PHILO-JUDÆUS

OF ALEXANDRIA, BY

NORMAN BENTWICHSometime Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

PHILADELPHIATHE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA1910

COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

TO MY MOTHER [Greek: threptêria]

PREFACE

It is a melancholy reflection upon the history of the Jews that theyhave failed to pay due honor to their two greatest philosophers. Spinoza was rejected by his contemporaries from the congregation ofIsrael; Philo-Judæus was neglected by the generations that followedhim. Maimonides, our third philosopher, was in danger of meeting thesame fate, and his philosophical work was for long viewed withsuspicion by a large part of the community. Philosophers, by the veryexcellence of their thought, have in all races towered above thecomprehension of the people, and aroused the suspicion of thereligious teachers. Elsewhere, however, though rejected by the Church, they have left their influence upon the nation, and taken a commandingplace in its history, because they have founded secular schools ofthought, which perpetuated their work. In Judaism, where religion andnationality are inextricably combined, that could not be. The historyof Judaism since the extinction of political independence is thehistory of a national religious culture; what was national in itsthought alone found favor; and unless a philosopher's work bore thisnational religious stamp it dropped out of Jewish history. 

Philo certainly had an intensely strong Jewish feeling, but his workhad also another aspect, which was seized upon and made use of bythose who wished to denationalize Judaism and convert it into aphilosophical monotheism. The favor which the Church Fathers showed tohis writings induced and was balanced by the neglect of the rabbis. 

It was left till recently to non-Jews to study the works of Philo, topresent his philosophy, and estimate its value. So far from taking aJewish standpoint in their work, they emphasized the parts of histeaching that are least Jewish; for they were writing as Christiantheologians or as historians of Greek philosophy. They searched himprimarily for traces of Christian, neo-Platonic, or Stoic doctrines, and commiserated with him, or criticised him as a weak-kneed eclectic, a half-blind groper for the true light. 

Even during the last hundred years, which have marked a revival of thehistorical consciousness of the Jews, as of all peoples, it has stillbeen left in the main to non-Jewish scholars to write of Philo inrelation to his time and his environment. The purpose of this littlebook is frankly to give a presentation of Philo from the Jewishstandpoint. I hold that Philo is essentially and splendidly a Jew, andthat his thought is through and through Jewish. The surname given himin the second century, "Judæus, " not only distinguishes him from anobscure Christian bishop, but it expresses the predominantcharacteristic of his teaching. It may be objected that I have pointedthe moral and adorned the tale in accordance with preconceivedopinions, which--as Mr. Claude Montefiore says in his essay onPhilo--it is easy to do with so strange and curious a writer. Iconfess that my worthy appeals to me most strongly as an exponent ofJudaism, and it may be that in this regard I have not always looked onhim as the calm, dispassionate student should; for I experiencetowards him that warmth of feeling which his name, [Greek: philon], "the beloved one, " suggests. But I have tried so to write thisbiography as neither to show partiality on the one side norimpartiality on the other. If nevertheless I have exaggerated theJewishness of my worthy's thought, my excuse must be that mypredecessors have so often exaggerated other aspects of his teachingthat it was necessary to call a new picture into being, in order toredress the balance of the old. 

Although I have to some extent taken a line of my own in this Life, myobligations to previous writers upon Philo are very great. I have usedfreely the works of Drummond, Schürer, Massebieau, Zeller, Conybeare, Cohn, and Wendland; and among those who have treated of Philo inrelation to Jewish tradition I have read and borrowed from Siegfried(_Philon als Ausleger der heiligen Schrift_), Freudenthal(_Hellenistische Studien_), Ritter (_Philo und die Halacha_), and Mr. Claude Montefiore's _Florilegium Philonis_, which is printed in theseventh volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review. Once for all Mr. Montefiore has selected many of the most beautiful and most vitalpassages of Philo, and much as I should have liked to unearth newgems, as beautiful and as illuminating, I have often found myselfirresistibly attracted to Mr. Montefiore's passages. Dr. Neumark'sbook, _Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters_, appeared after my manuscript was set up, or I should have dealt withhis treatment of Philo. With what he says of the relation of Plato toJudaism I am in great part in agreement, and I had independently cometo the conclusion that Plato was the main Greek influence on Philo'sthought. 

