Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2004 305
2003. Van der Horst first makes some remarks on the use of the Quaestiones
genre in the Jewish–Hellenistic tradition. Philo’s only extant predecessor is
Demetrius the Chronographer, who uses the genre to deal with problems in
the biblical text. There may have been others, but if so, they have been lost. He
then asks whether it is meaningful to compare Philo with the rabbis. The answer
is no and yes. There is no rabbinic literature which specifically deals with the
biblical text in the manner of Philo’s Quaestiones. But the rabbis did deal with
implicit problems in scripture, to which they gave answers, and in this sense it
makes sense to compare Philo and the rabbis. Moreover, they share common
assumptions in their attitude to the biblical text. Van der Horst explains these by
drawingontheworkofKugelinhisbookTraditions of the Bible (see 9858). The
most important is the assumption of the cryptic nature and hidden meanings
of the sacred text. In the final part of the paper five examples of common
problems tackled by both Philo and the rabbis are analyzed. The Philonic texts
dealt with are QG 1.16, 35, 45, 75–76, 86. In spite of the profound differences in
the solutions proposed by Philo and the rabbis, they do have common ground
through the fact that they wrestled with the same problems posed by the biblical
text. One of the most striking differences is Philo’s use of Greek philosophical
themes (e.g. the immortality of the soul). But such divergence, the author
concludes, is less weighty than the striking convergence in the nature of the
questions asked. (DTR)
20451. L. W. Hurtado, ‘Does Philo Help Explain Christianity?,’ in R.
Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (edd.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige
Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus
Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen
2004) 73–92.
InthefirstpartofhispaperHurtadodealswiththerelationshipbetweenPhilo
and New Testament authors and reaches the conclusion that no direct relationship
is possible. In the second part, referring to recent scholars, especially Peder
Borgen and John Barclay, Hurtardo shows how Philo is important for obtaining
knowledge of Judaism in the Diaspora, the context in which Christianity has
emerged. He emphasizes that Philo has to be understood in his own cultural
and religious setting. The final part is devoted to two features of early Christianity
that are distinctive in comparison with the Roman-era Jewish setting:
the programmatic conversion of Gentiles without requiring Torah-observance,
and the devotion to Jesus as divine. Hurtardo concludes that in Philo there is
no impetus for these features. Philo can explain early Christianity because he
tells so much about Graeco-Roman Judaism. Philo displays a commitment to
the religious beliefs of his ancestors and is also engaged in his cultural environment.HeisinsomerespectscomparabletoPaul,butcannotbeusedtoexplain
the distinctive features of early Christianity. (ACG)