filon bibliografie

7/28/2019 FILON BIBLIOGRAFIE

1/7

VOL1

Greek text

1506. Volume VI, 1915, edited by L. COHN and S. REITER.

Contains:Prolegomenaby L. COHN (toProb., Contempt., Aet.), Prolegomenaby S.

REITER(toFlacc, Legat.), Prob., Contempl., Aet., Flacc, Legat. On pp. xviii-xxix

there is a critical edition of the ancient Latin translation ofContempl., with a detailed

explanation of the manuscript tradition.

Translations:

English

1506. Volume VI, 1915, edited by L. COHN and S. REITER.

Contains:Prolegomenaby L. COHN (toProb., Contempt., Aet.), Prolegomenaby S.

REITER(toFlacc, Legat.), Prob., Contempl., Aet., Flacc, Legat. On pp. xviii-xxix

there is a critical edition of the ancient Latin translation ofContempl., with a detailed

explanation of the manuscript tradition.

Fr

2224. Vol. 30, De aeterni tate mundi, introduction et notes par R.

ARNALDEZ, traduction par J. POUILLOUX (Paris 1969); French title De

V incorruptibil ite du monde.

The very extensive Introduction is divided into two parts: the first is concerned with

the authenticity of the work, the second contains an analysis of the treatise in which the

author, adhering closely to the text, enlarges on its main themes. The notes are relatively

ample and numerous, so that the volume as a whole can be regarded as equivalent to a

commentary onAet. For extensive comments on this volume, cf. also 7927. REVIEWS:

F. Petit,RThAM36 (1969) 233; P. Courcelle,REA 72 (1970) 236f.; J. Danielou,

RecSR 58 (1970) 117ff.; J. A. de Aldama,EE45 (1970) 583f.; J. Moreau,EPh 25

(1970) 245f.; A. Orbe, Gr51 (1970) 775; A. Solignac,ArPh 33 (1970) 994f.; W.

Wiefel, ThLZ95 (1970) 750f.; P. de Fidio, RSLR 7 (1971) 339ff.; M. Hadas Lebel,

REG 84 (1971) 243f.; R. Joly,RBPh 49 (1971) 672; M. Whittaker,JThS 22 (1971)

216f.; C. Martin,NRTh 94 (1972) 823f.; A. V. Nazzaro, Vich n.s. 1 (1972) 79; J. C.M. van Winden, VChr 26(1972) 64f.; A. Guillaumont,RHR 184 (1973) 80ff. (= R68)

Germ

2007. Vol. VII, 1964, editedby W. THEILER.

Contains: Uber die Freiheit des Tiichtigen (= Prob.) translated by K. BORMANN; Uber

das betrachtende Leben (= Contempl.) translated by K. BORMANN; Uber die

Unverganglichkeit der Welt (= Aet.) translated by K. BORMANN; Gegen Flaccus (=

Flacc.) translated by K. H. GERSCHMANN; Gesandtschaft an Caligula (= Legat.)

translated by F. W. KOHNKE; Uber die Vorsehung (= Prov.) translated by L. FROCHTEL;

'Sachweiser zu Philo', prepared by W. THEILER(on which see 3204). To our surprise

we have found no record of any reviews of this volume.

Spanish

2305. Vol. V, 1976.

Contains: Sobre las virtudes (= Virt.); Sobre los premios y los castigos (=Praem.);

Todo hombre bueno es libre (=Prob.); Sobre la vida contemplativa (= Contempl.); Sobre

la indestructibilidad del mundo (=Aet.); Flaco (=Flacc); Hipotdticas (Apologia de los

judios) (=Hypoth.); Sobre la providencia (=Prov.); Sobre la embajada ante Cayo (=

Legat.); Indice de nombres. OfProv. only the Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius

are translated. For the index of names, cf. 3205.


