Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 1998 67
of Hellenization, as well as being different literary genres. Hence the accounts in
Philo and Josephus should be regarded as relevant sources to the Essenes/the
Qumranites even where they do not verbatim correspond to the Dead Sea
Scrolls. (TS)
9817.A.Blaschke,Beschneidung. Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter
Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 28 (Tübingen–Basel
1998), esp. 193–223.
The author presents the Philonic texts bearing on circumcision in translation
and comments on them. His conclusion is (p. 222): circumcision for Philo is
an essential mark of Jewishness, required for both Jews and proselytes. In his
rational apologetics for the usage Philo depends on Jewish, but also Egyptian
predecessors. His favoured symbolic interpretation is held in common with the
radical allegorists opposed in Migr. 89–94. Nowhere is circumcision considered
to be a sign of the covenant. On pp. 217–219 Blaschke collects rabbinic parallels
to the idea presupposed in QE 2.2 that the Israelites in Egypt lacked circumcision.
The roots of this tradition probably are to be found in Josh 5:2, 5 MT. (DZ)
9818. L. Bochet, ‘Un philosophe juif du premier siècle: Philon d’Alexandrie,’
in O. Flichy, G. Comeau and P. Vallin (edd.), Le milieu du Nouveau
Testament: Diversité du judaïsme et des communautés chrétiennes au
premier siècle (Paris 1998) 52–67.
Introductory text on Philo’s thought in its historical and intellectual context
written for theology students. The four themes discussed are Philo’s Bible, his
philosophical allegiances, the ‘true philosophy’ and the allegorical method.
(DTR)
9819.D.L.Bock,Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final
Examination of Jesus, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2.106 (Tübingen 1998), esp. 59–66, 137–140.
In order to illustrate the charge of blasphemy in Mark 14:53–65 the author
collects testimonies on blasphemy in Judaism. In Philo the Greek term λασημ-
shows a wide range of meaning from secular use to evil speech directed
against God. It is not connected with the use of a specific term for God, but it
appears in Mos. 2.203–206 that the fact the one uses the Name ‘unseasonably’ is
worthy of death, which is close to the rabbinic position. Three of the four texts
discussing blasphemy refer to cases where a human being is claiming divinelike
authority (though Bock sees in Decal.61ff.anattackontheruler-cult).An
example where ‘divinity’ is attributed to an human being, is Moses. But this is
the way that Philo describes how Moses becomes a vessel for divine revelation
(p. 140). On p. 203f. the Philonic passages are shown to be important for the
evaluation of Jesus’ claim to share divine authority. (DZ)