Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

298 part two
(Gen 6), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20–19:29), the
murder of the Egyptian first-born (Exod 12:29), the extermination of the seven
nations of Canaan (Deut 7:1–5), the revenge taken by Simeon and Levi for the
rape of Dinah (Gen 34), the annihilation of the nations of Sihon and Og (Num
21:20–35), the complete destruction of the people in Jericho (Josh 6:21), the
extermination of the priests of Nob (1Sam 21:1–7), and Phinehas’ zealotry (Num
25:6–15). These stories raise questions of divine morality. Philo finds solutions
in allegorical exegesis, regarding the struggle between the Israelites and the
Amalekites as one between passion and mind. The revenge on the Hivites by
Simeon and Levi is also interpreted allegorically. In other cases he argues that
wicked people deserve punishment (the Flood, Sodom, the Egyptian first-born).
Philo nowhere refers to God’s command to exterminate the nation of Canaan or
the extermination of the priests of Nob. He also does not deal with the episode of
the destruction of Jericho. He deals extensively with the story of Phinehas, and
although Phinehas committed an illegal action, he is praised overwhelmingly by
Philo. Comparing Philo, Ps.Philo and Josephus, Feldman concludes that Philo
‘adamantly defends the principle that the innocent should not suffer for the sins
of the guilty. He is likewise concerned with maintaining good relations with the
non-Jews, and so he must answer those who charge the Jews with hating non-
Jews’ (p. 224). He has also to be careful to justify the actions of God and of the
Israelites. Reviews: M. Barker, JSOT 29 (2005) 188–189; S. Bowman, AJSR 29
(2005) 363–364; B. N. Fisk, JJS 51 (2006) 412–415; L. L. Grabbe, CBQ 68 (2006)
730–731; E. S. Gruen, IJCT 12 (2006) 614–616; W. L. Lyons, JThS 58 (2007) 168–
171. (ACG)
20434.L.H.Feldman,‘Philo,Pseudo-Philo,JosephusandTheodotus
on the Rape of Dinah,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (2004) 253–277,
esp. 255–261.
In his treatment of the story of the revenge meted out by Simeon and Levi
for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen 34), Philo offers an allegorical exegesis,
explaining Shechem as a symbol of toil and Dinah as a symbol of justice (Migr.
223–225, Mut. 193–200). In this way he avoids the issue of Simeon and Levi’s
deceit and guilt. He denigrates Shechem and praises Simeon and Levi. Philo
favours conversion of Gentiles to Judaism and he knows about frictions between
Jews and non-Jews in Alexandria. Therefore, he ‘would surely have found it
impolitic to recall the details of an incident in which Jews demanded conversion
and then were guilty of perfidy once it had been agreed to’ (p. 261). (ACG)
20435. E. Filler [ ], ‘ ’
[Hebrew: Notes on the Concept of Woman and Marriage in Philo], Iyyun
53 (2004) 395–408
This short article contains rich material contesting Daniel Boyarin’s conclusion
that Philo was a misogynist, rejecting women both as a symbol of the senses
and as partners in marriage. Filler argues that passages such as Cher. 60show