2/7

Commentary

3100. Few commentaries have been written on Philonic writings

during the past fifty years. Of the works expressly presented as such, three

have already been cited in the sections dealing with critical texts and

translations: the commentary on the Old Latin version ofQG4.154-245 by

F. PETIT (1601), on the De animalibus by A. TERIAN (1704), on Flacc. by

H. BOX (2151), andon Legat. by E. M. SMALLWOOD (2152). Moreover

the following list of works in the French OPA series can considered

tantamount to commentaries on account of the amplitude of their

annotation. We list them in order of appearance in C-W: vol. 1 Opif. by R.

ARNALDEZ (2202, cf. also 2251); vol. 4 Sacr. by A. MEASSON (2220);

vol. 13 Conf. by J. G. KAHN (2209); vol. 14 Migr. by J. CAZEAUX (2217);

vol. 15 Her. by M. HARL (2219); vol. 18 Congr. by M. ALEXANDRE

(2221); vol. 17 Fug. by E. STAROBINSKI-SAFRAN (2225); vol. 23 Decal.

by V.NIKIPROWETZKY (2215); vol. 24 Spec. 1-2 by S. DANIEL (2231);

vol. 25 Spec. 3-4 by A. MOSES (2226); vol. 28 Prob. by M. PETIT (2230);

vol. 29 Contempl. by F. DAUMAS (2210); vol. 30 Aet. by R. ARNALDEZ

(2224); vol. 31 Flacc. by A. PELLETIER(2222); vol. 32 Legat. by A.

PELLETIER(2227); vol. 35 Prov. by M. HADAS LEBEL (2229). See also

3001 (commentary on Spec. 1.13-65). The only other works that can beconsidered commentaries in the true sense are:

Analysis

3711. H. LEISEGANG, 'Philons Schrift iiber die Ewigkeit der Welt',

Phil92(1937) 156-176.

What Philo says inAet. about the eternity of the world does not correspond to his own

convictions, but to those of an opponent. The sequel of the treatise, which is no longer

extant, must have contained a refutation in which Philo himself, by way of reply,

defended the concept of Providence and the strictly related concept of creation.

According to Leisegang, therefore,Aet. should not be considered a scholastic work, as

Bousset did, nor a juvenile exercise, 'but it belongs to that group of works in which Philo

takes issue with the opponents of both the Stoic Weltanschauungand his religiousconviction - based on Stoic philosophy - of the existence and value of divine Providence'

(176). (=R115)

7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeterni tate mundidi Filone

Alessandrino', Nicolaus7 (1979) 61-89.

This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and

supplement the OPA edition ofAet. (2224), which she observes to be deficient and

inaccurate in various places. She goes on to discuss the authorship of the work, its

manuscript tradition, and its philosophical sources, i.e. the various problems which

Philo's treatise has always raised.Aet., it is concluded (88), 'is nothing but a preparatory

excursus written with a view to the real refutation to follow, in which Philo proposed to

explain his own theories with regard to the diverse and contrasting views on the subject of

the world's indestructibility'. (= R1062/a)

and Aristotles De philosophia

7 0 1 7 . B. EFFE, Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der Ari stoteli schen

Schr if t 'Uber die Philosophie', Zetemata 50 (Munich 1970), esp.

17-23.

Philo's works are used here mainly to reconstruct Aristotle's arguments on the eternity

of the cosmos, the author being convinced (cf. 9) that Philo was - whether directly or

indirecdy - acquainted with the contents of Aristotle's De philosophia and that much of


3/7

the material inAet. was derived - whether directly or indirectly - from this work. From a

historical-philosophical point of view, however, the task of distinguishing accurately

between what was originally Aristotelian and what Philo or some other intermediate

source has added or modified constitutes a highly delicate problem (cf. 17-20). (= R723)

Authenticity of:

2224. Vol. 30, De aeterni tate mundi, introduction et notes par R.ARNALDEZ, traduction par J. POUILLOUX (Paris 1969); French title De

V incorruptibil ite du monde.

