Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2003 281
Christian interpretation of the Bible. Thereafter the author presents a fictional
dialogue between Philo and Paul in Alexandria, in which they speak about Jesus’
message and his crucifixion. Philo regards the view that Jesus is the embodiment
ofthedivineLogosasfoolish.(ACG)
203127. S. Torallas Tovar, ‘Philo of Alexandria on Sleep,’ in T.
Wiedemann and K. Dowden (edd.), Sleep, Nottingham Classical Studies
8 (Bari 2003) 41–52.
The author seeks to find the text in Genesis that Philo commented on in the
lost treatise of Somn. In a well documented analysis she proposes to consider
Gen 26:24 as the object of the commentary of the lost treatise. In this, first of
the original trilogy on dreams, the Patriarch Isaac would represent the figure
of a man wise by nature, who attains the vita contemplativa. Isaac needs neither
learning nor exercise, the particular traits of Abraham and Jacob (= extant Somn.
1). He also does not belong to the sensible world of the politician as Joseph does
(= extant Somn. 2). The author acknowledges a possible objection for this thesis:
Gen 26:24 is not a dream. But for Philo κστασις, i.e. direct encounter with God,
belongs to the typology of dreams. (JPM)
203128. K. J. Torjesen, ‘The Alexandrian Tradition of the Inspired
Interpreter,’ in L. Perrone (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the
Alexandrian Tradition, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
164 (Leuven 2003) 287–299.
The author focuses on the cultural identity and role of the interpreter in the
Alexandrian tradition, and aims to demonstrate that the Alexandrian notion of
the interpreter unites the roles of prophet, teacher and exegete. Speaking about
Philo she discusses Mos. 2.188–191 where he distinguishes three types of oracles
to be found in the Holy Scriptures: the three types regard different levels of
inspiration of the prophet (who as the recipient of revelation can be passive or
active to various degrees). In her discussion Torjesen refers to the solutions of
Esther Starobinski-Safran, John Levison and David Winston for the difficulties
raised by Philo’s view on prophecy and inspiration. She concludes that in the case
of Philo the accent falls on the interpreter as prophet: there is a parallel (noted
by Levison) between the way Philo presents Moses as prophetic interpreter of
the divine will and the way Philo sees himself as prophetic exegete of the Mosaic
Law. Origen too sees the interpreter functioning as a prophet, but he identifies
prophesying with correct biblical exegesis, so that in his case the accent falls on
the interpreter as teacher. (HMK)
203129. L. Troiani, ‘Il greco degli autori guideo-ellenisti,’ Materia
Giudaica 8 (2003) 27–33.
Greek is the given language of Hellenistic-Jewish authors, but there were in
fact contacts between the Greek-speaking and Hebrew-speaking cultures, even