Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

362 part two
The author gives a brief response to Daniel S. Schwartz’s article ‘Did the Jews
Practice Infant Exposure and Infanticide in Antiquity?’ (see above 204112),
arguing that some of the arguments relating to child sacrifice in her monograph
Philo and Jewish Identity and Culture (see above 20146) which Schwartz attacked
were misunderstood and misrepresented. (DTR)
20555. M.R.Niehoff,‘NewGarmentsforBiblicalJoseph,’inC.
Helmer and T. G. Petrey (edd.), Biblical Interpretation. History, Context,
and Reality, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 26
(Atlanta 2005) 33–56.
The author compares Philo’s and Josephus’ interpretations of the biblical
figure of Joseph, asking whether the personality or historical situation of the
interpreter is reflected in his exegesis. Both interpreters are shown to offer topical
interpretations. The figure of Joseph enables Philo to reflect on the issue of Jewish
existence in Egypt, showing in the literal interpretation how an ideal leader
maintains his Jewish identity in mental separation from the environment, while
the allegory takes into account the reality of Jewish assimilation to Egypt which
Philo frowned upon. (MRN)
20556. E.F.Osborn,Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge 2005), esp.
81–105.
In his final monograph the author returns one more time to the subject
of Clement’s debt to Philo in a chapter full of rich insight entitled ‘Philo and
Clement: from Divine Oracle to True Philosophy.’ A rational reconstruction
of the thought of the two writers reveals common ground in their essential
monotheism. Philo moves from divine oracle to true philosophy with a central
focus on Moses and the Law. Clement makes the same move with a central focus
on Jesus and the Gospel. The decisive difference between them lies in the relation
of the Logos to God. For Philo the powers under God unite in the Logos. For
Clement there is reciprocity of God and Logos, Father and Son. In addition
Clement’s view of the role of the Jewish people differs from Philo’s. It is more
complex and also more abstract, because he did not have direct contact with
Jews. The chapter proceeds to examine the main passages where Clement makes
use of Philo, first the four short sequences, then the four longer passages. Some
reflections are appended on literary issues and the problem of why Clement
gives so little acknowledgement of his debt to Philo. Osborn concludes that
Philo anticipates parts of Clement’s ‘true dialectic,’ but lacks his redefinition in
terms of prophecy and economy. Both Philo and Clement are audacious in their
thought, but Philo lacks Clement’s gift for argument. Clement did not see Philo
as a rival, but as one of the many predecessors who had said something well. The
concluding words are worth quoting: ‘Clement found in Philo the wonder of the
elusive God and the richness of the history of Moses. Wonder was for Clement
the beginning of knowledge and, time and again, Philo pointed to the wonder
of scripture.’ (p. 105) (DTR)