Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, is a figure that spans three cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew, while being preserved for posterity by the Christian. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especiallyas developed by Christian Apologists like Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen.
Philo may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps according C. H. Dodd the authors of the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews, after(R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge. In the process, he laid the foundations for the theological and philosophical hermeneutical development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today.
Usually Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo's The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father.
Jewish Rabbinic tradition was less interested in philosophical speculation and did not preserve Philo's thought. According to H. A. Wolfson, Philo was a founder of religious philosophy, a new habit of practicing philosophy. Philo was thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy and culture as can be seen from his superb knowledge of classical Greek literature. He had a deep reverence for Plato and referred to him as "the most holy Plato" (Prob. 13). Philo's philosophy represented contemporary Platonism which was its revised version incorporating Stoic doctrine and terminology via Antiochus of Ascalon (ca 90 B.C.E.) and Eudorus of Alexandria, as well as elements of Aristotelian logic and ethics and Pythagorean ideas.
Clement of Alexandria even called Philo "the Pythagorean." But it seems that Philo also picked up his ancestral tradition, though as an adult, and once having discovered it, he put forward the teachings of the Jewish prophet, Moses, as "the summit of philosophy" (Op. 8), and considered Moses the teacher of Pythagoras (b. ca 570 B.C.E.) and of all Greek philosophers and lawgivers (Hesiod, Heraclitus, Lycurgus, to mention a few). For Philo, Greek philosophy was a natural development of the revelatory teachings of Moses. He was no innovator in this matter because already before him Jewish scholars attempted the same. Artapanus in the second century B.C.E identified Moses with Musaeus and with Orpheus. According to Aristobulus of Paneas (first half of the second century B.C.E.), Homer and Hesiod drew from the books of Moses which were translated into Greek long before the Septuagint.
Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy edited
by Francesca Alesse (Studies in Philo of Alexandria: Brill) The essays collected
in this volume focus on the role played by the philosophy of the Hellenistic, or
post-Aristotelian age (from the school of the successors of Aristotle,
Theophrastus and other Peripatetics, Epicurus, Sceptical Academy and Stoicism,
to neo-Pythagorenism and the schools of Antiochus and Eudorus) in Philo of
Despite many authoritative studies on Philo's vision of Greek philosophy as an exegetical tool in allegorizing the Scripture, there is not such a comprehensive overview in Philo’s treatises that takes in account both the progress achieved in the recent interpretation of Hellenistic philosophy and analysis of ancient doxographical literature.
Introduction, Francesca Alesse
Philo and Hellenistic Doxography, David T. Runia
Philo and post-Aristotelian Peripatetics, Robert W. Sharples
Moses against the Egyptian: The Anti-Epicurean Polemic in Philo, Graziano Ranocchia
La conversion du scepticisme chez Philon d’Alexandrie, Carlos Lévy
Philo on Stoic Physics, Anthony A. Long
Philo and Stoic Ethics. Reflections on the Idea of Freedom, Roberto Radice
Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonist Psycho-Physiology: The Socratic Higher Ground, Gretchen Reydams-Schils
Philo of Alexandria and the Origins of the Stoic "propatheiai", Margaret Graver
Philo and Hellenistic Platonism, John Dillon
Towards Transcendence: Philo and the Renewal of Platonism in the Early Imperial Age, Mauro Bonazzi
The essays collected offer an examination of the topics outlined above, with particular attention to new historiographical perspectives on Hellenistic philosophy and lexical problems. The book is arranged follow¬ing the chronological sequence of the schools, but providing a range of basic subjects in the case of Stoicism and of chronological phases in the case of the Academy and the history of Platonism.
In the opening chapter by David T. Runia, "Philo and Hellenistic Doxography", the author promises an inquiry aimed at investigating what Philo knew of Hellenistic doxography and evaluating his capacity to exploit the doxographical material for his own main purpose, the allegorical explanation of Scripture. But Runia's essay does much more than this, recalling the origin of the modern category of `doxography' and the enormous impact of Hermann Diels' Doxographi Graeci, and providing an outline of the ancient doxographical literature from its beginnings in the V century BC until the early Imperial age in the light of the most recent research. In the main part of his contribution, Runia examines a series of `doxographical' texts, showing that Philo very often resorts to the method of expounding the opposed views of philosophers on the same subject, that is, the scheme of diaphonia. This is particularly evident in such texts as, e.g., Abr. 162-163, Somn. I. 52-55, 145, 184, Mut. to, 67, the long section of De ebrietate reporting a version of the Sceptical tropes: in all these contexts Philo seemingly employs doxographical material very similar to that found in Aetius' Placita and other authors' collections of doxai circulating from the first century BC on.