To these various books I owe much, but not so much as to the teaching, influence, and help of one whose name I have not the boldness toassociate with this little volume, but whose notes on my manuscripthave given it whatever value it may possess. The index I owe to thekindly help of a sister, who would also be nameless. Lastly I have tothank Dr. Lionel Barnett, professor of Sanscrit at University College, London, and my father, who read my manuscript before it was sent tothe printers. The one gave me the benefit of his wide and accuratescholarship, the other gave me much valuable advice and removed many ablazing indiscretion. 

NORMAN BENTWICH. 

_February 28, 1907. _

CONTENTS

 PAGE

 I. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA

 II. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO

 III. PHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD

 IV. PHILO AND THE TORAH

 V. PHILO'S THEOLOGY

 VI. PHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER

 VII. PHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION

 VIII. THE INFLUENCE OF PHILO

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR THE REFERENCES

 INDEX

PHILO-JUDÆUS OF ALEXANDRIA

I

THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA

The three great world-conquerors known to history, Alexander, JuliusCæsar, and Napoleon, recognized the pre-eminent value of the Jew as abond of empire, an intermediary between the heterogeneous nationswhich they brought beneath their sway. Each in turn showed favor tohis religion, and accorded him political privileges. The petty tyrantsof all ages have persecuted Jews on the plea of securing uniformityamong their subjects; but the great conqueror-statesmen who have madehistory, realizing that progress is brought about by unity indifference, have recognized in Jewish individuality a force making forprogress. Whereas the pure Hellenes had put all the other peoples ofthe world in the single category of barbarians, their Macedonianconqueror forced upon them a broader view, and, regarding his empireas a world-state, made Greeks and Orientals live together, andprepared the way for a mingling of races and culture. Alexander theGreat became a notable figure in the Talmud and Midrashim, and many amarvellous legend was told about his passing visit to Jerusalem duringhis march to Egypt. [1] The high priest--whether it was Jaddua, Simon, or Onias the records do not make clear--is said to have gone out tomeet him, and to have compelled the reverence and homage of themonarch by the majesty of his presence and the lustre of his robes. Bethis as it may, it is certain that Alexander settled a considerablenumber of Jews in the Greek colonies which he founded as centres ofcosmopolitan culture in his empire, and especially in the town by themouth of the Nile that received his own name, and was destined tobecome within two centuries the second town in the world; second onlyto Rome in population and power, equal to it in culture. By itsgeographical position, the nature of its foundation, and the sourcesof its population, and by the wonderful organization of its Museum, inwhich the records of all nations were stored and studied, Alexandriawas fitted to become the meeting-place of civilizations. 

There was already a considerable settlement of Jews in Egypt beforeAlexander's transplantation in 332 B. C. E. Throughout Bible times theconnection between Israel and Egypt had been close. Isaiah speaks ofthe day when five cities in the land of Egypt should speak thelanguage of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts (xix. 18); and whenNebuchadnezzar led away the first captivity, many of the people hadfled from Palestine to the old "cradle of the nation. " Jeremiah (xliv)went down with them to prophesy against their idolatrous practices andtheir backslidings; and Jewish and Christian writers in later times, daring boldly against chronology, told how Plato, visiting Egypt, hadheard Jeremiah and learnt from him his lofty monotheism. Doubt wasthrown in the last century upon the continuance of the Diaspora inEgypt between the time of Jeremiah and Alexander, but the recentdiscovery of a Jewish temple at Elephantine and of Aramaic papyri atAssouan dated in the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. E. Has proved thatthese doubts were not well founded, and that there was awell-established community during the interval. 

