Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2000 147
own absoluteness. In his final synthesis Noack tries to sharpen the soteriological
profile of the three genres under consideration and even attempts to make some
suggestions on their ‘Sitz im Leben’ and their chronological order. Reviews:
F. Avemarie, Jud 56 (2000) 279–280; A. Schenker, FZPhTh 47 (2000) 511–
513; D. Zeller, SPhA 12 (2000) 199–205; W. Adler, CBQ 63 (2001) 760–761;
E. Früchtel, ThRv 97 (2001) 322–324; A. C. Geljon, JSJ 32 (2001) 333–335;
M. Mazzanti, Adamant 7 (2001) 341–343; G. Sellin, ThLZ 126 (2001) 407–409;
P. Borgen, JThS 53 (2002) 165–173; E. Hilgert, JR 82 (2002) 318–319. (DZ)
20053. M. Olivieri, ‘Influenze di lessici greci nelle traduzione armene
di Filone,’ Eikasmos 11 (2000) 235–247.
The Armenian translation of Prov. (with particular reference to 2.15, 22,
26, 36, 95) and QG (with particular reference to 3.16) has been influenced by
exegetical material which was not just in the form of marginal glosses or scholia
to the Alexandrian’s text, but also in the form of lexicographical repertoria
independentoftheauthorbeingtranslated.Thisishowglosseswereincluded
which do not regard Philo specifically but are ‘traditional’ (p. 245). In this respect
one might think of the lexicon of Diogenianus or its Epitome. (RR)
20054. K.-H.Ostmeyer,Taufe und Typos, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2.118 (Tübingen 2000), esp. 18–26.
In his comprehensive survey on the semantics of τπς the author wants to
resolve the contradiction that the term can signify ‘model’ as well as ‘image’. He
therefore reduces its semantic content to ‘that what makes visible another thing
or forms it’. Against the older work of L. Goppelt (1939, R-R 3905) he insists that
the term is used without connotations of time and value. It expresses a relation,
not an entity. This is evident also in Philo, where the Logos can be conceived as
model of the earthly man as well as as image of the Creator. In this flexibility the
author sees a difference to the Platonic ideas. He challenges the view of Goppelt
(who relies among other things on a doubtful interpretation of Mos. 2.76), that
τπς in Philo usually means the lesser image. Philo uses the concept in his
cosmology, in his exposition of Scripture and in his doctrine of the soul. Here,
the τπι have an active character. In this connection, the ‘third type’ in Her.
231 is explained as model of the mind, not as imprint. Other passages which
seem to contradict this view (the idols Leg. 2.255f.; Mos. 1.119) are interpreted
in this sense, too. In an appendix he shows that Philo uses ντίτυπς only in the
classical sense of ‘resistant’. (DZ)
20055. A. Pawlaczyk, ‘The Motif of Silence in Philo of Alexandria’s
Treatise ‘Quis rerum divinarum heres sit’. Some Remarks,’ Polish Journal
of Biblical Research (Kraków) 1 (2000) 125–130.
Although Philo is not the first author writing in Greek to place speech and
silence on an equal footing—this honour must go to Plato—, he is certainly very