Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2006 385
Fuglseth’s paper is in fact a response to a contribution by M. R. Niehoff in
thesamevolume(seebelow20666). Arguing that in the treatise Aet. preserved
in the Philonic corpus there are many statements that are clearly non-Philonic,
he wishes to review the question of authorship. According to him, ‘substantial
divergences between Aet. and other Philonic writings argue in favour of either a
non-Philonic origin or that he is paraphrasing and/or quoting other authors.’ In
the main part of his article, he to a large extent presents and supports some of the
main problems pertaining to a Philonic authorship as set forth in a Norwegian
1987 Ph.D. dissertation, written in Norwegian, by Roald Skarsten, who argued
that Philo did not write Aet. (see RRS 8795). (TS)
20629.M.E.Fuller,TheRestoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and
the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts,Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der älteren Kirche 138 (Berlin 2006), esp. 82–102.
This book examines, first, how early Jewish literature interprets Israel’s exile
and restoration and the fate of other nations at the time of this restoration and,
second, how Luke-Acts uses or modifies these interpretations. Fuller discerns
several patterns in early Jewish literature that include a literal understanding
of Jewish return to the land of Israel; an inter-Jewish understanding, whereby
a subset of Israel is given prominence among the wider Jewish community; an
emphasis on the re-gathering of the twelve tribes; and a spiritualized interpretation,
in which the literal meaning of restoration disappears or diminishes greatly.
Differing emphases are placed upon divine intervention and the role of the messiah.
The fate of the nations may be viewed locally with respect to the land or
cosmically with respect to the eschaton; and some sources see a positive role for
the nations. Drawing upon some of these motifs, Luke–Acts emphasizes Jesus as
the Davidic messiah in Israel, later enthroned in heaven; the twelve Apostles as
leaders of eschatological Israel; and incorporation of other nations and enemies
who also remain bound to the land of Israel. Paul goes beyond the restoration
of Israel to proclaim God’s kingdom in the Roman Empire and ultimately in
Paradise. Philo sees the role of the Jews in the Diaspora positively as colonizers
rather than exiles. Based on the important distinction between his use of
‘Israel’ and ‘Jews’, Fuller claims that Philo understands restoration symbolically
as a return of all virtuous people to wisdom or God and that the physical aspect
is less important than the spiritual or allegorical one. (EB)
20630.G.Gäbel,Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes. Eine exegetischreligionsgeschichtliche
Studie, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 2.212 (Tübingen 2006), esp. 112–127.
Philo’s understanding of the τπι of the Holy tent and the tent itself revealed
to Moses differs greatly from the one in Hebrews. This is the reason that the
specific form of the archetype-image relation in Hebrews cannot be deduced
from contemporary Greek thought, i.e. Middle Platonism. Philo only refers