From the time of the post-exilic prophets Judaism developed in threemain streams, one flowing from Jerusalem, another from Babylon, thethird from Egypt. Alexandria soon took precedence of existingsettlements of Jews, and became a great centre of Jewish life. Thefirst Ptolemy, to whom at the dismemberment of Alexander's empireEgypt had fallen, [2] continued to the Jewish settlers the privilegesof full citizenship which Alexander had granted them. He increasedalso the number of Jewish inhabitants, for following his conquest ofPalestine (or Coele-Syria, as it was then called), he brought back tohis capital a large number of Jewish families and settled thirtythousand Jewish soldiers in garrisons. For the next hundred years thePalestinian and Egyptian Jews were under the same rule, and for themost part the Ptolemies treated them well. They were easy-going andtolerant, and while they encouraged the higher forms of Greek culture, art, letters, and philosophy, both at their own court and throughtheir dominions, they made no attempt to impose on their subjects theGreek religion and ceremonial. Under their tolerant sway the Jewishcommunity thrived, and became distinguished in the handicrafts as wellas in commerce. Two of the five sections into which Alexandria wasdivided were almost exclusively occupied by them; these lay in thenorth-east along the shore and near the royal palace--a favorablesituation for the large commercial enterprises in which they wereengaged. The Jews had full permission to carry on their religiousobservances, and besides many smaller places of worship, each markedby its surrounding plantation of trees, they built a great synagogue, of which it is said in the Talmud, "He who has not seen it has notseen the glory of Israel. "[3] It was in the form of a basilica, with adouble row of columns, and so vast that an official standing upon aplatform had to wave his head-cloth or veil to inform the people atthe back of the edifice when to say "Amen" in response to the Reader. The congregation was seated according to trade-guilds, as was alsocustomary during the Middle Ages; the goldsmiths, silversmiths, coppersmiths, and weavers had their own places, for the AlexandrianJews seem to have partially adopted the Egyptian caste-system. TheJews enjoyed a large amount of self-government, having their owngovernor, the ethnarch, and in Roman times their own council(Sanhedrin), which administered their own code of laws. Of theethnarch Strabo says that he was like an independent ruler, and it washis function to secure the proper fulfilment of duties by thecommunity and compliance with their peculiar laws. [4] Thus the peopleformed a sort of state within a state, preserving their national lifein the foreign environment. They possessed as much politicalindependence as the Palestinian community when under Roman rule; andenjoyed all the advantages without any of the narrowing influences, physical or intellectual, of a ghetto. They were able to remain anindependent body, and foster a Jewish spirit, a Jewish view of life, aJewish culture, while at the same time they assimilated the differentculture of the Greeks around them, and took their part in the generalsocial and political life. 

At the end of the third and the beginning of the second centuryPalestine was a shuttlecock tossed between the Ptolemies and theSeleucids; but in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (_c. _ 150 B. C. E. )it finally passed out of the power of the Ptolemaic house, and fromthis time the Palestinian Jews had a different political history fromthe Egyptian. The compulsory Hellenization by Antiochus aroused thebest elements of the Jewish nation, which had seemed likely to lose bya gradual assimilation its adherence to pure monotheism and the Mosaiclaw. The struggle of foe as against the Hellenizing party of his ownpeople, which, led by the high priests Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus, tried to crush both the national and the religious spirit. TheMaccabæan rule brought not only a renaissance of national life andnational culture, but also a revival of the national religion. Before, however, the deliverance of the Jews had been accomplished by thenoble band of brothers, many of the faithful Palestinian families hadfled for protection from the tyranny of Antiochus to the refuge of hisenemy Ptolemy Philometor. Among the fugitives were Onias andDositheus, who, according to Josephus, [5] became the trusted leadersof the armies of the Egyptian monarch. Onias, moreover, was therightful successor to the high-priesthood, and despairing of obtaininghis dignity in Jerusalem, where the office had been given to theworthless Hellenist Alcimus, he conceived the idea of setting up alocal centre of the Jewish religion in the country of his exile. Hepersuaded Ptolemy to grant him a piece of territory upon which hemight build a temple for Jewish worship, assuring him that his actionwould have the effect of securing forever the loyalty of his Jewishsubjects. Ptolemy "gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongsdistant from Memphis, in the nomos of Heliopolis, where he built afortress and a temple, not like that at Jerusalem, but such asresembled a tower. "[6] Professor Flinders Petrie has recentlydiscovered remains at Tell-el-Yehoudiyeh, the "mound of the Jews, "near the ancient Leontopolis, which tally with the description ofJosephus, and may be presumed to be the ruins of the temple. 

