What should we make of this statement? This is one of the few texts where it is possible to read Philo autobiographically. Philo’s critique of the nouveau riche may be understood as a critique against those whose recent fortune has led them to focus on their own good luck rather than on the community. At the same time, we should remember that Philo had inherited his wealth. The parvenus could respond back: It is easy for you to criticize us; you inherited old money. The tension between the established families and the ‘new money’ ran through both Greece and Rome where the term novus homo carried a negative connotation. Established groups felt a sense of superiority to those who wanted to join. While there is undoubtedly the standard social disdain in Philo’s critique, his point is not so much the possession of wealth as it is the attitude towards it. Money can blind a person to the true virtue and – in his judgment – does so more easily with new money than with old since the old does not need to acquire it but the new does.

Similarly, it is hard not to think of the largess of his brother Alexander when reading Philo’s description of the ideal ruler whose philanthropy builds a community. Alexander had not only loaned Agrippa I a great deal of money, but – as we saw – plated nine gates of the Jerusalem temple with silver and gold. While we do not have any evidence for his largess in Alexandria, it is not difficult to imagine that he had assisted his own community with structures.³⁸ While there is nothing in the text that directly hints at the identification of the description with Alexander, the description is of someone like Alexander.

This leads me to a more speculative suggestion. Was Philo’s description of an older man rebuking a younger man a reflection of his attempt to turn Tiberius Julius Alexander from his meteoric rise through the cursus honorum? Tiberius certainly had a successful career rising from a minor post in the Thebaid (OGIS 663) to procurator of Judea in 46–48 ce (Josephus, B.J. 2.220, 223; A.J. 20.100-103) to the governorship of Syria³⁹ to an officer on Corbulo’s staff (Tacitus, Ann. 15.28.3) to prefect of Egypt (CPJ 418b; Josephus, B.J. 2.309; Tacitus, Ann. 11.1) to Titus’s chief of staff (Josephus, B.J. 5.45-46; 6.237; OGIS 586) and – possibly – to the head of the Praetorian Guard in Rome (CPJ 418b). According to Josephus, Tiberius Julius Alexander broke with his ancestral faith (AJ 20.100). We should not interpret this to mean that Josephus understood there to be a form of normative Judaism that Tiberius Julius Alexander violated, but that Tiberius Julius Alexander had crossed lines that Josephus thought were crucial to their ancestral faith. Tiberius Julius Alexander certainly did not practice Judaism in the same way that his father and uncle did.⁴⁰ His uncle was concerned enough that he addressed him in two of his philosophical dialogues.⁴¹ While the description in Spec. 2 is too broad to make a claim that the text reflects an exchange between uncle and nephew, it is easy to see how the dynamics of this text might have played out in Philo’s own family. At least it is not difficult to imagine that Philo thought of Tiberius Julius Alexander when he described the young man who insisted on the display of his wealth, even if he had another individual in the community in mind in this text.

Conclusion

It is time to put all of the pieces of evidence we have gathered into a coherent whole. We need to return to Philo’s own social position. We can situate Philo and the members of his family more specifically by using Steve Friesen’s seven-stage scale for measuring wealth and poverty in major Roman cities. Friesen (2004 and 2005) constructed a descending scale based on economic resources: imperial elites (0.04%), regional elites (1%), municipal elites (1.76%), moderate surplus (7%), stable near subsistence (22%), at subsistence (40%), below subsistence (25%).⁴² Using this scale we should place Alexander among the regional elites or the 1% of the population and Philo perhaps in the municipal elites (1.76%), just below his brother. His nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander may have surpassed both and made the imperial elite category (0.04%) if he ascended to the senatorial rank from the equestrian rank.

The family wealth was largely inherited, but members of the family used it differently. Philo created the life of a leisured intellectual who devoted himself to the contemplative life rather than the active life. Wealth for Philo was the means to live the privileged life of a philosophically trained interpreter of his ancestral scriptures. His brother, on the other hand, leveraged his inherited wealth through businesses and a key political appointment to accumulate vast wealth. At the same time, he did not forget his Jewish formation and was generous both in loans and in civic matters to members of the Jewish community. Philo’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander dedicated his life to the pursuit of a military and political career, a career in which he was extraordinarily successful. In the process, he may have become wealthier than any other member of the family – both by inheritance and by his own achievements. The three thus represent very different lifestyles made possible by their family wealth and their own exceptional talents. It is no wonder that they were selected to serve on the first Jewish embassy to Gaius representing the Jewish community in Alexandria. Alexander, who knew members of the imperial family, had been in Rome previously. This might have been Philo’s only visit to the capital. Tiberius Julius Alexander would return triumphantly at a later date when Jerusalem lay in ruins and his own military career reached an apex.

