John of Damascus (c. 675–c. 750)

George Syncellus (died after 810)

Photius, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 820–891)

Anastasius incertus (9th century)

Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea (c. 850–c. 940)

Souda (c. 1000)

There are various ways in which this list could be analysed. Each author could be dealt with in turn. But this method would lead to results that were rather fragmented. In my discussion of the evidence I will use a more systematic approach. The nomenclature used for Philo will be presented under nine headings.

If we survey the group of texts as a whole, the first impression is that a large number of them emphasize Philo’s great learning. This tendency commences with Josephus, who regards him as ‘not unskilled in philosophy’, a description which is unclear, and to which we shall return. For
page 10
Ps.Justin Philo is a sage (sofoj) or most wise (sofwtatoj). The same general epithet returns in two authors dealing with Paschal questions, Ps.Chrysostom and the Chronicon Paschale.¹⁸ Eusebius emphasizes the great distinction of both his sacred and his secular learning (paideia); the latter aspect is again emphasized on one occasion in the Praeparatio Evangelica, a work that gives quotations from no less than nine Philonic treatises.¹⁹ According to the Armenian translator²⁰ Philo was a man of great wisdom. The greatest emphasis on Philo’s learning, however, is found in Jerome, who refers to it on six separate occasions (similar descriptions found in Rufinus and Augustine are very likely dependent on him). Jerome is the first (together with Isidore) to record the proverb ‘either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes’, interpreting it as referring to the similarity of both thought and style.²¹ Against this background we can understand why sometimes Philo’s learning is praised in a general way (note especially doctissimus, eruditissimus), but on other occasions special emphasis is placed on his eloquence (disertissimus, cf. ellogimwtatoj in the translation of Jerome’s account in Ps.Sophronius). If Philo is a second or Jewish Plato, and an imitator of Plato’s style, then eloquence can hardly be denied him. That Philo was a distinguished (and prolific) writer is noted only by Rufinus, who adds this information to his translation of Eusebius.²² A final text that emphasizes Philo’s learning is found in Johannes Damascenus, who draws extensively on Philo in his Sacra Parallela.²³ The Greek epithet logioj which Johannes uses probably refers to learning in general rather than just to his eloquence. Other passages among our texts refer to more specific aspects of Philo’s learning. These we shall now examine separately under the next three headings.

One of the reasons that Philo was a valuable source for Christian writers was that he furnished much historical information, not only about early Pentateuchal times, but also concerning the crucial events at the time of and just after Jesus’ death. Various writers point out that he was a contemporary of the apostles (e.g. Anastasius incertus in the 9th century). In the descriptions cited above, this aspect is explicitly brought forward by
page 11
only one author, Ps. Justin, whose aim is to convince his pagan readers about the antiquity of the Jewish-Christian tradition. On both occasions he connects Philo with the other great Jewish author who wrote in Greek, Josephus.²⁴ The connection with Josephus occurs in four other Christian sources: Ps.Chrysostom, Jerome, Isidore, John of Damascus. Of these all but one join them together and describe them as learned. The exception is Isidore, who distinguishes between them, calling Josephus a supreme historian and Philo a supremely speculative thinker. We return to this text under (4).

filosofoj and filosofia are notoriously ambiguous words. In later antiquity they can refer to Greek philosophy, but just as easily to the Christian faith or to the practice of biblical exegesis.²⁵ So when Josephus, the first author to mention Philo, says that he was not unskilled in philosophy’ we may wonder what he is specifically referring to. I suspect that it is to ‘Greek’ or ‘pagan’ philosophy. Jewish observers, and perhaps also those outside the Jewish community, will have noted how deep a knowledge of Greek philosophy is presumed by Philo’s literary œuvre. But there is no way of being sure, since Josephus, not unlike Philo (on whom he probably to some degree depends), regards Greek philosophy as posterior to and dependent on Jewish philosophy or wisdom, which in his view is to be equated with fundamental Jewish religious convictions centred on the Law.²⁷

