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.

中文翻译：

---

斐罗的《Quis rerum divinarum heres sit》和《Quod omnis probus liber sit》中对παρρησία授权的历史比较研究

文章研究比较Philo如何授权παρρησία在Quis rerum divinarum heres sit和Quod omnis probus liber sit. 在对学术文献进行批判性评估后παρρησία在 Philo 中，我通过将 Philo 的观点放在παρρησία在古代公约的背景下παρρησία，以及斐罗著作不断变化的社会历史背景。我认为 Philo 创造性地适应了παρρησία授权犹太人可以拥有παρρησία对上帝，以及对罗马帝国内的人类。他们的παρρησία不是因为公民身份、出身贵族、良好的家庭声誉和财富，而是因为他们按照摩西律法所说和所做的一切都是为了上帝的利益和他们的美德行为的良心。