Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2004 341
human can commit blasphemy by claiming a divine status or greater degree of
authority and power than one has the right to do. (KAF)
204144. M.Ytterbrink,The Third Gospel for the First Time. Luke
within the Context of Ancient Biography (diss. Lund University 2004),
esp. 94–103.
The author’s dissertation from Lund University, Sweden, was supervised by
Prof. Birger Olsson. It is a kind of narrative analysis of the Gospel of Luke.
The reader is invited to accompany the first readers or hearers of the gospel
and to experience the narrative alongside them. It utilizes W. Iser’s theory
about reading and readers and focuses on gaps and vacancies in the texts.
It is also suggested that the readers would probably have been acquainted
with comparable stories, and this is where Philo comes into focus. Ytterbrink
presents aspects of biographical works of Isocrates, Xenophon, Plutarch, Philo
and some others. Of Philo’s biographies she presents Mos., Abr.andIos. (pp. 94–
103). It is probably too much to say that Philo’s works are prominent in the
rest of this study, but some further comparative remarks occur. Commenting
on the Narrator, the author suggests that, when compared to Philo, Isocrates,
Xenophon, and many others, the author of the Third Gospel takes a much more
obtrusive role, more like that of an editor than of a real author. It was most
probably possible for the contemporary audience to apprehend the differences
(p. 229). (TS)
204145. D. Zeller, ‘Philonische Logos-Theologie im Hintergrund
des Konflikts von 1Kor 1–4?,’ 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) 155–164.
As one of the papers presented at a Symposium in Jena in 2003, this article
is for the most part a discussion with G. Sellin and some of his views concerning
1Corinthians. Sellin replies to some of this criticism in the same volume
(pp. 165–172, see above 204116). Zeller’s criticism is especially directed at the
understanding of the various groups in Corinth as influenced by Alexandrian
Judaism. This has especially been the case with the Apollos group, but Sellin tries
to understand also the Christ party in light of the same background. Zeller criticizes
his view of Apollos as one who understands himself as a mediator between
God and the Christians, comparable to the role of Logos in the works of Philo.
Zellerfindsthisviewuntenable,andtriestosubstantiatethisbydealingwith
Sellin’s interpreation of Philo, focusing especially on issues like νρωπς ε
as a type, Logos as God’s νρωπς, on ‘Idiomenkommunikation’ between the
perfect ones and Logos, and the Logos as ‘place’. (TS)