Philo of Alexandria and the construction of Jewishness in early Christian writings. By Jennifer Otto. (Oxford Early Christian Studies.) Pp. xii + 231. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. £65. 987 0 19 882072 7

Reviewed by: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto Todd Berzon Jennifer Otto Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 Pp. 256. $84.50. Jennifer Otto's detailed yet eminently readable monograph sees in Philo of Alexandria a hermeneutic of collective identity for three early Christian writers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea. Philo's own identity, as a Jewish biblical interpreter and Platonic thinker, afforded these authors the conceptual space in which to elaborate the contours of Christianness vis-a-vis a proximate Jewishness (the author generally avoids the terms Christianity and Judaism because, she says, they anachronistically connote the category of religion). Otto further contends that Philo was harnessed by Christians not simply to elaborate the differences between Jewishness and Christianness, but also "to establish Christianity as a virtuous way of life, parallel to the pursuits of the philosophical schools" (2). Otto's book thus concerns itself with the circumstances in which early Christians invoked Philo as an interpreter who could link facets of Christianness, Jewishness, and (pagan) philosophy and yet simultaneously differentiate them. The Introduction situates Philo's Christian reception in relation to a number of highly contentious issues in the study of early Christian representations of Jewishness. Otto conceptualizes Philo as a lens for revisiting questions about the parting of the ways, the differences in Christian usages of the terms Ioudaioi, Hebraioi, and Israel, the relationship between ancient notions of ethnicity and way of life, and the idea of Christianity as a philosophy. Otto's survey of the relevant scholarly literature is helpful and clear, though the various sub-sections of the Introduction have a disjunctive flow. It is only in the ensuing chapters that the relationship between these questions becomes slightly clearer. In Chapter One, Otto elaborates how Clement likely came to possess Philonic texts. Her aim is to rebut the dominant scholarly theories which argue that Clement's source must have been either a Jewish teacher in Alexandria or a school tradition with Jewish roots. But if, as Otto insists, the Alexandrian Jewish community was virtually decimated after the Trajanic revolt of 115–117, Clement would have needed an alternative source. Otto thus proposes that Clement came into contact with Philo's works through the vibrant (non-Jewish) philosophical networks in Alexandria. Because the philosophical schools of Alexandria were open to consulting outside works, Philo's writings were almost certainly part of the city's broader philosophical exchanges. While Otto is correct that the consensus theory about Clement's acquisition of Philo (via some sort of connection to Jews) necessitates a fair amount of speculation, her alternative suggestion is no less speculative. There is simply no direct evidence to support her claim, and it is not clear how it materially affects her analysis in subsequent chapters. Chapters Two, Three, and Four examine how Clement, Origen, and Eusebius describe Philo's exegetical skills and ethnic identity. Chapter Two investigates Clement's four overt references to Philo. In two of those cases, Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean" even where he is also called an expert interpreter of the [End Page 342] Mosaic law and/or historian of the Jewish people. Why, Otto asks, would Clement describe Philo this way? Her answer is that the ascription "Pythagorean" worked to present Philo as a barbarian sage who blended the wisdom of Hebraism and Hellenism. Philo's exegetical skills "can thus be wielded by Clement both against Christians who protest the validity of Greek education and against philosophers who denigrate the teachings of the ekkelsia as a novelty" (89). Chapter Three focuses on Origen, who drew upon Philo's biblical allegorizing to bolster Christian efforts to uncover the veiled intent of scripture. For that reason, Origen often (and anonymously) refers to Philo as a predecessor, literally as "one of those who came before us." But in calling Philo his predecessor, Origen is not rendering him into a proto-Christian; rather, in Otto's estimation, the term "signals Origen's awareness of Philo as an interpreter of old who . . . correctly perceived the hermeneutical depths of the narratives recorded in Israel...

Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings investigates portrayals of one particular Jew, the first-century philosopher and allegorical interpreter of the Bible, Philo of Alexandria, in the works of three prominent early Christian thinkers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. It argues that early Christian invocations of Philo are best understood not as attempts to claim an illustrious Jew for the Christian fold, but as examples of ongoing efforts to define the continuities and distinctive features of Christian beliefs and practices in relation to those of the Jews. This study takes as its starting point the curious fact that none of the first three Christians to mention Philo refer to him unambiguously as a Jew. Clement refers to him twice as a Pythagorean. Origen, who mentions Philo by name only three times, makes far more frequent reference to him in the guise of an anonymous “someone who came before us.” Eusebius, who invokes Philo on many more occasions, most often refers to Philo as a Hebrew. These epithets construct Philo as a “near-other” to both Jews and Christians, through whom ideas and practices may be imported from the former to the latter, all the while establishing boundaries between the “Christian” and “Jewish” ways of life. The portraits of Philo offered by each author reveal ongoing processes of difference-making and difference-effacing that constituted not only the construction of the Jewish “other,” but also the Christian “self.”

Jennifer Otto. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. xi + 231 pp. - Volume 43 Issue 2

Jennifer Otto’s study, which originated as a 2014 McGill University doctoral thesis, is the first monograph devoted to Philo’s place in early Christian literature since my own overview of the subject published in 1993 (Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey). Though for the most part confined to the Alexandrian tradition...

Reviewed by: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto Marieke Dhont Jennifer Otto. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. xi + 231 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009419000576 In her first book, based on her doctoral thesis (McGill, 2014), Jennifer Otto discusses how three protagonists of early Christianity, Clement, Origen, and [End Page 443] Eusebius, understand Philo's identity. We have extensive knowledge of Philo Alexandrinus and his writings because his works were transmitted to us not by Jews but by Christians. Taking into account the way in which early Christianity has tried to shape itself in "continuous and not seldom acrimonious rivalry with its 'mother-religion,'"1 it can be surprising that Philo the Alexandrian Jew appears to have been readily adopted by Christian authors. How did they navigate the fact that Philo was a Jew? Later Christian works sought to make a convert out of him (e.g., Acta Johannis), or discussed perceived restrictions of his Jewishness (e.g., Ambrose of Milan). Early Christian witnesses to Philo, such as Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, however, each had their own ways of presenting his identity, so as to not overemphasize his Jewish background. Clement refers to Philo twice as a Pythagorean. Origen may only mention Philo by name three times in his oeuvre, but he alludes to him on several occasions by citing an anonymous "predecessor." Eusebius, in turn, refers to Philo mainly as a "Hebrew." These invocations of Philo have often been understood as attempts to adopt him into the Christian tradition. Jennifer Otto challenges this opinion, and suggests that these references to Philo reveal "ongoing efforts by Christians to conceptualize and demarcate the difference between two emerging but fluid collective identities" (4). In chapter 1, entitled "Christians Reading Philo," Otto questions how Christians came to possess Philo. Traditionally, scholars have argued that in the course of the first or second century, some of Philo's Jewish successors became followers of Christ. They would then have introduced Christians to Philo, thus securing transmission. Otto, however, also challenges this view and argues that transmission of Philo would have taken place in philosophical schools. She touches on this question several more times in the following chapters. In each of her three main chapters, one Christian writer takes center stage, respectively Clement (chapter 2), Origen (chapter 3), and Eusebius (chapter 4). Each chapter has a similar structure: Otto first offers a detailed analysis of the different epithets each church father uses in reference to Jews, such as Israel, hebraioi, and ioudaioi, before presenting systematically the passages in his works that contain references to Philo. She examines the different designations Clement, Origen, and Eusebius use to characterize Philo, respectively, "Pythagorean," "predecessor," and "Hebrew," with due attention to the rhetorical context and purpose of the reference within the church father's writings. In the conclusion to each chapter, Otto discusses how each epithet reflects a particular understanding of Philo's identity as neither a Jew nor a Christian within the framework of each of the fathers' rhetorical programs. In the general conclusion, she reflects on how all three present Philo as a skilled interpreter of the philosophical doctrines of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, as a Jew, he missed the most important truth of the Scriptures, namely that of Christ as the Logos incarnate. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius negotiate Philo's identity in subtle ways as neither "one of them" nor "one of their own." Otto successfully [End Page 444] shows how the epithets they use in reference to Philo function as a mediation between the categories of Jew and Christian. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings is a valuable scholarly work that is pleasant to read. Otto's engagement with primary texts and secondary literature does not weigh down the narrative of the argument. The book reflects contemporary interests in the reception of Philo as well as in identity construction and Jewish-Christian relations in late antiquity. Otto goes beyond the presumption of a Jewish/Christian dichotomy often characteristic of earlier scholarship and shows apt awareness of...

