Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

190 part two
legislators who either show little respect for the subject of the Laws or invest
them with a mythical character which undermines their credibility. Needless
to say Moses’ ρή does not fall into either camp, but assumes a philosophical
principle as its basis. The author is well aware of the influence of Plato’s views on
theroleoftheproemium(Laws 719e–720a) which is particularly visible at Mos.
2.49–51, as well as the principle of harmony between κσμς and νμς which is
typical of the Stoics, and especially Chrysippus. The Torah, by assimilating and
synthesizing these models, rises above them and is able to assume a universal
character. (RR)
20179.J.L.Thompson,Writing the Wrongs. Women of the Old Testament
among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation,
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford 2001), esp. 24–27.
This study examines how the stories of Hagar (Gen 16), Jephthah’s daughter
(Judg 11:30–40), and the Levite’s concubine (Judg 19–21) were interpreted from
the first century until the sixteenth and seventeenth. Philo sees in Hagar a symbol
of preliminary or encyclical studies. She functions as a ‘handmaid’ of virtue in
its purest form, symbolized by Sarah. In this allegory Philo exalts and denigrates
Hagar at the same time. As a concubine she stands below a wife, but she is
important on the philosophical level: she is necessary for the acquisition of
virtue. Philo’s interpretation of Hagar is taken over by Clement of Alexandria.
Origen and Didymus the Blind combine the Philonic interpretation with Paul’s
exegesis from Gal 4. Gregory of Nyssa’s picture of Hagar is more Pauline than
Philonic. Ambrose follows Philo: Sarah represents virtue, whereas Hagar is the
wisdom of the world. (ACG)
20180. T. H. Tobin, ‘The Jewish Context of Rom 5:12–14,’ in D. T.
Runia and G. E. Sterling (edd.), In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo
and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay [= The Studia Philonica
Annual 13 (2001)], Brown Judaic Studies 332 (Providence RI 2001) 159–
175, esp. 162–164.
The author locates Rom 5:12–14 within the context of the diverse ways Adam’s
sin was interpreted in early Judaism. Philo, like Josephus, employs Gen 3 as
illustrative of the human moral condition. Two interpretations of Gen 3 stand
side by side in Opif. 151–170 and are briefly discussed. One is exemplary of the
human choice of vice over virtue, the choice of mortality over immortality. The
second interpretation is symbolic or allegorical. The main figures in the Genesis
narrative, Adam, Eve, and serpent, are internalized as aspects of the human
being, mind, sense-perception, and pleasure. (KAF)
20181. S.TorallasTovar,‘EllibrodelossueñosdeSinesiode
Cirene,’ in R. Teja (ed.), Sueños y visiones en el paganismo y el cristianismo
(Santa María la Real 2001) 69–81.