The very extensive Introduction is divided into two parts: the first is concerned with

the authenticity of the work, the second contains an analysis of the treatise in which the

author, adhering closely to the text, enlarges on its main themes. The notes are relatively

ample and numerous, so that the volume as a whole can be regarded as equivalent to a

commentary onAet. For extensive comments on this volume, cf. also 7927. REVIEWS:

F. Petit,RThAM36 (1969) 233; P. Courcelle,REA 72 (1970) 236f.; J. Danielou,

RecSR 58 (1970) 117ff.; J. A. de Aldama,EE45 (1970) 583f.; J. Moreau,EPh 25

(1970) 245f.; A. Orbe, Gr51 (1970) 775; A. Solignac,ArPh 33 (1970) 994f.; W.

Wiefel, ThLZ95 (1970) 750f.; P. de Fidio, RSLR 7 (1971) 339ff.; M. Hadas Lebel,

REG 84 (1971) 243f.; R. Joly,RBPh 49 (1971) 672; M. Whittaker,JThS 22 (1971)

216f.; C. Martin,NRTh 94 (1972) 823f.; A. V. Nazzaro, Vich n.s. 1 (1972) 79; J. C.M. van Winden, VChr 26(1972) 64f.; A. Guillaumont,RHR 184 (1973) 80ff. (= R68)











8126. D. T. RUNIA, 'Philo's De aetern itate mundi :the problem of its

interpretation', VChr35 (1981) 105-151.

As Sandmel already pointed out, the difficulty of understandingAet. is caused by the

fact that the eternity of the world which it posits is hard to reconcile with Philo's doctrine

of creation. In the past interpreters have solved this contradiction in two ways: by

questioning the treatise's authenticity, or by minimizing its importance. In order to go

beyond these two positions, the author reconstructs - with greater precision than Sandmel

- the major scholarly views on this subject from the end of the 19th century until the

present day (107-112). After a careful analysis of the style and content ofAet., the

following conclusions are drawn. The contents of the treatise, if correctly interpreted, are

wholly in line with Philo's thought as it found in the remainder of his writings. The

arguments atAet. 20-149 do not represent his true thought, but rather contrary views

belonging to a dialectical debate of which the part expressing his own thought hasunfortunately been lost (cf. 139). The treatise is authentic and makes its own contribution

to an understanding of Philo. Runia also rejects the suggestion that it is an immature

work belonging to the period of Philo's philosophical studies. 'This would be to beg the

entire question of the relation between exegesis and philosophy in Philo's achievement'

(140). (=R1093)

Cosmos destructibility

7924. J. MANSFELD, 'Providence and the destruction of the universe in


4/7

early Stoic thought', in M. J. VERMASEREN (ed.), Studies in H ell enistic

religions, EPRO 78 (Leiden 1979) 129-188, esp. 141ff., 159ff., 186-188.

The evidence of Philo's treatiseAet. is quite indispensable to the argument of this long

article. The author argues that Chrysippus' revival of the old Stoic arguments of Zeno

against the position of Plato and Aristotle on the indestructibility of the cosmos

occasioned the revival of traditional arguments which could be used against him, and this

led to Philo's preservation of the arguments from Aristotle's De philosophia (fr. 18-19),

which otherwise would have been lost to us. (DTR)

And creation ex nihilo

7720. J.-G. K A H N [iBr-jro .*], muo^Kn |f>a bviruorran mai pt bo['On time and eternity in Philo's thought'],Proceedings of the Six th World

Congress of Jewish Studies(Jerusalem 1977) 3.223-228 [Hebrew section]

Following his previous study (6729), Kahn wishes to check whetherAet. is in line

with other statements of Philo regarding creatio ex nihilo. He accepts this work as

Philonic, since the theory of creation is similar to the rest of Philo's work. Though the

Alexandrian is not clear about this point and his terminology is not decisive, Philo

certainly did believe in creation ex nihilo. English summary. (MM)

Historical Context

5504. V. BURR, Tiberi us I uli us Alexander, Antiquitas 1. Reihe: Abhandlungen

zur alten Geschichte 1 (Bonn 1955), esp. 16-20.