This work provides a reassessment of the emergence and nature of Christian sexual morality, the dominant moral paradigm in Western society since late antiquity. While many scholars, including Michel Foucault, have found the basis of early Christian sexual restrictions in Greek ethics and political philosophy, the author of this book demonstrates that it is misguided to regard Greek ethics and political theory—with their proposed reforms of eroticism, the family, and civic order—as the foundation of Christian sexual austerity. Rather, she shows that early Christian goals to eradicate fornication were derived from the sexual rules and poetic norms of the Septuagint, or Greek Bible, and that early Christian writers adapted these rules and norms in ways which reveal insights into the distinctive and largely non-philosophical character of Christian sexual morality. Writing with a command of both Greek philosophy and early Christian writings, the author investigates Plato, the Stoics, the Pythagoreans, Philo of Alexandria, the apostle Paul, and the patristic Christians Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, and Epiphanes, elucidating their ideas on sexual reform. Early Christian writers, she demonstrates, transformed all that they borrowed from Greek ethics and political philosophy to launch innovative programs against fornication that were inimical to Greek cultural mores, popular and philosophical alike. The Septuagint's mandate to worship the Lord alone among all gods led to a Christian program to revolutionize Gentile sexual practices.

Reviewed by: Hesiod’s Theogony: From Near Eastern Creation Myths to Paradise Lost by Stephen Scully Roger D. Woodard Stephen Scully. Hesiod’s Theogony: From Near Eastern Creation Myths to Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Pp. xiv, 268. $85.00. ISBN 978–0-19–025396–7. Following a short introduction in which the recent reception of Hesiod’s creation account is contextualized, chiefly within the frame of Freud’s view of myth, Scully begins his analysis of the Theogony with a comparison of (1) Hesiod and Homer with regard to their treatment of the gods and their individual epic styles, and, perhaps more interestingly, (2) Hesiod’s Theogony and the creation account of the biblical book of Genesis; it is in the latter portion of this initial chapter that Scully first makes reference to an idea to which he will keep returning—that of the idealized polis in the Theogony. In chapter 2 Scully wastes no time in foregrounding this concept of “the Theogony as a πόλις-creation myth,” contending that in his liberal use of “personified abstractions,” Hesiod moves “toward philosophy,” “turning a mythic story into something approaching political science and political allegory” (30). One is immediately left wondering what sense Scully attributes to the concept of μῦθος in Hesiod’s eighth-century setting—a term which, while occurring only three times in the Theogony, is consistent with its far more frequent use in Homeric epic, found most significantly at line 24 of the “speech” that the Muses spoke to the poet. The chapter otherwise consists of Scully’s overview of the Theogony; among the points made, he contends that Hesiod identifies only Metis and Hera as wives of Zeus and that all of the intervening “wives” are only paramours. The phrase πρώτην ἄλοχον θέτο at line 885, as the catalogue of “wives” begins, surely suggests otherwise, however. He concludes the chapter with the claim that “the Theogony is an intensely political poem. It tells the story of creation in the context of a city creation myth” (47). In chapter 3 Scully compares Hesiod’s Theogony with the so-called Hittite “Kingship-in-Heaven myth” (not a term that he uses) and the Hittite myth of the dragon Illuyanka. Much space is given to the presentation of the Babylonian theogony, the Enûma elish: it is a good description of a complex tradition. He then examines the theogony of Dunnu and the Phoenician theogony—again with comparison to Hesiod. Early in making these comparisons, he states that of the several Near Eastern traditions, he finds “the parallels between the Theogony and the Enûma elish … to be the most compelling” (51), and readers [End Page 572] might infer that it is this perceived closeness that is responsible for Scully’s “intensely political” view of the Theogony: the Enûma elish was performed in and for Babylon at the celebration of the New Year. Others would perhaps find the formative Hittite/Hurrian traditions to be much the closer (and also underlying what we know of a Phoenician tradition). In his fourth chapter, Scully considers the place of the Theogony (and also Hesiod’s Works and Days) in (1) archaic and (2) classical Greek literary tradition (especially [1] Homeric Hymns, Solon, Pre-Socratics, Pindar; and [2] Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Plato, and fourth-century authors, respectively). Chapter 5 looks at the reception of the Theogony in the Hellenistic era (Callimachus, Stoic philosophy, Euhemerus, etc.) and in Rome (especially Ovid). The remainder of the chapter is given to a comparison of the Theogony and the mythic handbook (Bibliotheca) of Pseudo-Apollodorus, and to its reception in the Second Sophistic and among early Christian writers and Philo of Alexandria. In chapter 6, Scully explores the reception of the Theogony in Byzantium, Medieval Italy, and subsequently among writers such as, inter alia, Poliziano, Erasmus, Chapman, and—notably—Milton. The nowadays-inevitable typographic error is to be found here and there (e.g., Jasper Griffin is made to be “Gasper” [14]); and there are a few inaccuracies (e.g., rather than being attested only twice “in extant Greek literature” [88], δυσνομία can be found at least six times [prior to the fourth century a.d., more later]). One may not agree...