It is difficult to arrive at an accurate idea of the nature andimportance of the Onias temple, because our chief authority, Josephus, [7] gives two inconsistent accounts of it, and the Talmudreferences[8] are equally involved. But certain negative facts areclear. First, the temple did not become, even if it were designed tobe, a rival to the temple of Jerusalem: it did not diminish in any waythe tribute which the Egyptian Jews paid to the sacred centre of thereligion. They did not cease to send their tithes for the benefit ofthe poor in Judæa, or their representatives to the great festivals, and they dispatched messengers each year with contributions of goldand silver, who, says Philo, [9] "travelled over almost impassableroads, which they looked upon as easy, in that they led them topiety. " The Alexandrian-Jewish writers, without exception, are silentabout the work of Onias; Philo does not give a single hint of it, andon the other hand speaks[10] several times of the great nationalcentre at Jerusalem as "the most beautiful and renowned temple whichis honored by the whole East and West. " The Egyptian Jews, accordingto Josephus, claimed that the prophecy of Isaiah had beenaccomplished, "that there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midstof the land of Egypt" (Is. Xix. 19). But the altar, it has recentlybeen suggested, [11] was rather a "Bamah" (a high place) than a temple. It served as a temporary sanctuary while the Jerusalem temple wasdefiled, and afterwards it was a place where the priestly ritual wascarried out day by day, and offerings were brought by those who couldnot make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Though the synagogue was themain seat of religious life in the Diaspora, there was still a desirefor the sacrificial worship, and for a long time the rabbis lookedwith favor upon the establishment of Onias. But when the tendency tofound a new ritual there showed itself, they denied its holiness. [12]The religious importance of the temple, however, was never great, andits chief interest is that it shows the survival of the affection forthe priestly service among the Hellenized community, and helpstherefore to disprove the myth that the Alexandrians allegorized awaythe Levitical laws. 

During the checkered history of Egypt in the first century B. C. E. , when it was in turn the plaything of the corrupt Roman Senate, whosupported the claims of a series of feeble puppet-Ptolemies, the prizeof the warriors, who successively aspired to be masters of the world, Julius Cæsar, Mark Antony, and Octavian, and finally a province of theRoman Empire, the political and material prosperity of the AlexandrianJews remained for the most part undisturbed. Julius Cæsar andAugustus, who everywhere showed special favor to their Jewishsubjects, confirmed the privileges of full citizenship and limitedself-government which the early Ptolemies had bestowed. [13] Josephusrecords a letter of Augustus to the Jewish community at Cyrene, inwhich he ordains: "Since the nation of the Jews hath been foundgrateful to the Roman people, it seemed good to me and my counsellorsthat the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs, and thattheir sacred money be not touched, but sent to Jerusalem, and thatthey be not obliged to go before the judge on the Sabbath day nor onthe day of preparation for it after the ninth hour, " _i. E. _, after theearly evening. [14] This decree is typical of the emperor's attitude tohis Jewish subjects; and Egypt became more and more a favored home ofthe race, so that the Jewish population in the land, from the Libyandesert to the border of Ethiopia, was estimated in Philo's time at notless than one million. [15]