The important role of the Aristotelian school in forming the doxographical literature and the hypothesis that Philo used a manual collect¬ing the opinions of philosophers are confirmed by Robert W. Sharples' chapter "Philo and post-Aristotelian Peripatetics". Sharples' main, though not unique, concern is Philo's acquaintance with Peripatetic cosmology and biology, both in De aeternitate mundi and in exegeti¬cal treatises. The doxography of De aeternitate, containing arguments in favour of the eternity of the world, is divided in four sections and is expounded by the author beginning with Theophrastus and continuing with Critolaus, Aristotle's arguments probably depending on De philosophia, and dissident Stoics. As regards the question of Philo's source(s) in compiling this treatise, Sharples is inclined to think that he consulted a sort of anthology or a school treatise which had already collected the various cosmological opinions from different schools and philosophers. The hypothesis of a common source underlying at least three of the four sections was advanced by Hans von Arnim, who thought of a Peripatetic source of the I century BC. Arnim's conjecture has been recently supported by M. Baltes, but Sharples recalls some alternatives, such as Colson's and Dillon's suggestions of Ocellus and Eudorus respectively. The analysis includes other texts than De aeterni¬tate, particularly Decal. 3o-31, Prov. 2.6o, QG 4.8, Her. 283, QE 2.73—the three latter on the important theory of the 'fifth substance'—, and Ebr. 172 and 174 which reveal a significant resemblance between some examples of Sceptical tropes and biological texts from Theophrastus.
The difficult task of delineating the relationship between Philo and Epicurean philosophy is faced in Graziano Ranocchia's contribution. "Moses Against the Egyptian: the anti-Epicuren Polemic in Philp". Be¬sides the three already-mentioned explicit references, Ranocchia' draws out a series of implicit references and allusions to what may be considered the major object of Philo's philosophical aversion. Among the most interesting passages in which an Epicurean doctrine is at least adumbrated are Somn. 1. 184 (on the theory of intermundia), Conf 114-115 (on the dominance of chance and denial of divine providence), Opif. 171 (on infinity of worlds), Fug. 148 and QG 4.42 (on the assumption of both atoms as principles of being and pleasure as the final goal of life); Leg. 3.140-143 (Philo's use of technical terms of Epicurean ethics as exeget¬ical tools), Somn. 2.48-49 (a curious renversement of a sentence from the Epistle to Menoeceus). Two significant results emerge from Ranocchia's essay: the first is that Philo was well acquainted with Epicurean phi¬losophy, if not directly from the writings of Epicurus and Epicureans, then certainly from reliable doxographical material; the second result is that Philo's appropriation of the lexicon and conceptual apparatus of a school to which he was radically hostile, should be seen as an example of the tendency to 'standardisation' of philosophical thought, starting from late Hellenism; in such a context Epicurean philosophy appeared as the main reference point and 'depository' for all that might be argued about pleasure.
Carlos Levy's chapter "La conversion du scepticisme chez Philon d'Alexandrie" is a new contribution to the definition of the place held by the composite Sceptical tradition in Philo's work; it is thus to be added to the above-mentioned papers by the French scholar (see n. 13). Levy rejects the modern interpretation which has `ontologized' ancient Scepticism and made of it a uniform reality, the existence of which is often assumed independently from any serious philological and textual research; instead, the author proposes a fresh study of the terms. What emerges from this seman¬tic analysis is a rather frequent contrast between the negative evaluation and the approval of the intellectual and practical atti¬tude indicated. Sometimes, stands for (e.g. in Fug. 129, QG 3.33), or (Congr. 52). The verb is constantly used to mean a difficulty in explaining a Scriptural passage, while can also indicate the 'Socratic' spirit of research (e.g. Somn. 1.58). The second part of the essay is devoted to Philo's use of the verb as a way of expressing the limits of human knowl¬edge. Some texts (Post. 18, Fug. 136 and others) present an interesting case of philosophical appropriation, consisting in Philo's transformation of epoche, which was originally a voluntary act of suspension of judgement, into the sign of an objective limit imposed by the inaccessi¬ble nature of God. Finally, a comparison of Somn. 1 and Cicero's Lucullus demonstrates the diffusion, in the cultural milieu of the first century BC, of a relationship between 'scepticism' (as suspension of judgement) and transcendence.