In the case of Clement of Alexandria, the first Christian author to refer to Philo, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the title he uses, Philo the ‘Pythagorean’ or ‘follower of Pythagoras’, refers to Greek philosophy. In Clement’s day the Pythagoreans were a recognized philosophical ‘school’ (airesij), even if in practice there was little to distinguish them from Platonists.²⁸ Nevertheless it is once again not easy to deter-
page 12
mine what Clement means by the epithet.²⁹ Given the contexts—in the first passage Philo is cited in order to prove the antiquity of ‘Jewish philosophy’, in the second it is expressly stated that he is ‘giving exegesis of the writings of Moses’—it is to my mind not likely that he means that Philo was a member of the Pythagorean school. It is possible that he is alluding to Philo’s great knowledge of this area of Greek philosophy, as Eusebius was to do a century later when he introduces Philo in his Historia Ecclestiastica and states that he ‘showed a special zeal for the study of Plato and Pythagoras’.³⁰ Another possibility is that there were aspects of Philo’s thought and exegetical practice, e.g. his extensive references to numbers and their symbolism in his exegesis, that reminded Clement of Pythagorean philosophers.

Remarkably Clement’s epithet returns once more in the extant tradition, namely in the 5th century historian Sozomen’s account of the early monastic movement. Where did Sozomen, who was of course heavily indebted to earlier material, get it from? Recently it has been suggested that the above-mentioned passage in Eusebius was his source.³¹ I regard this as rather unlikely, since why would he choose the school of one philosopher at the expense of that of the other (which was in fact more famous)? A few pages earlier (1.1.12) Sozomen informs his reader that he wrote a short account of the history of the Church up to the time of Constantine in two books, in which one of his sources was ‘Clement’ (in addition to Eusebius). He may mean the Pseudo-Clementina,³² but he may also mean Clement of Alexandria,³³ whose lost Hypotyposeis contained much quasi-historical material on the apostolic age.³⁴ If so, then this work of Clement may be his source for the Philonic epithet which he uses.³⁵

Another reference to Philo as philosopher is implied in the famous proverb on Philo’s Platonism cited by Jerome and Isidore of Pelusium, which has already been discussed under (1) above, especially if the
page 13
imitation involved is taken to refer to thought as well as (or rather than) style.³⁶

In a number of very late documents the epithet ‘philosopher’ returns.³⁷ Anastasius the Sinaite, a rabid defender of orthodoxy, uses it in most pejorative fashion, connecting it with the fact that Philo was a Jew and an unbeliever (how much worse can one be!).³⁸ In the Souda Philo is introduced as a ‘philosopher from the Hebrew people’ in connection with the lemma on Abraham. The implication is that ‘philosopher’ here has to do with biblical interpretation. There are a number of other texts pointing in the same direction, which we will discuss in more detail under the next category.

Only in one text is Philo directly referred to as ‘exegete’ (though more as a description than as a title), namely in the Syriac writer Barh>adbs]abba cArbaya, who regards him as founder of the Alexandrian school of exegesis, and the one whose example led the great Origen astray.³⁹ Other texts, however, point towards the same aspect of his literary activity. Clement, as we saw, calls Philo a ‘Pythagorean’, but immediately adds that he gives exegesis of Mosaic scripture. The next relevant text is the letter of Isidore (Ep. 3.19) in which he is called qeorhtikhtatoj. What is the contemplation (qewria), we may ask, in which Philo is so highly versed? When explaining the epithet Isidore states that Philo ‘turns almost the entire Old Testament into allegory’, so that there can be no doubt that the epithet refers especially to the practice of allegorical or ‘speculative’ exegesis.⁴⁰ Exactly the same epithet is used five centuries later by Arethas when referring to Philo’s praise of the hebdomad (i.e. in Opif. 89–127).⁴¹ In the Syriac tradition Philo’s name occurs in a long and rather disorganized list of nomina doctorum patrum orthodoxorum together with the title philosophus spiritualis. Philo appears to be the only
page 14
non-Christian in the list, but is included as a member of the exegetical tradition The title certainly refers to his exegetical activity. If the author has Philo’s allegorizing in mind, it may be equivalent to the Greek filosofoj yewrhtikoj. We note, however, that the 9th century Ps.Anastasius speaks in similar terms about the early 1st and 2nd century exegetes who ‘spiritually contemplated the Paradise story’ (pneumatikwj ta peri paradeisou eqewrhsan), so it is also possible that the term may be equivalent to pneumatikoj.⁴³

