Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2003 269
sented by the Law of Moses which enables people to practise ιλανρωπία and
its synonym κινωνία towards one another. O’Leary then offers a profound and
detailed analysis of Philo’s Conf., starting with the treatise’s guiding concerns (the
quest for authentic κινωνία and the role of the logos/Logos, and the demonstration
that Israel has realized this κινωνία more fully than other groups),
then exploring Philo’s discussion with his allegorical predecessors regarding the
meaning of the Babel story, and finally (the most extensive part of the article)
giving an insightful presentation of the line of argument of the treatise. He concludes
that, having confounded the false language of false κινωνία,Godcreates
anewκινωνία. At the end of his paper the author poses the question ‘Can the
connection between Logos and κινωνία in Philo be seen as a background to
the Johannine writings?’ His answer is that the differences between the Philonic
and Johannine worlds make direct influence seem implausible; ‘the tried and
tested paths of Hellenistic reason, so familiar to Philo, seem unknown to John,
whose writings are the utterances of a contemplative community bearing witness
to an event of revelation, and contain no metaphysical discussion’ (p. 270).
(HMK)
20394. A. Paddle, ‘The Logos as the Food of Life in the Alexandrian
Tradition,’ in L. Perrone (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and
the Alexandrian Tradition, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium 164 (Leuven 2003) 195–200.
Although the idea of the Logos as a form of nourishment plays only a
relatively minor role in Philo’s thought (especially in the passage Leg. 3.162–
178), it nevertheless appears to have had a great and long-lasting impact on the
Christian theologians. The article traces this impact, commencing with Origen
and ending with Cyril of Alexandria. (DTR)
20395. A.Passonidell’Acqua,‘UponPhilo’sBiblicalTextandthe
Septuagint,’ in F. Calabi (ed.), Italian Studies on Philo of Alexandria,
Studies in Philo of Alexandria and Mediterranean Antiquity 1 (Boston
2003) 25–52.
The article gives a detailed survey of scholarly work done on Philo’s use of
scripture, and in particular on the text he uses when he quotes from scripture.
Very few studies have been carried out in recent years and it is noted that a
number of questions should be revisited, because there are now newer critical
editions of the Septuagint available. The author is attracted to the view that
scripture and commentary should not be rigorously separated because Philo
regards them as intertwined. This view permits him to engage in a free rendering
of the biblical text in the course of his commentaries. In an excursus at the end
of the article a comparison is made between the Septuagint text in the Göttingen
critical edition and the version quoted by Philo in Leg. 1 in the texts printed by
Colson and the French edition. Some valuable textual observations are made
and the following conclusion is reached (p. 52): ‘The fact that the text chosen by