Hi all!
Aineo, you posted:
Would you consider the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria an Orthodox Jew?
I don't know what Philo's level of observance was but (and I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, God forbid!) it's not relevant. Just because a Jew says something doesn't make that something part of normative Judaism. While learned, he was not a mainstream
rabbinic scholar & many of his views were rejected by the normative Jewish mainstream.
See
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on him:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P&search=Philo.
I cite the following excerpts:
Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Hebrew religion, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the Stoics. His work was not accepted by contemporary Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them ("De Somniis," i. 16-17), "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Greek science, suppressed by the victorious Phariseeism (Men. 99), was soon forgotten. Philo was all the more enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a Christian.
(...).
Philo's teaching was not Jewish, but was derived from Greek philosophy. Desiring to convert it into a Jewish doctrine, he applied the Stoic mode of allegoric interpretation to the Old Testament. No one before Philo, except his now forgotten Alexandrian predecessors, had applied this method to the Old Testament—a method that could produce no lasting results. It was attacked even in Alexandria ("De Vita Mosis," iii. 27 [ii. 168]), and disappeared after the brief florescence of Jewish Hellenism.
(...).
The Logos:
Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates "Logos." This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the "dividing Logos" (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 43 [i. 503]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea" ("De Migratione Abrahami," § 18 [i. 452]; "De Specialibus Legibus," § 36 [ii. 333]).
I mean no disrespect to my Christian friends (God forbid!), but as per the above, we see the Logos idea as an essentially Greek one that Philo attempted to Judaize, or merge with Judaism. We cannot accept, and very much reject, this.
"His words are not Him", so His words simply explain Him?
His words are the things He says and, in our view, have no more an independent, or prior, existence than mine do. A word is a tool, or a symbol; in any case, it is a created thing.
Howzat?
Be well!
stillsmallvoice