Illness, Pain, and Health Care in Early Christianity

Sexuality: Another Useful Category of Analysis in European History Joanna Bourke. Dismembering the Male: Men's Bodies, Britain, and the Great War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.336 pp. ISBN 0-22606746 -7 (cl). Bernadette J. Brooten. Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. xxü + 412 pp. ISBN 0-226-075915 (cl). James R. Farr. Authority and Sexuality in Early Modern Burgundy (15501730 ). New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. viü + 252 pp. ISBN 0-19-408907-3 (cl). FeUcity A. Nussbaum. Torrid Zones: Maternity, Sexuality, and Empire in Eighteenth -Century English Narratives. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. χ + 264 pp. ISBN 0-8018-4075-4 (pb). Robert A. Nye. Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. ix + 316 pp. ISBN 0-19-404649-8 (cl). Victoria Thompson Pick up any catalogue issued by an academic press these days, and you wiU be sure to notice that more and more books on the history of sexuaUty are being pubUshed. Once associated primarily with gay and lesbian history, the study of sexuaUty, Uke the study of women, has moved from a history focused on discovering homosexuals in past societies to one that employs sexuaUty as a category of analysis much Uke that of gender.1 Ii this trend continues, it wiU become increasingly dUficult for historians to ignore this fundamental aspect of human experience when constructing their narratives of the past. The books chosen for this review span a wide time period in European history, and each approaches the topic of sexuality differently. Nonetheless , they do share certain characteristics. AU of the authors have been strongly influenced by women's history and consequently pay close attention to the relationships between sexuaUty and gender. In addition, all of the authors address the work of Michel Foucault. WhUe each of the authors is clearly interested in tracing the development of a "dominant" discourse on sexuality, they are also concerned with the ways in which © 1998 Journal of Women's History, Vol. 9 No. 4 (Winter) 212 Journal of Women's History Winter such discourses are contested or rejected, as weU as their relationship to actual sexual practice. The authors demonstrate a tendency to move away from the essentiatist /social-constructionist debate that has so marked gay and lesbian studies. Although most of the authors impUcitly address the question of whether sexuality is an intrinsic and timeless condition or is defined by sociaUy-constructed betiefs and practices, their primary focus is on the role of sexuaUty in creating social and political distinctions. As a result, these studies reveal how analyses of sexuaUty can shed tight on a variety of broader historical and cultural questions. SexuaUty is used as a category of analysis to examine not only sexual identity, but the poUtical and social identity of individuals and groups as weU. Together, these works raise interesting questions concerning how sexuaUty has been understood and experienced at different times, the role of sexuality in creating poUtical and social hierarchies, and the nature of the relationship between discourse and practice. Of the five works examined in this review, only Bernadette J. Brooten's Love between Women places ifseU explicitly within the context of gay and lesbian history. One of Brooten's goals in this thoroughly-researched and carefuUy-argued study is to draw attention to the existence and experience of women who had erotic relationships with women in the ancient Roman world. Brooten, hoping to correct what she sees as the lack of gender analysis in the work of John BosweU, argues that Romans during the early Christian era were aware of the existence of erotic relationships between women, and that they condemned these relationships as monstrous and unnatural.2 Brooten argues that by focusing on female, rather than male homoeroticism, one can perceive continuities between early Christian writers who elaborated a negative view of female homoeroticism and their non-Christian contemporaries. Brooten argues that early Christian writers adopted existing discourses concerning homoeroticism to recast the boundaries of the Christian community. By drawing on both Jewish and pagan writings concerning same-sex relationships, Paul of Tarsus blurred the difference between...

