Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2000 143
Commentary confirm that his knowledge of Epicurean doctrines is far from
superficial.Itwouldbeamistake,however,toconcludethatthereisnota
single point of confluence between Epicurus and Philo. Surprisingly his use
of the theme of ‘cataleptic sensation’ is closer to the Garden than the Porch.
He is prepared to accord an important role to sensation, but obviously cannot
regard it as the supreme good. The author ends his article with three conclusions.
(1) Philo’s philosophical knowledge is much more precise and deep
than often thought. (2) In relation to Hellenistic philosophies Philo has a double
mission, to refute them when they deny transcendence, but at the same
time use their views to bolster it. (3) Epicureanism paradoxically tries to unite
all systems of dispersion in one thought. It thus symbolizes the very antithesis
of monotheism. But it is possible that Philo did appreciate its quest for unity.
(DTR)
20045.Y.Liebes[ ], [Ars Poetica in
Sefer Yetsirah] (Jerusalem–Tel Aviv 2000), esp. 76–79, 91–92, 105–110,
206–207, 226–228, 230–231.
Liebes’ monograph presents a radical reevaluation of the status of the Jewish
mystical treatise known as Sefer Yetsirah or, somewhat inadequately, the ‘Book of
Formation.’ This small but enigmatic composition, which played a seminal role
in the development of central components of Jewish mysticism in the Middle
Ages, has been described as ‘layers of tradition woven together to form a collage
of speculation on the process of divine creativity and the nature of what has
been created’ (E. R. Wolfson p. 227 in the critical review article cited below).
The claim of this book for the interests of the present audience lies precisely in
its extreme argument for an early dating of the Sefer Yetsirah: inoppositionto
a consensus of scholarly opinion which sees the treatise as inherently tied to
an early Islamic context, Liebes would assign the work to the end of the period
of the Second Temple. The argument naturally turns to salient parallel material
from the first century c.e., and there are extended discussions of presumed
contacts between the mystical treatise and the Philonic corpus, especially with
regard to the presentation of Abraham (pp. 76–79, 91–92, 105–110), the Temple
(pp. 206–207) and messianic universalism (pp. 226–228). In his concluding
discussion of the date of Sefer Yetsirah (pp. 230–231), Liebes emphasizes the
extreme proximity of the worldviews of the author with those of Philo. Reviews:
E. R. Wolfson, SPhA 16 (2004) 218–228 (review article). (DS)
20046. J.P.Martín,‘LasQuaestiones del Pseudo Justino: un lector
cristiano de Aristóteles en tiempos de Proclo,’ Tópicos 18 (2000) 115–141.
In an attempt to determine the historical place of Quaestiones christianorum
ad gentiles attributed to Justin the Apologist, the author compares this treatise
with the Commentary on the Timaeus by the Neoplatonist Proclus. In this context
the author cites Philo in connection with two topics: (1) the παραδειγματικ
ατία,cf.QG 2.34; (2) the perichoretical function of Divinity, cf. QE 1.1. (JPM)