Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dovid Campbell—examines the often-overlooked intellectual legacy and deep influence of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE) on later Jewish thought. Philo, a leader of “the largest Jewish community of the first century,” may have been “one of history’s most influential Jews”. He laid solid foundations for “the entire stream of Western philosophy, including its religious and distinctively Jewish branches” (Campbell 2024:42). Essentially, Philo was an early, if not the first, thinker to understand the Torah as speaking the language of philosophy behind the plain meaning of its text. For Philo, Torah was philosophy. At this stage in Jewish history, Torah meant Tanach or Bible, because the rabbinic or Talmudic period was just beginning. Philo introduced numerous philosophical ideas into Judaism that changed its shape forever, but the man behind these contributions was lost to Jewish history. Today, we only know about Philo because other religious traditions preserved his work. In fact, many of his forgotten contributions have unknowingly become part of the very fabric of contemporary Orthodox Judaism, to the extent that those who disregard them would—to this day—almost certainly be considered as espousing heretical views. Campbell’s groundbreaking research expounds on this peculiar irony.
From Philo to Christianity, to Islam, then back to
Judaism
Christianity
Philo’s teachings—which he drew and perfected from a rich earlier philosophical culture prevalent in Alexandria—followed a circular theological path as they were first adopted by the Christians (the Church Fathers), then the Muslims and finally made their way back to Judaism through the medieval Jewish philosophers like Saadia Gaon and Maimonides (Cortest 2017:x):
“[M]ediaeval philosophy is the history of the philosophy of Philo” (Wolfson 1962: vol. 2, 457, 459-460).
The second-century Church Fathers, such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, were exposed to Philo’s writings. Clement is the first Christian to discuss Philo and did so about three hundred times. Origen had an almost complete collection of Philo’s writings in his private library, and he transported these books with him to Caesarea in 233 CE. Later Christians, like the ninth-century Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, noted that Philo introduced the notion of allegorical reading of Scripture (i.e., not always taking biblical verses literally). This was also an approach Maimonides later adopted during the twelfth century.
Islam
After being adopted by many Church Fathers, Philo’s philosophy and approach reached the minds of the Muslims. Surprisingly, many of the key doctrines of Islam were taken directly from the Church fathers:
“[The Islamic doctrines] were not new ideas, they are identical with Greek and Christian ideas which had for centuries past been in circulation in Christian schools and monasteries in the area” (Seale 1980:12).
Dr Mufti Ali has similarly shown—in his comprehensive investigation of the origins of Islamic theology—that there was indeed a formative influence of Christianity on Islamic theology (Ali 2023:7). This is an interesting perspective because we don’t usually view Islam in light of influence from the Church Fathers.
Fascinatingly, Maimonides—prefiguring the findings of current academic scholarship—writes that both Christian and Islamic theology arose as a response to Christian and Islamic encounters with Greek philosophy. Maimonides further maintains that both the Gaonim (i.e., the rabbis from 856-1038 CE) and the Karaites (i.e., the Jews who took the Torah literally and rejected the rabbinical interpretations thereof) were influenced by Islamic theology. Maimonides openly acknowledges that even his own Jewish Andalusian roots (in southern Spain) followed the path of “the [Islamic] philosophers”:
“Know that the many sciences devoted to establishing the truth regarding these matters that have existed in our religious community have perished because of the length of time that has passed…Know also that all the statements that the men of Islam…have made concerning these notions are all of them opinions founded upon premises that are taken over from the books of the Greeks…The Christian community came to include those communities…inasmuch as the opinions of the philosophers were widely accepted in those communities…Men of later periods who study these books know nothing about all this…I studied the books of the Mutakallimūn [Islamic rationalists and philosophers]…and I have likewise studied the books of the [Greek] philosophers [who inspired the Muslims]…Thus also do those belonging to our community who imitate them [the Muslims] and follow their ways (Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed I:71, Pines:175-179).
Maimonides—by embracing Philo’s general categories of thought—also confirms a profound influence from Philo.
