Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

230 part two
to refer to God. No one appears to have yet studied these individual preferences,
and the likely reasons for them, in detail. Secondly, it becomes apparent when
one works extendedly with the two critical editions of ancient onomastica that
these lists have much to offer those interested both in Hellenistic Judaism and
early Christianity. Thirdly, though modern academics are far too often eager to
state in principle that antique Judaism was quite diverse, yet they are frequently
reluctant to apply this dictum to specific practices and beliefs among ancient
Jews. There exists a real gap between this now nearly universally accepted general
abstraction and the utilization of the notion in areas where it can help us
understand the dynamics behind individual issues. See also the article by the
same author summarized at 20569. (DTR; based on summary supplied by the
author)
20292. J. L. Sicre Díaz, ‘Las tradiciones de Jacob: búsqueda y rechazo
de la propia identidad,’ Estudios Bíblicos 60 (2002) 443–478, esp. 465–469.
Although Philo’s treatise dedicated to patriarch Jacob is lost, the author
attempts to reconstruct it in outline by means of evidence in extant works. The
author distinguishes and opposes two traditions of ancient Jewish literature on
Jacob: one rejects him as a cheater because he has supplanted his brother; the
other elevates him as model of the Jewish people. Philo belongs to this second
tradition, together with Jubilees, the Targum Neofiti and others. Philo sees in
Jacob a prototype of the wise person, model of asceticism and virtue. (JPM)
20293. J.MartinSoskice,‘PhiloandNegativeTheology,’Archivio di
Filosofia 70 (2002) 491–514.
The author argues that Philo’s treatment of the divine names cannot be
accused of wrenching God from the Sinai and forcing Him into the Acropolis.
In Philo (and the Christian writers who followed him) naming and knowing
God presents itself as a problem because of the testimony, not of philosophy, but
of Jewish scripture (p. 498): above all the texts about Moses meeting God and
asking his name in Exod 3, 20 and 33. After a discussion of Philo’s (exegetical)
thought on the subject, notably in Mut., the author concludes (p. 504) that for
Philo, resolutely metaphysical as his treatment is, God nevertheless is not an
object of ‘adequation’: we name Him ‘by grace’ and ‘relatively’. (HMK)
20294. O.Skarsaune,In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences
on Early Christianity (Downers Grove IL 2002), esp. 73–75.
In Chapter two, devoted to the Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora, Skarsaune
briefly records Philo’s view on Jerusalem, quoting Legat. 281–283. For Philo,
Jerusalem was his real native city, the religious centre on which he was focused,
and to which he made a pilgrimage. This position makes him representative of
most Diaspora Jews. The reference to Allegorical Interpretation 281 on p. 73 is
incorrect. It should be Legat. 278, 281. (ACG)