Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

174 part two
main chapter treats prayer (including vows) and praise, with a long section on
Philo’s use of the Psalms and on his references to psalm and hymn singing.
Prayers, vows and hymns are all associated with thanksgiving to God. But for
Philo εαριστία (a largely non-Septuagintal term) is the fundamental attitude
behind all religious acts and must pervade every aspect of worship. The third
chapter focuses on the Temple in Jerusalem, including issues of tax, offerings,
sacrifice and purification. Leonhardt strongly emphasizes Philo’s loyalty to the
Temple. This devotion allows him to present Judaism as the ultimate cult for the
entire world, not an ideal as in Plato, but actually realized in practice through
its worship of the one God and creator. The study concludes with a chapter
summarizing its results. It emerges that Philo’s knowledge of Jewish tradition
appears to be broader than is sometimes assumed. Material aspects of religious
ritual remain important for the social and corporeal aspects of life. The symbolic
meaning of religious acts leads the worshipper to a life in direct relation to
God the creator. This means that for Philo Jewish worship offers what no other
Hellenistic cult could, a set of rites that do justice to the social needs of humanity
but also offer a philosophical system that satisfies the needs of the intellect. For
Philo, therefore, Judaism is the ultimate Hellenistic cult (cf. p. 294). Reviews:
C. Grappe, RHPhR 82 (2002) 213–214; A. M. Mazzanti, Adamant 8 (2002) 352–
354; D. M. Hay, SPhA 15 (2003) 158–160; P. W. van der Horst, NTT 57 (2003)
161–162; H.-J. Klauck, BZ 47 (2003) 153–155; H. Löhr, ThLZ 128 (2003) 505–
509; R. Vicent, Sales 65 (2003) 202–203; D. T. Runia, JThS 55 (2004) 690–693.
(DTR)
20142. J.P.Martín,‘EllenguajedelafilosofíayFilón:temadeun
coloquio internacional,’ Méthexis 14 (2001) 135–143.
This brief article comments on almost all the papers of the Conference on
Philo held in Paris in 1995 and published in the volume Philon d’Alexandrie et
le langage de la Philosophie (see above 9865). The commentary recognizes that
we are still a long way from consensus among the interpreters of Philo, but it
also highlights the fact that steps have been taken to understand the logic of
the author’s eclecticism, which means not reducing it to the sum of its sources.
(JPM)
20143. Y. D. Matusova, ‘Philo of Alexandria and Greek Doxography’
[Russian], Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 1 (2001) 40–52.
The article was written partly in response to D. T. Runia’s note on ‘Why
does Clement of Alexandria call Philo the Pythagorean?’ in VChr 49 (1995)
8–10 (= RRS 9569). While commenting on Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
1.15.72–73, the author suggests that the somewhat strange philosophical school
attribution of Aristobulus and Philo means simply that Clement puts these
persons in the general perspective of Greek philosophy. Matusova notes that
both authors believe that the teaching of Moses was accepted by Pythagoras
followed by Plato and Aristotle. As Matusova writes, ‘it was not unusual for
the first generation of Aristotle’s disciples to connect the Pythagorean doctrine