Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 1998 77
d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie, Monothéismes et Philosophie
(Turnhout 1998) 459–470.
In the portraits which he sketches of the Roman emperors in Flacc.andLegat.,
Philo uses a terminology, inspired by Greek philosophy, which was an integral
part of his cultural heritage. But it should not be thought that he merely uses
it for purposes of flattery or when his Jewish culture is no longer capable of
supplying what he wishes to express. In this regard his usage of the theme of
the king-shepherd, present both in the Old Testament and in Greek literature,
is illuminating (cf. Ios. 2,Prob. 31). Philo’s consistent inclination to draw on
Greek culture can be explained by the fact that certain ideas developed in
political philosophy were close to his own. This is what happens with the ideal
of the king as living law (Mos. 2.4), which the Alexandrian understands as the
accommodation of the will of the king to the Law, which in his eyes is the Law
of Moses (cf. Spec. 4.163–168). In short, emphasizing the role of philosophy in
the portrait of the emperors amounts to emphasizing the role of the Law and of
the Jewish people who were attached to that Law. Philo thus makes himself the
advocate of Judaism for an enlightened Roman public. (JR)
9848. L. Hartman, ‘The Human Desire to Converse with the Divine:
Dio of Prusa and Philo of Alexandria on Images of God,’ in P. Schalk
and M. Stausberg (edd.), Being Religious and Living through the Eyes.
Studies in Religious Iconography and Iconology. A Celebratory Publication
in Honour of Professor Jan Bergman, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Historia
Religionum 14 (Uppsala 1998) 163–171.
In this study the author examines the role played in the works of Philo and
Dio of Prusa by the human desire to come close to the being(s) they worship.
After a brief presentation of the texts focused on (Decal. 52–81; Spec. 1.12–
50, and Dio’s Twelfth Oration), Hartman outlines the thoughts of both writers
concerning the Divine. Then he considers the reasons adduced by Dio in defense
of the cult of the Zeus statue at Olympia, and Philo’s arguments for opposing
idolatry. There are differences, but also similarities, not the least because of their
relations to Stoicism. Dio defends the efforts to depict the invisible, because of
the human need to have the Divine nearby in the form of visible and tangible
symbols by statues and temples. Philo, on the other hand, ridicules the idols,
but at the same time recognizes a similar desire to approach and converse with
the Divine. For Philo, since sacrifices can only be offered in the one temple, this
desire is met by prayer as a major virtue, and by living according to the Law.
(TS)
9849. D.M.Hay,‘TheVeiledThoughtsoftheTherapeutae,’inR.M.
Berchman (ed.), Mediators of the Divine. Horizons of Prophecy, Divination,
Dreams and Theurgy in Mediterranean Antiquity, South Florida
Studies in the History of Judaism 163 (Atlanta 1998) 167–184.