Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 1998 69
ical scenarios. Although the Christian mission did have some distinctive features,
its matrix was the Jewish notions of proselytism, eschatology and conquest.
Borgen further argues that according to Philo the conversion of Gentiles
to Judaism consisted of three aspects: religious conversion, ethical conversion,
and social conversion. Concerning Christian mission in the New Testament
he finds that it is rooted in Jewish ideas and methods of proselytism,
but these are recast on the basis of the motif of eschatology and conquest.
Hence Philo’s ideas about proselytes offer a strikingly apposite background with
the threefold understanding of conversion, as Borgen finds that also Christian
mission consisted of these three aspects. There are, however, differences: while
Jewish proselytism brought Gentile converts into the Jewish nation, Christian
mission brought these into a cross-national community of Jews and Gentiles.
(TS)
9823. P. Borgman, ‘Abraham and Sarah: Literary Text and the Rhetorics
of Reflection,’ in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (edd.), The Function
of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield 1998) 45–
77.
The author discusses different views of the narrative of Abraham and Sarah,
including Philo’s interpretation. For Philo Abraham’s journey is the journey
of the soul who leaves the material world and strives for purification. Sarah
is a symbol of virtue and Abraham, the virtue-loving mind, can call her his
sister because this name indicates the common love of all who desire excellence
(QG 4.60). According to Borgman, Philo’s ‘drama of the soul’s journey helps to
illumine the story of Abraham’ (p. 50). (ACG)
9824. A. P. Bos, ‘Philo of Alexandria: a Platonist in the Image and
Likeness of Aristotle,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998) 66–86.
The author argues that, although Philo certainly presents his Mosaic philosophy
in terms of Platonism, in actual fact a number of its distinctive doctrines
have an Aristotelian origin. This applies above all to the doctrine of the
divine Powers, which turns on the distinction between God-as-he-is and Godturned-to-the-world.
The closest parallel for this doctrine is found in the Aristotelian
writing De mundo, which may have been Philo’s source. In Opif.7Philo
does not polemicize against Aristotle, but against the erroneous theology of the
Chaldeans. In Opif. 8 the doctrine of two causes is closer to Aristotle than Plato.
The image of the magnet, also derived from the De mundo, isusedbyPhiloin
various contexts in connection with God’s powers, the cosmos and the soul. In
the final part of the article Bos gives an evaluation of Philo’s doctrines of the
Powers and suggests that the final words of Opif. 172 should be read as alluding
to Plato via the final quotation of the De mundo. He concludes (p. 86): ‘. . .
whenever we encounter statements about ‘Philo’s Platonism’, we will do well to
remember the words of the blind seer Isaac: ‘the voice is the voice of Plato, but
the philosophy is the philosophy of Aristotle’.’ (DTR)