Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2006 391
as philosopher-king, legislator, priest, and prophet. Philo emphasizes Moses’
virtues and goes so far as to attribute divine qualities to him. Some questions
considered and debated by scholars include Philo’s audience for the treatise on
Moses, Philo’s claim about the influence of Moses on Greek culture, Philo’s own
borrowing from Greek culture in his portrayal of Moses and Mosaic Law, Philo’s
fashioning of Moses for his own purposes, the human or divine origin of Moses’
powers, and Philo’s understanding of prophecy. (EB)
20649. J.Klawans,Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and
Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford 2006).
Contemporary religious and cultural biases have led modern scholars to
misconstrue or misrepresent ancient Israelite, Jewish, and Christian stances
toward the Temple cult. These scholars have separated the study of purity and
sacrifice, which belong together, and have understood purity but not sacrifice to
have a spiritualized significance for the ancient practitioners. Scholars have also
understood sacrifice as a primitive form of worship later replaced by better, more
acceptable forms. To point out and counter these scholarly understandings,
Klawans examines purity and sacrifice in biblical Israel (Part I) and approaches
to the Temple cult in Second Temple literature, rabbinic literature, and the New
Testament (Part II). Ancient Israelites viewed sacrifice as an act of imitatio Dei
aimed at bringing God’s presence into the sanctuary. Philo ‘may well present the
first truly integrated interpretation of the entire sacrificial process, beginning
with ritual and moral purification’ (p. 117). His approach to this process—
what Klawans terms ‘the most sustained and sophisticated analysis of purity
and sacrifice in ancient Jewish literature’ (p. 123)—is sympathetic and combines
symbolic and practical discussions. Some of Philo’s views may be unique to him
but they also show continuities with earlier views, particularly ‘that the temple
represents the cosmos and the priests serve as its angelic caretakers’ (p. 123).
(EB)
20650.D.Konstan,‘Philo’sDe virtutibus in the Perspective of Classical
Greek Philosophy,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 59–72.
The article discusses various themes relating to Philo’s analysis of the virtues
in Virt., with special emphasis on his treatment of two principal virtues, courage
(νδρεία) and humanity (ιλανρωπία). Humanity is a newcomer to the classical
list of virtues. Philo gives it a special place in Virt., showing that Moses
extends this virtue, which is closely related to gentleness and mildness, not only
to human beings but also to animals. Like Plato, Philo defines courage as a kind
of knowledge, and following Aristotle he regards it as the middle way between
rashness and cowardice. Practisers of wisdom, who are full of proud thoughts,
are said to exercise true courage. This kind of connection between wisdom and
courage does not occur in Greek philosophy. The same applies to the view that
confidence in God’s aid as a result of piety can simply be identified with courage.
(ACG)