Reviewed by: The Studia Philonica Annual, Volume 13: In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay Lester L. Grabbe The Studia Philonica Annual, Volume 13: In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay, edited by David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling. Brown Judaic Studies 332. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2001. 304 pp. $37.95. The Studia Philonica Annual focuses on Philo of Alexandria but takes in all aspects of “Hellenistic Judaism.” This particular volume is a Festschrift in honor of David M. Hay. Much of Hay’s work has been on Philo, though he is probably best known to a wider audience for his 1973 book, Glory at the Right Hand: Ps. 110 in the Early Church, and for his 2000 commentary on Colossians (both Nashville: Abingdon). The essays in this volume cover Philo and Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. There is no particular theme to the volume, but one motif that emerges in several essays is the somewhat complicated relationship between Philo’s love of Greek thought and culture and his conviction of the superiority of Judaism and the Jews. Ellen Birnbaum (“Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in First-Century Alexandria”) shows how complex and difficult it is to assess Philo’s views, probably because the Alexandrian opponents of the Jews were from the Greek community. Although Philo makes some critical comments about Greeks, he clearly admires them (the majority of references are in fact positive or neutral; however, he thinks the Jews are superior). He never refers to his opponents as “Greeks” but as “Alexandrians” and “Egyptians” (it is unlikely that any of the opponents were actually native Egyptians). Although Philo’s exact connotation may be unclear, I am not sure that Birnbaum’s counsel to simply use his terminology is the solution. James R. Royse (“Philo’s Division of his Works into Books”) notes that some ancient writers apparently did not divide up their writings into books (e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides), though others did (e.g., Polybius). There are a number of indications that Philo followed the practice of dividing his writings into books. Royse focuses in particular on the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim and Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum. Peder Borgen (“Application of and Commitment to the Laws of Moses: Observations on Philo’s Treatise On the Embassy to Gaius”) argues that the treatise on Gaius has much in common with his expository writings, showing how the law functioned in communal life. One of the aims of the Embassy is to show the strength of the Jewish commitment in opposing Gaius’s statue in the temple. David T. Runia (“Philo’s Reading of the Psalms”) looks at all the passages where Philo quotes or alludes to the Psalms (c. 30 in all). Although he does not often exploit the full spiritual potential of the Psalms, Philo can when he wants to. That he does not do so more frequently is probably because his allegorical spiritualizing of the Pentateuch renders this use of the Psalms unnecessary. Karl-Gustav Sandelin (“Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues”) illustrates the ambiguity of Philo’s attitude. On the one hand, he detests “idolatry,” which he interprets as the worship of icons and polytheism, and speaks out against it. Yet a number of [End Page 154] passages show an appreciation of and even fascination with artists and even the divine statues of the surrounding Greco-Roman world. David Winston (“Philo of Alexandria and Ibn al-‘Arabi”) compares the medieval Sufi mystic with Philo, showing some remarkable parallels. These seem to come from their mystical view of reality rather than any organic connection. Thomas H. Tobin, S.J. (“The Jewish Context of Rom 5:12–14”) examines Paul’s contrast of Adam and Christ by looking at how Adam’s sin was interpreted in early Jewish texts. This context shows that Paul was not trying to develop a “doctrine of original sin”; rather his concern was the relationship of Jews and Gentiles and grace for both apart from the Law. Since Adam was prior to the Law of Moses...

