Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2003 247
20336. W. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich. Die mittelplatonische
Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief, BeiheftezurZeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren
Kirche 116 (Berlin 2003), esp. 160–240.
The author is above all interested in Philo’s understanding of reality (‘Wirklichkeitsverständnis’).
Philo is regarded as a Middle Platonic source, parallel to
Plutarch, Seneca or Alcinous, especially with regard to the themes of eschatology,
protology and angelology (which also covers the questions of theodicy and
the problem of evil). The relevant texts are cited in full, translated into German,
analyzed with due awareness of the context, and discussed. He concludes that it
is only possible to speak of eschatology in Philo to a limited extent; it is better
to speak of human destiny in terms of aretalogy. Protology is intended only in a
religious sense, i.e. in the acknowledgement of the transcendence of God, preventing
the error of deifying the world. Philo’s greater interest is in angelology,
which connects transcendence and immanence and mediates between them (see
the text Somn. 1.133–158). The angels are compared with demons or identified
with God’s δυνάμεις or his λγι.(GS)
20337.G.Ellia,La sensation chez Philon d’Alexandrie: spiritualité des
sens (DEA Université de Caen 2003).
In the first part of the study the author presents the divisions of the soul
adopted by Philo and determines the place that sense-perception occupies in
the soul. He then establishes the status which the Alexandrian gives senseperception.
It is regarded as the privileged locus of spirituality and of the spiritual
quest. In the second part an examination is made of the different senses. It
emerges that it is the confrontation between hearing and sight which reveals
the importance of sense-perception in the spiritual life. (JR)
20338. J.E.Ellis,‘Philo’sViewofHomosexuality,’Perspectives in
Religious Studies 30 (2003) 313–323.
Philo speaks disapprovingly of homosexual activities between men and boys,
in which the boys may or may not participate voluntarily, and homosexual
activities between men and men, in which participation may or may not be
voluntary. The basis of Philo’s objection to male homosexual behavior is that
it does not accord with nature because (1) it involves unnatural indulgence
in pleasure; (2) its purpose is not to procreate, and procreation is the only
acceptable reason for sexual relations; and (3) it places a male in a female role,
which is not only unnatural for a man but also demeaning and debilitating.
(EB)
20339. M. Endo, Creation and Christ, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2.144 (Tübingen 2003), esp. 166–179.