Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

312 part two
differ from what precedes and follows, which suggests it might be an insert.
Philo’s methods of exegesis conform to the scientific standards of his time. His
inclusive reading of the text transforms both Platonic and biblical ideas, but it is
the biblical texts that always take precedence. (DTR)
20469.J.Leonhardt-Balzer,‘DerLogosunddieSchöpfung:Streiflichter
bei Philo (Opif. 20–25) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1–18),’ in J.
Frey and U. Schnelle (edd.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums,Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175 (Tübingen
2004) 295–315.
This article discusses some similarities between the conceptions of the Logos
in the writings of Philo and in the Prologue of John. In spite of the different
approaches to the idea, both authors refer to the very same text in Gen 1.
Both offer a comparable vision of divine revelation and communication in the
beginning of Creation. Both show that the function of the Logos is the true
explanation: in Philo the explanation of creation, in John the explanation of the
Divine creator. Both unite the deep conviction that the Logos always depends
on his Father. Both use the concept of the Logos in the manner of the Wisdom
literature. Nevertheless there are strong differences: for example, Philo would
never refer to a Logos who becomes flesh. Many more differences emerge in the
discussion of points of detail. It could be argued, however, that in the 1st century
a prevalent tradition concerning the exegesis of Gen 1 exists which makes use
of the notion of the Logos in the exegesis of the story of the creation. Greek
philosophy, Jewish Wisdom literature and biblical exegesis combine together in
the notion of the Logos in a creative way. It allows historical events to be framed
by their universal importance. (GS)
20470.C.Lévy,‘«MaisquefaisaitdoncPhilonenÉgypte?»Àpropos
de l’identité diasporique de Philon,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi
(edd.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti
del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e
la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Bibliotecadi
Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 295–312.
The author replies to the question posed in the paper’s title by surveying
the evidence in the Philonic corpus. Philo lived in Egypt because this was the
country chosen by his ancestors as their domicile, where the Law had been
translated into Greek so that it could become known to the whole of humanity.
According to the author Philo does not espouse any idea of a mystical association
with the land of Israel which creates an obligation to reside there. He lives in
Egypt not because of error but because of flight, for the point of departure is the
reality of Egyptian life and the bridge that is sought is the activity of the divine
Logos, of which the Law is the concrete expression. (JR)