No detailed description available for "De Abrahamo. De Josepho. De vita Mosis (I-II). De decalogo".

No detailed description available for "De opificio mundi. Legum allegoriarum (I-III). De Cherubim. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat".

No detailed description available for "De posteritate Caini. De gigantibus. Quod deus sit immutabilis. De agricultura. De plantatione. De ebrietate. De sobrietate. De confusione linguarum. De migratione Abrahami".

No detailed description available for "De specialibus legibus (I-IV). De virtutibus. De fortitudine. De humanitate. De paenitentia. De nobilitate. De praemiis et poenis. De exsecrationibus".

This volume, a translation of book 1 of Philo of Alexandria's De vita Mosis, with introduction and commentary, aims to introduce new readers, both students and scholars, to Philo of Alexandria through what is widely considered to be one of his most accessible works and one that Philo himself may have intended for readers unfamiliar with Judaism. The introduction provides historical, intellectual, and religious context for Philo, discusses major issues of scholarly interest, considers the (...) relation of De vita Mosis to the Septuagint, and explores the immediate Nachleben of Philo's works. The author's translation is paired with Cohn's edition of the Greek text, thereby providing not only a rendering of the Greek but also the Greek itself for those who wish to read Philo's own words. The English rendering of the Greek aims at clarity and accuracy while retaining as many of Philo's unique stylistic features as possible. Finally, the notes are designed to elucidate the text, especially for new readers, on a variety of levels: extrapolating on points more fully discussed elsewhere in the Philonic corpus, observing specific divergences from the Septuagint, and suggesting aspects of contemporary historical influence on Philo's retelling of the biblical narrative. The volume serves as a succinct entry into the basics of Philo while also preparing the reader for some of Philo's more challenging works. (shrink)

From antiquity to the present day Philo of Alexandria has been famous for his allegorical treatises on Genesis. This is the first translation and commentary on an allegorical work in the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series.

In his only treatise explicitly devoted to the life of the statesman, De Iosepho, Philo of Alexandria expresses ambivalent views about politics. A careful examination of the line of argument of this work shows, however, that Philo’s views can be essentially read as a development in negative terms of his statement that politics is only an “addition” to virtue and wisdom. Especially, he argues that the statesman is «by all means an interpreter of dreams», since his activity (...) has its limits within the human condition, which - because of its uncertainty and confusion - resembles daydreaming. (shrink)

A contemporary of Jesus Christ, Philo of Alexandria ranks among the greatest of Jewish and Greek thinkers.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGTraditionell wird Demea als das schwächste Glied in Humes berühmten Dialogues concerning Natural Religion angesehen; die Bühne ist ganz dominiert vom optimistischen Theismus, der durch Cleanthes vertreten wird, und den dagegen gerichteten skeptischen Manövern vonseiten Philos. Entgegen diesem traditionellen Bild wird der ›orthodoxe‹ Demea nun verteidigt mit der These: Demea hat – von Hume selbst ungewollt und unbemerkt – das Interessanteste zum religiösen Glauben beizutragen; in ihm deutet sich eine Position jenseits der metaphysischen Phantasien des Theismus einerseits und Philos Destruktionen, (...) die in eine moralische Minimalversion des Glaubens zu münden scheinen, andererseits an. Es wird deutlich, dass diese Verteidigung keine primär exegetischen Ziele verfolgt, sondern auf eine in Humes Figurenkabinett nur treffend personifizierte Konstellation reagiert, die uns sehen lässt, an welchem Punkt theologisch und religionsphilosophisch auch heute zu arbeiten wäre. Dazu wird nach einer begrifflichen Kritik an Cleanthes und Philo anhand von drei konkreten Beispielen herausgearbeitet, wie ein Bild religiösen Glaubens aussehen könnte, das jenseits der metaphysischen Hoffnungen, die Gott zu einer Person erklären, und der reduktionistischen Zugeständnisse, die in ›Gott‹ lediglich den Ausdruck einer moralischen Einstellung zu erkennen meinen, liegt. Demea steht somit für ein postmetaphysisches Bild religiösen Glaubens – und wir sind eingeladen, zu den »friends of Demea« zu gehören.SUMMARYTraditionally, Demea is considered to be the weakest part in Hume's famous Dialogues concerning Natural Religion; the stage is completely dominated by Cleanthes' optimistic theism and by Philo's sceptical moves already critical of the former. Contrary to this traditional approach, however, the ›orthodox‹ Demea will be defended here in maintaining: Demea contributes – neither consciously intended nor recognized by Hume – the most interesting observations concerning religious belief; in him a position is at least alluded lying beyond the metaphysical fantasies of theism on the one hand and Philo's destructions which seem to amount to a moral minimal version on the other hand. It will be clear that this defense is not exegetically orientated; rather, it reacts to a constellation just personalized by Hume's ›casting‹ letting us see at which topics we shall continue to work theologically as well as philosophically today. Accordingly and following a conceptual critique of Cleanthes and Philo it will be elaborated by three concrete examples how a picture of religious belief could look like located beyond metaphysical hopes turning God to a person and reductivist concessions regarding ›God‹ as a mere expression of a moral attitude. Demea, however, represents a postmetaphysical picture of religious belief – and we are invited to belong to the »friends of Demea«. (shrink)

