Philo of Alexandria. Jean Danielou
Читать онлайн книгу.
De Fuga et Inventione
Volume VI
| De Abrahamo | De Abrahamo | On Abraham |
| De Josepho | De Josepho | On Joseph |
| De Vita Mosis | De Vita Mosis | Moses |
Volume VII
| De Decalogo | De Decalogo | On the Decalogue |
| De Specialibus Legibus I–III | De Specialibus Legibus | On Special Laws |
Volume VIII
| De Specialibus Legibus IV | De Specialibus Legibus | On Special Laws |
| De Virtutibus | De Virtutibus | On Virtues |
| De Praemiis et Poenis | De Praemiis | On Rewards and Punishments |
Volume IX
| Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit | Quod Probus | Every Good Man is Free |
| De Vita Contemplativa | De Vita Contemplativa | On Contemplative Life |
| De Aeternitate Mundi | De Aeternitate Mundi | On the Eternity of the World |
| In Flaccum | In Flaccum | Against Flaccus |
| Apologia pro Iudaeis | Pro Iudaeis | Apology for the Jews |
| De Providentia | De Providentia | On Providence |
Volume X
| De Legatione ad Gaium | Ad Gaium | On the Embassy to Gaius |
| Supplement I | ||
| Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim | In Genesim | Questions and Answers on Genesis |
| Supplement II | ||
| Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum | In Exodum | Questions and Answers on Exodus |
Daniélou refers to De Explicatione Legum, which seems to be a collective name for Legum Allegoriae and some of the treatises on the patriarchs. He also mentions De Mundo, which Yonge regards as identical to De Aeternitate Mundi.
Alexandria was the homeland of the Septuagint. (Daniélou has some intriguing comments on Greek translations of the Bible.) Philo, who wrote in Greek used it. One of the differences between the Septuagint, which the Vulgate and translations from the Vulgate follow, is in the numbering of the Psalms. Daniélou himself follows the Hebrew enumeration, even when referring to the Septuagint. It will be noted that both counts total 150. As an exercise upon completion of the present work, the reader might try to imagine Philo giving a homily on the excellence of 150.
To avoid confusion, below is a helpful table that I have adapted from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Bernard Orchard and others ed., Thomas Nelson and Sons, London, etc., 1953, section 335d):
| Hebrew and Contemporary | Septuagint and Vulgate |
| 1 through 8 | same |
| 9 and 10 | 9 |
| 11 through 113 | 10 through 112 |
| 114 and 115 | 113 |
| 116 | 114 and 115 |
| 117 through 146 | 116 through 145 |
| 147 | 146 and 147 |
| 148 through 150 | same |
I have made two terminological decisions. The adjective derived from “Philo” is “Philonic,” on the model of “Platonic.”
More importantly: the Logos is it. In French, Joan of Arc and the kitchen table are feminine. Louis XIV and books are masculine. In English people, animals, some odd plants, and ships have gender. Everything else is “it.” The delightful suggestion was made to me that, since in some ways later discussions of the Shekinah derive from Philo’s reflections upon the Logos, I might call the Logos “she”. The trouble, for one thing, is that Shekinah is Hebrew for Sophia. Philo also uses Sophia, and the relations between Sophia and Logos are not quite clear. Besides, I did not want to make him into an early cabbalist. Nor did I think I should make him a Christian by referring to the Logos as “he.” Maddeningly, sometimes it sounds very much as if the Logos is a personal being and other times is being described as an aspect of one. Sometimes it is a creature, but sometimes not. I have not dared to try to discern. So the Logos is “it.” Although the Loeb’s English may sometimes deliberately cultivate an archaic (or perhaps King James version) English, use of it has also forestalled any impulses of mine to render language about God with an eye to medieval metaphysics, and I have thus avoided the final temptation of making Philo into a Thomist or a Scotist.
1. Goodenough, By Light Light, 5.
Author’s Foreword
Philo of Alexandria’s life and work have been the object of a number of studies in recent years, especially in the United States and Germany. This interest is due first to the fascination this strange and complex personality continues to cause, with his combination of faith in the Old Testament and Hellenistic culture. It is also due to Philo’s testimony about the state of Judaism in the period when Christianity appears–and to the rebirth of lively interest in that environment because of the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts.
But it is odd to see how different authors who have recently dealt with Philo give us conflicting pictures. Hartwig Thyen offered a recent balance sheet of these studies.2 First of all, there are disagreements about who the man himself was. Völker takes him for a mystic who abandoned the world.3 Goodenough sees him as an official involved in politics.4 Wolfson regards him as a philosopher preacher.5 The same contradictions appear when Philo’s writings are interpreted. Völker sees a spiritual exegesis of Scripture without particular