VOL1 Greek text 1506. Volume VI, 1915, edited by L. COHN and S. REITER. Contains: Prolegomena by L.

COHN (to Prob., Contempt., Aet.), Prolegomena by S. REITER (to Flacc, Legat.), Prob., Contempl., Aet., Flacc, Legat. On pp. xviii-xxix there is a critical edition of the ancient Latin translation of Contempl., with a detailed explanation of the manuscript tradition. Translations: English 1506. Volume VI, 1915, edited by L. COHN and S. REITER. Contains: Prolegomena by L. COHN (to Prob., Contempt., Aet.), Prolegomena by S. REITER (to Flacc, Legat.), Prob., Contempl., Aet., Flacc, Legat. On pp. xviii-xxix there is a critical edition of the ancient Latin translation of Contempl., with a detailed explanation of the manuscript tradition. Fr 2224. Vol. 30, De aeternitate mundi, introduction et notes par R. ARNALDEZ, traduction par J. POUILLOUX (Paris 1969); French title De V incorruptibilite 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 on Aet. For extensive comments on this volume, cf. also 7927. REVIEWS: F. Petit, RThAM 36 (1969) 233; P. Courcelle, REA 72 (1970) 236f.; J. Danielou, RecSR 58 (1970) 117ff.; J. A. de Aldama, EE 45 (1970) 583f.; J. Moreau, EPh 25 (1970) 245f.; A. Orbe, Gr 51 (1970) 775; A. Solignac, ArPh 33 (1970) 994f.; W. Wiefel, ThLZ 95 (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, edited by 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. Of Prov. only the Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius are translated. For the index of names, cf. 3205.

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 of QG 4.154-245 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 be considered commentaries in the true sense are: Analysis 3711. H. LEISEGANG, 'Philons Schrift iiber die Ewigkeit der Welt', Phil 92(1937) 156-176. What Philo says in Aet. 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 Weltanschauung and his religious conviction - based on Stoic philosophy - of the existence and value of divine Providence' (176). (=R115) 7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeternitate mundi di Filone Alessandrino', Nicolaus 7 (1979) 61-89. This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and supplement the OPA edition of Aet. (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 Aristotelischen Schrift '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

the material in Aet. 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 aeternitate mundi, introduction et notes par R. ARNALDEZ, traduction par J. POUILLOUX (Paris 1969); French title De V incorruptibilite 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 on Aet. For extensive comments on this volume, cf. also 7927. REVIEWS: F. Petit, RThAM 36 (1969) 233; P. Courcelle, REA 72 (1970) 236f.; J. Danielou, RecSR 58 (1970) 117ff.; J. A. de Aldama, EE 45 (1970) 583f.; J. Moreau, EPh 25 (1970) 245f.; A. Orbe, Gr 51 (1970) 775; A. Solignac, ArPh 33 (1970) 994f.; W. Wiefel, ThLZ 95 (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) 7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeternitate mundi di Filone Alessandrino', Nicolaus 7 (1979) 61-89. This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and supplement the OPA edition of Aet. (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) 8126. D. T. RUNIA, 'Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem of its interpretation', VChr 35 (1981) 105-151. As Sandmel already pointed out, the difficulty of understanding Aet. 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 of Aet., 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 at Aet. 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 has unfortunately 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

early Stoic thought', in M. J. VERMASEREN (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic religions, EPRO 78 (Leiden 1979) 129-188, esp. 141ff., 159ff., 186-188. The evidence of Philo's treatise Aet. 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 bv iruorran mai pt bo ['On time and eternity in Philo's thought'], Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem 1977) 3.223-228 [Hebrew section] Following his previous study (6729), Kahn wishes to check whether Aet. 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, Tiberius Iulius 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 of Prov. 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', NTS 12 (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 from Aet., 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 aeternitate mundi di Filone Alessandrino', Nicolaus 7 (1979) 61-89. This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and supplement the OPA edition of Aet. (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)

8126. D. T. RUNIA, 'Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem of its interpretation', VChr 35 (1981) 105-151. As Sandmel already pointed out, the difficulty of understanding Aet. 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 of Aet., 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 at Aet. 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 has unfortunately 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) Manuscript tradition 7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeternitate mundi di Filone Alessandrino', Nicolaus 7 (1979) 61-89. This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and supplement the OPA edition of Aet. (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)

Observations on 4304. A.D. NOCK, 'Philo and Hellenistic philosophy', CR 57 (1943) 77-81; reprinted in Z. STEWART (ed.), Arthur Darby Nock: essays on religion and the ancient world (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 BROEK and M. J. VERMASEREN (edd.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the occasion of his 65 th birthday, 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

the Stoics at 85ff.' (308). (DTR) Philosophical senses of 7927. M. MINNITI COLONNA, 'Sul De aeternitate mundi di Filone Alessandrino', Nicolaus 7 (1979) 61-89. This article represents an important contribution. The author's aim is to improve and supplement the OPA edition of Aet. (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) Scholarship of 8126. D. T. RUNIA, 'Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem of its interpretation', VChr 35 (1981) 105-151. As Sandmel already pointed out, the difficulty of understanding Aet. 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 of Aet., 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 at Aet. 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 has unfortunately 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)

VOL II Aim of the treatise

\ And