Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2003 259
This doctoral dissertation prepared at the Free University of Brussels forms
the main body of research on which the author’s monograph published by Brill in
English in 2006 is based; see below 20643. The study deals with Eusebius of Caesarea’s
use of the Jewish authors’ quotations in the Praeparatio evangelica (PE)
and the Demonstratio evangelica (DE). These authors include Philo of Alexandria,
Flavius Josephus, Aristobulus, and the so-called ‘minor’ Jewish authors
(Eupolemus, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus etc.). The study aims to shed new
light on the quotation process as exploited by the bishop of Caesarea through the
particular case of the Jewish authors. Eusebius’ treatment of Philo occupies an
important part of this study because of the abundance of Philonic testimonies
cited by Eusebius, especially in the PE. Each Jewish author is not treated separately.
Instead, the viewpoint from which Eusebius sees them is adopted. In
most cases, Philo is presented by the latter as a ‘Hebrew.’ The author argues that
this appellation constitutes a crucial rhetorical device in order to appropriate
Philo’s texts. According to the author’s analysis, Eusebius’ insistence on Philo’s
‘Hebrew-ness’ in the PE enables him to turn the philosopher into a most useful
predecessor, the pre-Christian theologian par excellence. The passages in which
he deals with the Logos are especially useful in this respect, since he identifies
Philo’s Logos as Christ. However, Eusebius’ endeavour is not only a theological
one, but also, and more importantly, an apologetic one: his re-interpretation
of Philo enables him to demonstrate that Christianity is a unified theological
system more ancient, hence better, than that of the Greeks. At the same time,
the synthesis made by Philo between the Jewish Scripture and Greek philosophy
enables Eusebius to compare Christian and Greek philosophy. Therefore,
Philo becomes a most important link between Christianity and Hellenism. In the
DE, on the other hand, Philo is mentioned only once, in a historical-apologetic
context. It is argued that this passage accurately illustrates the manner in which
Eusebius occasionally distorts quotations of Jewish authors for apologetic purposes
in the DE. With regard to the text of Eusebius’ citations in the PE,hegenerally
proves to cite Philo faithfully, although certain differences between Philo’s
and Eusebius’ manuscripts seem to indicate that Eusebius occasionally modified
Philo’s text in theologically significant passages. The author also argues that if
Eusebius certainly knew Philo first hand, he may have collected excerpts in the
form of florilegia for his own use. Finally, the author insists on Eusebius’ originality
in dealing with Philo: not only did he use theological and historical passages
that were rarely quoted by the Church Fathers, but he also explicitly acknowledged,
as it were, the debt of Christianity to Philo. Yet one should bear in mind
that Eusebius’ use of Philo in the PE and the DE was above all apologetic. (DTR;
based on the author’s summary)
20369. H.Jacobson,‘αραν or αραδ in Philo’s QG,’ Journal of
Theological Studies 54 (2003) 158–159.
In the Armenian translation of QG 3.36 Philo is reported as explaining the
place name αραν at Gen 16:14, but the actual biblical text in both the MT and
the LXX reads αραδ. In a brief note the author argues that it is very unlikely that
this reflects a variation of readings in the LXX. Translation of the Armenian text,