The preliminary concern in Anthony Long's chapter, "Philo on Stoic Physics", is a methodological one: starting from a critical consideration of Hans von Arnim's approach in collecting texts from Philo, based on his trust in Philo's dependence on Posidonius and Antiochus of Ascalon, Long goes on to propose a more updated perspective which takes into account the dialectical contexts to which Philo's reputed Stoic references belong. The principal part of the chapter is focused on De aeternitate mundi: much attention is paid to the argument accord¬ing to which two "peculiarly qualified individuals" cannot inhere in the same substance (the famous case of Dion and Theon), and, therefore, the central dogma of conflagration. In this regard, as Long observes, Philo's evidence is of primary importance for its uniqueness, though not its accuracy. The second part deals with some aspects of Stoic physiology while the final section concentrates on De opificio. The impression drawn from this treatise is that Stoicism is a useful but not necessary instrument in Philo's exegetical work: he would probably have arranged his exegetical scheme of creation even if he had never heard of Stoicism. Nonetheless, if his adoption of Stoicism was "something like a lingua franca" (p. 139), similar to what Ranocchia points out for Philo's adoption of Epicurean concepts and terms, this remains of great interest.
Roberto Radice's chapter, "Philo and Stoic Ethics. Reflections on the Idea of Freedom", aims at demonstrating the presence of Stoic ethical tenets in exegetical rather than philosophical contexts. After a clarifi¬cation of the limits of Stoic influence on Philo's moral thought, Radice focuses on Legum allegoriae, constantly compared to De opificio. The same biblical passages about the divine act of creation are commented by Philo from two distinct standpoints, De opificio being the work in which he describes the constitution of the physical kosmos, Legum allegoriae that in which he explains the ethical kosmos, that is, the code of moral val¬ues given by God to mankind. Some Stoic (or `Stoicizing') conceptions can be found behind Philo's allegorical vision of Genesis, such as the role assigned to intellect in the process of human knowledge (although in Philo it is always God who provides man directly with intellectual capacity). A central place in Radice's analysis is occupied by the Scrip-tural subject of Eden and its allegorical sense of 'divine plantation' of virtues. This allegory offers some elements of Stoic ethical doctrine which are adopted as exegetical instruments. Particularly, the symbology of the Garden fits well with the Stoic conception of virtue, which is at the same time unique and various, so recalling the Stoic idea of virtue conceived as a unique 'science' of good and evil and, at the same time, divided into various moral qualities.
Dealing with the psychological models used by Philo, Gretchen Reydams-Schils' contribution "Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonist Psycho-Physiology: The Socratic Higher Ground", addresses a difficult issue of Philonic research: the relationship between Platonism and Sto¬icism in describing the nature of the soul, its functions and parts, the hierarchy of its rational and non-rational components. The leitmotiv of Reydams-Schils' paper is that Platonic and Stoic systems are well balanced in Philo's works, because they are subsumed under a "larger purpose", precisely, re-establishing the Socratic view of the soul as we learn it from early Platonic dialogues. The essay is a meticulous review of all the contexts in which Philo resorts to Platonic and Stoic con-ceptions and provides a very large spectrum of similes, metaphors and allegories signifying the connections of soul and body, mind and senses, or passions, according to both Platonic and Stoic patterns. The penul¬timate section presenting 'mixed cases' paves the way to the author's critical conclusions. The idea of a 'balance' between Platonism and Stoicism is sufficient justification for re-printing this well-known article, confirming that Philo represents a fascinating example of that strategy of philosophical appropriation which is greatly reflected in Middle-Platonic and Stoic philosophers of I and II centuries AD.
The specific value of Philo not only as testimony for a Stoic doctrine but also as a medium for transmitting it, is the topic of Margaret Graver's paper; "Philo of Alexandria and the Origins of the Stoic (this too already published in 1999). The subject being an important doctrine of Stoic moral psychology, that of and their relation to the canonical theory of the four passions, Graver's critical approach is essentially philological and historical. She studies four passages from Quaestiones in Genesim (1.79, 4.73, 1.55, 3.56), only one of which is included in SVF. In the course of the examination, which is accompanied by a parallel one in other Stoic evidence, especially Seneca and Epictetus, extremely crucial and vexed questions in Stoic research are raised: of these we need to remember at least the relation of 'impression' and 'assent' and the problem of progress towards moral perfection, both of them connected to the topic of the 'wise' man according to the celebrated Stoic ideal that Philo shows he appreciates on many occasions. Given the importance of these doctrines in early and late Stoicism and the place they have had in modern criticism, Graver's essay on Philo's treatment offers an invaluable contribution to both the history of the diffusion of Stoic philosophy during the early Imperial age, and the history of the appropriation of Stoic ethics and psychology in the exegetical literature.
