Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2006 383
Dinah’ (p. 281–309, see above 20434). It also contains the article ‘Conversion to
Judaism in Classical Antiquity’, summarized above 20341.References to Philo in
other essays are indexed on p. 922. (DTR)
20625. N. Fernandez-Marcos, ‘Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? the
Vestments of the High-Priest,’ in P. W. Flint, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam
(edd.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint
presented to Eugene Ulrich, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 101
(Boston 2006) 321–336.
While the label ‘rewritten Bible’ may describe aspects of ancient Jewish literary
activity, some Hellenistic Jewish works may also be understood in relation
to the Greco-Roman literary practice of imitatio, based on the foremost
model of Homer; for Jews, Moses’ Pentateuch became such a model. Discussions
of the high priestly vestments, based on Exod 28, reflect the imitation of
ekphrasis, the vivid description of various phenomena including works of art,
whose classic example is Homer’s description of Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.477–
617). Imitations of ekphrasis can be found in the Letter of Aristeas 96–99 and
Ben Sira 45:6–13. Ben Sira 50:5–21 on the high priest Simon imitates the
encomium. Philo provides examples of allegorical ekphrasis in QE 2.107–123,
Spec. 1.84–97, and Mos. 2.109–135. Focusing on the last passage, Fernández-
Marcos shows how Philo blends Platonic and Stoic thinking to portray the
high priestly vestments as symbolic of the universe and the high priest himself
as a small universe, or microcosm. In BJ 5.230–237 and Ant. 3.159–178,
Josephus, who uses different terms for the vestments, shows variations on the
symbolic ekphrasis found in Philo. All these examples suggest that Hellenistic
Jewish writers were very interested in the theme of the high priestly vestments
and that the tradition of interpretation of these vestments was fairly widespread.
(EB)
20626. E. Filler, Dialectic in Philo (diss. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-
Gan 2006).
This dissertation seeks to examine whether, besides the known and extensive
influence of such Platonic writings as the Timaeus on Philo’s writings and
thought, we can also detect traces of the dialectics of the later Platonic dialogues.
The result is patently negative. Most of the dissertation is devoted to explaining
the lack of such dialectical terminology. Initially, the possibility of Stoic influence
is examined and dismissed. Subsequently, the author asks whether Philo may
have been attached to a Sophistic movement in Alexandria and what his attitude
to such a movement may precisely have been. Analyzing the occurrences of
terms connected to ‘sophists’, the author highlights the wide span of their meanings
as well as Philo’s ambivalence. As comparative material from Alexandria is
missing, it is not clear whether it is Philo’s original contribution to contrast the
Sophist in this broad way to the true philosopher. Moreover, the author argues
that one of Philo’s proofs for the harm engendered by sophistic teachings and