Philo as an apologete

Torrey has asked me to say some words on the symposium on Philo held at the University of Aarhus in Denmark www.aarhusuniversitet.dk on Philo as apologete/apologist (December 5, 2003). The faculty of theology is running a larger project on ancient apologetics called "Jews, Christians as Pagens in Antiquity; Criticism and Apologetics", and the Philo-seminar was one of several in this larger project (cf. homepage). The language of the conference was "Nordic" (Norwegian, Danish or Swedish) and the papers will also be published in these languages (but hopefully with an English summary). Its coordinator is dr. Anders-Christian Lund Jacobsen (cf. www.teo.au.dk).

The scheduled program was:
1. Henrik Tronier: Filon – ikke apologet (Philo - not an apologist)
2. Anders Klostergaard Petersen: Filon som apologet. De migratione Abrahami (Philo as an apologist. Migr.)
3.Henrik Pontoppidan Thyssen: Filons bedømmelse af græske filosoffer (Philo's evaluation of Greek philosophers)
4. Per Bilde: Filon som politisk apologet (Philo as a political apologist)
5. Kåre Fuglseth: Filons forhold til templet i Jerusalem i et apologetisk perspektiv (Philo's relationship to the temple in an apologetic perspective)

Tronier and Bilde could not attend the conference, but their attributions may be published. In stead, Anders Klostergaard Petersen presented chapter 8 in Borgen' s book "Philo of Alexandria. An exegete for his time", as an introduction to a general discussion on the overall subject for the conference.

My own contribution dealt with some of the temple sayings in Philo, and one of my main attempts was to see if and how Peder Borgen's hermeneutical key to Philo (the both-and solution in relation to the Jewish traditions) functioned in relation to the temple relationship, cf. Borgen, ibid., p. 156f.

If there were a point at which we may guess that this key would not function, it would certainly be his temple relationship, since he severely rejects the temple institution in several passages. My own conclusion is that particularly due to the observations of highest sociological value, i.e. the temple tax payment, that Philo accepts, he cannot be looked upon as one rejecting the temple, although his theological argument may some time point in that direction.

Torrey also asks about my dissertation on the Gospel of John, a report to which I shall return to later.