Reviewed by: The Silencing of Slaves in Early Jewish and Christian Texts by Ronald Charles Mary Ann Beavis ronald charles, The Silencing of Slaves in Early Jewish and Christian Texts (Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World; London: Routledge, 2020). Pp. xvii + 272. $124. This book sets out to examine a wide range of early Jewish and Christian texts in which enslaved figures are represented and, according to Charles, rendered silent, by their authors, “who had no intrinsic interest in slaves . . . used, abused, and silenced their enslaved characters to articulate their own social, political, and theological visions” (p. 1) The Jewish texts considered all belong to the so-called Pseudepigrapha: Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, Letter of Aristeas, Jubilees, Joseph and Aseneth, and Wisdom writings that include Ahiqar, 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Phocylides, and the Sentences of the Syriac Menander. The early Christian writings are both canonical and extra-canonical: 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, the Gospels, Acts, the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, Acta Perpetuae, Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, and the Acts of Andrew. C. approaches these texts through the lenses of Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing [End Page 330] the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon, 1995), and Subaltern studies, to “uncover small tales constructed around slaves, or better, to consider how particular narratives could be understood differently if the reader pays attention to enslaved persons in their characterizations in the texts” (p. 12). Not surprisingly in a project that covers so much ground, the results are uneven. In my reading, several “small tales” stand out: the slave woman in the Testament of Job who gives her own loaf of bread to Satan, disguised as a stranger, when Job snubs him (7:5). Admittedly, the woman is rebuked for her kind act, but by Satan, hardly a reliable character. C. pays special attention to the slave characters—an unnamed slave girl and Malchus, the male slave of the high priest named in John 18:10—who figure in the scene of the denial of Peter (Mark 14:66–68; Matt 26:69–71; Luke 22:56; John 18:15–26), meticulously detailing the unique features of each narrative. C. highlights both the devalued figure of Rhoda (Acts 12:1–16) and the unnamed fortune-teller of Acts 16:16–18, characters often neglected by interpreters. Although all act/speak truthfully (and, in the case of the slave woman in Testament of Job, righteously), their words are dismissed, like the true words of the women disciples in Luke 24:11. Similarly, the slave Felicitas is sidelined by the freeborn Perpetua in the Passion, and both women are silenced in the Acts. In the Acts of Andrew, the body of the slave woman Euclia is used, abused, and discarded to preserve the chastity of her Christian mistress Maximilla: “The body of the elite woman is protected, while the body of the slave is exploited” (p. 196). Several of C.’s interpretive moves are less compelling. Some of the references to slaves in the pseudepigraphal writings he includes are slight or nonexplicit, as with the figure of Hermon in 3 Maccabees 5, who “is not explicitly called one [a slave] in the text” (p. 47). The observation that “he is an administrative person, who is in danger of being killed because of the king’s caprice” (p. 47), suffices to explain his vulnerability. C. adopts the traditional, but highly contested, hypothesis that Onesimus (Phlm 10) was a runaway slave, although why a fugitive slave would seek refuge by visiting a Roman prisoner is not explained. C. assumes that Epaphroditus (Phil 2:19, 25; 4:18) was a freedman (and thus outside the scope of the study), although he could just as likely have been enslaved or freeborn. To be sure, Eusebius’s construction of Blandina as a Christ figure whose death has cosmic significance (p. 182) subordinates her to a “highly theologized salvation history” (p. 183), but this is no different from his portrayal of other martyrs, enslaved or free. Charles’s study features a conclusion that thoroughly summarizes his analysis, chapter by chapter, seemingly in response to the critiques of...