According to Morris Seale, the eighth-century Muslim theologian, Jahm bin Ṣafwān had a profound influence on Islamic philosophy. Jahm was familiar with—and even taught—the doctrines of the Church Fathers. Jahm was particularly interested in the idea of a transcendental God (i.e., an unknowable God beyond human comprehension, incorporeal (formless), and inaccessible through positive descriptions), as well as the idea of allegorising biblical verses (i.e., not always taking biblical verses literally). This underscores a significant “Greek Christian influence on Islamic theology” (Campbell 2024:46). According to Seale:
“Jahm interpreted allegorically anthropomorphic [i.e., ascribing human characteristics to God, such as God’s ‘hand’] passages in the Qur’an in the same way as Philo and the [Church] Fathers interpreted the Bible and the Greeks Homer” (Seale 1980:53).
These two theologically innovative ideas of a transcendental God and allegorising biblical verses, however, did not originate with the Church Fathers, but instead began with Philo. One might say that Philo’s allegorisation of biblical anthropomorphisms allowed him to maintain divine transcendence. The fact that these Philolic ideas permeated first into Christianity and then into Islam and finally back again into Jewish philosophy indicates that Philo brought about a seismic shift in future Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious thinking, with roots going all the way back to the first century. The Muslim rationalists (Mutakallimūn) thus served as a bridge, inheriting the notions of transcendence and allegorisation from Christian thought—which the Christians had originally inherited from Philo—reframing it in Islamic theology, and then passing it back, as Maimonides points out, into Jewish thought.
Departure from Talmudic thought
If this historic line of scholarly and Maimonidean reasoning is correct, then we arrive at an astounding conclusion:
“The religious philosophy of Maimonides and other Jewish philosophers will be shown to be a departure from Talmudic tradition and an embrace of the Philonic categories and modes of thought...” (Campbell 2024:46).
The Talmudic Sages certainly developed their own cosmology (metaphysical perspectives of the universe) and theodicy (the question of how evil exists in a world created by a good God)—but Philo understood the Torah as being entirely philosophical. However, it must be noted that Philo never suggested a departure from the religious observance of his time (although he lived two centuries before the conclusion of the Mishnaic period, when the laws were first being formulated). Nevertheless:
“Philo essentially views the Torah as a program of philosophical education” (Campbell 2024:48).
This definition of Torah as philosophy was clearly not the general perception and conclusion of the Talmudic project.
The Talmudic Sages promoted a system of Jewish law that was anything but philosophical in the Philonic and Maimonidean (Guide for the Perplexed) sense. For example, the thirteenth-century Italian rabbi, Isaiah of Trani (the younger), known as Riaz, challenges Maimonides. Unlike his grandfather, Isaiah of Trani (the elder), known as Rid, Riaz was opposed to philosophy, which he claimed “denied the Torah.”[1]
Riaz confronts Maimonides on the question of God’s corporeality (i.e., God having a body, see: Kotzk Blog: 074) THE NOTION THAT G-D HAS A 'BODY' - In Early and Modern Rabbinical Writings:). Maimonides did not believe that God had a body despite many biblical references to God’s hands, fingers, anger and so on. Maimonides labelled as a Min (Heretic) anyone who believed that God has a bodily form. Riaz, however, maintains that many Talmudic Sages did indeed believe that God had a body. Riaz’s conclusion is profoundly anti-philosophical:
“Chazal [i.e., the Talmudic Sages] clearly did not insist upon a philosophical understanding. Rather, a person can believe in the unity [of God] according to his ability . . . and believe based on tradition . . . For Moshe gave the Torah to Yisrael based on tradition and faith. Likewise, the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud focused entirely on tradition and faith and did not instruct one to investigate or philosophize…” (Kuntros haReayot leRiaz to Sanhedrin 90a).
Riaz was not the only rabbi to challenge Maimonides’ philosophical approach of a non-corporeal (i.e., non-physical) and transcendent God, because the twelfth-century rabbi and Kabbalist Avraham ben David of Posquières, known as Raavad III, attacked Maimonides and claimed that “many greater and better than he [i.e., greater than Maimonides]” held such a belief in God possessing a bodily form.
