Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2000 133
of a persistent debate within Hellenistic Judaism concerning the question of the
sancitity of the Pentateuch in Greek, of which Philo provides the earliest proof ’
(p. 171). See also the review article by A. Passoni dell’Acqua, 20272.(HMK)
20014. N.L.Collins,‘WhoWantedaTranslationofthePentateuch
into Greek?’ in G. J. Brooke (ed.), Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible
(Oxford 2000) 20–57.
Collins defends the basic premise of the Letter of Aristeas that the Greek translation
of the Pentateuch was initiated by Demetrius of Phalerum, librarian to
Ptolemy II Philadelphus, for acquisition in the royal library. While acknowledging
that not all aspects of the Letter are true, she selects details of the Letter
which, she claims, challenge the current scholarly consensus—held for only two
hundred years—that the Jews themselves initiated this translation because they
no longer knew Hebrew. Although Aristeas relied upon an earlier source, which
contained hints of Jewish opposition to the translation, by his time the translation
was viewed as divinely inspired, and he adapted the earlier source to conform
to the later view. Philo ‘continued the fight to prove the divine origins of the
translation’ (p. 39), consistent with his purpose to spread knowledge of Judaism
among the Greeks, and he omitted any account of Jewish opposition to the translation.
Josephus, who did not believe in the divine inspiration of the translation,
follows the account of Aristeas in large part. Later Jewish sources expressed very
negative attitudes toward the Greek translation, presumably because it was used
against them. (EB)
20015. D. Dawson, ‘Plato’s Soul and the Body of the Text in Philo and
Origen,’ in J. Whitman (ed.), Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity to the
Modern Period, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 101 (Leiden 2000)
89–107.
Beginning with a bibliographic overview, this essay explores how the allegorical
readers Philo and Origen used the metaphor of body and soul in relation
to text and meaning. Because both writers were so strongly influenced by
Plato, it is ironic that Plato himself rejected ‘as philosophically pointless’ the
practice of reading poetic narratives allegorically (p. 96). Dawson adduces three
Philonic examples that show how Philo highlights ‘the positive and productive
interaction of mind and body’ (p. 98). One example (QG 4.117) emphasizes the
epistemological importance of sense-perception and likewise of the narrative
aspect, or body, of the text. Another example (Migr. 89–93) presents the text as
‘recorded law,’ whose meaning is discerned through physical performance. The
third example (Contempl. 78) underscores that one arrives at the inner meaning,
or soul, of Scripture only through its outward, literal text, or body. Origen, who
opposed excessive literalism, posited three levels of meaning of the text, using
the metaphor of body, soul, and spirit. As one progresses in understanding, ‘the
body becomes more and more spiritualized, but it is never simply left behind’
(p. 105). (EB)