John Dillon, with his "Philo and Hellenistic Platonism", offers a survey of the relation of Philo to late Hellenistic Platonism, that is, the renewal of the Old Academy by Antiochus of Ascalon. This appears a very difficult task if seen as an attempt to isolate single and specific instances of Antiochus' impact, independently of other possible influences, such as those produced by neo-Pythagoreanism and Eudorus of Alexandria. The most important and useful author to whom Philo is to be compared is obviously Cicero; Dillon examines those passages from Academica (e.g. Ac. pr. 2.14-42, Ac. Rio. 1.24-32) and De finibus (e.g. 5.9-74) which have long been regarded as Stoic reports, considering them rather as cases of combination between Platonism and Stoicism attributable to Antiochus. Of those traces of Antiochus' presence on which Dillon dwells, I would like to recall at least two, because of their enormous importance in the Imperial age: the first is the pre¬sentation of the moral end of life, echoing both the Stoic "consistency with nature" and the Platonic "likeness to God" (as in Proem.ii ff.); the second is the celebrated theory of Forms as "thoughts of God". The conclusion of the essay confirms what Dillon says at the begin¬ning about the philosophical tendencies of the Hellenistic age being so tangled in Philo's work as to make it extremely difficult to distinguish them. Nonetheless, the role of Antiochus as an intermediate source for the acquaintance of ancient Platonism, though partially transformed by Stoicism, is something of which we can be plausibly confident.
As a natural continuation of John Dillon's study and a conclusion to a volume
devoted to Philo and Hellenistic philosophy from Theophrastus to Eudorus, Mauro
Bonazzi's chapter; "Towards Transcendence: Philo and the Renewal of Platonism in
the Early Imperial Age" addresses the relation of Philo to the neo-Pythagorean
Platonism circulating in Alexandria after the end of the I century BC and
represented by Eudorus. Bonazzi assumes, as a critical starting-point, a
question raised by the most recent scholarship, that of the evaluation of Philo
as either a 'witness' of the philosophically composite culture of his age, or
`participant'; this means trying to establish to what extent he was able,
besides conforming to pre-existing patterns of doxographical compo¬sition, to
produce new solutions in combining different philosophical tendencies. Bonazzi's
inquiry demonstrates, on the one hand, an interesting influence exerted by the
neo-Pythagoreanism to which it seems reasonable to trace back Philo's preference
for the notions of transcen¬dence, God's separateness and the superiority of the
divine principle, all of them very widespread in neo-Pythagorean treatises; on
the other hand, a good deal of autonomy, emerging, for example, from Philo's
rejection of the radical `mathematicalization' of reality, which is peculiar to
neo-Pythagorean metaphysics, or the adoption on occasion of the Stoic formula of
the moral end. Bonazzi's conclusion is that Philo's tendency to combine Stoic
and Platonic tenets is aimed not at reconciling opposed systems of thought, but
at including different conceptual aspects in a unique orientation. This fact
makes of Philo a legitimate `participant' in the culture of his age.
Land of the Body: Studies in Philo's Representation of Egypt by Sarah J. K.
Pearce (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament: Mohr Siebeck)
presents the first extended study of the representation of
Egypt in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Philo is a crucial witness, not
only to the experiences of the Jews of Alexandria, but to the world of early
Roman Egypt in general.
As historians of Roman Alexandria and Egypt are well aware, we have access to very few voices from inside the country in this era; Philo is the best we have. As a commentator on Jewish Scripture, Philo is also one of the most valuable sources for the interpretation of Egypt in the Pentateuch. He not only writes very extensively on this subject, but he does so in ways that are remarkable for their originality when compared with the surviving literature of ancient Judaism.
In this book, Sarah Pearce tries to understand Philo in relation to the wider
context in which he lived and worked. Key areas for investigation include:
defining the 'Egyptian' in Philo's world; Philo's treatment of the Egypt of the
Pentateuch as a symbol of 'the land of the body'; Philo's emphasis on Egyptian
inhospitableness; and his treatment of Egyptian religion, focusing on Nile
veneration and animal worship.
