Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

328 part two
symbolism and the texts where they are used. The final two sections discuss the
source of Philo’s etymologies (he is certainly dependent on earlier exegetical
traditions) and the relation of his practice to Greek allegorical allegorizing.
There are some parallels to what Philo was doing, but they lack the systematic
coherence of his achievement. (DTR)
204109. H.Savon,‘Remploiettransformationdethèmesphiloniens
dans la première lettre d’Ambroise à Just,’ in B. Gain, P. Jay and G.
Nauroy (edd.), «Chartae caritatis»: Études de patristique et d’Antiquité
tardive offertes à Yves-Marie Duval (Paris 2004) 83–95.
A dozen of Ambrose’s letters can be regarded as Christian reformulations of
Philonic treatises. The author concentrates on a letter addressed to a certain
Justus (Ep. 7) who had asked Ambrose about the half drachma which the
Hebrews had to pay pro redemptione animae suae. Thefirstpartoftheletterat
least emerges as a revision and Christianization of Her. 133–160. (JR)
204110. B.Schaller,‘AdamundChristusbeiPaulus.Oder:Über
Brauch und Fehlbrauch von Philo in der neutestamentlichen Forschung,’
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) 143–153.
The prevailing attempt to interpret the Pauline Adam-Christ typology in
1Cor 15:44–49 from a Philonic background, particularly the text in Leg. 1.31,
and to present it as a Christian adaptation is in the opinion of the author a good
example of New Testament scholars’ misuse of parallels. Many of them argue
that the ontological motifs of Philo were reshaped into a temporal structure and
received an eschatological orientation. But in the view of the author the two
thinkers deal quite differently with the twofold report of the creation of man in
Gen 1:26ff. and Gen 2:7. There are two main differences. Paul sees no distinction
between the two human beings created in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, whereas Philo
does. More importantly the pneumatic human being is never identified with the
first human being, but the latter is linked with the ‘earthly Adam’ of Gen 2:7.
The author concludes that a crucial piece of evidence for regarding Paul as the
earliest date of a knowledge of Philo and his ideas in contemporary Jewish circles
of Diaspora is invalidated. (GS)
204111.G.Schöllgen(ed.),Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum,
Band XX (Stuttgart 2004).
H. Ohme, art. Kanon I (Begriff), 1–28, esp. 7–8 (Canon I, as concept);
K. S. Frank, art. Klausur, 1233–1257, esp. 1239 (seclusion). (DTR)