Philo on the SBL Annual Meeting 2003

Well, I know this is late news to some, but as my PhiloBlog was not up at that time, and for those who were not attending the meeting, I would like to point out that Philo was dealt with in several lectures this year, perhaps in more than for a long time at a SBL Annual Meeting. In addition to the regular Philo of Alexandria Group, there were four more lectures presented that dealt explicitly with issues from the works of Philo. Due to collisions with other sessions, I was not able to attend all of them, but here is a brief review.

On Saturday, Nov. 22nd, there was a consultation initiated last year, called “Violence and Representations of Violence Among Jews and Christians Consultation”, presided over by Shelly Matthews, Furman University. This year issues of violence was dealt with from the perspective of Q, of the Acts of the Apostles, of Josephus and from Philo.Torrey Seland, Volda University College, Norway, read a paper on (Re)Presentations of Violence in Philo. The paper was published in SBL Seminar Papers -Annual Meeting 2003 (Atlanta, Georgia, 2003), pp. 117-140, but is now also accessible here.

On Sunday, Nov. 23rd, the (S23-60) Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Section, dealt with “Etymology as Allegorical Technique in Jewish and Christian Interpretaton.” Here David T Runia (University of Melbourne) presented a summary of his paper on ‘Etymology as allegorical technique in Philo’. No abstract was available of this paper, but papers may be available via the Program Unit Homepage

On Monday, Nov. 24th, the S24-21: Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Section dealt with the theme: Wilderness Motifs in Early Judaism and ChristianityOne of the lectures here was given by Louis H Feldman, Yeshiva University, on Philo's Account of the Golden Calf Incident
Author’s abstract:
In line with the tremendous attempt in the rabbinic tradition, as in Josephus, to absolve Aaron of blame in the making of the Golden Calf, Philo does not even mention the role of Aaron at all, and he omits Moses' rebuke of Aaron. As the head of the Jewish community in Egypt, Philo centers his attack on the lawlessness of the Israelites and on the fact that the Golden Calf was an imitation of the animal held most sacred in Egypt. Whereas Josephus, presumably because he found it embarrassing, omits the incident, Philo, despite the fact that he aims in De Vita Mosis to elevate the role of Moses, includes it, noting in particular that on his descent Moses, to his great credit, assumed the role of mediator and reconciler. Concerned lest the reader think that it was a fit of temper, unbecoming to a great leader, that Moses smashed the tablets that he was carrying, Philo omits his smashing of the tablets. Clearly troubled by the moral problem in condemning all the Israelites, Philo declares that Moses noticed that not everyone had joined in building the calf. In the most comprehensive account of the episode in De Vita Mosis, Philo, aware of the theological problem in the biblical portrayal of G-d as being angry at all the Israelites and not separating the guilty from the innocent, makes no mention of G-d's determination to exterminate all the Israelites, of G-d's decision to start a new people starting with Moses, and of Moses' colloquy with G-d, in which Moses is apparently more merciful and in which G-d, Who is supposedly unalterable in His ways, actually changes His mind and forgives the Israelites. In his concern to defend Aaron, Pseudo-Philo totally omits Moses' rebuke of Aaron and Aaron's reply, the very portion of the episode that the Mishnah (Megillah 4:10) says may be read but not translated in public.

Then on on the very same day, Monday, Nov. 24th, in S24-63: Pseudepigrapha Sectionfocusing on Themes in the Study of Adamic and Enochic Literature, Crispin H T Fletcher-louis, gave a lecture on “The Worship of Adam as God’s Image Story in Philo of Alexandria”
Here is the author’s own abstract:
In a now much discussed pseudepigraphical tale Adam is worshipped by the angels and/or other creatures when he is first created (Life of Adam and Eve 12-16 etc …). In an earlier study (“All The Glory of All Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in The Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Brill: Leiden, 2002)) I have argued that this worship of a human being is grounded in the belief that Adam is to Israel’s god what a pagan statue or idol, or image, is to its god. Given the widespread evidence for the story, the way it is picked up in several NT passages and the likelihood that it is now attested in a fragmentary DSS scroll (4Q381 frag. 1), it must have been well-known long before the rise of early Christianity. In this paper I will examine the little noticed attestation of this story in Philo of Alexandria’s On The Creation §83. Philo says that Adam, when created as the last of God’s works, caused consternation and spontaneous homage from the creatures that preceded him. Discussion of Philo’s text will (a) offer the first detailed comparison of his version of this story with the others in early Jewish and Christian literature, and (b) argue that Philo probably knew very well that the worship offered to Adam was grounded in the belief that as bearer of God’s image he functioned as a cultic idol. Elsewhere in On The Creation (esp. §§ 69, 137) and in his other works Philo explains the biblical image of God concept through precisely this cultic terminology. (c) Philo also knows (On Dreams 1:208-215), that the Adam story is related to the role of the high priest as second Adam and God's idol in the temple-as-microcosm, as I have already suggested is the case in the DSS. However, it is clear that (c) Philo in On The Creation strains to transform the humanity-as-god’s idol story through his dualistic anthropology

Then, the main sessions for all Philonists, the sessions of the Philo of Alexandria Group, held on Sunday and Monday Nov. 23-24. The first session focused on “Interpreting Philo of Alexandria's On the Contemplative Life”, with Ellen Birnbaum, Cambridge, Ma, Presiding.Professor David M Hay, Coe College (emeritus), presented here a paper on Issues of Interpretation in Philo of Alexandria's On the Contemplative Life (40 min).Professor Hay is currently working on a commentary on Philo’s On the Contemplative life to the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series (PACS ), and his lecture dealt with some problems and issues from this work he wanted the audience response on. Annewies Vandenhoek (Harvard University) was the respondent. Much of the response and questions focused on historical and geographical issues concerning the life and location of the Thereapeutae. The next session of this group, held on Monday Nov 24, focused on the theme: How Original a Thinker Was Philo of Alexandria? Adam Kamesar, Hebrew Union College, was presiding.
The following two lectures were given: Prof. Gregory E. Sterling, Univ of Notre Dame:“Tradent or Creator? Was Philo an Original Thinker?” and Prof. Thomas H. Tobin, Loyola University: “Philo and the Transformation of Tradition.”

For reasons unknown to me, the Abstract Book of the Annual Meeting provided no abstracts to these lectures. I presume and do hope, however, that they will both be printed in the next issue of Studia Philonica Annual.