Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

380 part two
20616. N. G. Cohen, ‘La dimensión judía del judaísmo de Filón. Una
elucidación de De Spec. Leg. IV 132–150,’ Revista Bíblica 68 (2006) 215–
240.
Spanish translation of an article first published in English; see RRS 8722.
(JPM)
20617.N.G.Cohen,‘Philo’sCher. 40–52, Zohar III 31a, and BT Hag.
16a 1, 2,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006) 191–209.
The author argues that Philo’s exceptional reference to the book of Jeremiah
in Cher. 49 can be explained on the assumption that he used an esoteric commentary
by ‘Jeremiah’. This commentary is said to have been composed in Greek,
as reflected in LXX Jer 3:4, and also influenced passages in the medieval book
of Jewish mysticism, the Zohar, and the Babylonian Talmud, which show, in
her view, a general resemblance to Philo’s interpretation. In this way the author
hopes to give further support to the earlier thesis of Samuel Belkin that there are
direct connections between Philo and the Zohar.(MRN)
20618. N.G.Cohen,‘ThePropheticBooksinAlexandria:theEvidence
from Philo Judaeus,’ in M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak (edd.),
Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (London–New
York 2006) 166–193.
Assuming that the prophetic books were widely available in Greek by the
time of Philo, the author addresses the problem of why they are so sparsely
quoted in Philo’s works. She argues that his references echo the liturgical use
of the prophets as Haftarah in Alexandria. This argument is supported by three
separate considerations: (1) reviewing material already published in 1997 (see
above 9711), Cohen lists all the prophetic quotations as well as possible allusions
to them and compares them to the Haftarot read between 17 of Tammuz
and Yom Kippur, which are attested much later in sources from the Land
of Israel; (2) on the basis of a close reading of Conf.128–130 she argues for
Philo’s use of a Hebrew lexical concordance written in Greek; (3) she suggests
that Philo’s references to ‘the friends of Moses’ and the school of Moses can
be identified as a group of contemporary Alexandrian Jews, who were allegorists
and favoured non-Pentateuchal passages. It is from these circles, Cohen
suggests, that he received exegesis of passages not included in the Pentateuch.
(MRN)
20619. I.Coleman,‘Antiphony:anotherLookatPhilo’sOn the Contemplative
Life,’ Studia Liturgica 36 (2006) 212–230.
Philo’s Contempl. presents ‘the earliest liturgical use of the term antiphônos’
(p. 212). One author maintains that Philo’s understanding of this term reflects
responses to a soloist rather than the alternation of choirs responding to each