Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2004 307
20455.H.Jacobson,‘Philo,Lucretius,andAnima,’Classical Quarterly
54 (2004) 635–636.
Points out that Philo’s description of the nous as the ‘soul of the soul’ in Opif.
66 is paralleled in Lucretius DRN 3.275, where the animus is called the anima
animae. It should not be concluded that Philo drew on the Latin poet. It is
more likely that both are dependent on an earlier Greek source of Epicurean
provenance. (DTR)
20456.A.Kamesar,‘TheLogos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos
in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad,’ Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44 (2004) 163–181.
Philo offers the earliest extensive evidence of the λγς νδιάετς,or‘internal
logos,’ and the λγς πρρικς, or ‘uttered logos.’ Most often symbolized
in his thought by the brothers Moses (as λγς νδιάετς)andAaron(asλγς
πρρικς), this doctrine of the two logoi is generally attributed to the
Stoics. Kamesar argues that Philo was influenced not only by the doctrine itself
but also by an allegorization found in the D-scholia to the Iliad, Greek sources
that explain Homeric phrases and myths but also contain later, more developed
exegetical material. In the Homeric interpretation, the two logoi are symbolized
by two brothers, Otus and Ephialtes, known as the Aloadae, and one brother is
associated with learning, the other with nature. These associations may possibly
reflect the widely attested pairing of (or conflict between) rhetoric and philosophy.
The D-scholia additionally include an interpretation of the brothers, or
λγι, as restraining anger, Ares, who is later freed by Hermes, λγς or reason.
Kamesar believes that the interpretation of the Aloadae in the D-scholia may
be traced to the Stoa of Diogenes of Babylon and his immediate successors or
like-minded circles. (EB)
20457. C. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 2vols.,
Handbook of Patristic Exegesis 1 (Leiden 2004), esp.1. 176–183.
In this comprehensive survey of the entire field of Patristic literature a brief
section is devoted to Philo in the chapter on Patristic hermeneutics. Perhaps
surprisingly it focuses on Philo’s views on the literal interpretation of the scriptural
text. The author cites the view of the editors and translators on the French
translation series that ‘the literal value of Torah was of such importance for
Philo that it induced him to rethink the very notion of allegory’ (p. 176). Kannengiesser
illustrates Philo’s combination of literal and non-literal exegesis with
various texts mainly drawn from the Quaestiones. InthecaseofQE he argues
that there is a difference between those texts where he uses the distinction
ad litteram and ad mentem, which make use of allegory, and those where he
advances beyond the literal by linking it with the contemplation of the cosmos
or with ethical evaluations. In these texts he speaks primarily about ‘symbols’.
(DTR)