The different paths they followed are reflected in Philo’s comments on wealth. As we noted at the outset, Philo’s statements are complex. The tension that is felt is a result of the different language in the biblical text and Philo’s own complex situation: sometimes he expresses support for the poor, sometimes he exposes the dangers of wealth, and, in a few cases, he comments on the proper use of wealth. Philo’s treatments of the prohibition against interest point to his concern for the poor. He followed the biblical text and the philosophical ideal against the known practices of his day. The second text drew a contrast that illustrated the danger of wealth and recommended the proper use of it, a contrast that went well beyond the language of the biblical text and reflects Philo’s own orientation.

His own extraordinary family appears to lurk in the background of some of his statements. Philo’s own perspective is reflected in his sympathy toward the poor and critiques of the desire for more and more wealth. The sympathy appears to be genuine – at least I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt – since it is consistent with what we know of his life. His criticisms of those who want wealth can be understood from the perspective of someone who does not have to worry about finances, yet again, they reflect an authentic concern for the dangers that wealth presents in orienting someone to the sense-perceptible and pleasurable rather than the invisible and intelligible. At the same time, it is important to note that Philo does not condemn wealth per se – how could he since it enabled him to live as a privileged intellectual. His own situation may, in part, be responsible for the controversy about his statements about wealth. Philo may have considered his brother a model of a wealthy philanthropist who assisted the community. It is worth remembering that Alexander was probably better known and more famous than Philo during their lifetimes as a result of his wealth and connections. His largess was undoubtedly recognized in the community. The third member of the family was more challenging. Philo was concerned about his nephew as his dialogues naming him suggest. The concern would not have been as much about the wealth that his nephew may have accumulated, but about Tiberius Julius Alexander’s absorption in a career that led him away from the transcendent Being to the power of the empire. Philo’s statements thus reflect not only the tensions resulting from practices within the Alexandrian Jewish community, but those within one of its most illustrious families.⁴³

Footnotes

Notes

References

Appelbaum

Alan

2018 ‘A Fresh Look at Philo’s Family’, The Studia Philonica Annual 30: 93-113.

Baltes

Matthias

2007 ‘Plutarchus III. Philosophical Work’, Brill’s New Pauly 11: 416-23.

Barclay

John

2004 ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steve Friesen’, JSNT 26.3: 363-66.

Belkin

Samuel

1940 Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah (HSS, 11; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Cohen

Naomi

1995 Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse (BEATAJ, 24; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).

Cohn

Leopold

Wendland

Paul

Reimer

Sigismundus

1896–1930 Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (7 vols.; Berlin: Georg Reimer).

Downing

Gerald

. 1985 ‘Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor’, JSNT 24: 116-18.

Etienne

Stéphane

2000 ‘Réflexion sur l’Apostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander’, The Studia Philonica Annual 12: 122-42.

Evans

Katherine G.

1995 ‘Alexander the Alabarch: Roman and Jew’, Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 576-94.

10.

Falk

Z.W.

1974 ‘Jewish Private Law’, in Safrai

Stern

(eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT, 1.1; Assen: Van Gorcum): 504-34.

11.

Fraser

P.M.

1972 Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press).

12.

Friesen

Steven J.

2004 ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus’, JSNT 26.3: 323-61.

13.

Friesen

Steven J.

2005 ‘Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission: Corinth among the Churches’, in Schowalter

Daniel N.

Friesen

Steven J.

(eds.), Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (HTS, 53; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School): 351-70.

14.

Fuks

Alexander

1951 ‘Notes on the Archive of Nicanor’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 5: 207-16.

15.

Goodenough

Erwin R.

1929 The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt: Legal Administration by the Jews under the Early Roman Empire as Described by Philo Judaeus (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

16.

Goodfellow

Charlotte F.

1935 Roman Citizenship: A Study of its Territorial and Numerical Expansion from the Earliest Times to the Death of Augustus (Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press).

17.

Harris

Harold A.

1976 Greek Athletics and the Jews (Cardiff: University of Wales).

18.

Horbury

William

2014 Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

19.

Kasher

Aryeh

1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (TSAJ, 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

20.

Koskenniemi

Erkki

2014 ‘Philo and Classical Education’, in Seland

Torrey

(ed.), Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 102-28.

21.

Koskenniemi

Erkki

2019 Greek Writers and Philosophers in Philo and Josephus: A Study of their Secular Education and Educational Ideals (SPhA, 9; Leiden: Brill): 21-151.

22.

Lincicum

David

2014 ‘Philo’s Library’, The Studia Philonica Annual 26: 99-114.

23.

Longnecker

Bruce W.

2010 Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

24.

Lynch

John P.

1972 Aristotle’s School: A Study of a Greek Educational Institution (Berkeley: University of California Press).

25.

Maloney

Robert P.

1971 ‘Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought’, Traditio 27: 79-109.