The prosperity and privileges of the Jews, combined with theirpeculiar customs and their religious separateness, did not fail atAlexandria, as they have not failed in any country of the Diaspora, toarouse the mixed envy and dislike of the rude populace, and give ahandle to the agitations of self-seeking demagogues. The third book ofthe Maccabees tells of a Ptolemaic persecution during which Jewishvictims were turned into the arena at Alexandria, to be trodden downby elephants made fierce with the blood of grapes, and of theirdeliverance by Divine Providence. Some fiction is certainly mixed withthis recital, but it may well be that during the rule of the stupidand cruel usurper Ptolemy Physcon (_c. _ 120 B. C. E. ) the protection ofthe royal house was for political reasons removed for a time from theJews. Josephus[16] relates that the anniversary of the deliverance wascelebrated as a festival in Egypt. The popular feeling against thepeculiar people was of an abiding character, for it had abidingcauses, envy and dislike of a separate manner of life; and theprofessional anti-Semite, [17] who had his forerunners before the reignof the first Ptolemy, was able from time to time to fan popularfeelings into flame. In those days, when history and fiction were notclearly distinguished, he was apt to hide his attacks under the guiseof history, and stir up odium by scurrilous and offensive accounts ofthe ancient Hebrews. Hence anti-Jewish literature originated atAlexandria. 

Manetho, an historian of the second century B. C. E. , in his chroniclesof Egypt, introduced an anti-Jewish pamphlet with an original accountof the Exodus, which became the model for a school of scribes morevirulent and less distinguished than himself. The Battle of Historieswas taken up with spirit by the Jews, and it was round the history ofthe Israelites in Egypt that the conflict chiefly raged. In reply tothe offensive picture of a Manetho and the diatribes of some"starveling Greekling, " there appeared the eulogistic picture of anAristeas, the improved Exodus of an Artapanus. Joseph and Mosesfigured as the most brilliant of Egyptian statesmen, and the Ptolemiesas admirers of the Scriptures. The morality of this apologeticliterature, and more particularly of the literary forgeries whichformed part of it, has been impugned by certain German theologians. But apart from the necessities of the case, it is not fair to apply toan age in which Cicero declared that artistic lying was legitimate inhistory, the standard of modern German accuracy. The fabrications ofJewish apologists were in the spirit of the time. 

The outward history of the Alexandrian community is far lessinteresting and of far less importance than its intellectual progress. When Alexander planted the colony of Jews in his greatest foundation, he probably intended to facilitate the fusion of Eastern and Westernthought through their mediation. Such, at any rate, was the result ofhis work. His marvellous exploits had put an end for a time to thepolitical strife between Asia and Europe, and had started the movementbetween the two realms of culture, which was fated to produce thegreatest combination of ideas that the world has known. Now, at last, the Hebrew, with his lofty conception of God, came into close contactwith the Greek, who had developed an equally noble conception of man. Disraeli, in his usual sweeping manner, makes one of his characters in"Lothair" tell how the Aryan and Semitic races, after centuries ofwandering upon opposite courses, met again and, represented by theirtwo choicest families, the Hellenes and the Hebrews, brought togetherthe treasures of their accumulated wisdom and secured the civilizationof man. Apart from the question of the original common source, ofwhich we are no longer sure, his rhetoric is broadly true; but for twocenturies the influence was nearly all upon one side. The Jew, attracted by the brilliant art, literature, science, and philosophy ofthe Hellene, speedily Hellenized, and as early as the third centuryB. C. E. Clearchus, the pupil of Aristotle, tells of a Jew whom hismaster met, who was "Greek not only in language but also in mind. "[18]The Greek, on the other hand, who had not yet comprehended the majestyof his neighbor's monotheism, for lack of adequate presentation, didnot Hebraize. In Palestine the adoption of Greek ways and theintroduction of Greek ideas proceeded rapidly to the point ofdemoralization, until the Maccabees stayed it. Unfortunately, theHellenism that was brought to Palestine was not the lofty culture, theeager search for truth and knowledge, that marked Athens in theclassical age; it was a bastard product of Greek elegance and Orientalluxury and sensuousness, a seeking after base pleasures, an assertionof naturalistic polytheism. And hence came the strong reaction againstGreek ideas among the bulk of the people, which prevented anypermanent fusion of cultures in the land of Israel. 

