Some more articles on Philo

A search made me aware of some more recent articles related to Philo, his works and conceptual world. They might be worthy of a closer study; hence here are the references:

Kovelman, Arkady,
‘Jeremiah 9:22-23 in Philo and Paul,’

Review of Rabbinic Judaism, Volume 10, Number 2, 2007 , pp. 162-175.

Geljon, A.C.
Philonic Elements in Didymus the Blind’s Exegesis of the Story of Cain and Abel
Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 61, Number 3, 2007 , pp. 282-312

“This article focuses on Philo’s influence on the interpretation of Cain and Abel given by Didymus the Blind in his Commentary on Genesis. Didymus refers a few times to Philo by name but more places can be detected in which Didymus makes use of Philo. Both Philo and Didymus see in Cain and Abel two different worldviews, which are opposed to each other. Cain is the wicked man, who does not respect God, whereas Abel is the virtuous man, who loves God. Philo bases his interpretation on the translation of Cain as possession and of Abel as referring to God. These translations are absent in Didymus. Philonic elements can be seen, for instance, in Abel as shepherding the senses and in Cain presented as a sophist. It is remarkable that Didymus does not interpret Abel as a type of Christ, as other church fathers do.”

Louth, Andrew
II. Philo”
The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition” January 2007 , pp. 17-35

“Philo was a devout Jew who defended the traditional customs of his faith. The bulk of his writings consist of commentaries on parts of the Pentateuch in the Septuagint version. He is important for two reasons. First, as a representative of Middle Platonism — the Stoicized form Platonism had taken from the beginning of the first century BC — which provides the intellectual background of many of the Fathers, and is the form in which the idea of the soul’s ascent to God is understood. Secondly, Philo is important in himself, for there is no doubt that his writings had a very considerable influence on the Alexandrian tradition in Greek patristic theology.”

Feldman, Louis H.
Moses the General and the Battle against Midian in Philo”
Jewish Studies Quarterly, Volume 14, Number 1, March 2007 , pp. 1-1

Reading Philo for understanding Paul

A recent study dealing with the soteriology of Paul, argues its way by help of Philo:

Frick, Peter,
‘The Means and Mode of Salvation: A Hermeneutical Proposal for Clarifying Pauline Soteriology,’
Horizons in Biblical Theology, Volume 29, Number 2, 2007 , pp. 203-222.
Abstract:“The objective of this study is to answer the question “What is the cause of salvation?” according to Paul. The argument is that just as Philo understood cause in an Aristotelian sense of the multiplicity of causes (formal, material, efficient and final) as constituting one overarching cause—what is here called the “means” of salvation—so, too, Paul implicitly assumes that the one cause or “means” of salvation consists in various causes. A second step shows how the “means” of salvation corresponds to faith as the “mode” of salvation. In nuce, the “means” of salvation is the initiative of God and the “mode” of salvation is the human response to that divine initiative.”

Theatricality in Philo’s Embassy to Gaius

There is a new study dealing with the works of Philo in the most recent issue of Journal for the Study of Judaism:

Muehlberger, Ellen,
The Representation of Theatricality in Philo’s Embassy to Gaius
Journal for the Study of Judaism, Volume 39, Number 1, 2008 , pp. 46-67.

The study is presented thus: “In this paper I argue that Philo’s Embassy to Gaius makes use of the literary paradigm of theatricality, a strategy of representation marked by the portrayal of multiple and competing discourses amongst those in unequal relations of power, as well as an emphasis on the arts of acting and discernment. The Embassy marks an appearance of the theatrical paradigm which is earlier than its use by Tacitus, whose portrayal of Nero in the Annals Shadi Bartsch has seen as the harbinger of this theme in Roman historiography.”