The topic tackled in this book is Philo's account of the complex, double-sided nature of God's acting - the two-sided coin of God as transcendent yet immanent, ...

Galeno critica la dottrina di Mosè che, pur ammettendo un ordine nella natura e la presenza di un piano provvidenziale, sostiene la possibilità che Dio intervenga a modificare tale ordine in maniera arbitraria, sottratta a ogni regolarità e legge. L’ipotesi dell’autrice è che Galeno, parlando di Mosè, non distingua nettamente tra Ebrei e Cristiani: egli sa bene che queste sono "scuole" - come lui le chiama - differenti, ma, forse, non ne distingue sempre chiaramente le tesi. È allora possibile che (...) il referente del De usu partium sia composito: il Genesi , Filone, autori cristiani, il tutto visto in maniera unitaria come tesi di Mosè. (shrink)

Il y a chez Philon des expressions pour parler du bien qui sont apparemment contradictoires ou qui, au moins, font difficulte. Dans quelques passages l’Alexandrin parle de Dieu en termes de bien ; ailleurs il en parle comme de cause ou source du bien ; dans autres textes, enfin, Dieu est meilleur que le bien.Le theme de la possibilite de connaitre Dieu aussi pose des problemes : d’un cote nous avons le Dieu inconnaissable dont meme pas le nom ne peut (...) etre dit, d’un autre, le Dieu demiurgique et providentiel dont quelques personnages parviennent a avoir une connaissance, au moins indirecte et partielle. Telle vision est proportionnelle au niveau du voyant. Cet article s’interroge a propos d’une solution similaire concernant la perception du bien, saisi par les hommes de facon differente selon leur niveau. Non pas, alors, Dieu comme bien, comme bon, comme meilleur que le bien, per se, mais en relation aux hommes qui n’arrivent pas a atteindre to agathon et cherchent vainement a lui attribuer un nom – quoique impropre –, de determiner ce qui est au dela de toute nomination, qualification, definition. (shrink)

The essays collected in Italian Studies on Philo of Alexandria give an overview of the main trends of current Italian research on Philo of Alexandria, making ...

This article deals with the relationship between simple, monadic, divine words and the words of men linked to corporeity, devoid of clarity and univocity. For the divine word to be grasped by men a kind of transformation is necessary. One can hypothesize the existence of an archetypal, primordial language, in imitation of the essence of things. It is the language of Adam: given the perfection of a still pure soul, not affected by infirmity, illness or passion, the progenitor seized immediate (...) impressions, grasped the meaning of things whose natures could be enunciated and thought at the same time. It is the original perfect language and is perhaps common to humans and animals if in the Garden of Eden the words of the serpent were understood by Eve. A distinction is drawn between the language of Adam, mimetic of the language of God and the mosaic language in which we have the translation of the divine word in human language. This, despite that, for Moses too it is said that the names correspond to the description of things. A further passage takes place with the passing from one language into another. God addresses different kinds of communication to different people according to their capacities. It is a “translation” of a noetic language that can speak monadically – and it is the case of communication to Moses – or assume the form of names and verbs proper to human language –and it is what happens with the Septuagint, translators like Aron. (shrink)