Herophilus, a contemporary of Euclid, practiced medicine in Alexandria in the third century B.C., and seems to have been the first Western scientist to dissect the human body. He made especially impressive contributions to many branches of anatomy and also developed influential views on many other aspects of medicine. Von Staden assembles the fragmentary evidence concerning one of the more important scientists of ancient Greece. Part 1 of the book presents the Greek and Latin texts accompanied by English translation (...) and interpretative commentary. Significant background information is given in the introductory essay preceding each chapter. Part 2 briefly sketches the major developments within the Herophilean school after Herophilus, and discusses the individual members within it. Anyone interested in the history of science, the history of medicine, or intellectual history will find this book a rich source of information about an unusual and important aspect of Greek culture. (shrink)

Martin Flashar und Ralf von der Hoff, Die Statue des sog. Philosophen Delphi im Konlexl einer mehrfigurigen Stiftung p. 407-433 Zu den prominentesten Skulpturenfunden in Delphi zâhlt die Statue des sog. Philo sophen (Inv. 1819). Sie fand Aufnahme in die wichtigsten Handbûcher griechischer Plas- tik, obwohl weder Datierung noch Deutung oder gar ursprunglicher Aufstellungszusam- menhang geklàrt sind. Meist wird sie mit stilistischen Argumenten um 250 v. Chr. datiert, ausgelôst durch die hypothetische und falsche Zuweisung an das ebenfalls ungedeutete und (...) undatierte (hâufig aber um die Mitte des 3. Jhs. angesetzte) «Hufeisenmonument» westlich der Daochosgruppe durch L. Lerat. Wie die Neuuntersuchung zeigen kann, ist der « Philosoph » Bestandteil einer mehrfîguren Stiftung gewesen. Die Forschung hat gera- dezu «vergessen», daB er zusammen mit zwei weiteren Statuen, einer weiblichen bekleide- ten (Inv. 1817) und einer ebenfalls langgewandeten mânnlichen (Inv. 1820) gefunden wurde. Technische Indizien belegen den Werkstattzusammenhang, die drei Figuren waren auch zusammen aufgestellt. Sie rechneten zu einer u.U. noch grôBeren (môglicher- weise ist die nackte mànnliche Figur Inv. 1793 zugehôrig) um 300 v. Chr. oder in den ersten Jahrzehnten des 3. Jhs. im Nordsektor des Heiligtums geweihten Gruppe. Das Portràt, der Statuen- und Gewandtypus charakterisieren den « Philosophen » als bûrgerlichen alten Mann — fur die Deutung als wirklicher Philosoph gibt es kein stich- haltiges Argument. Die Frauenfigur lehnt sich ebenfalls an das Darstellungsrepertoire weiblicher Sterblicher (etwa auf attischen Grabreliefs) an. Die dritte Statue bezeugt einen seit dem Strengen Stil gelàufîgen Dionysos-Typus. Als Stifter kommt ein dionysischer Technit oder Chorege in Frage. Auf jeden Fall handelt es sich um ein Familienmonu- ment, das Portràts von mindestens zwei Verwandten prâsentierte und den Gott, dem es geweiht war, in das Ensemble miteinbezog. (shrink)

