Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2002 207
are the following: snakes and the grasshopper, fire, the two trees, the desert and
paths. These themes signify the dynamism of the interior life. The second part of
the thesis emphasizes those moral situations that humans have at their disposal
in order for that interior life to follow its course, a life which is the locus of a
struggle of the soul with herself. The third part clarifies how the human being
can put an end to this struggle or at least not be overwhelmed. It emphasizes
the importance of ‘working on oneself ’ (‘travail sur soi’) for Philo, a process
that takes place not only through effort and conversion, but also through a newfound
understanding of ‘knowledge of the self ’ (‘connaissance de soi’) as quest
for the Other in oneself (‘l’ Autre en soi’). (JR)
20232. L.H.Feldman,‘TheDeathofMoses,accordingtoPhilo,’
Estudios Bíblicos 60 (2002) 225–254.
This article deals with several aspects of the presentation of Moses by Philo,
including Moses’ alleged divinity. Philo is reluctant to call Moses divine, because
this epithet was used for the Roman emperors. In addition, Philo tries to refute
the story of Moses’ bodily ascension to heaven and his apotheosis. At his death
Moses’ whole being is transformed into mind and is thus immortal, but he does
not become God. In Exod 7:1 Moses is said to become ‘as God to Pharaoh’ but
Philo allegorically interprets God as referring to the mind, which is God to the
unreasoning part. Moses is the most perfect man and is a level higher than
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the wise man who possesses all the virtues.
Being neither God nor man, he stands on the borderline between the uncreated
and creation, just as the High priest is less than God but superior to humans.
MosesisnotGodbutiscalledfriendofGod.HeisapartnerofGod,andenters
thedarknessthatisGod’sinvisibleexistence.(ACG)
20233. L.H.Feldman,‘Philo’sVersionofthe#Aqedah,’ The Studia
Philonica Annual 14 (2002) 66–86.
This paper describes Philo’s treatment of the binding of Isaac at Abr. 167–202
and investigates reasons that motivated Philo’s shaping of the biblical narrative
of Gen 22:1–19. Philo’s omissions and additions to the biblical account are due
to the fact that he wrote his narrative to defend Abraham in the face of non-
Jewish critics who minimized Abraham’s deed and accused Jews of misanthropy.
Philo does not mention the physical binding of Isaac, for example, as that
probably would have seemed excessive to a Greek audience and would have been
incriminating for Abraham. (KAF)
20234. L. H. Feldman, ‘Philo’s View of Moses’ Birth and Upbringing,’
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002) 258–281.
In Mos. Philo presents Moses as a representative of the perfect king, and in
describing Moses’ life he follows the method of ancient biographies, discussing
his descent, childhood and education. He emphasizes the excellence of Moses’