Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2002 209
The author retells two biblical stories of genocide against King Sihon of the
Amorites (Num 21:21–32; Deut 2:26–37) and King Og of Bashan (Num 21:33–
35; Deut 3:1–7), and then examines how these stories were portrayed in Philo,
Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. At Mos. 1.258–262, Philo drops any mention of
God hardening Sihon’s heart and the divine mandate to destroy all men, women
and children. Only soldiers are put to death. Moreover, the Israelites had justice
on their side in view of how their emissaries were treated. At Leg. 3.225–235, the
story is treated allegorically with Sihon being equated with Sophists. Philo does
not treat the elimination of Og and his people. (KAF)
20238. L. H. Feldman, ‘Philo’s Version of the Biblical Episode of the
Spies,’ Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002) 29–48.
This paper describes Philo’s non-allegorical treatment of the episode of the
spies in Num 13–14 at Mos. 1.220–236. Although brief in length, Philo’s version
closely parallels Josephus’ treatment but contains several revisions due to theological
problems and aspects in the biblical text that could cause embarrassment.
Philo focuses on Moses and his qualities of leadership. As a general Moses takes
responsibility for the decision to reconnoitre the land and he alone chooses the
spies. Sensitive to the charge that Israelites might be accused of theft, Philo omits
Moses’ instruction to the spies to take fruit from the land. He also leaves out
the dialogue between Moses and God in which God threatens to annihilate the
Israelites as this would make Moses more merciful than God. (KAF)
20239.C.B.Forbes,‘PaulineDemonologyand/orCosmology?Principalities,
Powers and the Elements of the World in their Hellenistic Context,’
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002) 51–73, esp. 58–
67.
As part of an investigation of what Paul means with his terminology of ‘principalities
and powers’, the author examines Philo’s theological use of the term
δυνάμεις. A large number of passages are quoted and it is concluded that Philo’s
doctrine is not fully consistent (and is exacerbated for the reader by inconsistent
use of capital letters for ‘Powers’/‘powers’ in translation). The tendency to create
personified abstractions for and around God is not idiosyncratic and peculiar to
Philo,butisalsocommoninMiddlePlatonism,forexampleinanauthorsuch
as Plutarch. Paul uses this terminology not just for purposes of communication,
but as the result of personal synthesis of Hellenistic-Jewish and Greco-Roman
thought. (DTR)
20240. F. Frazier, ‘Les visages de Joseph dans le De Josepho,’ The
Studia Philonica Annual 14 (2002) 1–30.
Although entitled Life of the Statesman, Philo’sbios of Joseph offers neither
a reappraisal of the political world nor a transformation of the biblical Joseph
into an ideal Greek πλιτικς. Instead we discover a series of tensions within