{"title":"A Historical-Comparative Study of the Authorization of παρρησία in Philo’s Quis rerum divinarum heres sit and Quod omnis probus liber sit","authors":"Thomas Tops","doi":"10.1163/15700631-bja10049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The article studies and compares how Philo authorizes παρρησία in Quis rerum divinarum heres sit and Quod omnis probus liber sit. After critically evaluating the scholarly literature on παρρησία in Philo, I go beyond the limitations of this literature by situating Philo’s views on παρρησία within the context of the ancient conventions of παρρησία, as well as in the changing socio-historical context of Philo’s writings. I argue that Philo creatively adapts the conventions of παρρησία to authorize that the Jews can have παρρησία towards God, as well as towards human beings within the Roman Empire. Their παρρησία is not authorized by citizenship, nobility of birth, good family reputation, and wealth, but by their conscience of having said and done everything to the benefit of God and their virtuous behavior according to Mosaic law.","PeriodicalId":45167,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of Judaism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Study of Judaism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-bja10049","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article studies and compares how Philo authorizes παρρησία in Quis rerum divinarum heres sit and Quod omnis probus liber sit. After critically evaluating the scholarly literature on παρρησία in Philo, I go beyond the limitations of this literature by situating Philo’s views on παρρησία within the context of the ancient conventions of παρρησία, as well as in the changing socio-historical context of Philo’s writings. I argue that Philo creatively adapts the conventions of παρρησία to authorize that the Jews can have παρρησία towards God, as well as towards human beings within the Roman Empire. Their παρρησία is not authorized by citizenship, nobility of birth, good family reputation, and wealth, but by their conscience of having said and done everything to the benefit of God and their virtuous behavior according to Mosaic law.
本文研究和比较了菲洛如何授权παρησί在Quis rerum divinarum heres坐和Quod omnis probus liber坐。对παρησ学术文献的批判性评价ί在《费罗》中,我通过阐述费罗对παρησ的看法,超越了这篇文献的局限性ίπαρησ的古代约定中的αία、 以及在菲洛作品不断变化的社会历史背景下。我认为Philo创造性地适应了παρησ的约定ία授权犹太人可以拥有παρησία对上帝,以及对罗马帝国内部的人类。它们的παρησία不是由公民身份、出身高贵、良好的家庭声誉和财富授权的,而是由他们的良知授权的,他们说过和做过一切有利于上帝的事,以及他们根据摩西律法的道德行为。
期刊介绍:
The Journal for the Study of Judaism is a leading international forum for scholarly discussions on the history, literature and religious ideas on Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman period. It provides biblical scholars, students of rabbinic literature, classicists and historians with essential information. Since 1970 the Journal for Study of Judaism has been securing its position as one of the world’s leading journals. The Journal for the Study of Judaism features an extensive book review section as well as a separate section reviewing articles.