DAVID T. RUNIA and GREGORY E. STERLING (eds): The Studia Philonica Annual. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. XIII: In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay, and vol. XV: Laws Stamped with the Seals of Nature: Law and Nature in Hellenistic Philosophy and Philo of Alexandria. (Brown Judaic Studies, 332 and 337.) 304 pp. (vol. XIII), 199 pp. (vol. XV). Providence: Brown University, 2001 (vol. XIII) and 2003 (vol. XV). - Volume 68 Issue 3

300Reviews The bilingual dictionary receives cursory treatment in this book even though the writing of bilingual dictionaries usually preceded the writing of monolingual dictionaries in the early history of lexicography. Dozens and dozens of problems unique to bilingual lexicography are neglected or ignored in this book even though the bilingual dictionary is an important tool for international understanding by virtue of its contribution to translation and interpretation. The title of the book might well have included the word "monolingual" in order to read Dictionaries. The Art and Craft of Monolingual Lexicography. Nevertheless, Landau has created what may be the best book ever published for the teaching of lexicography. It has just the right mix of simplicity and complexity. The author combines accessibility for the novice with professional considerations of interest to those already in the discipline. Roger J. Steiner University of Delaware * * * A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Arndt, William F., F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. xl + 900 pp. $42.50. Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Frederick W. Danker. 2d ed. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1983. xii + 221 pp. $20.00. Why make a dictionary for the Greek words of the New Testament and other early Christian writings? Why not use existing dictionaries of ancient Greek? One reason is that including only the words of these Christian writings makes possible more thorough treatment than could be given in the same space to a more comprehensive vocabulary. But a more important reason is that the Greek of these writings is not classical Greek. At least as long ago as the seventeenth century, Reviews301 scholars noticed the differences between the Greek of the New Testament books and that of most literary writings of the first century, which used much the same Greek as the writings of the Classical period several hundred years earlier. Some ascribed the differences to the influence of Hebrew on Christian writers; others contended that it was a purer Greek, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was not until the 1890s, when non-literary writings in first-century Greek were discovered, particularly in Egyptian papyrus records and letters, that the Greek of the New Testament was recognized for what it was—the everyday Greek of the Hellenistic world of the first century A.D., known as koine, "the common language." As the English of today differs from that of Chaucer, Koine differed from Classical Greek in vocabulary, word forms, and grammar. To help read Koine Greek, grammars and dictionaries have been made, though none yet covers the whole corpus of writings in Koine. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (hereafter GELNT) is the latest product of a long line of philological dictionaries developed by New Testament scholars and their critics. The first dictionary of New Testament Greek was a Greek-Latin glossary published in 1 522. New Testament words were first explained in English in 1639. The present work is a lineal descendent of a Greek-German dictionary published in 1910. This was revised, first in 1928, by another German scholar, Walter Bauer, and his editions with their thorough scholarship came to dominate the field. The first edition of GELNT (1957) was a translation and adaptation of Bauer's fourth edition (1952). The present work is augmented in part from Bauer's fifth edition (1958). It is the product of more than fifteen years of revision by W. Wilbur Gingrich, professor emeritus of Greek and religion at Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania, and by Frederick W. Danker, a professor in the Department of Exegetical Theology, New Testament, at Christ Seminary-Seminex and at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. How well does GELNT meet the needs and expectations of its prospective users? As a measure of this, the reviewer will use the findings of a survey that he conducted in 1967 to learn what users of New Testament lexicons wanted. 302Reviews Does the dictionary cover all the texts being studied by scholars of the New Testament and Early Christian writings? All respondents to the survey, of...

