Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2001 189
author observes that, in spite of the negative presentation given of ‘feminine’
characteristics of the soul, there is something strangely powerful about the feminine
that remains in Philo’s construction. Next Taylor discusses the role of the
women as students of Moses. It is unlikely that their presence would be regarded
positively, since women philosophers were generally seen in a negative light in
the context of philosophical schools. The final part of the article focuses on two
characteristics of the portrayal of the women, first that they are in some way
maternal, secondly that they are celibate and are described as virgins (but this
is likely not to have been literally the case). Here, however, Philo’s rhetoric may
not have been pure apologetics. It is possible that the notion of being spiritually
fruitful through celibacy was an ideal that the community itself embraced.
Taylor concludes by emphasizing that in Philo’s presentation the theme of gender
remains and has not been blurred by celibacy or spiritual achievement.
(DTR)
20177. N. H. Taylor, ‘Popular Opposition to Caligula in Jewish Palestine,’
Journal for the Study of Judaism 32 (2001) 54–70.
Caligula’s order to construct a statue of himself for the Jerusalem Temple provoked
effective popular protests among Judeans and Galileans, who confronted
the local Roman ruler Petronius on two separate occasions. Philo and Josephus,
the main sources about this crisis, represent elite interests opposed to such popular
movements. Although both writers discuss these movements, Philo and
Josephus attribute resolution of the crisis to Agrippa’s intervention and to the
subsequent assassination of Caligula. Taylor attempts to identify the composition,
leadership, and motivations of the popular groups. The Judeans may have
been led by prophetic figures drawn from priestly and scribal classes, while the
Galileans, consisting primarily of farmers who abandoned their agricultural pursuits,
may have been led by a popular prophetic figure or figures. Both groups,
motivated by piety and devotion to the Temple, may have been inspired by eschatological
expectations of divine intervention. (EB)
20178. C. Termini, ‘La creazione come APXH della legge in Filone di
Alessandria (Opif.1–3),’Rivista Biblica 49 (2001) 283–318.
Philo’s treatise De opificio mundi should not be placed before Legum Allegoriae,
the beginning of the Allegorical Commentary on Genesis—where it has
habitually been placed since Mangey’s edition—but should be placed at the
beginning of the Exposition of the Law. There are two main reasons for this:
(1) the form of the treatise itself, which does not have the structure of a sequential
commentary giving a lemma by lemma analysis, but rather the aspect of an
exposition or paraphrase of Gen 1:1–3:19, without a connection to the next treatise
(Leg.), and (2) because the opening section of Opif., and indeed the entire
treatise inasmuch as it is dedication to the creation account, presents itself as
aproemium(ρή) to the revealed Laws. Of fundamental importance for Termini’s
argument is research into the cultural context to which Philo makes reference
in a quite polemical manner, i.e. in his opening remarks, which refer to