Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2001 163
text of Scripture. Although Philo says little about his exegetical method, it seems
that he follows Stoic views in rationalizing his belief in Scripture. He has a deep
interest in traditional Greek mythology, and—in contrast to Josephus—offers an
allegorization of Greek myths. Philo considers the Jewish tradition as superior
to the Greek tradition, which has deviated from the purest tradition of thought.
Following Stoic views he sees the validity of a tradition in its antiquity. Because
Scripture is older than Greek philosophy it represents a superior theology. In this
way he can justify his programme of allegorical exegesis. Reviews: J. M. Dillon,
SPhA 14 (2002) 236–238. (ACG)
20111. R.Cacitti,‘ες τι νν κα ες μς κάννες. ITerapeuti
di Alessandria nella vita spirituale protocristiana,’ in L. F. Pizzolato
and M. Rizzi (edd.), Origene maestro di vita spirituale,StudiaPatristica
Mediolanensia 22 (Milan 2001) 47–89.
An amply annotated study which explores how the Therapeutae as a movement
in Judaism—when the latter was not yet separated from nascent Christianity—came
to be recognized, by a tradition of which Eusebius is witness, as the
first Christians in Egypt. The author reviews the possible (and in his view probable)
relationship between the Therapeutae and the Essenes, the historicity of
Eusebius’ testimony and the characteristics of the Therapeutae’s monachism,
ecstasis, and use of hymns. He concludes that early Alexandrian Christianity
found enough reasons to consider the Therapeutic movement as being part of
its own roots. (HMK)
20112. F. Calabi, ‘I sacrifici e la loro funzione conoscitiva in Filone di
Alessandria,’ Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 18 (2001) 101–127.
The author analyses the double presentation of sacrifices in Philo, (1) in the
literal sense, i.e. sacrifices as acts of worship rigorously following the norms of
Leviticus, and (2) in the allegorical sense, i.e. sacrifices as signification, alluding
to reality. The two conceptions are interrelated. It is emphasized that both
cultic observance and the spiritual disposition of the sacrificer are of parallel
importance. The attention directed at the status and the intention of the sacrificer
are not in contrast with the value accorded to the purity of the body and the
perfection of the offered victim, which means that the purity of the will of the
sacrificer is also not set in opposition to the role of cultic norms centred on
Jerusalem and the Temple. The article concentrates in particular on a special
aspect of its theme: to what extent can sacrifices, as ‘signifiers’ of reality, be
considered as a ‘language’, i.e. as formulations of truth expressed by means of
cultic acts which refer back to the profound and real significance of the acts
involved. Linked to this aspect is the pedagogic significance of the sacrifices
which, far from serving God, are in fact useful for human beings. God has no
need to receive what already belongs to him. The sacrifices are thus situated at
two levels. In the first instance sacrifice is intended in the literal sense as cultic
reality, but this does not detract from the sacrifice’s allegorical significance and