Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2005 355
mentions their names, he uses them to refer to three categories of people. (2)
They are completely absent from Philo’s major reports of the riot against the Jews.
(3) When their activities as individuals are narrated (Flacc. 125–147), they are
portrayednotasenemiesoftheJewsbutashostiletowardsFlaccus.(4)InLegat.
Philo pictures Isidoros as anti-Jewish but this passage refers to events which
happened in Rome after the summer of 38. The second section deals with the
death of Dionysios. Our Dionysios can be identified with the Dionysios that is
mentioned in P. Oxy. 8.1089, in which the central theme is a conflict between
Dionysios and Flaccus. Isidoros, who was exiled in c. 33–35, also appears in the
papyrus. Kerkeslager suggests that Dionysios was executed by Flaccus as early as
33 and almost certainly before 36. In the third section it is argued that Lampo
was not present in Alexandria in 38, because none of his activities in the city
can be dated to 38. Highly probably, he was in Rome in 38 because of personal
interests. The last section is devoted to Isidoros, and the author claims that his
departure from Alexandria described in Flacc. 135–145 has to be dated to before
38. Isidoros went away from Alexandria into voluntary exile to Rome, where he
remained for the entirety of 38. Because of his crimes it was too risky for him to
play a leading role in the troubles in Alexandria. In his conclusion Kerkeslager
formulates three major implications of his view: (1) Because of the absence of
known Greeks from the elite in the violence, it is less probable that civic rights
were an issue. (2) Philo’s attribution of blame to the Roman authorities must
be taken more seriously. (3) More attention has to be paid to the possibility
that Flaccus was acting in accordance with Roman policies. For the response of
P. W. van der Horst to some of Kerkeslager’s arguments see below 20642. (ACG)
20536.G.N.Khairallah,‘L’herméneutiquedanslapenséedePhilon
d’Alexandrie,’ in R. G. Khoury and J. Halfwassen (edd.), Platonismus
im Orient und Okzident (Heidelberg 2005) 41–48.
In Philo’s day two schools were well known in philosophical circles in Alexandria,
Aristotelianism and Platonism. At this time a significant event occurred
in the history of philosophy, the meeting of hellenized philosophy and oriental
thought, particularly in the form of Jewish religious thought which had
moved to Alexandria. This is the context for the emergence and development
of Philo’s thought, a meeting point of philosophy and religion. Philo’s allegorical
hermeneutic can be seen as a syncretistic attempt to mediate between Greek,
Jewish, and—later—Christian thought. (JR)
20537. J.Kiefer,Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeiten und Deutungen
im antiken Judentum und in der hebräischen Bibel,ArbeitenzurBibelund
ihrer Geschichte 19 (Leipzig 2005), esp. 399–412.
In this broad-ranging investigation into the themes of exile and diaspora in
ancient Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, a section is devoted to Philo. First Philo’s
use of the terms πικία, παρικία and μετικία is analysed. Only once does
he affirm that the Diaspora of the Jews is a consequence of divine judgment.