It is time to turn to a quite different aspect of our theme, the use of titles and descriptions to indicate Philo’s descent. With one exception the relevant texts can be divided into two groups, those that describe Philo as ‘the Hebrew’ (o Ebraioj), and those that describe him as Jewish or ‘the Jew’ (o Ioudaioj). In our sources the first group begins with Eusebius of Caesarea, the man who did more than anyone else to place Philo on the Christian map. For Eusebius Philo is ‘a Hebrew by descent’. Elsewhere too he consistently refers to Philo by this epithet. Other 4th century texts in Eusebius of Emesa, Gregory of Nyssa, Ps.Chrysostom all use the same title. It is used by Jerome too (but less frequently than the other title Iudaeus —twice as opposed to five times), and also by the opponent of Augustine, Julian of Eclanum. The author of the Catena⁴⁴ employs it towards the end of the 5th century, as do four later writers (author of the Chronicon Paschale, John of Damascus, an Anonymous Syriac writer, and the Souda once). We shall see in the following section, however, that this epithet is used less than that of Philo ‘the Jew’.

What do Christian authors mean to say when they call Philo ‘the Hebrew’? The relation between the epithets Ebraioj and Ioudaioj is by no means straightforward, and has so far been insufficiently researched.⁴⁵ One must be careful not to over-interpret the evidence. The
page 15
terms may be used in a neutral fashion, without any particular overtones. It is possible, however, to draw broad lines of division between the two terms. Philo’s own usage is revealing in this respect.⁴⁶ He uses Ebraioi as a term to describe the ancient lineage of the Jewish nation going back to the Patriarchs, or he relates it to the use of the Hebrew language (and especially the intepretation of Pentateuchal names). It occurs very frequently in the Lives of Abraham, Joseph and Moses. The only instance where he uses it in a post-biblical context is when he speaks of the Hebrews who came from Jerusalem to translate the Books of Moses (Mos. 2.31). Here the term probably indicates that they were speakers of Hebrew. Philo would not have described himself as a ‘Hebrew’. On the other hand Ioudaioj is Philo’s usual way refering to contemporary Jews in their socio-political situation. It occurs no less than 79 times in his two political treatises. In other treatises it is less common, but always with reference (direct or indirect) to the contemporary situation.⁴⁷ Revealingly it is never used in the Allegorical Commentary, presumably because this work is written for insiders.⁴⁸ Philo would have regarded himself as a Ioudaios.⁴⁹ A similar usage is encountered in Josephus: ‘Ioudaioi is the regular name for post-biblical Jews’.⁵⁰ Surprisingly at the outset of his Jewish War he describes himself as genei Ebraioj (a Hebrew by descent).⁵¹ I agree with Tomson against
page 16
Gutbrod that Josephus here is exploiting the connotations of ancient prestige that the title connotes.⁵²

Against this background there can be little doubt that Eusebius’ description of Philo as ‘the Hebrew’ is deliberate. Philo, who is such a valuable source of information on the beginnings of the Church in Alexandria, belongs to those respected and (relatively) ancient members of the Jewish people who lived before the fall of Jerusalem. Arazy accuses Eusebius of a ‘double standard’ in his use of appellations: Philo is ‘a Hebrew by racial descent’, while the people whom he represents and whose troubles he recounts are ‘Jewish’.⁵³ Other Jews who are called Ebraioi are Josephus and Trypho, the dialogue-partner of Justin Martyr. Arazy concludes: ‘(1) Any time a positive image of the Jews, contemporary or ancient is to be presented, Hebraios is the proper appellation. (2) The appellation Ioudaios should be used in pointing out the negative character of the Jews, both contemporary and their ancestors.’⁵⁴ This statement is no doubt too clear-cut, and may well need to be qualified by further research. But it seems on the right track. It is supported by an analysis of the evidence in Origen by De Lange, who concludes that ‘Ioudaios, in many mouths, was a sneering expression, even perhaps a term of abuse; Hebraios, on the other hand, was a liberal’s word, leaning over backwards to give no offence’.⁵⁵

