Search Results
Abstract
The relationship between Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic philosophy has almost always explored Philo’s indebtedness to Hellenistic philosophy. This chapter reverses the perspective and asks whether Philo influenced the Platonic tradition, and more particularly, Plotinus. It first explores the similarities and differences in their understandings of the Logos and the intelligible cosmos, and then the stability and the ineffability of God. The chapter develops five criteria to adjudicate the issue of awareness. Based on these criteria, the chapter argues that Plotinus probably knew Philo’s thought through Numenius and possibly knew his works directly.
Abstract
Eusebius attributed two fragments in three extracts with two different titles to Philo that we know by the first title, the Hypothetica. Scholars have repeatedly expressed reservations about the authenticity of these fragments including Leopold Cohn and, more recently, John Barclay. This essay works through the three major issues that have generated doubt: the unusual presentation of Israel’s early history, the severity of the penalties for violations of the laws, and the vocabulary. The unusual character of the history and the severe penalties both reflect concerns related to the embassy to Rome. The number of hapax legomena is in line with other apologetic treatises in the corpus Philonicum. The strong similarities of the accounts of the Sabbath and the Essenes with Philo’s known treatments suggest that the fragments were drawn from a work of Philo which included both fragments.
Abstract
In the second century CE, a learned pagan named Celsus wrote an extensive critique of Christianity. The critique achieved enough recognition that Origen wrote a response. This contribution explores how a pagan, a Jew, and a Christian who were all influenced by Platonism, interacted by exploring whether we can determine if Celsus knew the works of Philo via Origen’s Contra Celsum. It considers four lines of evidence: Celsus’s recognition of “the more reasonable” Jewish interpreters who rejected literal interpretations for allegorical readings, esp. Gen 2:21–22; the specific example of anthropomorphisms, especially Gen 2:2; the extent of the Jewish allegorical readings; and a shared understanding of the First Principle, especially the ineffability of God.