All that was claimed was that knowledge
and truth must be primarily referred to the Divine revelation, and all
law and practice to the authority of the Mosaic code. Philo, then, in
the same way as the rabbis, deduces all his teaching from the Bible,
not because he holds that it was explicitly contained there, but
because he desires to give to his philosophical notions Divine
authority. Like the rabbis, again, he suggests definite rules of
interpretation which may always be applied [Greek: kanones tes
allegorias].[119] He declares that every name in the Torah has a deep
symbolical meaning, and symbolizes some power.[120] Thus the names of
the sons of Jacob typify each some moral quality, and these qualities
together make the perfect man and the perfect nation. Reuben is "the
son of insight" [Hebrew: ru'bn], Simeon is learning [Hebrew: shm'-on],
Judah [Hebrew: yhuda] stands for the praise of God.[121] It may be noted,
by the way, that all these values show traces of Hebrew etymology. Again,
the synonyms in the Bible are to be carefully studied, while even
particles and parts of words have their special value and importance.
And the skilful exegete may for homiletical purposes make slight
changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule,[122] "Read not so,
but so." Thus he plays upon the name Esau, and takes the Hebrew word
as though it were written, not [Hebrew: 'eshaw] but [Hebrew: 'ashav], a
thing made.[123] Whence he shows that Esau represents the sham
(made-up) greatness, which is boastful and insolent and shameless.
Philo is referring perhaps to Apion, the vainglorious anti-Semite,
whom he often covertly attacks. Again, whenever there is repetition in
the text, a deeper meaning is portended. Dealing with the verse,
"Sarah the wife of Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian" (Gen. xvi. 3),
Philo comments, that we already knew that Sarah was Abraham's wife:
why, then, does the Bible mention it again? And following certain
values which he has made, he draws the lesson that the study of
philosophy must always go together with the study of general
culture.[124] These examples are not isolated; yet it is rather a
barren science to search for the canons of Philo's allegory, as
Siegfried has done.

For his allegory is a very flexible instrument, which can be employed
at pleasure to deduce anything from anything. And Philo regards these
"points of construction" as the excuse, not as the motive, of his
ethical and philosophical teach