Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2006 407
has been transmitted to the Armenian milieu. Circumstantial characteristics of
these channels can be found in the scholia (12th–14th centuries) to the Armenian
corpus Philonicum, especially in the scholiasts’ view of Philo’s biography
and in the categories which Armenian interpreters applied to the exegetical
method used by the Alexandrian. The analysis of these concepts, while extending
beyond the Armenian context, presents an ideal opportunity for the reconstruction
in general outline of an intellectual atmosphere which enabled Philo’s
works to be adopted by early Christian tradition and later transferred to Armenian
soil.
Chapter 1: ‘Armenian version of the legend about Philo: literary sources
and historical implications’ (pp. 9–28). The Armenian Church doctors’ notions
concerning Philo’s biography were mostly formed on the basis of the wellknown
sources, such as Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and Chronicle and the
apocryphal Vita Ioannis, and in this regard are nothing more than secondary
literary fictions. However, the most original details of the narratives about Philo,
namely the line connecting him with Jacob the Just and messianic movements
in Palestine about the time of the Jewish War may conceal the remnants of the
most ancient variant of the legend, which presented Philo as a Christian author.
Nevertheless, judging from medieval Armenian practice, the body of Philo’s
works has been included in school curricula not because of the legend, but rather
the latter served as a justification of its inclusion.
Chapter 2: ‘Philo’s exegetical method in interpretation by Armenian hermeneutists:
formulating the problem’ (pp. 29–54). The Armenian scholiasts perceived
the Armenian corpus Philonicum not as a set of casual translations, but
as a well-structured whole, connected together by the ideas of virtue and spiritual
perfection. The complementary use of both these characteristics, as well as
the general conviction of the Armenian monastic doctors about the spirituality
of Philo’s exegesis, seems to be at variance with utterances concerning Philo’s
method by Photius and especially by Ambrose. The latter made use of Philo’s
‘merely moral’, as he claims, interpretation for constructing his own spiritual
exegesis of Gen 2:15. The evidence for the particularity of the exegetical position
of Armenian medieval teachers can be seen also in their tendency to identify
Philo’s allegorical method with exegetical methods used by the apostle Paul
and described in his term λληγρμενα (Gal 4:24).
Chapter 3: ‘Terms of contemplative exegesis in their application to Philo’s
method’ (pp. 55–89). There is a set of kindred terms, by means of which Armenian
commentators tried to define the exegetical method of the Alexandrian:
‘intelligible’, ‘intellectual contemplation’, ‘new vision (or contemplation)’, ‘incorporeal’,
‘subtle contemplation’. In investigating the provenance of this terminology
it emerges that it was used by Greek and Latin authors to characterize the
‘spiritual’ and ‘anagogic’ interpretations of the Bible.
Chapter 4: ‘Philo as a ‘spiritual’ author in the Armenian commentators’ view:
on the source of tradition’ (pp. 90–110). One can trace the essential concepts
of spiritual exegesis in the Book of Wisdom, and especially in the encomium of
sophia in 7:13–29. From the same tradition, probably, the notion on Philo as a
spiritual author could arise, precisely because by conveying the philosophical
sense of the Law, the Alexandrian gave the reader of the Holy Scripture the