The positive connotations of the title Ebraioj are confirmed by our texts. In almost every case the context is non-polemical and, by implication at least, favourable. Gregory of Nyssa sympathizes with Philo because his ideas are filched by the heretical Neo-Arian Eunomius.⁵⁶ In the Paschal documents Philo serves as an ancient authority whose testimony carries weight on account of its antiquity, and can be used as ammunition against both Christian (or heretical) opponents and contemporary Jews who follow a different calendar.⁵⁷ To be accredited with the possible authorship of one of the Septuagintal writings, as Julian of Eclanum reports, is surely complimentary. The author of the Catena and John of Damascus are pleased to be able to make use of Philonic
page 17
exegetical material, even if caution is required (as John warns his reader). A final example is more complex. Eusebius of Emesa is pleased to cite Philo the Hebrew in order to defend a non-literal reading of the LXX text. But the preceding passage, which points out that the Hebrew text reads something different than the LXX, is also attributed to ‘a Hebrew’.⁵⁸ We may suspect a rabbinic exegete or exegetical tradition here,⁵⁹ and the epithet probably implies knowledge of the Hebrew language. If Philo is deliberately cited as evidence against Jewish exegesis,⁶⁰ then the title, even if it is used on both sides, could still have a positive connotation in his case. Philo as an ancient Hebrew authority is cited in support of a Greek reading that is disputed by a modern exegete who appeals to the authority of the Hebrew text.

In our list a larger number of authors call Philo a Jew than a Hebrew. It takes a while, however, before this practice sets in. Josephus and Anatolius of Alexandria (3rd century) do not actually use Ioudaioj as a title, but Philo’s name is closely aligned with references to the ‘Jews’ in the immediate context. Apart from these texts it is not until the end of the 4th century that we see the title Philo the Jew coming into prominence. Jerome uses it very deliberately in his biographical notice of Philo, and it returns on 4 other occasions in his writings. Jerome is not, however, our earliest witness. The reference to Philo as ‘a Jew’ in Theodore of Mopsuestia antedates his use by about 20 years.⁶¹ We may suspect, however, that Theodore’s use of the indefinite article indicates that the epithet is not yet being used as a standard title. It is possible that the Anonymous Latin translator uses the title Philo Judaeus at the beginning of his translation of Contempl. at about this time.⁶² A little later than Jerome we find
page 18
references to Philo the Jew in Isidore of Pelusium and Ps.Prochorus. Thereafter it becomes the most common way of referring to Philo.⁶³

Why does Jerome start his biography so demonstratively with the phrase Philon Iudaeus? Since most of the early illustrious men whom he describes were of Jewish descent without this being mentioned, the epithet must refer to something else. Most probable, it seems to me, is that it alludes to Philo’s religious allegiance. Philo is a Jew who lived during the earliest times of Christianity but remained a Jew. There is, however, not a trace of negative feeling in the use of the title. Jerome is very positive about Philo in this brief report, telling his reader that he places Philo among the ecclesiastical writers because (as Jerome himself believes) he wrote a laudatory account of the early Church in Alexandria. Also, when he calls Philo a ‘second or Jewish Plato’ the title surely has a positive connotation.

Interpretation of the term Ioudaios (or Iudaeus) requires more care than the corresponding term Hebraios (or Hebraeus). As we noted above, it generally refers to contemporary Jews or Jews in the relatively recent past.⁶⁴ For Philo and Josephus this means post-exilic Judaism. In Christian terms it means Jews from about the time of Jesus onwards. The word also very often implies a reference to the Jewish religious adherence of the people being described.⁶⁵ The reference is by no means necessarily negative, but can easily become such on account of the strong rivalry and frequent antipathy that existed between the two religious groups. Whether Ioudaios is used in negative or polemical sense depends entirely on the context. The difference between Hebraios and Ioudaios in the Christian context may thus be summarized as follows. The use of Hebraios may refer to the origins of Christianity in Judaism, but does not imply a contrast between the two religions and their adherents. When Ioudaios is used, there is a strong possibility that the author does imply a contrast between Jew and Christian.

If we examine the texts contemporary or later than Jerome in which Ioudaios or Iudaeus is used, we may conclude that an implicit or explicit contrast with the term Christianus is generally present.⁶⁶ In Theodore of
page 19
Mopsuestia the context is strongly polemical: Origen should not have taken over the method of allegorical exegesis from a Jewish author.⁶⁷ In the later Syriac author Barhadbsabba Arbaya the context is similar, but the tone somewhat less polemical.⁶⁸ Isidore of Pelusium in Ep. 2.143 praises Philo for reaching some understanding of the doctrine of the trinity ‘even though he was a Jew’. Another letter, Ep. 3.19, is also interesting. Philo, together with Josephus, is cited in order to refute a Jew (i.e. a contemporary with whom the recipient of the letter has engaged in discussion). Philo and Josephus are described as ‘two of your own (i.e. Jewish) writers’.⁶⁹ The context in Augustine is overtly, if not aggressively, polemical. In the wholly legendary account in Ps.Prochorus Philo is presented as a typical rabbinical Jew who reads the Law according to the letter and refuses to accept the apostle John’s interpretation ‘according to the spirit’ until he is impressed by a miracle that John performs.⁷⁰ The most polemical contexts are to be found in the two late writers Anastasius and Photius, where Ioudaioj has very strong negative overtones indeed.

