After the Image and Likeness of Philo: Romans 1.18 32 and Philo of Alexandria's Exposition (original) (raw)
Related papers
This dissertation engages with two recent debates in Philonic studies, namely did the Allegorical Commentary exhibit an identifiable structure, and did the exegete make systematic use of typology. Chapter One demonstrates Philo’s unique position as an exegete. It is shown that the Allegorical Commentary utilised concepts and ideas from both Hellenism and Judaism, though the two cultures were subsumed within Philo’s core purpose of decoding Torah allegorically. Although Philo used Torah to explain Torah, the chapter demonstrates the exegete’s predilection for specific passages within Genesis. An assessment of the Allegorical Commentary’s structure, in Chapter Two, reveals that arguments proposing a rhetorical framework are not persuasive. Rather, it is shown that Philo relied on Torah to explain Torah. Examples, selected from the three treatises under consideration, demonstrate Philo’s use of the Main Biblical Lemma as an anchor around which he constructed his exegetical framework. The chapter illustrates the symbiotic relationship between the Main Biblical Lemma and the supporting Secondary and Tertiary Biblical Lemmata. The application of this approach is displayed in Chapter Three, which provides a detailed critique of Philo’s exegesis of Genesis 4.1-8. It is argued that Cain and Abel’s characters were developed to illustrate the two extremes of the human capacity for good and evil. It is also established that Philo made extensive use of soul-types (typology) in a systematic manner. Chapter Four concludes by demonstrating that Philo’s Allegorical Commentary exhibits a logical framework based on the use of Biblical lemmata, makes extensive use of Hellenistic philosophical concepts intermingled with traditional Jewish approaches, and offers a widespread application of typology.
TRADITION AND INTERPRETATION IN GEN 1:1– 2:4a
In the beginning of the 20th century several scholars (B. Stade, F. Schwally, J. Morgenstern) argued that Gen 1:1–2:4a consists of two different layers: one containing a “Tatbericht” (account of the divine act) and the other consisting of a “Wortbericht” (account of the creative divine word). This view became dominant in scholarship. However, the detailed study of O.H. Steck (1975) arguing for the literary unity of the story marked an important turning-point, the impact of which continues to be felt strongly today. This article critically examines the arguments of Steck, especially his interpretation of the “ ויהי כן -formula” ("and it was so"). This is followed by observations of important differences of specific motifs and particularities of language between the "divine-word"-statements and "divine-act"-statements. For example, in the "word-account" God collaborates with other entities such as the firmament, sea, earth, but the "act-account" attributes creative activity to God alone. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the "word-account" represents the older “skeleton” of Gen 1, while the "act-layer" consists of later additions that refine the earlier account with their own theological accents. Since the vocabulary and the theological view of the later "act-statements" can be associated with the priestly document (Pg), the early "divine word account" should be taken as another sign (in addition to, for instance, Gen 5)that P is based on – at least to some extent – identifiable sources.
The account in Genesis 3, often referred to as of the Fall of Man, has captured the imagination of countless biblical interpreters and, as a result, has a rich history among various traditions. Numerous studies have examined the reception history of many elements from this passage, particularly: the Serpent/Devil, Adam and Eve, Tree of Life, etc. Despite these prolific and detailed investigations, one aspect of the narrative—the concept of “desire” (“taʾăwâ,” Gen 3:6)—has received very little scholarly attention. This is especially surprising considering the motif’s popularity among various Hellenistic writers. Eventually, this desire motif from Genesis would be instrumental in the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 7, which, according to Barr, shares striking similarities to Hellenistic Jewish traditions that were circulating in that time, such as the Wisdom of Solomon (Barr, Eden, 16). Paul’s understanding of the narrative was “formed by the interpretation of these ancient texts which took place in Hellenistic times and in [this] intellectual atmosphere” (Barr, 18). This study, therefore, analyzes various Hellenistic texts that allude to the “desire” in Genesis 3 (e.g., Sir 15:14-17; 17:7, 11f; Wis 2:23; Apoc Abr 23:1ff; Vit Ad 19:3; Philo, Spec Leg 4:84-85; Deca 173; Qu Gen I.47-48; Opif Mundi 157-65; Alleg Interp 2.5, 24, 38), and then asks how these relate to Paul’s interpretation in Romans 5 and 7.
Rewriting the Will of the gods: Rom 1:18-32 in Religious Context (Midwest SBL, 2017)
Many scholars have discerned the allusions to Wisdom and anti-idolatry sentiments found in Rom 1:18-32, as well as the familiarity with which a Jewish audience would receive them. However, there has been little treatment of how Romanized Gentile audience members receive the text, especially in relation to the prevailing Roman hegemonic narrative that their worship appeased the gods, who then granted them the world to rule. So while Paul's recounting of humanity origins and sinfulness are at home within Second Temple Judaism, it should not be lost on us that this unsolicited letter also had a Roman gentile demographic receiving this text, of which Paul was perfectly aware. This leads to two questions: 1/ Is there an undercurrent critique of Rome's hegemonic narrative and relationship with its gods, i.e., its religio. And, if so, 2/ What is the communicative payoff of including such a possibly provocative counterpoint to a Romanized audience's worldview? To put it another way: Paul could have simply dismissed idolatry as gentile foolishness. But instead he draws a line from improper worship to improper behavior, that came from a lack of knowledge of God. All of these-knowledge of the gods and their will and how to appease them, as well as how to live in their continued favor-summarize the main pillars of Roman religio. We will argue that Paul here is not attacking the concept of idolatry qua theological concept, but is impugning the religio system on which Romans prided their knowledge of and relationship with the gods, served as the foundation for their entire worldview.
Verbum Vitae, 2023
This article examines Philo’s philosophical interpretation of the three theophanies in Exodus, which would, centuries later, continue to be considered by the great thinkers responsible for developing negative theology, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite. Although Exod 33:11 clearly states that the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as if someone were to speak to his own friend, according to Philo, the lawgiver neither saw the face of God, nor learned the proper name of God, nor was he able to comprehend the essence of God. These very statements became the inspiration for later apophaticism. The present article seeks to establish to what extent Philo’s theses were influenced by Plato’s philosophy or by later Middle Platonism, and to what extent Philo, by commenting allegorically on the Pentateuch, becomes the initiator of new ideas hitherto unknown in philosophical discourse. In the course of the analyses, three great questions of apophatic theology are discussed: 1. the unnameability of God; 2. the unknowability of God’s essence; and 3. the knowability of God’s nature by grace .