Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

326 part two
204103.E.Roberts,Philo, Paul, Stoic Paradox(diss. Brown University
2004).
This thesis demonstrates that Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus make
significant use of the Stoic paradoxes, which are a set of ethical beliefs that
go against common opinion (Cicero, Para. Stoic.). It shows that Philo employs
the philosophy and philology of the paradoxes in his biblical exegesis and that
Paul relies upon philosophical assumptions similar to those of the paradoxes.
Although the Stoic focus on the singular good of virtue does not find linguistic
expression in Paul, his focus on the singular good of a life in Christ points
toward a similar structure of thought. Four aspects of the thesis are of particular
interest to Philonic studies: (1) the identification of eleven instances where
Philo replicates the Stoic formula ‘virtue is the only good,’ (2) a comparison
between the discussions of the paradox ‘the sage alone is free’ in Philo, Prob.,
and Cicero, Parad. Stoic.,(3)anevaluationofcurrentdebatesonPhilo’sview
of wealth (Mealand R-R 7833, Schmidt R-R 8365, Phillips above 20151) with
attention to Philo’s use of the paradox ‘the sage alone is rich,’ (4) a discussion
of Philo’s application of the paradox ‘the sage alone is king’ to the figures
of Moses, Abraham, and Adam. (DTR; based on a summary supplied by the
author)
204104. G. Roskam, ‘An Unknown Light Enlightened: on an Enigmatic
Passage in Philo of Alexandria (QG 3.18),’ Rheinisches Museum 147
(2004) 428–430.
The third of the allegorical explanations given by Philo at QG 3.18 in order
to explain why Sarah did not bear children to Abraham is rather obscure. The
author suggests that the text may be better understood if it is seen to refer to
the Stoic doctrine of the σς διαλεληώς, i.e. when the sage instantaneously
changes from wickedness to virtue even though he is at first unconscious of the
change. Suggestions are made on how the Armenian may have obscured the
meaning. (DTR)
204105.J.R.Royse,‘JeremiahMarkland’sContributiontotheTextual
Criticism of Philo,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 50–60.
Jeremiah Markland’s name occurs frequently in the textual apparatus to C-W.
This essay explores who the reclusive Markland was and how his emendations
and conjectures came to be included in Mangey’s edition. Quite a few of the
notes attributed to him in the C-W edition of Opif. stem not from Mangey’s
edition but from his handwritten notes in his personal copy of Mangey. Eighteen
passages where a reading is attributed to Markland in the C-W edition of Opif.
are examined to show that sometimes he was the source of the emendation, and
contrary to Cohn’s assumption, sometimes Mangey was. (KAF)