A final question remains to be answered. Is it significant that towards the end of the 4th century Ioudaios starts to replace Hebraios as the title most often used for Philo? The answer, to my mind, must be in the affirmative. Through the interventions of Clement, Origen and Eusebius Philo had gained a reasonably comfortable niche within the Christian tradition as a respected Jewish source of historical, exegetical and even theological insight. When this is combined with the legend of Philo Christianus, we may say that he became a Church father honoris causa. During the 4th century, however, we observe that the atmosphere changes. It is the time that orthodoxy triumphs over heresy and relations between Jews and Christians deteriorate markedly. The attitude of Ambrose and Augustine towards Philo is ambivalent; that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as we noted above, is decidedly hostile.⁷¹ It should certainly not be concluded that Hebraios is always positive and Ioudaios always negative. The use of the terms is much less clear-cut. Often it is fairly neutral. That the increase in the use of Ioudaios introduces a new
page 20
more antithetical and ‘tougher’ (but by no means always uncomplimentary) attitude to Philo seems to me quite clear.

Israel is the ‘inner-Jewish’ self-designation, which the Christian church successfully appropriated for itself as the ‘New Israel’.⁷² It is thus surprising to find one text in which Philo is described as an ‘Israelite’, namely in the introduction to the Armenian translation of Philo’s writings. It is not known who the writer of this text is. It is, as far as I can tell, quite possible that it was the translator himself.⁷³ The author could just have easily used the Armenian equivalent of Hebraeus, but not so easily Iudaeus.⁷⁴ It is thus a puzzle why he uses the term ‘Israelite’. Perhaps it is suggested by his account of the double diaspora of the Jewish people, first at the time of the Old Testament, secondly at the time of the New.⁷⁵ The term, we might add, also has a respectable New Testament background, being used there six times, twice in well-known statements of the Apostle Paul about his own lineage (Rom. 11:1, 2 Cor. 11:22).

In one group of Christian documents Philo is endowed with the title o episkopoj (the Bishop), namely the Catena in Genesim and the Catena in Exodum, extensive collections of excerpts from scriptural commentators ordered in the sequence of the biblical text. Philo is quoted on numerous occasions in these works, but the extracts are taken from a limited section of his corpus (only QG 1.55–4.228, QE 2.1–49, and a few excerpts from Mos. 1).⁷⁶ Until recently it was thought that these Catenae were composite documents that grew by accretion. But recently Françoise Petit
page 21
has argued that the Catena in Genesim at least is basically the work of a single anonymous compiler, and she has commenced on an edition of the entire work in which the excerpts scattered over the various mss. are brought back together in an integral text.⁷⁷ Certainly the manner in which Philo is cited offers support to her thesis. The method is utterly consistent: the excerpt is preceded by Philo’s name in the genitive, without a title, or with the titles Ebraiou or episkopou. The third option is the most common, followed by the second, while the name only is relatively infrequent.⁷⁸ The provenance of the quotation is never given. (This is in clear contrast to the Florilegia,⁷⁹ where the location is often told, but Philo is never given a title as far as I know.) In the case of Christian bishops the Catenist sometimes also gives a place-name, e.g. Eusebius bishop of Emesa, Dionysius bishop of Alexandria etc.⁸⁰ This is never done in Philo’s case. It would seem that the title of Philo the bishop is an idiosyncratic trouvaille of the unknown author. It indicates respect (as does the epithet Ebraioj), as well as a complete acceptance of the legend of Philo Christianus. To my mind, however, the usage of the two epithets remains puzzling because they appear to cancel each other out. If Philo is a Hebrew, he is no Bishop, and vice versa.⁸¹

