Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

104 part two
9914.A.Carriker,The Library of Eusebius (diss. Columbia University
1999), esp. chapter 6.
See the summary of the published version of the dissertation, 20329. (DTR)
9915. J. Cazeaux, ‘Le repas de Mambré dans le «De Abrahamo» de
Philon,’ in M. Quesnel, Y.-M. Blanchard and C. Tassin (edd.), Nourriture
et repas dans les milieux juifs et chrétiens de l’ antiquité: mélanges
offerts au Professeur Charles Perrot, Lectio Divina 178 (Paris 1999) 55–
73.
The author presents the three readings that Philo gives of the episode of
Abraham and his visitors at Mamre in Abr. 107–132: (a) literal exegesis (§§ 107–
113); (b) the ‘no man’s land’ of exegesis (§§ 114–118); (c) allegorical exegesis
involving Noon and noon (§§ 119–132). (JR)
9916. A.T.Cheung,Idol Food in Corinth. Jewish Background and
Pauline Legacy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplementary
Series 176 (Sheffield 1999), esp. 56–64.
This study deals with Paul’s understanding of idol food in 1Corinthians, and
includes a section on the background to Paul’s attitude, as well as an investigation
of the early Christians’ understanding of Paul’s attitude to idol food, ranging
from the Book of Acts to Patristic authors in the third century c.e. The section
on Philo (pp. 56–65) is rather brief, dealing only with a few texts. Cheung argues,
however, that it is highly unlikely that Philo would approve of the eating of
idol food. Surprisingly these Philonic texts play no role in the rest of this study.
(TS)
9917. R. A. Cohen, ‘Philo, Spinoza, Bergson: the Rise of an Ecological
Age,’ in J. Mullarkey (ed.), The New Bergson (Manchester 1999) 18–31.
The author claims that Bergson’s thought is as revolutionary as that of Philo
and Spinoza. His philosophy represents the third of three turning-points that
determine the history of Western thought. Cohen’s interpretation is thus a
revision of Wolfson’s thesis that Philo and Spinoza were revolutionary thinkers
who have decisively influenced the development of thought. Wolfson sees the
history of thought determined by the relation between reason and revelation.
In the ancient period reason and revelation were separate; in the medieval
period, inaugurated by Philo, reason and revelation were in harmony; in the
third period, that begins with Spinoza, reason dominates revelation. Revising
Wolfson’s thesis Cohen claims that (1) Bergson represents the beginning of a
third epoch, the contemporary period, and that (2) it is in fact this third period,
and not the medieval period, that represents the harmonisation of reason and
revelation. (ACG)