26.

Mealand

David J.

1978 ‘Philo of Alexandria’s Attitude toward Riches’, ZNW 69: 258-64.

27.

Mealand

David J.

1985 ‘The Paradox of Philo’s Views on Wealth’, JSNT 24: 111-15; repr., ‘The Paradox of Philo’s Views on Wealth’, in Evans

Craig A.

Porter

Stanley E.

(eds.), New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987): 38-42.

28.

Mendelson

Alan

1982 Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College, 7; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press; New York: Ktav).

29.

Milgrom

Jacob

1991–2001 Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.; AB, 3A-C; New York: Doubleday).

30.

Modrzejewski

Joseph Mélèze

1995 The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (trans. Robert Cornman; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society).

31.

Niehoff

Maren

2011 ‘Philo’s Exposition in a Roman Context’, The Studia Philonica Annual 23: 1-21.

32.

Niehoff

Maren

2017 Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (ABRL; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

33.

Niehoff

Maren

2020 ‘Philo als Biograph’, in Lanzinger

Daniel

(ed.), Das Leben des Wesen: Philon von Alexandria, De Abrahamo (Sapere 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 147-68.

34.

Niese

Benedictus

1955 Flavii Iosephi opera (7 vols.; 2nd edn; Berlin: Weidmann).

35.

Nock

Arthur Darby

1928 ‘The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic One’, ClQ 22: 129-42.

36.

Oakes

Peter

2004 ‘Constructing Poverty Scales for Graeco-Roman Society: A Response to Steven Friesen’s “Poverty in Pauline Studies”’, JSNT 26.3: 367-71.

37.

Phillips

Thomas E.

2001 ‘Revisiting Philo: Discussions of Wealth and Poverty in Philo’s Ethical Discourse’, JSNT 83: 111-21.

38.

Rey-Coquais

J.P.

1978 ‘Syri romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien’, JRS 68: 44-73.

39.

Rostovtzeff

1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press).

40.

Rostovtzeff

1957 The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (2 vols.; rev. P.M. Fraser; Oxford: Clarendon Press).

41.

Runia

David T.

2007 ‘The Rehabilitation of the Jackdaw: Philo of Alexandria and Ancient Philosophy’, in Sharples

Robert W.

Sorabji

Richard

(eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC–200 AD, II (London: Institute of Classical Studies): 483-500.

42.

Schmidt

Thomas E.

1983 ‘Hostility to Wealth in Philo of Alexandria’, JSNT 19: 89-97; repr., ‘Hostility to Wealth in Philo of Alexandria’, in Evans

Craig A.

Porter

Stanley E.

(eds.), New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987): 15-27.

43.

Schmidt

Thomas E.

1987 Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (JSNTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

44.

Schwartz

Daniel R.

1990 Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ, 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

45.

Sterling

Gregory E.

1999 ‘“The School of Sacred Laws”: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises’, VC 53: 148-64.

46.

Sterling

Gregory E.

2017a ‘Philo’s School: The Social Setting of Ancient Commentaries’, in Wyss

Beatrice

Hirsch-Luipold

Rainer

Hirschi

Solmeng-Jonas

(eds.), Sophisten in Hellenismus und Kaiserzeit: Orte, Methoden und Personnen der Bildungsvermittlung (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 123-42.

47.

Sterling

Gregory E.

2017b ‘The School of Moses in Alexandria: An Attempt to Reconstruct the School of Philo’, in Boccaccini

Gabriele

Zurawski

Jason

(eds.), Education in the Ancient World (BZNW, 228; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter): 141-66.

48.

Sterling

Gregory E.

2020 ‘“Pre-eminent in Family and Wealth”: Gaius Julius Alexander and the Alexandrian Jewish Community’, in Pearce

Sarah

Salvesen

Alison

(eds.), Israel in Egypt (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity; Leiden: Brill): 259-79.

49.

Sterling

Gregory E.

Forthcoming ‘Philo’s Library and the Libraries of Philosophical Schools’, in Cover

Michael

Döring

Lutz

(eds.), Philo and Philosophical Discourse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

50.

Svebakken

Hans

2012 Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition of the Tenth Commandment (SPhiloM, 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

51.

Tcherikover

Victor

Fuk

Alexander

1957–1964 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

52.

Tcherikover

Victor

Heichelheim

F.M.

1942 ‘Jewish Religious Influence in the Adler Papyri?’, HTR 35: 25-44.

53.

Terian

Abraham

1981 Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, 1; Chico, CA: Scholars Press).

54.

Wilson

Walter

2011 Philo of Alexandria On Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series, 3; Leiden: Brill).

55.

Wolff

H.J.

1974 ‘Hellenistic Private Law’, in Safrai

Stern

(eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT, 1.1; Assen: Van Gorcum): 534-60.