Remarkably, given modern usage, the fact that Philo came from Alexandria is virtually never exploited as an epithet or title in our extant sources. Philo’s geographical origin is naturally mentioned in the six biographical accounts that we have (Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, Ps.Sophronius, Photius, the Souda).⁸² But elsewhere it is only used as a title in two rather late texts, the Armenian translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle and the chronographic work of George Syncellus. Since both these works make use of the Eusebian chronicle tradition we might
page 22
wonder whether the title stood in the original Eusebian work (which has not been preserved in Greek). The fact that it is missing in Jerome’s translation and reworking of the work argues against this possibility. In this context it is interesting to note the practice of the bibliophile Byzantine Patriarch Photius in his Bibliotheca. He regularly cites pagan and Christian authors from Alexandria by means of their name and the epithet Alecandreuj. For example, at cod. 49 he records that he has read a book of ‘the saintly Cyril the Alexandrian’, and at cod. 106 (straight after the 3 chapters devoted to Philo) he mentions the Hypotyposeis of ‘the blessed Theognostus of Alexandria the exegete’, possibly head of the Alexandrian school in the period after Origen. But in the case of Philo he commences (cod. 103) with the usual formula anagnwsqh Filwnoj Ioudaiou (were read of Philo the Jew…), and Philo’s Alexandrian origin is mentioned only at the end of cod. 105, as part of a brief biographical sketch similar to what is found in Jerome and Ps.Sophronius.⁸³

On the basis of the above discussion the following summary of results can be given.

(1)  The titles and descriptions bestowed on Philo concentrate for the most part on two features, his learning and his Jewish descent.

(2)  A considerable number of authors express their respect for Philo’s learning in general terms, particularly when he is associated with Josephus. If the reference is more specific, then it usually insists on Philo’s skill in philosophy. On a number of occasions the phrasing or the context of the reference to Philo’s learning or philosophical prowess suggests that it is based on his allegorical exegesis of scripture. The most specific references are those that allude to the proverb comparing Philo with Plato and the title ‘Philo the Pythagorean’ found in Clement (and taken over in Sozomen).

(3)  Two epithets are used to describe Philo’s Jewish descent. Until the end of the 4th century Hebraios is clearly dominant. Thereafter Ioudaios begins to take over, even if it never wholly supplants the other title. Jerome appears to have played an important role in this development, particularly in the West. The reference to ‘Philo a Jew’ in Theodore of Mopsuestia is most likely earlier than Jerome’s description of Philo as Iudaeus in his De viris illustribus. The title Hebraios is in all cases a sign of respect. The interpretation of the term Ioudaios is more difficult. Implicit in this term is a contrast with Christianity. It can be meant neutrally, or
page 23
even have a positive connotation. There are also texts in which the context shows that the reference has a distinct polemical edge.

(4)  The title Philo the Bishop, which implies full acceptance of the legend of Philo Christianus, is idiosyncratic, and is only found in the Catenae.

(5)  Philo’s Alexandrian origin is rarely mentioned and never used as a title.

(6)  The majority of titles and descriptions used for Philo are positive in content and intent. This reflects the generally positive attitude taken towards him in the Christian tradition.

Finally it is appropriate to end our discussion by drawing some conclusions on why titles and epithets are used to describe Philo. Earlier I made a distinction between titles and descriptions. Titles are used to specify who is being talked about, descriptions are used to introduce or bring to mind the figure concerned. There can be no doubt that some of the titles we have discussed (especially sophos, philosophos, Hebraios, Ioudaios) are used to indicate which Philo is being talked about. But it seems to me on the basis of our evidence that the titles are not used primarily for the purpose of distinguishing Philo from others who carry the same name. Two arguments support this view. Firstly we recall the fact that Philo is very often cited without any kind of label at all.⁸⁴ Secondly it is rather unexpected that Alexandreus is never used to identify Philo. It would appear that identificatory labels in Philo’s case were not really necessary. Even though there were other Philos with whom some of the more learned members of the Christian community were familiar, these were not of a stature that they could easily be confused with ‘our’ Philo. Philo is given an epithet mainly in order to tell the reader something about him, and, as we have seen, the epithet is often chosen in relation to the context in which it is used. This has made the subject treated in the present article all the more interesting, because it in fact allows a kind of miniature view of the way that Philo was received in the Christian tradition.