Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

350 part two
Athanasius’ Epistula ad Epictetum).Thelexiconisprintedintencolumns,
the first column listing the Greek words and the remaining columns presenting
the Armenian renderings—if any—in each of the nine texts (but, in line
with the provisory and limited scope of the article, without text references or
numbers of occurrences). Introductory observations (pp. 79–99) relate to the
methods of translation (on a lexical level) used by the Armenian translators.
(HMK)
20525. K.Fuglseth,Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: a Sociological,
Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships
in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran,NovumTestamentum
Supplements 119 (Leiden 2005).
This is a lightly revised version of Fuglseth’s doctoral dissertation (Trondheim,
Norway) completed in 2002, on which see above 20241. The study is an
investigation of the alleged community behind the Gospel of John, the so-called
‘Johannine community’. The Gospel is analysed by means of social-scientific
methods (mainly Stark and Bainbridge), and compared to texts from two other
Jewish milieus, the Jewish community in Alexandria as reflected in the works
of Philo and the community of Qumran as reflected in some of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Two issues are primarily focused on as basis for the sociological analysis
and comparison: (1) the relationship to the Jerusalem Temple—dealing with
John and the Temple (pp. 117–185), the Temple in Philo and Qumran (pp. 187–
249), and Temple-related festivals in John (pp. 251–284); (2) social relationships
to ‘others’ and ‘outsiders’ as found in these writings—Social Relationships in
John (pp. 285–319) and Social relationships in Philo and Qumran (pp. 321–
351). Philo is explicitly dealt with in an introductory section (pp. 86–105), in
which the author discusses the question: ‘was there a Philo community?’. His
qualified answer to this question is that we should only use the notion of a ‘Philo
community’ or ‘Philo group’ in a general way, referring to Jews in Alexandria
like Philo. Nevertheless, a general Philonic audience is plausible. In pp. 189–219
he discusses ‘the Temple in Philo’s writings.’ On the basis of how Philo deals with
aspects related to the Temple, Fuglseth characterizes Philo, in spite of his criticism
of animal sacrifices and rejection of temples of stone, as a Jerusalem adherent.
Philo never supported an abrogation of the Temple, but criticized those who
did. Finally, in Chapter 8 (pp. 321–334), social relationships in Philo’s writings
are described. Although it is hard to find a Philo community depicted in his writings
in the same way as in the Gospel of John and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo
nevertheless deals with the relationships to non-Jews. According to Fuglseth,
there is a universalizing outlook on the relationships to Gentiles. This relationship
is described as depending on Israel and her special relationship to God.
Hence particularism and universalism are not contradictory concepts in Philo’s
case.Reviews:M.Barker,JThS 58 (2007) 226–227; E. W. Klink III, JETS 50
(188–190). (TS)