Philo and Rabbinic Literature
The Cambridge Companion to Philo has recently been published. (hat tip) It contains a chapter by David Winston on “Philo and Rabbinic Literature.” Winston is the editor of Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, Giants and Selections
. I also once heard, that according to Saul Lieberman, he was one of the best students of Talmud that Lieberman ever taught at JTS. See here for some comments on Philo and rabbinic literature by James Kugel and also here.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Winston’s thesis, that Philo influenced Chazal, is at best speculative. (You will notice that Kugel simply denies it; and that Mack considers the reverse question — of whether Philo [who likely did not know Hebrew] could have been influenced by the aggadic literature.)
Winston’s evidence consists of parallel passages he has found in the vast Rabbinic literature and in portions of Philo; however, there are only a limited number of themes and thus coincidence, considering the vast size of the literature, is likely — what would be odd is if Chazal always disagreed with Philo (that would be, in my opinion, evidence that Chazal was familiar with Philo).
For example, many commentators have noticed similarities, for example, between the Sermon on the Mount and the Bhagavad Gita; however, that is hardly evidence for causal transmission of ideas.
I directly asked Winston about this, and he told me that despite the vast centuries of difference, he thought it was possible because the ideas could have been “in the air.”
All in all, I regard Winston’s theories as pure speculation and, in the end, unprovable (absent a discovery of new Rabbinic literature directly mentioning Philo). It seems that at least Kugel agrees with me, using the link you gave. But I invite you to read his essay or talk to him yourself and form your own opinion.