The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

In this monograph, Sami Yli-Karjanmaa provides a thorough discussion of the evidence concerning Philo's views on reincarnation. Since, as Y.-K. points out, previous scholars have held widely diverse opinions concerning the question whether Philo did or did not hold the doctrine of reincarnation without, however, providing support for their views, a methodical examination of the question is certainly of great value.

The book consists of four chapters but—if we subtract the introduction and conclusion, both of which are relatively short—it really consists of two major divisions: the first deals with what Y.-K. calls the "indirect evidence" relating to Philo's position concerning reincarnation. This division deals with possible indications concerning Philo's views on reincarnation in the context of his anthropology and eschatology; it attempts to discern any possibility that Philo rules out reincarnation; and it examines terminology and imagery that are related to reincarnation. Having done some interesting work attempting to understand Philo's anthropology and eschatology from what we could call a systematic point of view, in the conclusion to this first section Y.-K. points out that the structures of Philo's thought are, in many ways that are pertinent to his position concerning reincarnation, authentically Platonic. Consequently, that Philo should believe in reincarnation is certainly plausible from a structural point of view. The second division of the book is devoted to the direct evidence discernible in four passages (De somniis 1.137-39; De cherubim 114; Questiones in Exodum 2.40; and Fragment 7.3 Harris). In this division Y.-K. puts to work his admirable philological skills (including his impressive knowledge of Armenian). He concludes that these [End Page 157] passages, although not entirely unambiguous, do support the position according to which Philo accepts some kind of doctrine of reincarnation. I find the author's approach well founded and his arguments convincing.

If Y.-K. ultimately asserts that Philo did in fact endorse reincarnation, his assertion is, in my estimation, more tentative than it need be. This relates, I think, to the main shortcoming of this work. That is, the text still reads very much like a thesis (Åbo Akademi University, 2013). There are various reasons for this. Y.-K. tells us in the preface (p. xi) that David Runia advised him to reveal his position earlier on. This counsel should have been taken more seriously and brought into play in a restructuring of the text. I think a better format would have put the examination of the direct evidence first and then tried to situate it in the context of Philo's thought more generally, that is, in the context of those questions which Y.-K. deals with in the first half of the text. Because the direct evidence is hardly that of a smoking gun, the author's choice to build up his argument as he says as a "courtroom trial" (p. xi) turns out to be rather anticlimactic. A reversal of the order of the two major divisions would have allowed the author to build up a richer interpretation of the four passages that form the core of his argument and lead the reader to a deeper understanding of Philo's thought. Indeed, rather than insisting on the objectivity of his method by labeling what he does in the first section "evidence," he could have discussed it in terms of "context" and "significance" in a section that is more frank about being an interpretation.

Other elements that betray the doctoral origins of this work include the painstaking discussion of the previous scholarship, which should have been streamlined. A little more editorial care would have smoothed out the text. On p. 53 a passage from Philo's Quaestiones in Genesim is cited in the text in French translation. If Y.-K. preferred Mercier's—the French translator's—reading, then in a monograph such as this he should have provided an English translation based on the French. The...