Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

220 part two
antiquity (pp. 269–278); Civilizational Encounters II: Christianity and Paganism
in Origen’s creation theology (pp. 278–287); and Civilizational Encounters III:
Christianity amidst religious and philosophical cults (pp. 287–289). Only the
first is directly concerned with the views of Philo. He focuses on Philo’s accounts
of creation under the following headings: the root image, of creation by measure,
weight and number; the role of law and rule in creation; the related neo-
Pythagorean number symbolism; the similar congruent role of the logos in the
creative process; and the relationship of these ideas to those about universal
moral order, including retribution, judgment, and punishment. The categories
of Greek philosophy are here used as a tool or instrument in setting forth his
views. In this way Philo proves to be one of the first Jewish thinkers to respond
in a systematically creative way to the ‘modernizing’ challenges of his time.
(TS)
20267. J. Novoa, ‘Filón de Alejandría y el diálogo entre helenismo y
judaísmo,’ in F. Arenas-Dolz, E. Bérchez Castaño and D. Camacho
Rubio (edd.), Actas del I congreso Nacional de Estudiantes de Humanidades:
Filosofía y formas literarias en la Antigüedad, Symposion Asociación
Cultural (22–24 abril 1999) (Valencia 2002) 161–174.
Presents an introductory portrait of Philo. The author deals with some Philonic
topics such as the figure of Moses as universal model of the wise man, and
the relation of Greek and Jewish traditions in the interpretation of the Bible.
(JPM)
20268.J.C.O’Neill,‘HowEarlyistheDoctrineofCreatioexNihilo?,’ JournalofTheologicalStudies53 (2002) 449–465, esp. 456–462.
Argues forcefully, esp. against Gerhard May, for the view that Philo, and
Hellenistic-Jewish authors before him, held the doctrine that God created the
world out of nothing. A large number of Philonic texts, including from Prov.
and Deo, are adduced. Because the doctrine was already creedally formulated by
the time of the NT, there is nothing in the NT that contradicts it. Indeed at Rev
4:11 the minority reading κ σαν should be accepted. (DTR)
20269.T.H.Olbricht,‘GreekRhetoricandtheAllegoricalRhetoric
of Philo and Clement of Alexandria,’ in S. E. Porter and D. L. Stamps
(ed.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament: Supplement Series 195 (Sheffield 2002) 24–47.
In this comparative study of the function of allegory in the works of Philo
and Clement, the author finds that both believed that the Scriptures contained
truths that might be decoded by help of allegorization. Philo’s allegorization
pointed upward (beyond sense experience) and downward. The allegorization
of Clement exhibited neither of these: his allegorization was flat and immediate.
Clement, however, could use typology, a procedure Philo did not employ. (TS)