Egypt, Page 4

That Paul was thoroughly familiar with, and substantially influenced by, Philo has long been an increasing probability in my mind. It is hard to imagine how a hellenized Jew and Pharisee such as Saul of Tarsus had been, who “advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers” (Gal 1,14), could have been uninfluenced by so preeminent an elder in these categories as was Philo. Not only was Alexandria the largest Jewish community outside of Palestine, but Philo was himself widely known and from a wealthy family; his brother Alexander provided the gold and silver to plate the temple gates in Jerusalem and loaned money to Herod Agrippa I, father of the tetrarch Herod Agrippa II before whom Paul appeared and was found innocent (Acts 25-26). It appears (see 5 Brit 880) that save for the above loan it is unlikely that either Agrippa would have come into his official position in Judea. Furthermore, Alexander’s son Marcus married the daughter (Bernice) of Herod Agrippa I, and was thus a brother-in-law of Herod Agrippa II. Bernice was with Agrippa throughout the time of his trial of Paul, for she is referred to in Acts 25,13,23 and 26,30. Paul seems to know of Agrippa’s background (Acts 26,2-3) and surely must have been aware of his connections with Philo’s family in Alexandria. Perhaps it even contributed to Paul’s feeling of being “fortunate” to appear before him (Acts 26,2), particularly if, as here assumed, Paul was a devotee of the (primarily allegorical) teachings of Philo.

With that background we now look at Paul’s terse remarks in Gal 4,21-31, identifying the Sarah/Hagar episode in Genesis as an allegory. Where might we find this more fully explained? Nowhere more than in Philo’s extensive allegorical comments on Genesis. See PHILO, pp. 304- 320 “On Mating with the Preliminary Studies,” and “Questions and Answers on Genesis, III,” pp. 848-853, paragraphs (18) through (38) dealing with Gen 16. Whatever knowledge Paul’s own initiation gave him, he certainly gives his imprimatur, and would appear to acknowledge his indebtedness, to these allegorical teachings of Philo which explain in great detail what Paul says succinctly.

And when we go to Paul’s identification in 1 Cor 10,1-4 of the Rock as Christ and the manna as spiritual food, we can see how these also flow from Philo’s teachings. On the “Rock,” see PHILO, p. 125 “That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better” XXXI (115) and (118), and on “Manna,” see p. 282 “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” VI (79).

Philo’s works would indicate that virtually the entirety of the Mosaic Law has an allegorical meaning higher than its literal one, for he treats of them extensively. We shall in the course of this longer work be looking at many of these. While it has not been utilized for this term “Egypt,” Philo deals with the meaning of that also and in a way quite compatible with the meanings here. But the point for now is that Paul clearly looked at the higher allegorical meanings of the Old Testament, which can inspire us to do so also.

Moreover, there is an inherent similarity in purpose between the parable (9 Brit 133) and the allegory (1 Brit 277) in that both employ fictional information to convey deeper truth. The Old Testament uses both vehicles. Most of Jesus’ teachings were by parable, but some, such as that of the Prodigal Son, seem clearly more akin to allegory. That the latter has been dubbed a parable is doubtless due to the fact that its allegorical truth has generally remained hidden, absent anthroposophical light.

Among the Evangelists, we may take Luke as reflecting the thinking of Paul, and as thus being at least indirectly influenced by the hellenistic thinking of Philo, an influence readily acceptable to one already a Greek. But we will look at Peter, then to Mark and then to Lazarus/ John, and in the process see the amazing conceptual links between our Gospel writers and Philo, so that virtually the entirety of the New Testament can be seen to come, in a sense, under his sway. Little wonder then that “the Christian church has been the primary preserver of the writings of Philo, who was virtually unknown in the Jewish tradition after his own time until the sixteenth century” (PHILO, Foreword, p. xiii; in accord is 5 ABD 341).

Let us embark first to Peter as the inspiration of Evangelist John Mark. Though problematic as is so often the case, the tradition is strong that Peter resided for a time in Rome and was martyred there (see 9 Brit 332, “Peter the Apostle, Saint”). Even stronger is the tradition and evidence that Mark was associated with Peter in a special way. Eusebius tells us “that Philo... became acquainted at Rome with Peter...” (Nicene-3, Vol. 1, p. 117, Chap. 17, vs 1 and editorial footnote 1). The latter footnote cites Photius as even saying “that Philo became a Christian,” an assertion it says is certainly wrong. Considering that Philo died of old age during the very birthing labors of Christianity, we might perhaps say, in the sense of Augustine’s recognition that there were Christians (such as Socrates and Plato) prior to the time of Christ,¹² that Philo was a Christian of such character, but we need not grovel in such semantics. Steiner says of Philo, who elaborated the doctrine of the Logos, “The platonizing Philo addresses this logos as Christ” (CMF, Chap. 4, p. 68; cf. PHILO, p. 142, “The Posterity and Exile of Cain” [#101]), and he quotes a passage from Philo that speaks of “the word” as “the way to Him,” “the Royal Road” (cf. Jn 14,6). In truth, Philo would himself seem to have been a part of that birthing process.

Steiner apparently makes no assertions about Peter’s presence in Rome, but does confirm that Mark was his pupil and received from him the same impulse (this refers to the source of facts rather than merely to the facts themselves) of clairvoyant knowledge of the events in Jerusalem and of the Mystery of Golgotha that Peter had; thus Mark was able to generate what became his Gospel from his own authentic, clairvoyantly received spiritual knowledge (The Gospel of St. Mark [GSMk], Lect. 10). In the same lecture, Steiner further tells us:

It was possible for [Mark] to be stimulated to give his description of the cosmic greatness of Christ precisely because of the place to which he had moved after he had been Peter’s pupil. He moved to Alexandria in Egypt and lived there at a period when in a certain way Jewish-philosophical-theosophical learning in Alexandria had reached a certain culmination. He could take up in Alexandria what at that time were the best aspects of pagan gnosis.¹³

Certainly the spirit of Philo had to be the overriding influence in Alexandria at that time, the same spirit that had raised the concept of the Logos to the height from which Lazarus/John took it up in the Prologue of his Gospel. That Alexandria is the possible site of origin of Mark’s Gospel is widely recognized (4 ABD 543). Barclay says, “Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there” (Barc, The Gospel of Mark, p. 3).