The Shadow of God - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Greek Judaism is known, 168 but it may even be the case that Philo sheds light on Jewish esoteric and
priestly tradition as well. Philo was likely of priestly lineage. 169 Margaret Barker has seen in Philo‟s Logos
a demythologization of one of Israel‟s ancient temple traditions. 170 Our research supports this suggestion. It
is our position that Philo‟s High Priestly Logos (HPL) doctrine demonstrates his awareness of a tradition
similar to that evidenced in the writings of P, a tradition involving speculation on the blue body divine.
3.1. Deuteros Theos
As is well-known, Philo‟s Logos is the deity in his accessible aspect 171 ; he is the Image of God through
which the latter may be seen 172 ; he is demiurgic-the instrument (organon) through which the universe was
created and ordered. 173 And he is anthropomorphic; God‟s man (anthropos theou) and “the Man after His
Image.” 174 Significant too is that the name YHWH (Grk. kyrios) seems to be that of the anthropomorphic
Logos, the “second God,” while the true, transcendent God is simply To On, „The Existent.‟ 175 This
suggests that for Philo the Logos is the anthropomorphic god of the HB, Yahweh. 176
Philo read the biblical passages describing the high priest and his cultic duties, particularly on Yom
Kippur, as allegories of the Logos in the cosmic temple, the universe. 177 Of particular significance for us is
Philo‟s treatment of the high priestly vestments. Philo was part of a tradition that allegorized the temple and
its paraphernalia, seeing in them symbols of the sensible, material world. 178 The four colors required for the
168
See Gregory E. Sterling, “Recherché or Representative? What is the Relationship between Philo‟s Treatises and Greek-speaking
Judaism?” Studia Philonica Annual 11 (1999): 1-30; idem, “ „Philo Has Not Been Used Half Enough‟: The Significance of Philo of
Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (Fall 2003): 251-268.
169
D.R. Schwartz, “Philo‟s Priestly Descent,” in F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, and B.L. Mack (edd.) Nourished with Peace (Chico,
1984) 155-171.
170
“Temple Imagery in Philo: An Indication of the Origin of the Logos?” in William Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae. Essays on
the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel, (JSOT Supplement Series 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 71-102;
idem, Great Angel, 118, 123-25.
171
According to David T. Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986], 449) the Logos is, in
general terms, “that aspect or part of the divine that stands in relation to created reality.” Cf. also David Winston, Logos and Mystical
Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985) for whom Philo‟s Logos is “the face of God turned
toward creation (50).”
172
De somniis (hereafter Somn.) 1.239; De confusione linguarum (hereafter Conf.) 97.
173
De specialibus legibus (hereafter Spec.)1.81; De Cherubim (hereafter Cher.) 125-128; Legum allegoriae (hereafter Leg.) 3.96.
While Philo may never have given the Logos the status of demiurgic creator, as argued by Runia (Philo of Alexandria, 449 and n.
244), he certainly served this function for Philo: “Whenever God is described as engaged in creative or providential activity, he does
so in the guise or through the agency of the Logos (ibid).” “It is God who creates, but he does so at the level of his Logos…or in the
guise of his creative power and through the agency of the Logos as instrument of creation (Ibid, 450; emphasis original).” See also
Tobin, The Creation of Man, 65-7.
174
Conf. 40-41, 62-63, 146-47. A.J.M. Wedderburn‟s argument (“Philo‟s Heavenly Man,” NovT 15 [1973], 316) that these passages
do not imply that the Logos was regarded by Philo as really (like) a man any more than he regarded the Logos as like a rock or wells,
symbols elsewhere used by our exegete, fails to take account of Philo‟s use of the Logos to account for the anthropomorphisms of the
biblical text from which God must remain aloof. Instead of allegorizing these texts, Philo attributes the anthropomorphism to the
Logos. Segal observes: “Thus, Philo can use his concept of logos both for philosophical argumentation and for explaining the
anthropomorphisms in the Bible. The logos becomes the actual figure of God, who appears „like a man‟ in order that men may know
His presence (Two Powers in Heaven, 165).” See also idem “The Incarnation: The Jewish Milieu,” in Davis et al, The Incarnation,
133; Barker, “Temple Imagery in Philo,” 89, 96, 98; idem, Great Angel, 121-2.
175
See Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 91-5. At times Philo also distinguishes between the anathrous and arthrous Theos (Heb.
’Ĕlōhîm), the latter denoting the true God, the former his Logos. Somn. I.228-30. See Segal‟s discussion, Two Powers in Heaven, 170.
176
Barker, Great Angel, 144-133; Dahl and Segal, “Philo and the Rabbis,” 27.
177
Somn. 1.215; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (hereafter Her.) 185; Leg. 3.45. See Ronald Williamsom, Philo and the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 411. On Philo‟s spiritualization of the Temple and its cult v. Valentine Nikiprowetzky, “La
spiritualization des sacrifices et le culte sacrificial au Temple de Jérusalem chez Philon d‟Alexandrie,” Semia 17 (1967): 97-116; J.
Daniélou, “La Symbolique du Temple de Jerusalem chez Philon et Josephe,” in Le symbolisme cosmique des monuments religieux
(Serie Orientale Roma XIV; Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1957) 83-90. On Philo‟s HPL v. Jean Laporte,
“The High Priest in Philo of Alexandria,” Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991): 71-82; Barker, “Temple Imagery in Philo”; John M.
Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 63-68; George L. Coulon, “The
Logos High Priest: An Historical Study of the Theme of the Divine Word as Heavenly High Priest in Philo of Alexandria, the Epistle
to the Hebrews, Gnostic Writings and Clement of Alexandria,” (Th.D. diss. Institut Catholigue de Paris, Paris 1966); Edwin R.
Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), Chapter IV.
178
Quaestiones et solutions in Exodum (hereafter QE) II. 85; Mos. 2.87-88. See also Josephus Judean Antiquities III 151-186; Clement
of Alexandria, Stromateis, V.6. On Philo‟s allegorization of the vestments v. Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 108-118; Coulon, “The
Logos High Priest,” 19-22; Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem
(London: SPCK, 1991) 111-15. On Jewish interpretation of the vestments in general v. Michael D. Swartz, “The Semiotics of the
Priestly Vestments in Ancient Judaism,” in Baumgarten, Sacrifice in Religious Experience, 57-80; Robert Hayward, “St Jerome and
the Meaning of the High-Priestly Vestments,” in William Horbury (ed.) Hebrew Study From Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, (Edinburgh: T&T