Reviewed by: In the Eye of the Animal: Zoological Imagination in Ancient Christianity by Patricia Cox Miller Steven D. Smith Patricia Cox Miller. In the Eye of the Animal: Zoological Imagination in Ancient Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Pp. 271. $79.95. ISBN 978-0-8122-5035-0. Miller's book is a welcome contribution to the growing field of animal studies in antiquity. Over the space of an introduction, five chapters, and a brief afterword, Miller masterfully elucidates a tension in early Christian literature between an anthropocentric rhetoric that disparages non-human animal life and a persistent tendency in these same texts to think about animals "in terms of their emotional, ethical, psychological, and behavioral continuities with human beings" (4). Miller's brilliant close readings of patristic texts are thoroughly informed by a broad range of theoretical insights from leading thinkers in the field of animal studies. Miller appears equally at home with the works of Jean-Christophe Bailly, Jacques Derrida, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty as she is with the poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke and Wallace Stevens, all of whom here enter into a rich dialogue with the likes of Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa, among others. The Introduction lays out the problem of the conflicting attitudes towards human-animal relationality in early Christian thought and literature and nicely situates the book's theoretical orientation. Chapter 1, "Animals and Figuration," uses birds as a case study for the various roles (spiritual, ethical, Christological) that animals play in the zoological imagination of early Christian writers. Miller's discussion of the dove is especially interesting, because she shows how Christian writers de-eroticized and spiritualized what was traditionally a symbol of potent sexuality. Chapters 2 and 3 share the title "The Pensivity of Animals," with a focus on "zoomorphism" and "anthropomorphism," respectively. Chapter 4, "Wild Animals," engages with the figuration of animals in the literature of monastic asceticism; Miller's recurring interest in the subversive quality of animal fabulae works well with the book's overall thesis. Chapter 5, "Small Things," employs the insights of "new materialism" to focus on the "vibrant materiality" of worms, mosquitos, flies, and frogs within the early Christian zoological imagination. In the brief afterword, Miller brings together her various readings of the ambiguous attitudes towards non-human animals in patristic literature and synthesizes them under the sign of a Christian kosmos that harmonizes and seeks affinity between its dissimilar parts. The great value of Miller's work is its delineation of how early Christian literature provides evidence of a lively discourse that ran contrary to and even disrupted the conventional anthropocentric view of the kosmos, a view inherited from the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. The passages that Miller collects and analyzes in this volume illustrate without a doubt that patristic writers celebrated human entanglement with non-human animal life, "even when those relations are paradoxically presented as both positive and negative in the same text" (192). But early Christian writers were not alone in antiquity in presenting such an ambiguous or paradoxical relationship with non-human animal life. Though she deftly traces continuities between the patristic texts and modern ideas about human-animal entanglement, Miller misses an important opportunity to engage more deeply with the inheritance of non-Christian writers from the Roman Imperial period who sometimes shared with their Christian counterparts a sympathetic fascination with the natural world that contrasted sharply with the [End Page 374] conventional disparagement of non-human animals as "irrational creatures" (ἄλογα ζῷα). Miller duly notes parallels and differences between passages from patristic texts and similar passages from non-Christian writers such as Pliny and Aelian. But if, as Miller concludes, early Christianity heralded "a rhetoric of cosmic resemblance, connection, harmony, and affinity that does not debase animals but includes them . . . in the material and spiritual enchainments that are the created order" (194), then the book would have benefitted from a more searching inquiry into how the Christian writers were responding to, modifying, or consonant with their non-Christian counterparts in the creation of this new rhetoric. Finally—and it may seem churlish to note this, but it must be said—a more careful editorial...

Book Review| October 01 2004 The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World, Richard A. Horsley Neil Asher Silberman. Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (2004) 123 (3): 564–568. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268058 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte; The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 January 2004; 123 (3): 564–568. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3268058 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.