Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

142 part two
of the Second Temple synagogue, later Roman Palestine, Byzantine Palestine,
and Diaspora synagogues. Part II, entitled ‘The Synagogue as an Institution,’
covers such topics as the building, the communal dimension, leadership, the
Patriarch (Nasi), sages, women, priests, liturgy, and iconography. Although
Philo’s works pertain to just a brief segment of these ‘first thousand years,’ his
writings are deemed to be ‘of inestimable importance as a source for Alexandrian
Jewry generally and for the synagogue in particular’ (p. 82). His works are used
here especially to shed light upon sermons, Torah reading, and women in the
synagogue. Reviews: T. Rajak, SPhA 15 (2003) 100–108 (review article). (EB)
20043. C. Lévy, ‘Philon aus Alexandria: Glaube und Philosophie,’
in M. Erler and A. Graeser (edd.), Philosophen des Altertums: vom
Hellenismus bis zur Spätantike. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt 2000) 70–
90.
In this second volume of introductory portraits of ancient philosophers, Philo
ranges between Cicero and Seneca. First his works are presented (Mos. is missing).
Then his attitude to philosophy is discussed. A conflict between his identity
as Jew and as philosopher cannot be denied. Through use of the allegorical
method he wants to avoid contradictions in the revealed text. As for his
philosophical presuppositions, Lévy points out that in Philo’s time the borders
between the Platonists and the Stoics had become fluid, and that Eudorus established
the absolute transcendence of the highest principle. In Philo, however,
this transcendence is that of a person, not of an abstraction. His doctrine of the
Logos allows Philo to maintain a God who is immanent to the world without
being inconsistent regarding his transcendence. Finally, Philo’s ambivalent attitudetowardsscepticismandeducationaswellastowardsthepassionsisoutlined.
(DZ)
20044. C. Lévy, ‘Philon d’Alexandrie et l’épicurisme,’ in M. Erler
(ed.), Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit,Philosophie
der Antike 11 (Stuttgart 2000) 122–136.
Although the presence of Epicureanism in Philo’s œuvre is much less marked
than that of Stoicism and Platonism, it is still a subject well worth studying.
The author first discusses those passages, in Prov. 1.50, Post. 2andAet. 8
where Epicurus and his school are mentioned explicitly. The main questions
on which Philo strongly disagrees are those of divine providence in creation
and the role of pleasure. Lévy is inclined to downplay the specific role of
Epicurean themes in Alexander’s arguments in Book 2 of Prov. It would be a
mistake to think that Philo’s references to the Epicurean doctrine of pleasure
were wholly superficial. An analysis is given of the defence of pleasure that
Philo places in the mouth of the serpent in Opif. 160–161. This text puts
forward the Epicurean theory of κείωσις. The only other text with the same
argument is found at Sextus Empiricus Adv. Eth. 96, but Philo’s presentation
is in actual fact more precise and informative. Other texts in the Allegorical