In approaching Philo, Pearce follows two basic principles, which have been tried and tested by some of the leading Philo scholars of past and present. The first principle is that Philo must be understood, first and foremost, from his own works. The entire Philonic corpus has been included in the search to identify all examples where Philo refers or alludes to Egypt or Egyptians. For the most part, Philo's writings are devoted to the interpretation of Scripture, and it is certainly in this context that we will find most of his discussions of Egypt. As an interpreter, he is committed to uncovering the significance behind the words of the Pentateuch, whose deeper and truest meaning is hidden to all but a few initiates. If we are to begin to understand Philo as interpreter of Scripture, we must always begin from his starting point, which is the text to be interpreted. What are the particular questions raised for Philo by a particular text? What is it in Scripture that leads Philo to explain things as he does? In the broader context of particular treatises, what are the wider exegetical themes that frame the specific discussion?
For Philo, as Valentin Nikiprowetzky brilliantly observes, Scripture is 'continually the expression of the truth and Philo's authentic thought appears in extracting the truth from Scripture'. Once the text is established and the exegetical problem with which Philo is engaged, the next step is to consider how Philo seeks to extract truth from Scripture and to make its meaning accessible. This means attending to the exegetical techniques used by Philo to identify those aspects of the text which help to reveal its secrets. It also requires that we take into account the different ways in which Philo uses external material to interpret the meaning of Scripture. Philo is like other Jewish exegetes of antiq¬uity in using Scripture to explain Scripture; the meaning of a passage in the books of Moses may be illuminated by recourse to another. Philo is also the greatest exponent of a tradition which uses the language and concepts of Greek literature and philosophy to articulate the meaning of Scripture to his readers. Questions of Philo's debt to other Jewish interpreters, and the nature of his readership, are also of great importance, but take us into more speculative territory.
The second guiding principle is that, in so far as is possible, one should try to understand Philo in relation to the wider context in which he lived and worked. As E. R. Goodenough insisted, 'If we would understand Philo himself we must first come as near as we can to understanding him as he expected a contemporary reader to understand him. We cannot isolate the unique in any individual until we have first recognised what was not unique in him at all'. Philo must be read with what Goodenough calls 'a constant sense of comparison'. For the purposes of this study, great emphasis is put on a comparative, contextualising approach, in order to illuminate the possible influences on Philo's thinking about Egypt and Egyptians and the extent to which he represents a really original perspective.
Contextualisation also brings many challenges. In many crucial areas, we simply do not have sufficient evidence to draw more than a very fragmentary picture of the world in which Philo operates. Who were his teachers? For whom did he write? There is much that we would like to know about Philo to which he does not give clear answers. In many ways, however, it is the everyday experience of Alexandria and Egypt that is the hardest part of Philo's world to enter. As regards Philo's own evidence, most of his writings are devoted to the interpretation of the Pentateuch; others are concerned with topics in philosophy. This is not the stuff of straightforward reflections on the contemporary context in which Philo worked. Even in the writings explicitly concerned with contemporary events, Philo's approach is highly interpretative. In addition, we have the problem facing any historian of first-century Alexandria: the absence of sources. In contrast with parts of the Egyptian countryside, no papyrus remains were recovered from Alexandria itself, and only one major collection relating to the city survives from elsewhere. For the most part, archaeology has to speak for those who lived and worked in the city. Otherwise, for written evidence about first-century Alexandria we are largely reliant on the witness of visitors and outsiders.Before Philo, the evidence about Jews in Roman Alexandria and the rest of Egypt is meager indeed: those few papyri of this era which are identified as Jewish rarely speak directly of Alexandria, and there is a severe lack of useful archaeological or epigraphic evidence; otherwise we must rely largely on the retrospective outsider view of the Jewish historian Josephus and references in the even later rabbinic literature. Much of the Jewish Greek literature that has survived from antiquity has been associated with Alexandria, and understood as speaking of that world; but without clear evidence of its authors' identity (much of this literature is pseudonymous) or of chronology, let alone place of composition, it is notoriously difficult to pin this material down to time and place. In this context, Philo must be a very valuable insider witness to the world of first-century Alexandria and Egypt, whatever the limits of the view he offers.
Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria by Jutta Leonhardt (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 84: Mohr Siebeck) Leonhardt’s focus attempts to move Philo back to the center of the Jewish cult life of Alexandria.
Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria describes the approach to worship of Philo of Alexandria as a knowledgeable contemporary of the later Second Temple and his view of the essence of Jewish worship. It includes discussions of his views on the Jewish festivals, especially the Sabbath, on prayer, psalms, hymns, praise and thanksgiving, and on Temple offerings, sacrifices and purification rites. Philo accepted and participated in Jewish worship and even knew about details of various Jewish traditions of his time. His writings, however, do not refer to them directly and cannot easily be used to reconstruct Jewish rituals of his time. His main aim is to discuss the rites as presented in the Mosaic Torah, which are binding for all Jews. These laws are frequently presented using the terminology of pagan cults and interpreted with recourse to Greek philosophy. In this philosophical description of actual rites there are parallels to Plato's references to religion
The Greek term for worship as a special term for Jewish worship was introduced by the Septuagint. Philo follows its use closely, applying it specifically for Jewish worship as fear and love of God (Dt. 10), but he also mirrors the use of the term in Greek culture, which comprises a variety of activities. Its use is similar to the Hebrew idea, and includes prayer, dedication (both included in worship), sacrifice, and rituals (including purification). But Philo adds consistently and at a prominent place in the lists of rites another aspect, the festivals. Festivals were also extremely important in the pagan Greek world. For the pagans they were mainly an occasion and opportunity for other acts of worship, especially for sacrifices. For the Jews, however, and especially for the Diaspora Jews, there was one particular festival that had a deeper importance, beyond the sacrifices and rituals offered on the day: the Sabbath. On this day they rest, meet and read the Torah to the present day. The Sabbath was ‑ and still is ‑ one of the main features of Judaism. Already in antiquity it was recognized by non‑Jews, and Philo's view of the Sabbath as link between God, the creation, and the Jewish people in particular, suggests that it was the importance of the Sabbath that prompted him to include references to the festivals whenever he mentions specific aspects of sacrifice. This demonstrated that, even when he writes as a Hellenistic writer in the classical style, Philo is deeply immersed in and influenced by his Jewish tradition.
This is in the following discussion of worship. Most terms are taken from Philo's use of the term; thus chapter Two studies the festivals, i.e. Philo's use of worship and especially the Sabbath, chapter Three describes prayer and chapter Four the Temple offerings, sacrifices and purification.
The Greek term for worship can be used to describe any number of rites, so that a choice must be made to limit the terms studied here. The basic structure is given by the above‑mentioned terms derived from Philo's use of worship. But in chapter Three the inclusion of two sub‑chapters was necessary, one on psalms and praise singing, and one on thanksgiving. The reason for this is that in the texts on worship Philo consistently reserves some terms for human addressing God. These, however, have two meanings: in one sense they are most general terms for prayer, "als umfassendster Ausdruck far die Anrufung der Gottheit", comprising the manifold aspects of communication with God; and in this general sense Philo uses the terms in the above‑mentioned passages on prayer as address. But it is shown that in a more specific sense they refer more often to the aspect of supplication (part of which is the vow). Therefore, in addition to a study of address, acts of praise as a vow more emphasis on praise is included as an act of joy. Any reference to praise in the Jewish context must consider the aspect of psalm recitation and singing, as the Old Testament associates praise with singings, and thanksgiving, as the fulfillment of supplications is another important aspect of communication with the deity. In the present context a comprehensive study of every aspect of prayer is offered, but the more general points are discussed to further illustrate Philo's idea of prayer.
Thus the description starts with the festivals and prayer, aspects of worship which were not only practiced in the Temple but which Philo experienced in one way or another in Alexandria, then it moves on to the Temple tax which was brought there, and the overview ends with the Temple sacrifices and the purification rites connected with the Temple. Every aspect of worship has links to the Temple; therefore, several passages are studied more than once and from different angles. But as the Temple, unlike prayer, the Sabbath, and the synagogue, did not form part of Philo's everyday life, this study starts with the general and moves to the particular aspects of worship. In chapter Five the different strands are drawn together, outlined and interpreted the way in which Philo understood Jewish worship as a whole in the context of Greek and Jewish parallels.
Philo und das Neue Testament edited by Herausgegeben von Roland Deines und Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172: Mohr Siebeck) [Mostly in German] This collection of articles is the result of an international symposium in Eisenach 2003 dealing with the New Testament and Philo as two important sources for Hellenistic Judaism in the 1st century AD. Specialists in Philo and the New Testament treat common subjects in both literary corpora showing the advantage of involving Philonic studies in the New Testament and vice versa. The symposium is part of the research project "Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti" which works on embedding the New Testament in its Jewish-Hellenistic context.Contents: Vorwort (Roland Deines, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr)
insert content here