Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2003 271
20399. M. Philonenko, ‘L’échanson et le cratère,’ Comptes Rendus
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 2003 (1), 335–348.
Philo speaks in negative terms of the grand cup-bearer of Pharaoh, who
‘partook of drunkenness’ (Somn. 2.158). In opposition to this grand cup-bearer
he places on three occasions (§§ 183, 190, 249) another cup-bearer, the ‘cupbearer
of God’ who, according to the author’s analysis of three passages, is the
archetype of Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and, at an even higher level, a figure of the
Logos. (JR)
203100. T. Portera, ‘I giganti del Genesi nella lettura ebraica: dall’Apocalittica
ad Abravanel,’ Pan 21 (2003) 255–272, esp. 264–267.
The author focuses on the interpretation of the Giants in Gen 6:1–7 and
makes reference to Philo’s Gig., and in particular to the theoretical and philosophical
aspects of their allegorical interpretation. Philo does not divide the
angels into categories (cf. p. 265) and so does not distinguish between fallen and
undefiled angels, and so does also not postulate substantial differences between
angels, demons and souls. He limits himself to interpreting the biblical passage in
an allegorical sense by interpreting the giants as symbols of pleasure. According
to Philo, those who carry the title of angels know the daughters of right reason
(virtue)butgobeyondittothemortaldescendantsofhumanbeings,i.e.pleasures.
In a word, the Giants represent the hedonists, and for this reason there
is not a single trace of superstition or mythology (referring to the myth of the
Titans, p. 266) in the Bible. (RR)
203101. H.M.Post,Metaforen van de Ziel. Vrouw en man in de
Genesis-exegese van Philo Judaeus en Augustinus (diss. University of
Leiden 2003).
This study examines the interpretations of the creation account in Genesis by
Philo and Augustine, who both assign a noteworthy role to the soul in creation.
In dealing with Philo, Post offers first an introductory section about Philo’s
life, writings, and exegetical methods. In Opif. Philo interprets the creation of
the world in Platonic terms: God first created the noetic world and afterwards
the visible world. The noetic world is placed in God’s Logos. Philo regards the
creation of man and woman as the creation of νς (mind) and ασησις (senseperception):
Man is νς, God’s image, and woman is ασησις, which belongs
to the world of becoming. Sense-perception and mind need each other, the nous
is made as a help for the mind. According to Post we find here Pythagoras’ Table
of opposites: Nous, i.e. man, belongs to the realm of the noetic, the good, and
the divine. Woman, i.e. the senses, belongs to the earthly and changeable world.
As the senses are subordinate to the mind, so woman is subordinate to man.
According to Philo, the purpose in life is to become like God. Because God’s
image in man is his nous and the senses do not have part in God’s image, woman
is left out. Augustine follows Philo in his reading of the creation account. (ACG)