Traditionally, Demea is considered to be the weakest character in Hume’s famous Dialogues concerning Natural Religion; the stage is completely dominated by Cleanthes’ optimistic theism and by Philo’s skeptical critical manoeuvres against that. Contrary to this traditional approach, however, the ‘orthodox’ Demea will be defended here by maintaining that Demea contributes—though neither consciously intended nor recognized by Hume—the most interesting observations concerning religious belief. He points to a position lying beyond the metaphysical fantasies of theism on the one hand (...) and Philo’s destructiveness, which seems to amount to a moralized minimal version of faith on the other. It will be clear that this defense is not exegetically orientated, but rather reacts to a constellation personalized in Hume’s ‘casting’ that lets us see on which topics we shall continue to work theologically as well as philosophically today. Accordingly, a conceptual critique of Cleanthes and Philo will be elaborated, using three concrete examples to show what religious belief lying beyond metaphysical hopes that explain God as a person, as well as reductionist concessions that regard ‘God’ merely as an expression of a moral attitude, could look like. Thus Demea represents a ‘postmetaphysical’ image of religious belief—and, eventually, we are invited to belong to the “friends of Demea”. (shrink)

The concept of o or "pre-emotions" is known not only to the Roman Stoics and Christian exegetes but also to Philo of Alexandria. Philo also supplies the term o at QGen 1.79. As Philo cannot have derived what he knows from Seneca (despite his visit to Rome in 39), nor from Cicero, who also mentions the point, he must have found it in older Stoic writings. The o concept, rich in implications for the voluntariness and phenomenology (...) of the passions proper, is thus confirmed for the Hellenistic period. It is not to be expected that Philo's handling of this or any concept will necessarily conform to the usage of his Stoic sources. His evidence is nonetheless of great value where it coincides with that of other witnesses. In QGen 4.73 the emphasis falls upon involuntariness and the mechanisms of impression and assent as in Epictetus fr. 9. The o saves the virtuous person's insusceptibility to emotion exactly as it does for the Stoic spokesman in Gellius NA 19.1; this point is of some interest in view of the Christological use of this concept in Origen and Didymus. QGen 1.55 and 3.56 indicate that the occurrence of the o is dependent upon uncertainty, and further, that for Philo, as for Seneca in Ira 2.3.4, a thought not acted upon can count as a o. In QGen 4.15-17 and 1.79, Philo indicates that hope and perhaps laughter may be related to joy as o to o; these assertions are not paralleled in extant Stoic texts. Further, in QGen 2.57, he names "biting and contraction" as the shrink)