The Hellenism of Alexandria was a more genuine product. The liberalpolicy of the early Ptolemies made their capital a centre of art, literature, science, and philosophy. To their court were gathered thechief poets, savants, and thinkers of their age. The Museum was themost celebrated literary academy, and the Library the most notedcollection of books in the world. Dwelling in this atmosphere ofculture and research, the Hebrew mind rapidly expanded and began totake its part as an active force in civilization. It acquired the loveof knowledge in a wider sense than it had recognized before, andassimilated the teachings of Hellas in all their variety. Within ahundred years of their settlement Hebrew or Aramaic had become to theJews a strange language, and they spoke and thought in Greek. Hence itwas necessary to have an authoritative Greek translation of the HolyScriptures, and the first great step in the Jewish-Hellenisticdevelopment is marked by the Septuagint version of the Bible. 

Fancy and legend attached themselves early to an event fraught withsuch importance for the history of the race and mankind as thetranslation of the Scriptures into the language of the cultured world. From this overgrowth it is difficult to construct a true narrative;still, the research of latter-day scholars has gone far to prove abasis of truth in the statements made in the famous letter of thepseudo-Aristeas, which professes to describe the origin of the work. We may extract from his story that the Septuagint was written in thereign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B. C. E. , with the approval, ifnot at the express request, of the king, and with the help of rabbisbrought from Palestine to give authority to the work. But we need notbelieve with later legend that each of the seventy translators waslocked up in a separate cell for seventy days till he had finished thewhole work, and that when they were let out they were all found tohave written exactly the same words. Philo gives us a version of theevent, romantic, indeed, but more rational, in his "Life ofMoses. "[19] He tells how Ptolemy, having conceived a great admirationfor the laws of Moses, sent ambassadors to the high priest of Juddea, requesting him to choose out a number of learned men that mighttranslate them into Greek. "These were duly chosen, and came to theking's court, and were allotted the Isle of Pharos as the mosttranquil spot in the city for carrying out their work; by God's gracethey all found the exact Greek words to correspond to the Hebrewwords, so that they were not mere translators, but prophets to whomit had been granted to follow in the divinity of their minds thesublime spirit of Moses. " "On which account, " he adds, "even to thisday there is in every year celebrated a festival in the Island ofPharos, to which not only Jews but many persons of other nations sailacross, reverencing the place in which the light of interpretationfirst shone forth, and thanking God for His ancient gift to man, whichhas eternal youth and freshness. " It is significant that Philo makesno mention in his books of the festival of Hanukah, while the Talmudhas no mention of this feast of Pharos; the Alexandrian Jewscelebrated the day when the Bible was brought within reach of theGreek world, the Palestinians the day when the Greeks were driven outof the temple. At the same time the celebrations in honor of theSeptuagint and of the deliverance from the Ptolemaic persecution[20]are remarkable illustrations of a living Jewish tradition atAlexandria, which attached a religious consecration to the specialhistory of the community. 

It is not correct to say with Philo that the translator rendered eachword of the Hebrew with literal faithfulness, so as to give its properforce. Rather may we accept the words of the Greek translator of BenSira: "Things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force inthem when they are translated into another tongue, and not only these, but the law itself (the Torah) and the prophecies and the rest of thebooks have no small difference when they are spoken in their originallanguage. "[21]

