Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2002 211
Law, as is usually assumed, but that it has to be compared with introductory
lives (bioi) of philosophers. Examples of such bioi are the Lives of Democritus
and Plato, written by Thrasyllus, and Porphyry’s Vita Plotini. Abios not only
narrates the important facts of the philosopher’s life such as his descent, birth
and death, but also discusses his writings. It is meant as an introduction to his
philosophy. In Mos. Philo recounts Moses’ life, but also relates the origin of the
Greek translation of the books of Moses. In this way the treatise introduces
readers without any knowledge of the Pentateuch to Mosaic philosophy, as
more elaborately explained in the allegorical writings. Part II is an introduction
to Gregory’s De vita Moysis, in which the author also deals with Gregory’s
attitude towards Judaism. Gregory discerns a kinship between Philo and the
neo-Arian Eunomius, because both do not ascribe being to the Logos, but
only to God the Father. Gregory resists the view that the Logos is, in one way
or another, subordinated to God. But at the same time there are similarities
between Philo and Gregory in the doctrine of God, especially in the notion
that God’s essence is incomprehensible for the human mind. Both show also
a negative approach to the divine, which is expressed with alpha-privatives. In
part III Geljon analyses the Philonic background of Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise.
He distinguishes between Philonic phraseology on the one hand and exegesis
derived from Philo on the other. On the level of phraseology Gregory offers more
than 25 borrowings from Philo, the greatest part of which are derived from Mos.
The most important exegetical theme in which Gregory uses Philo’s exegesis is
the interpretation of Egypt, Pharaoh, and the Exodus from Egypt. Like Philo,
Gregory interprets Egypt as the land of the passions, Pharaoh as lover of the
passions and the exodus as the liberation of the passions. Remarkably Origen,
to whom Gregory is also indebted, does not offer this reading of Egypt. Other
important exegetical themes which reveal Philo’s influence are the necessity of
education, the interpretation of the serpent as a symbol of pleasure and the
exegesis of the royal way. In all these themes Gregory does not rely on Philo’s Mos.
but draws on the treatises belonging to the Allegorical Commentary. Gregory
does derive two interpretations from Philo’s Mos.:thedarkblueofthehigh
priest’s robe referring to the air; and the interpretation of the hardness of the nut
of Aaron’s staff as a symbol of the austerity of the virtuous life. In the conclusion
the author states that Gregory is not a slavish imitator of Philo, but an original
andcreativethinkerandexegete.Reviews:G.Maspero,ScrTh 35 (2003) 612–
613; J. P. Martín, Adamant 10 (2004) 486–488; R. L. Wilken, SPhA 16 (2004)
315–317. (ACG)
20244.U.GershowitzandA.Kovelman,‘ASymmetricalTeleological
Construction in the Treatises of Philo and in the Talmud,’ Review of
Rabbinic Judaism 5 (2002) 228–246.
The composition of some Philonic treatises and Talmudic tractates is characterized
by ‘unity and coherence’ (p. 228 n. 4). The authors recognize two
connected principles of organization—anticipation and symmetry—described
by J. Cazeaux in relation to Philonic treatises. According to the principle of