Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

64 part two
concludes that ‘Paul emerges as socially far more controversial than Philo, willing
to face Jewish unpopularity where Philo wishes to avoid ‘censure” (p. 555).
(ACG)
9809.M.R.Barnes,‘EunomiusofCyzicusandGregoryofNyssa:Two
Traditions of Transcendent Causality,’ Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998) 59–
87, esp. 71–73.
In his work Against Eunomius Gregory criticizes Eunomius’ understanding
of dynamis. According to Gregory Eunomius presents God’s dynamis as
separate from God himself, being independent and possessing creative power.
To Gregory this separation seems to be Philonic and based on material in
Philo’s writings. Against this view he argues that a productive capacity is natural
to God, and that God’s transcendence includes the capacity to create.
(ACG)
9810. A. Baumgarten, ‘Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and
Ancient Jewish Sects,’ in M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman
World (Oxford 1998) 93–111.
In the Greco-Roman world there was a large variety of voluntary associations
such as guilds, clubs and cult fellowships, of which people chose to be members.
A major feature of these groups was that they ate together. At the same time
Judaism in the Second Temple period was marked by a number of important
sects, such as the Essenes and Pharisees. These two blocks of social organization
were brought in relation to each other by both Philo and Josephus when
describing the Jewish sects, apparently in the hope that the Greco-Roman varieties
would illumine the Jewish examples because they were better known to
their Greek readers. In his paper Baumgarten concentrates on the account that
Philo and Josephus give of the Essenes (no mention is made of the Therapeutae),
focusing above all on issues such as what food they ate, with whom, how
often, and under what conditions. He ends by suggesting that the popularity of
these sects in the Second Temple period may have something to do with urban
alienation. (DTR)
9811. G.Bechtle,‘Laproblématiquedel’âmeetducosmoschez
Philon et les médio-platoniciens,’ in C. Lévy (ed.), Philon d’Alexandrie
et le langage de la philosophie, Monothéismes et Philosophie (Turnhout
1998) 377–392.
The aim of the article is to elucidate a highly pertinent topic for Philonic
studies, namely the importance of the philosophical background against which
Philo’s thought is elaborated. The continuity of this background is particularly
evident in the case of Platonism. It allows us, even though our explicitly philosophical
sources are scanty, to trace the course of the exegesis of Plato’s dialogues.
In order to study one thread of this strand of development, the author focuses