Paraphrase. Opif. 6b–12 is part of Xxxxx’x introduction to the treatise. In the preceding sections (Opif. 1–6a) he draws attention to the fact that Xxxxx began his exposition of laws with an account of the creation of the world. Xxxxx did so, as Xxxxx explains, to emphasise that the laws he was about to give were in complete accordance with the governing order of everything that exists. As this governing order embraces everything in existence, Xxxxx understandably emphasises that he can only present a few highlights of the creation of this all-embracing order. He does so from Opif. 13 onwards. First, however, he needs to address an important issue (as he states in Opif. 6b). — Xxxxx’x doctrine of God — This issue is some people’s opinion that the world is without beginning or end and instead is everlasting and not created (Opif. 7a). If the world were indeed uncreated, Xxxxx’ creation story would be rather pointless. Thus, this fundamental issue needs to be addressed first. Xxxxx’x central argument (brought forward in Opif. 10–11) against the claim that the world is uncreated illustrates why he sees this as a fundamental issue. Xxxxx argues that if such a view were true, there could be no governing order in creation. The world would be a chaotic place, ruled by anarchy. As Xxxxx sees it, only God can maintain the order of the world and he can only do so if he is the father and maker of the world, caring for what he has made. The world therefore has to be created. Xxxxx surrounds his central argument with two supporting arguments why the world must be created. His first argument (Opif. 7b–9) is that everything that exists, can only exist because of the impact of an active cause on a passive object. Xxxxx argues that the world needs a creator as its active cause in order to come into existence. Xxxxx’x second argument (Opif. 12) is that the world can be seen to be constantly changing; it is in a constant process of becoming. He then argues that this process of becoming must have a starting-point, an origin. This is why it is appropriate that Xxxxx described the origin of the world.
Paraphrase. In Opif. 13–36a, having established in the preceding sections (Opif. 6b–12) that the world must have been created, Xxxxx can now begin his exposition of the creation story. Before discussing the details of the creation of the material world on days two to six (in Opif. 36b–68), Xxxxx dedicates Opif. 13–36a to the first day of creation which in his opinion was reserved to bringing the intelligible world into being. Xxxxx first explains (in Opif. 13–14) why six is the most appropriate number for creation, using arithmological arguments. He further argues that of the six creation-days, day one was set apart by Xxxxx. Philo attaches special significance to the fact that in Gn. 1:5 this day is designated ‘one’ (μία) and not ‘first’ (πρώτη) (Opif. 15; the argument is repeated in Opif. 35). The choice of avoiding the ordinal number ‘first’ is made to separate day one from the sequence of the other creation days. Being ‘one’ shows the special relationship between what is created on day one and the monad (ἡ μονάς), the fundament of everything that exists.
Paraphrase. Philo has explained in the preceding passage, Deus 33–50, that ‘bethinking’ (ἐνεθυμήθη and διενοήθη used in Gn. 6:6) does not mean that God changed his mind, but that God always contemplates the nature of all things he created and specifically whether they follow the order he has intended for creation or not. Philo has concluded that only humans are free to choose whether they will do so or not and that therefore only humans can obey or disobey God, and only they can be commended when they obey or punished if they do not. Before discussing (in Deus 86–121) whether Noah should be considered as praiseworthy, because he is said to have found grace, Philo first explains in Deus 51–85 the meaning of the statement that God became angry (in Gn. 6:7) and why anthropomorphic descriptions of God are used in the Bible in general. 263 This grammatical detail is that Gn. 6:12 states that ‘all flesh destroyed his way (τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ) throughout the earth.’ As Philo explains in Deus 141–142 ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) in Greek is a feminine noun, so ‘his’ (αὐτοῦ) cannot refer to the flesh destroying its own way. Rather, ‘his’ must refer to something masculine; Philo maintains that this must be God, concluding that all flesh attempts to destroy the way of God. — Philo’s doctrine of God — Philo begins his discussion of anthropomorphic descriptions of God by emphasising that in truth God is not like humans at all (Deus 51–59). Human souls who are fully oriented towards immaterial and divine things are able to grasp this essential truth. They see God as singular existence. They apply no other characteristics to God, especially no imagery based on created things. God in truth cannot have emotions such as wrath or anger. Philo reasons that emotions are part of the body, and God has no body. The parts of the body serve the several needs of human beings; God, having no such needs, needs no body. Anthropomorphic descriptions of God are essentially false, and are used in the Bible only for pedagogical reasons. As Philo explains (in Deus 60–69), God is described in the Bible like humans, because God also wants to reach human souls that are primarily oriented towards material and earthly things. Such souls can only think of God in earthly and bodily terms. They need anthropomorphic imagery to gain at least some conception of God. The Bible presents God as a wrathful Lord for such earthly human souls, so that through fear of punishment they will better their ways. Philo compares this approach to ...
Paraphrase using someone’s ideas, but putting them in your own words. This is probably the skill you will use most when incorporating sources into your writing. Although you use your own words to paraphrase, you must still acknowledge the source of the information. According to the IB Handbook of Policies and Procedures, “Each candidate must be in good standing at the school at the time of examinations…Students are expected to acknowledge fully and in detail the work, thoughts or ideas of another person if incorporated in work submitted for assessment and to ensure that their own work is never given to another candidate, either in the form of hard copy or by electronic means, knowing that it might be submitted for assessment as the work of that other candidate. It is a breach of IB regulations for a student to give or receive confidential information about IB examinations. Violations lead to disqualification.” In order to maintain the integrity of the IB Program, the following guidelines will be understood by all students in IB courses during the 11th and 12th grade:
