Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

additional items 1987–1996 419
a9482. J.Bellemore,‘GaiusthePantomime,’Antichthon 28 (1994)
65–79.
According to the sources the emperor Gaius was fascinated by the theatre.
The author first examines the evidence on his interest in pantomime and then
turns to the question of transvestism and its relation to his desire for deification.
Philo’s evidence in the Legat. shows inconsistencies and is clearly motivated by
its propagandist aims. Bellemore concludes that the overall analysis by Philo of
Gaius’ deeds and motives, which is repeated in a derivative form in Dio Cassius,
must be rejected in favour of the less extreme view found in Suetonius and
Josephus, namely ‘that Gaius only seriously contemplated divinity towards the
end of his reign and that his earlier activities can best be understood in the light
of his interest in pantomime’ (p. 79). (DTR)
a9483. G. Bissoli, Il tempio nella letteratura giudaica e neotestamentaria.
Studio sulla corrispondenza fra tempio celeste e tempio terreste,
Studium Biblicum Francescanum, Analecta 37 (Jerusalem 1994), esp.
69–75.
A sketch of Philo’s allegorical interpretations of the tabernacle/temple, in
which the author highlights Philo’s use of the Platonic concept of the intelligible,
cosmic model and briefly confronts Philo’s cosmic allegory of the temple with
that of Josephus. (HMK)
a9484. D.Boyarin,A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity
(Berkeley 1994), passim.
Boyarin treats Philo as background for reading Paul because he finds certain
explicit themes in Philo useful for understanding inexplicit moments in
Paul’s texts. Similarities between Philo and Paul are seen as prima facie evidence
for their sharing a common Hellenistic Jewish cultural koine rooted in
eclectic Middle Platonism. Both Philo and Paul are motivated by the same set
of problems and ideas generated by this common cultural situation. Their Platonic,
allegorical reading practices are founded on a binary opposition in which
meaning, as disembodied substance, exists prior to its incarnation in language.
Language is the outer, physical shell and meaning the invisible, ideal, spiritual
reality reached by allegory. For Philo and Paul, the human person has a hierarchical
dual structure of outer body (the site of the particular) and inner spirit
(the site of the universal). Theories of body and language coincide in Philo and
Paul. (KAF)
a9485. M. Dragona-Monachou, ‘Divine Providence in the Philosophy
of the Empire,’ in W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt Band 36, Teilband 7: Philosophie (New York–Berlin 1994)
4417–4490, esp. 4456–4460.