Clearly, we have a dichotomy between the standard Talmudic approach and that of the rationalist philosophers like Maimonides. The philosophic slant—traceable in a circular root via Islam and Christianity back to Philo—vehemently opposed corporeality and suggested transcendence and allegorisation instead. This does appear to be a stark departure from what was later to become standard Talmudic thought.
Philo’s ‘negative theology’ as a departure from later Talmudic
thought
Related to the notion of God’s transcendence is Philo’s notion of negative theology. Philo’s negative theology went on (perhaps ironically) to inform all aspects of Jewish mysticism, including Chassidism, seventeen centuries later. I had first come across the idea of negative theology years ago when I started studying Chassidut. My teachers explained to me that this idea of negative theology was pioneered by the eighteenth-century Chassidic movement. I was, therefore, surprised to see its origins in Philo’s first-century rationalist philosophy. Negative theology is the idea that one cannot describe God by what God is (because we don’t know what God is), but rather we describe God ‘negatively’ by what God is not. By saying God is wise, kind or strong, for example, is limiting God and is anthropomorphic (describing God in human terms). For example, instead of defining God as infinite, one says that God is not finite. Philo taught that ‘positive’ descriptions distort the idea of what God is. Negative theology, also known as apophatic theology (as opposed to cataphatic theology, where one describes what God is), leaves God’s essence beyond human grasp yet still affirms God's transcendent perfection by denying imperfection. Bachya Ibn Pakuda (Chovot haLevavot)— who passed away just fifteen years before Maimonides was born—and Maimonides built on this idea of negative theology, with Maimonides teaching that even words like “existence”[2] or “unity” cannot be positively applied to God.
Interesting, this negative theology is yet another area where Philonic and Maimonidean thought diverges from classical Talmudic thought. This is because the Talmud embraced the biblical language of God’s attributes, like “existence,” “life,” “knowledge,” “power,” and “mercy.” The Talmud did not problematise these terms like Philo and the later Medieval Jewish philosophers did.
Maimonides’ Principles of Faith as a departure from Talmudic
thought
Maimonides famous Thirteen Principles of Faith, which have become cornerstones of contemporary Judaism, are also essentially derived from Philonic thought and represent another departure from Talmudic thought. Three centuries after Maimonides, R. Don Yitzchak Abravanel joined those who opposed the innovation of Maimonides’ Principles of Faith: Abravanel writes:
“[Maimonides’ and his followers] were brought to postulate principles in the divine Torah only because they were drawn after the custom of gentile scholars as described in their books” (Abravanel, Rosh Amana, ch. 23; translation by Menachem Kellner).
Once again, emphasising the perceived departure from classical Talmudic thought, Abravanel continues:
“If there were principles and roots in the Torah, why were they never mentioned by the sages?... in their wisdom the sages did not assent to the postulating of principles and roots in the divine Torah, for all of it is true and divine; there are no beliefs in it more fundamental than others” (Ibid.).
Shlomo Pill researched the origins of Maimonides’ Principles of Faith, which introduced dogma and systematic theology into Judaism (for what is often described as the first time):
“Maimonides’s incorporation of systematic theology into Jewish thought and law was significantly influenced by Islam’s own prior shift from orthopraxy [where religious practice and observance are prioritised] to orthodoxy [where fundamental principles of faith and dogma are prioritised] as the hallmark of religiosity” (Pill 2014:2).[3]
According to R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Maimonides' departure from Talmudic thought is so evident that he describes him as an Arabic-Greek thinker! (Hirsch 1899:182).[4]
Bearing in mind that this “Islamic shift to orthodoxy has its roots in Philo” (Campbell 2024:51), we return once more to our starting point—Philo. Philo postulated, not thirteen but five dogmata (principles of faith) in his De Opificio Mundi. In this sense, it was not Maimonides who innovated Principles of Faith, but Philo.
“What these detractors [from Abravanel to R. Hirsch] could not have known was that Maimonides, [also] almost certainly unknowingly, was indeed drawing on an ancient Jewish tradition. Its origins are to be found not in Yavneh or Pumbedita but in first-century Jewish Alexandria” (Campbell 2024:64).
