Greek Migrant Literature in the Early Roman Empire

This article argues that the concept of migrant literature, developed in postcolonial studies, is a useful tool for analysing Greek literature of the Early Roman Empire (27 BC-AD 68). The city of Rome attracted huge numbers of migrants from across the Mediterranean. Among them were many writers from Hellenized provinces like Egypt, Syria and Asia, who wrote in Greek. Leaving their native regions and travelling to Rome, they moved between cultures, responding in Greek to the new world order. Early imperial Greek writers include Strabo of Amasia, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes of Alexandria, Crinagoras of Mytilene, Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus. What connects these authors of very different origins, styles, beliefs, and literary genres is migrancy. They are migrant writers whose works are characterized by in-betweenness, ambivalence and polyphony.

Some Remarks on Musical Symbolism of Philo’s Hermeneutics in “De Posteritate Caini”

Philo of Alexandria can hardly be called a philosopher, especially given a certain speculative or systematic philosophy. But also, contrary to the prevailing opinion in contemporary research, it could hardly be defined as an exegete, especially given the modern content of the term. At the same time, the impression remains that the most often associated concept with his name – allegory (allegorical interpretation) is usually perceived too narrowly, and not enough attention is paid to the actual literary and hermeneutical skills of the author. Modern translations of his works often do not reflect the symbolism used by Philo at all, as is the case with music imagery in the opening paragraph of De Posteritate Caini. The musical theme and symbolism in Philo's work undoubtedly deserve a special and thorough study, which would go far beyond the scope of this article.

Nourishment in Paradise and After Resurrection: Double Creation According to Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa (cca 335–cca 395), one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, introduces the creation of human beings on the basis of Genesis 1:26–27 and interprets these two biblical verses as a ‘double creation’—the first of which is ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26) and secondly as male or female (Genesis 1:27). His concept of ‘double creation’ is obviously inspired by Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish philosopher, but Gregory points out the condition of human beings before and after committing the sin, in contrast to Philo’s conception. While Philo distinguishes between the first and the second creation of the entirety of nature, Gregory only relates the double creation to humans. Thus plants as nourishment for humans, according to Genesis, must be matched with the second creation of humans. In the resurrection, when the ‘first creation’ of human nature will be reached, human beings with their restored bodies will only feed on immaterial, spiritual food—the Word of God.

Philo of Alexandria on the Obligations of Wealth

The views of Philo of Alexandria on wealth have been a source of controversy between those who argue that Philo was at times critical of wealth and those who contend that these criticisms were not of wealth but of the dangers posed by wealth. This article evaluates Philo’s position first by examining the evidence for his own wealth and then by considering two sets of texts from the Exposition of the Law: one set that interprets the biblical prohibitions against interest on loans (Spec. 2.74-78; Virt. 82-87) and another that evaluates the use of wealth (Spec. 2.16-23). The former set of texts are evaluated against the realia of Jewish loan practices in Egypt, while the second set is evaluated against Philo’s own family situation. The conclusion is that Philo was not critical of wealth per se, but of the misuse of wealth and the neglect of the poor.