The author is only indirectly concerned with Philo as the discussion partner of his

nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander. Burr explains the basic aspects of the Philonic paideia

that is directed at Alexander and in so doing briefly discusses Anim. and Prov., which are

shown to have a predominantly erudite character. The aims ofProv. and Anim. appear to

be pursued in Aet. as well (20); the latter treatise, however, expresses a Peripatetic rather

than a Stoic point of view. From these works Philo emerges as a profoundly Hellenized

thinker. (RR)

Interpretation of

6636. R. A. STEWART, 'Creation and matter in the Epistle to the

Hebrews', NTS12 (1966) 284-293.The locus classicus for deducing Philo's views on the creation of the world is Opif. 16

and 7-12, where it emerges that the world is created by God. It would seem, however,

that an opposite view emerges fromAet., where Philo supposedly both affirms the

indestructibility of the world and denies its createdness. But Aet., as the author observes,

is 'an exercise in dialectic' (292) which has probably been handed down to us in an

incomplete state. And in the part which we do have Philo is probably expressing views

opposite to his own. Thus it must be agreed that Philo followed the lead of Plato in

affirming the idea of the world's creation, but did not elaborate all its consequences. (=

R588)

7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeterni tate mundidi FiloneAlessandrino', Nicolaus7 (1979) 61-89.This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and









5/7




fact that the eternity of the world which it posits is hard to reconcile with Philo's doctrine

of creation. In the past interpreters have solved this contradiction in two ways: by








belonging to a dialectical debate of which the part expressing his own thought has

unfortunately been lost (cf. 139). The treatise is authentic and makes its own contribution



entire question of the relation between exegesis and philosophy in Philo's achievement'

(140). (=R1093)

Manuscript tradition









explain his own theories with regard to the diverse and contrasting views on the subject of the world's

indestructibility'. (= R1062/a)

Observations on

4304. A.D.NOCK, 'Philo and Hellenistic philosophy',CR57 (1943)

77-81; reprinted in Z. STEWART (ed.), Ar thur Darby Nock: essays on

religion and the ancient worl d(Oxford 1972) 2.559-565.

Although this article is actually a review of vol. 9 of F. H. Colson's English translation

of Philo in the LCL (cf. 2109), it deserves inclusion here on account of the important

observations it makes on various philosophical and historical-apologetic treatises

(Prob., Contempl., Aet., Hypoth., Prov., Anim., Flacc.). It is attractive to regard the

philosophical treatises as youthful works, but the dialogues are certainly later, perhaps

about 30 A.D. (DTR)

Philosophical evidence

8114. J. MANSFELD, 'Bad world and demiurge: a "Gnostic" motif

from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo', in R. VAN DEN

BROEKand M. J. VERMASEREN (edd.), Studies in Gnosticism and H ell enistic

reli gions presented to Gil les Qui spel on the occasion of h is 65 th bir thday,

EPRO 91 (Leiden 1981) 261-314, esp. 301-309.

Discussion of Philo's account of the arguments between Plato and Aristotle and the

further reaction of the Stoa as recorded in Aet. 'Philo does not just report, in doxographical

fashion, the views of others, but emphatically takes part in the discussion himself;

he continuously interpolates and adds arguments of his own, and argues at length against


6/7

the Stoics at 85ff.' (308). (DTR)

Philosophical senses of











Scholarship of




fact that the eternity of the world which it posits is hard to reconcile with Philo's doctrineof creation. In the past interpreters have solved this contradiction in two ways: by








belonging to a dialectical debate of which the part expressing his own thought has

unfortunately been lost (cf. 139). The treatise is authentic and makes its own contribution



entire question of the relation between exegesis and philosophy in Philo's achievement'(140). (=R1093)

VOL II

Aim of the treatise


7/7

\

And

filon bibliografie

Documents