MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379792488 · doi:10.1353/ajs.2019.0058

Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto (review)

2019· article· en· W4379792488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marieke Dhont

Bibliographic record

VenueAJS Review The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly ChristianityPhilosophyChristianityIdentity (music)Christian IdentityJudaismClassicsTheologyPatristicsReligious studiesHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto Marieke Dhont Jennifer Otto. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. xi + 231 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009419000576 In her first book, based on her doctoral thesis (McGill, 2014), Jennifer Otto discusses how three protagonists of early Christianity, Clement, Origen, and [End Page 443] Eusebius, understand Philo's identity. We have extensive knowledge of Philo Alexandrinus and his writings because his works were transmitted to us not by Jews but by Christians. Taking into account the way in which early Christianity has tried to shape itself in "continuous and not seldom acrimonious rivalry with its 'mother-religion,'"1 it can be surprising that Philo the Alexandrian Jew appears to have been readily adopted by Christian authors. How did they navigate the fact that Philo was a Jew? Later Christian works sought to make a convert out of him (e.g., Acta Johannis), or discussed perceived restrictions of his Jewishness (e.g., Ambrose of Milan). Early Christian witnesses to Philo, such as Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, however, each had their own ways of presenting his identity, so as to not overemphasize his Jewish background. Clement refers to Philo twice as a Pythagorean. Origen may only mention Philo by name three times in his oeuvre, but he alludes to him on several occasions by citing an anonymous "predecessor." Eusebius, in turn, refers to Philo mainly as a "Hebrew." These invocations of Philo have often been understood as attempts to adopt him into the Christian tradition. Jennifer Otto challenges this opinion, and suggests that these references to Philo reveal "ongoing efforts by Christians to conceptualize and demarcate the difference between two emerging but fluid collective identities" (4). In chapter 1, entitled "Christians Reading Philo," Otto questions how Christians came to possess Philo. Traditionally, scholars have argued that in the course of the first or second century, some of Philo's Jewish successors became followers of Christ. They would then have introduced Christians to Philo, thus securing transmission. Otto, however, also challenges this view and argues that transmission of Philo would have taken place in philosophical schools. She touches on this question several more times in the following chapters. In each of her three main chapters, one Christian writer takes center stage, respectively Clement (chapter 2), Origen (chapter 3), and Eusebius (chapter 4). Each chapter has a similar structure: Otto first offers a detailed analysis of the different epithets each church father uses in reference to Jews, such as Israel, hebraioi, and ioudaioi, before presenting systematically the passages in his works that contain references to Philo. She examines the different designations Clement, Origen, and Eusebius use to characterize Philo, respectively, "Pythagorean," "predecessor," and "Hebrew," with due attention to the rhetorical context and purpose of the reference within the church father's writings. In the conclusion to each chapter, Otto discusses how each epithet reflects a particular understanding of Philo's identity as neither a Jew nor a Christian within the framework of each of the fathers' rhetorical programs. In the general conclusion, she reflects on how all three present Philo as a skilled interpreter of the philosophical doctrines of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, as a Jew, he missed the most important truth of the Scriptures, namely that of Christ as the Logos incarnate. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius negotiate Philo's identity in subtle ways as neither "one of them" nor "one of their own." Otto successfully [End Page 444] shows how the epithets they use in reference to Philo function as a mediation between the categories of Jew and Christian. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings is a valuable scholarly work that is pleasant to read. Otto's engagement with primary texts and secondary literature does not weigh down the narrative of the argument. The book reflects contemporary interests in the reception of Philo as well as in identity construction and Jewish-Christian relations in late antiquity. Otto goes beyond the presumption of a Jewish/Christian dichotomy often characteristic of earlier scholarship and shows apt awareness of...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJS Review The Journal of the Association for Jewish StudiesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207