Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2005 367
with assimilation and acculturation in 1Peter, is published here for the first time.
Reviews: D. Horrell, JSNT 28 (2006) 110; K. L. Schenck, SPhA 20 (2008) 230–
233. (TS)
20567. P. Serra Zanetti, ‘Note su Tertulliano e Filone d’Alessandria,’
in A. Cacciari, F. Citti, C. Neri and L. Perrone (edd.), P. Serra Zanetti,
Imitatori di Gesù Cristo. Scritti classici e cristiani (Bologna 2005) 37–61,
esp. 48–61.
Review of R. Cadiou (ed.), Philon d’Alexandrie: la migration d’Abraham. Introduction,
texte critique, traduction et notes, SC 47 (Paris 1957) = R-R 1551. After
a survey of Cadiou’s introduction, with some critical observations, Serra Zanetti
critically discusses Cadiou’s text constitution and/or translation regarding the
following sections of Migr.: 26, 41, 42, 47, 67, 68, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 98, 104, 120,
122, 126, 131, 138, 145, 146, 149, 150, 157, 158, 160, 174, 180, 192, 195, 211,
216, 218, 225. The article was originally published in Memorie dell’Accademia
delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, Classe di scienze morali s. 5 VII (1957–1959)
[1960]. (HMK)
20568. R. Sgarbi, ‘Acquisizioni filologico-linguistiche in margine
all’esperienza traduttiva armena della «Scuola ellenistica»,’ in R. B. Finazzi
(ed.), Del tradurre: da Occidente verso Oriente come incontro di linguee culture: atti della giornata di studio su Traduzioni orientali e testi classici:
lo stato della ricerca: Brescia, 8 ottobre 2004 (Milano 2005) 211–218.
This article presents two passages from Philo, Spec. 1.304, and Contempl.
61 (as well as passages from Porphyrius and Dionysius Thrax) in Greek and
Armenian (both versions with Italian renderings). On the basis of the Armenian
translations observations are made on probable readings of the Greek original.
(HMK)
20569. F. Shaw, ‘The Emperor Gaius’ Employment of the Divine
Name,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 33–48.
The article focuses on Philo’s account of the words of the Emperor Gaius to
the Embassy of Alexandrian Jews (of which Philo himself was the leader) in
Legat. 353. Two main problems are discussed. First, how are Gaius’ words to
be interpreted? Shaw discusses the two different understandings of the words
(i.e. the adjective κατνμαστς refers to God or to the Emperor himself) and
concludes that Philo might have wished to convey both interpretations that have
been made by modern scholars. The second question is the divine name that
Gaius most likely uttered. It is argued that it would have been a Greek name
and that it was most likely Ιαω. In an Appendix Shaw discusses evidence for the
knowledge of a Hebrew divine name among Romans. A brief response to the
article was published by P. W. van der Horst; see below 20642. (DTR)