Conclusion
Over the last one thousand years—from when Philonic ideas were reintroduced to Judaism by the Medieval Jewish philosophers—Jewish thinkers, from rationalists to mystics, have extensively engaged with the ideas of negative theology, transcendence, allegorisation, dogma and principles of faith—issues that are still foremost in contemporary Jewish theological discussions. Campbell has shown how, in all of these areas, the forgotten Alexandrian philosopher, Philo, emerges as “the father,” “the first,” and “the earliest” Jewish thinker to bring these ideas into Judaism. Over centuries, through the circular routes via Christianity and Islam, they returned to Judaism. Astoundingly, these ideas were not always embraced by the Talmud, which developed a system of thought quite at variance with these ideas. Yet Philo, born in 20 BCE and preceding the birth of the Talmudic era, was somehow skipped over by almost all the sages and adopted by other cultures, until he returned, later, to Judaism through the Medieval Jewish philosophers. Yet, Philo’s thoughts are not extraneous to the contemporary Orthodox ear. His writings are being translated into Hebrew and becoming available to a traditional audience. According to Naomi Cohen:
“When read through a Jewish prism, Philo's writings reveal a world of allegorical/theosophical semi-esoteric thought that is not foreign to the strongholds of contemporary traditionalist Judaism and is congenial to it in spirit” (Cohen 2008:43).
In more recent times, R. David Cohen, known as haRav haNazir, began
introducing studies of Philo into the curriculum of Merkaz haRav Yeshiva with
the blessing of his teacher R. Avraham Yitzchak haCohen Kook. Still, Philo
remains essentially unknown to most Jews today. Even those who do know his name
often exhibit a negative attitude towards him, even though—unbeknownst to them—Philo
shaped, and then reshaped, much of the Judaism we have today.
Bibliography
Ali, M., 2023, Muslim Opposition to Logic and
Theology in the Light of the Works of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī (d.
911/1505), UIN Banten Press.
Campbell, D., 2024, ‘The Origins and Ambiguities of
Modern Jewish Thought’, TRADITION, vol.56, no. 4, 42-65.
Cohen, N., 2008, ‘Philo Judeaus and the Torah True
Library’, Tradition, vol. 41, no. 3, 31-48.
Cortest, L., 2017, Philo’s Heirs: Moses Maimonides
and Thomas Aquinas, Academic Studies Press.
Hirsch, S.R., 1899, The Nineteen Letters of Ben
Uziel, translated by Bernard Drachman, Funk & Wagnalls.
Pill, S.C., 2014, ‘Law as Faith, Faith as Law: The
Legalization of Theology in Islam and Judaism in the Thought of Al-Ghazali and
Maimonides’, Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, vol.
6, no.1, 1-25.
Seale, M.S., 1980, Muslim Theology: A Study of
Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers, Luzac and Company Limited.
Wolfson, H.A., 1962, Philo: Foundations of
Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Harvard
University Press (first published 1947, revised edition 1962).
Hirsch, S.R., 1899, The Nineteen Letters of Ben
Uziel, translated by Bernard Drachman, Funk & Wagnalls.
I thank Dr Avi Harel for these sources:
אלעד פילר, פילון – הפילוסופיה בשירות פרשנות המקרא, הוצאת אדרא
[1]
Online source: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8242-isaiah-ben-elijah-di-trani-the-younger.
Retrieved 15 March 2026.
[2]
It interesting to note, however, that one of Philo’s principles of faith did
include belief in the “existence” of God (see below). Perhaps Maimonides was a more extreme adherent of apophatic theology than Philo?
[3]
Pill, S.C., 2014, ‘Law as Faith, Faith as Law: The Legalization of Theology in
Islam and Judaism in the Thought of Al-Ghazali and Maimonides’, Berkeley
Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, vol. 6, no.1, 1-25.
[4]
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, S.R., 1899, The Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel,
translated by Bernard Drachman, Funk & Wagnalls.
.jpg)
