Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2006 409
20695. O.S.Vardazarian,‘HovhanOrotnec‘uHawak‘umnYaytnabanut‘ean
i Philone Imastnoy, or ‘Yaghags Naxaxnamut‘ean” [in Armenian:
The Epitome of the Explanation of the (Treatise) On Providence by
Philo the Wise, (made) by Yovhannēs Orotnec‘i], Banber Matenadarani
[Journal of the Matenadaran, Yerevan] 17 (2006) 213–259.
The critical edition of the text of the epitome of the Prov., made in the school
of the famous medieval Armenian vardapet Yovhannēs Orotnec‘i (1315–1386),
was prepared on the basis of three manuscripts, which are all preserved in Yerevan.
In the Introduction to the edition the problem of authorship of the epitome
is first discussed. Judging from the title, there are two possible inferences: (a)
Yovhannēs Orotnec‘i could have composed it by using some scholia of previous
authors; (b) the explanations given by the above-mentioned vardapet were
recorded during class-readings and transformed in a rhetorical composition by
one of his disciples. In the latter case the most probable candidate is Grigor
Tathevatc‘i († 1409), who was known as a recorder of some other lectures delivered
by Orotnec‘i and who was familiar with several specific phrases of the epitome.
Although it is a concise paraphrase of the Prov., the epitome differs from
its source text in its general tendency and the proportions of its exposition. Contrary
to Philo, who claims to discuss the theses stated by Alexander only in the
most friendly manner, the author of the epitome is intent to make a refutation
against all those who do not believe in Divine Providence. Such a shift in perception
is very ancient; it can be noted already in citations from Prov. inEusebius’
PE (see esp. τς τν έων ντιέσεις in 8.13.7). There are some large gaps
in the exposition, but they should not be interpreted as lacunae: the omissions
can be explained as a desire to counterbalance the scope of the first and second
books of Prov. and to avoid items unknown to the Armenian audience. In the
‘Notes’ the additional sources of several passages of the epitome are pointed out:
these are Armenian translations of Ps.Aristotle’s De Mundo and Plato’s Timaeus).
(DTR; based on the author’s summary)
20696. G.Veltri,Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: the
Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions,
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 109 (Leiden 2006).
To understand the development of an authoritative, canonical body of texts,
one must also consider how works that once held canonical status later lost this
status. Veltri considers three examples: the canonization of the Septuagint in
Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian tradition and its decanonization in rabbinic
literature; patristic and rabbinic use of Aquila’s Greek translation of the Bible and
Babylonian rabbinic replacement of Aquila’s translation by Targum Onkelos; and
the Book of Ben Sira from the perspective of its Greek prologue and of rabbinic
literature. Contrary to accepted opinion, the rise and fall of books among
rabbinic Jews and Christians does not have to do with their opponents’ use of
these books, but rather with inner dynamics within each community such as
change in the primary language used by the community and the disappearance