Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2004 319
represents a beginning and which reaches its goal in the Jewish-Alexandrian
theology of Philo. Hence Wisdom is to be dated before Philo (p. 162). (TS)
20487.G.W.E.Nickelsburg,‘PhiloamongGreeks,JewsandChristians,’
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) 53–72.
The article presents a general introduction to Philo and his writings. Part I
describes Philo’s life, his writings, his education, and the manner of his scriptural
interpretation. Nickelsburg emphasizes that Philo is a man of two worlds: he
studies and interprets the Jewish Bible, but at the same time he is educated as
a Greek, and participates in Greek culture. In Part II the author touches briefly
on some elements that Philo has in common with other contemporary Jews,
and also on some ways in which he is unique, such as his attitude towards
Scripture, and his use of allegory. Part III is devoted to Philo’s influence on early
Christianity. (ACG)
20488. M.R.Niehoff,‘ResponsetoArkadyKovelman,’Review of
Rabbinic Judaism 7 (2004) 146–151.
The author responds to and critiques the article of A. Kovelman summarized
above at 20461. In contrast to scholars who either ignore Alexandrian Jewish
exegesis or try to harmonize Philo with Palestinian rabbinic exegesis, Kovelman
carries on the tradition of J. Freudenthal who contends that Alexandrian Judaism
must be appreciated on its own terms. Niehoff questions, however, Kovelman’s
broad association of Bible with epic and rabbinic literature with comic novel.
She also believes that he has not fully explained how Pseudo-Aristeas and Philo,
‘the very exegetes who most distanced themselves from everything comic . . .
became the harbingers of a more comic approach to Scripture’ (p. 149). Philo’s
allusions to frivolous writers imply that other Alexandrian exegetes had quite
different approaches. Niehoff suggests that these other exegetes may themselves
have been ‘the crucial bridge between biblical epic and Talmudic farce’ (ibid.).
Philo’s objections were not in fact to the frivolity of the literature but rather
to the diminishing of divine power implied in the literal understanding of the
Bible. In general Kovelman has introduced stimulating ideas that need stronger
supporting evidence and analysis. (EB)
20489.M.R.Niehoff,‘MotherandMaiden,SisterandSpouse:Sarah
in Philonic Midrash,’ Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004) 413–444.
Whereas Josephus minimizes Sarah’s importance in his reconstruction of the
biblical account, Philo stresses her significance, sympathetically defends her
rationality and virtue, appreciates and praises her achievements, and idealizes