Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

166 part two
and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (by fire). In addition to his literal
explanation, Philo also, in his usual fashion, explains the episode allegorically.
(HMK)
20120. L.H.Feldman,‘Philo’sInterpretationofJoshua,’Journal for
the Study of Pseudepigrapha 12 (2001) 165–178.
As its title indicates, this article investigates how Philo portrays Joshua.
Generally, he tends to downgrade Joshua in order to stress Moses’ role. Retelling
the war with Amalek (Mos. 1.216), he presents Moses as mustering the men and
taking the lead, whereas in the biblical account it is Joshua who leads the battle
(Exod 17:9–13). In the episode with the golden calf, when the people cry (Exod
32:17), Joshua represents one’s subjective feeling toward the tumult, but Moses
knows the true cause (Ebr. 96). In his account of the mission of the spies to the
promised country, Philo does not mention Caleb and Joshua by name, when they
report a deviating point of view (Mos. 1.220–236). Philo does, however, discuss
at some length the fact that, when Moses chooses a successor, he does not select
one of his sons, but appoints Joshua. (ACG)
20121. K.A.Fox,Paul’sAttitude toward the Body in Romans 6–8:
Compared with Philo of Alexandria (diss. St. Michael’s College, Toronto
2001).
The inceptive stimulus for this examination of the body was the question
whether Paul held a disparaging view of the body. This investigation concludes
that he did deprecate the body. For the unbaptized, this attitude came to expression
in his assertion that, even though the cosmic power of sin acts upon the
entire person, yet there is a peculiar relationship between that power and the
body, whereby sin seizes the body, and then from its seat in the body wages war
against the mind and its desire to do good. The result of this is the captivity and
enslavement of the mind in the body under the power of sin. Further devaluation
of the body came into view with respect to Paul’s attitude toward the body
of the baptized. For while the mind of the baptized experiences life, the body
does not. Presently, the body of the believer is mortal and corrupt—like Philo,
Paul devalues the body because it is mortal—, and as such it is the dwelling place
of sinful passions. To the extent that Paul devalued the body in ways that he did
notdevaluethemind,itcanbesaidhesharedwiththedominantGreekculture
a deprecating view of the body. Yet when his attitude is brought into relation
with Philo’s, the author is led to conclude that Paul’s devaluation of the body was
much less extreme than Philo’s. For contrary to Philo, Paul identified with the
biblical notion that the body is a territory for purity and dedication to God, and
held out a future for the resurrection of the body. (KAF)
20122.L.E.Galloway,Freedom in 1 Corinthians 9: Paul in Conversation
with Epictetus and Philo (diss. Emory University 2001).