Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

392 part two
20651. E. Koskenniemi, ‘Philo and Classical Drama,’ in J. Neusner,
A. J. Avery Peck, A. Laato, R. Nurmela and K.-G. Sandelin (edd.),
Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective:
Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (Lanham Md. 2006) 137–151.
The author presents and briefly discusses Philo’s references to persons in
classical drama. He finds that Philo mentions several dramas, and although
he seldom names the plays or the author, almost all of his references can be
identified as belonging to dramas from which we have at least fragments. Philo
mentions Sophocles once (Prob. 19); quotes Ion once (Prob. 143); mentions
Aeschylus twice (Prob. 143, Aet. 49); and Euripides often. Menander is quoted,
but not mentioned by name. In addition, Philo several times also reveals his
knowledge about theatres. Koskenniemi’s conclusion is that Philo was deeply
committed to the world of the theatre, that he quoted from memory, and that he
often used the dramatists to underscore points in his expositions of the Torah.
(TS)
20652. A.LeBoulluec,Alexandrie antique et chrétienne. Clément
et Origène, Collections des Études Augustiniennes Série Antiquité 178
(Paris 2006).
Frequent references to Philo, indexed on p. 465, in this important collection of
studies by the distinguished French scholar on early Christianity in Alexandria,
with particular emphasis on the writings and intellectual milieu of Clement and
Origen. (DTR)
20653. J. R. Levison, ‘Philo’s Personal Experience and the Persistence
of Prophecy,’ in M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak (edd.), Prophets, Prophecy,
and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (London 2006) 194–209.
Despite a recent consensus that Jews in antiquity believed that prophecy had
ceased with the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, several Jewish texts
from the Second Temple period suggest that such a belief was not universal.
While some modern writers try to distinguish between biblical prophecy and
later prophetic experiences, Philo’s autobiographical accounts of his own experience
of inspiration when he is interpreting Scripture are quite similar to his
accounts of prophetic inspiration and even of Moses’ prophetic experience. Similarities
between Philo’s description of prophetic experience and of his own experience
include sudden inspiration, loss of awareness of one’s surroundings, and
extraordinary insight. Similarities between Philo’s description of Moses’ experience
as a prophet and of Philo’s own experiences as an exegete include two
forms of inspiration, through divine possession and an inner prompting of the
soul. In contrast to the earlier consensus, then, Philo is an invaluable witness to
the notion ‘that prophecy has not ceased, that the divine spirit has not withdrawn
from Israel’ (p. 209). (EB)