Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 1997 55
Philo does not present anywhere a systematic treatment of the question of
friendship, but it is possible to reconstruct a general understanding of what he
takes ιλία to be. Sterling first studies those texts in which Philo indicates what
friendship is, with particular attention paid to Plant. 104–106. Friendship is
virtually identical with goodwill (ενια), the Stoic definition of which he takes
over. It is clear that Philo is well acquainted with the themes and vocabulary
of hellenistic philosophical discussions on friendship. This is also seen in the
fact that he takes over various topoi on the subject, e.g. on what the limits of
friendship are when one is called upon to do something less that morally just
in order to help a friend. Philo’s support for the rigid Stoic viewpoint here is
perhaps prompted by polemic against Epicurean flexibility. A final theme is
the boundaries of friendship, and here it is striking that Philo applies it both
to fellow-Jews and to friendship with God. In fact Philo redefines friendship
in religious terms; one’s friend is he who worships the true God. The bond
of friendship is placed by nature in the heart of human beings, i.e. there is
affinity (κειτης). In conclusion Sterling argues that Philo was attracted to
the Stoic understanding of friendship because it balanced the claims of Jewish
nationalism and exclusivism. The notion of friendship was thus wedded to a
particular understanding of monotheism. It ‘became the vehicle for a Jewish
universal understanding of the human race’ (p. 222). (DTR)
9781. G. E. Sterling, ‘Philo and Alexandria: Two Prayers,’ in M. C.
Kiley (ed.), Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: a Critical Anthology
(London–New York 1997) 99–107.
Presentation of two of the four prayers to be found in Philo’s writings (complementing
the study of M. Harding summarized above, 9731) in English translation
together with introductory remarks. The first is Migr.101 (prayed by Abraham):
the introduction deals with the attestation of the text, its cultural setting,
its social setting and theology, and its use and influence on later periods.
Then follows Spec. 2.198–199 (prayed by Philo), with an introduction on the textual
witnesses, the literary context, and the setting and theology of the passage.
(HMK)
9782. G. E. Sterling, ‘Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom:
Speculation and Early Christological Hymns,’ in D. T. Runia and G. E.
Sterling (edd.), Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor
of David Winston [= The Studia Philonica Annual9 (1997)], Brown Judaic
Studies 312 (Atlanta 1997) 219–238.
Starting-point for this rich and learned article are the doctrinal controversies
in the 4th century, in which attention is drawn to various prepositional phrases
in the New Testament and their implications for Christology. But is this usage
based on knowledge of the technical use of ‘prepositional metaphysics’ in Greek
philosophy? Why is there so much inconsistency in their use? And in which
way did this knowledge reach early Christian writers? In order to answer these