Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

420 part three
Brief remarks on Philo’s views on divine providence in the context of a
broader examination of the theme in Imperial philosophy. On the question of
metaphysical evil Philo’s views are close to Platonism and Pythagoreanism. On
questions of theodicy he takes over Stoic views, as can be seen very clearly in
Prov.(DTR)
a9486.J.G.Gager,‘MosestheMagician:HeroofanAncientCounter-
Culture?,’ Helios 21 (1994) 179–188.
The author looks at Exod 7:8–12, where Moses is clearly presented as a
magician, and he poses the question whether this picture of the magical Moses
has left traces in Philo and Josephus. He concludes that both writers try to play
down the picture of Moses the magician, because the word μάγς has a negative
image. Moses the magician is not compatible with Moses the philosopher, and
therefore with the help of allegorical interpretation Philo eliminates the magical
aspects of the story. (ACG)
a9487. M. F. Mach, ‘Philo’s ‘Philosophical’ turn to ‘Religion’,’ in U.
Bianchi, F. M. Mora and F. Bianchi (edd.), The Notion of ‘Religion’ in
Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the XVI IAHR Congress,
Storia delle Religioni 8 (Rome 1994) 403–413.
Philo is one of the most controversial figures in both the history of philosophy
and the history of religion, and his use of Greek philosophical doctrines is
one of the greatest difficulties for the modern interpreter of his thought. The
question must be posed: why should Philo use elements of general Greek culture
and of Greek philosophy to interpret the Jewish Bible? Philo’s writings give the
impression of a theological attempt at exegesis ‘which does not yet crystallize
into a clear terminology and suffers from the effort to verify it by re-finding it in
biblical phrases’ (p. 405). Greek philosophy helped Philo formulate his view of
religion, firstly because the problem of cognition had long been disputed and
secondly because the transcendence of the truly Existent was well and truly
established, at least in Platonism. Philo, however, wants to go a step further and
establish a personal relation with the divine which is more than an intellectual
one. Here his ‘religiosity overcomes Plato’s more mechanical theology and it may
be the reason for the ambivalent role of Greek philosophy in his thought’ (p. 413).
(DTR)
a9488.G.Scarpat,‘Notasullaλγς αρν,’ Paideia 49 (1994) 17–20.
In determining the meaning of the phrase λγς αρε, the evidence of Philo
in Cher. 76, Leg. 3.156 and Sacr. 46 is highly valuable. The Alexandrian makes
clear the Stoic overtones of the formula: it is concerned with reason ‘which
prescribes, chooses, dictates’ (p. 19). (RR)