|
||
|
A summary of the results from Roald Skarsten: «Forfatterproblemet ved De Aeternitate Mundi i Corpus Philonicum.» Dr. diss. University of Bergen 1987. (The authorship problem in De Aeternitate Mundi in Corpus Philonicum). The author concludes that Philo of Alexandria is not the author of Aet. The main arguments are (cf. p. 217): · There is no frapping resemblance in style between Aet. and Opif. · The word order is generally different: there is a tendency towards a combination of separate syntagms in Aet.–or interlacing (emphatic words placed early in violation of the natural order or placed late by dislocation of the natural order). Opif. has 6 occurrences of totally 9192 words, while Aet has 31 of 4113 words regularly distributed in par. 7, 10, 14, 21a, 21b, 32, 33a, 33b, 44, 47a, 47b, 49, 53, 56, 59, 69, 73, 75a, 75b, 88, 98, 102, 108, 110, 113, 122, 136a, 136b, 137, 147, 148. · The differences in interlacing strongly indicate that Opif. and Aet. do not have the same author. · The consequent use of the interlacing also demonstrates that the whole treatise has the same author and is not a result of a compilation. · The theory of compilation has resulted in an exaggerated source criticism. · There are also some major differences in stylometric issues, particularly concerning the word order at the end of a sentence or phrase in relation to Opif. · Major differences in the understanding of the creation on the background of Gen1:1, in opposition to Philo’s interpretation in Opif. In Opif. the creation of the intelligible world is drawn into the creation of the exegesis, while this is not the case in Aet. The structure of the argument comes forward in par. 10, and presents a pantheistic way of understanding God. · The whole treatise is dominated by pantheistic way of understanding God. This is a new understanding of the writing in the scholarly debate. · The perspective is paraenetic and can be compared to writings by (Pseudo-) Ocellus De Universi natura, and Pseudo-Aristoteles, De mundo, authors representing an epistemological milieu with a quite similar understanding of God. · Structural analyses demonstrate how the author worked, source criticism is a blind alley here, the names of different authors mentioned are introduced only to legitimise the arguments from the author and must not be used as signals of external sources pasted in automatically. · Structure of Aet. from a redaction-critical point of view: a) 1-2 Neo-Platonic and a later addition, b) 3-150a the original core with pro et contra arguments and with a Peripatetic tendency, 3-19 introduction, 20-150a main part with 24 pro arguments, the 4 contra arguments start at 117, c) 150b is also a later addition and promises a continuation. · By using indications of natural historical as well as cultural character the place of origin is located to Cilicia in Asia Minor, perhaps Tarsus (basically against the background of par. 64 and name of trees there presented).
Kåre Fuglseth (read and approved by R. Skarsten)
|