The concept of πρoπαειαι or "pre-emotions" is known not only to the Roman Stoics and Christian exegetes but also to Philo of Alexandria. Philo also supplies the term πρoπαεια at QGen 1.79. As Philo cannot have derived what he knows from Seneca, nor from Cicero, who also mentions the point, he must have found it in older Stoic writings. The πρoπαεια concept, rich in implications for the voluntariness and phenomenology of the passions proper, is thus confirmed (...) for the Hellenistic period. It is not to be expected that Philo's handling of this or any concept will necessarily conform to the usage of his Stoic sources. His evidence is nonetheless of great value where it coincides with that of other witnesses. In QGen 4.73 the emphasis falls upon involuntariness and the mechanisms of impression and assent as in Epictetus fr. 9. The πρoπαεια saves the virtuous person's insusceptibility to emotion exactly as it does for the Stoic spokesman in Gellius NA 19.1; this point is of some interest in view of the Christological use of this concept in Origen and Didymus. QGen 1.55 and 3.56 indicate that the occurrence of the πρoπαειαι is dependent upon uncertainty, and further, that for Philo, as for Seneca in Ira 2.3.4, a thought not acted upon can count as a πρoπαεια. In QGen 4.15-17 and 1.79, Philo indicates that hope and perhaps laughter may be related to joy as πρoπαεια to παoς; these assertions are not paralleled in extant Stoic texts. Further, in QGen 2.57, he names "biting and contraction" as the ευπαεια corresponding to grief, supplying a helpful parallel for Cic. Tusc. 3.83 and Plut. Virt. Mor. 449a. The topic may well have been discussed by Posidonius, as suggested by Cooper and others, but Posidonius' attested innovations are rather different in character from the points which have caught the attention of Philo. Taking together the indirect evidence of Philo, Seneca, and Cicero, we may reasonably infer that the πρoπαεια concept belonged already to an earlier period of Stoicism. (shrink)

Samuel Sandmel's book: Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction, is a basic introductory, supplementing his own teacher' Goodenough: 'An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, ' and foundation to more recent works on Philo.

Dreams are used figuratively throughout Greek literature to refer to something fleeting and/or unreal. In Plato, this metaphorical language is specifically used to describe an epistemological distinction: the one who has false knowledge or opinion is said to be dreaming while the one who has true knowledge is said to be awake. These figures are also central to Philo of Alexandria's philosophical language in De somniis 1-2 and De Iosepho. Although scholars have documented these epistemological metaphors in Plato (...) and related treatments of the concept of sleep in Heraclitus, it has not been discussed in any detail in relation to Philo's treatment of Joseph in these two treatises. In De somniis 1-2, Philo primarily emphasizes his role as a dreamer and thus one incapable of true knowledge. In De Iosepho, Joseph is a dream interpreter who is not only awake but also capable of interpreting the figurative dream of life to which most people are subject. Although some scholars have considered these treatises contradictory in terms of their treatments of Joseph, an analysis of Philo's figurative use of sleep and dreaming reveals that they are a part of a coherent exegetical framework. (shrink)

In Philo of Alexandria and Greek Myth: Narratives, Allegories, and Arguments, a fresh and more complete image of Philo of Alexandria as a careful reader, interpreter, and critic of Greek literature is offered. Greek mythology plays a significant role in Philo of Alexandria's exegetical oeuvre. Philo explicitly adopts or subtly evokes narratives, episodes and figures from Greek mythology as symbols whose didactic function we need to unravel, exactly as the hidden teaching of Moses' (...) narration has to be revealed by interpreters of Bible. By analyzing specific mythologems and narrative cycles, the contributions to this volume pave the way to a better understanding of Philo's different attitudes towards literary and philosophical mythology. (shrink)

Mireille Hadas-Lebel shines a spotlight on the complex life and works of Philo, the illustrious Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, offering a fascinating insight into a seminal religious thinker at the crossroads of Judaism and Hellenism.

This comprehensive sourcebook of Philo of Alexandria presents topics and themes drawn from commonly studied Philonic texts in seven chapters: theology, cosmology, anthropology, ethics, biblical characters, Jewish Law, and Jewish worship and observances.

An inquiry drawing on the presence of Hellenistic philosophy in Philo provides a better knowledge of the diffusion of Hellenistic philosophy since the late ...

Life of Philo -- Philo and his time -- The Bible at Alexandria -- Philo's exegesis -- Philo's theology -- Philo's spirituality -- Philo and the New Testament.

This first biography of Philo of Alexandria, one of antiquity's most prolific yet enigmatic authors, traces his intellectual development from Bible interpreter to diplomat in Rome.