From the making of the translation one can trace the movement thatended in Christianity. By reading their Scriptures in Greek, Jewsbegan to think them in Greek and according to Greek conceptions. Certain commentators have seen in the Septuagint itself the infusionof Greek philosophical ideas. Be this as it may, it is certain thatthe version facilitated the introduction of Greek philosophy into theinterpretation of Scripture, and gave a new meaning to certain Hebraicconceptions, by suggesting comparison with strange notions. Thisaspect of the work led the rabbis of Palestine and Babylon in laterdays, when the spread of Hellenized Judaism was fraught with misery tothe race, to regard it as an awful calamity, and to recount a tale ofa plague of darkness which fell upon Palestine for three days when itwas made;[22] and they observed a fast day in place of the oldAlexandrian feast on the anniversary of its completion. They felt asthe old Italian proverb has it, _Traduttori, traditori!_ ("Translatorsare traitors!"). And the Midrash in the same spirit declares[23] thatthe oral law was not written down, because God knew that otherwise itwould be translated into Greek, and He wished it to be the specialmystery of His people, as the Bible no longer was. 

The Septuagint translation of the Bible was one answer to the lyingaccounts of Israel's early history concocted by anti-Semitic writers. As we have seen, [24] the Alexandrian Jews began early to writehistories and re-edit the Bible stories to the same purpose. And forsome time their writings were mainly apologetic, designed, whatevertheir form, to serve a defensive purpose. But later they took theoffensive against the paganism and immorality of the peoples aboutthem, and the missionary spirit became predominant. AlexanderPolyhistor, who lived in the first century, included in his "Historyof the Jews" fragments of these early Jewish historians andapologists, which the Christian bishop Eusebius has handed down to us. From them we can gather some notion of the strange medley of fact andimagination which was composed to influence the Gentile world. Abrahamis said to have instructed the Egyptians in astrology; Joseph deviseda great system of agriculture; Moses was identified variously with thelegendary Greek seer Musaeus and the god Hermes. A favorite device forrebutting the calumnies of detractors and attracting the outer worldto Jewish ideas, was the attachment to some ancient source ofpanegyrics upon Judaism and monotheism. To the Greek philosopherHeraclitus and the Greek historian Hecatæeus, who wrote a history ofthe world, passages which glorify the Hebrew people and the Hebrew Godwere ascribed. Still more daring was the conversion into archaichexameter verse of the stories of Genesis and Exodus, and of Messianicprophecies in the guise of Sibylline oracles. The Sibyl, whom thesuperstitions of the time revered as an inspired seeress ofprehistoric ages, was made to recite the building of the tower ofBabel, or the virtues of Abraham, and again to prophesy the day whenthe heathen nations should be wiped out, and the God of Israel be theGod of all the world. Although the fabrication of oracles is notentirely defensible, it is unnecessary to see, with Schürer, in thesewritings a low moral standard among the Egyptian Jews. They were notmeant to suggest, to the cultured at any rate, that the Sibyl in onecase or Heraclitus in another had really written the words ascribed tothem. The so-called forgery was a literary device of a like naturewith the dialogues of Plato or the political fantasies of More andSwift. By the striking nature of their utterances the writers hoped tocatch the ear of the Gentile world for the saving doctrine which theytaught. The form is Greek, but the spirit is Hebraic; in the thirdSibylline oracle, particularly, the call to monotheism and thedenunciation of idolatry, with the pictures of the Divine reward forthe righteous, and of the Divine judgment for the ungodly, remind usof the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah; as when the poet says, [25]"Witless mortals, who cling to an image that ye have fashioned to beyour god, why do ye vainly go astray, and march along a path which isnot straight? Why remember ye not the eternal founder of All? One onlyGod there is who ruleth alone. " And again: "The children of Israelshall mark out the path of life to all mortals, for they are theinterpreters of God, exalted by Him, and bearing a great joy to allmankind. "[26] The consciousness of the Jewish mission is the dominantnote. Masters now of Greek culture, the Jews believed that they had aphilosophy of their own, which it was their privilege to teach to theGreeks; their conception of God and the government of the world wastruer than any other; their conception of man's duty more righteous;even their conception of the state more ideal. 

The apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, which was probably writtenat Alexandria during the first century B. C. E. , is marked by the samespirit. There again we meet with the glorification of the one true Godof Israel, and the denunciation of pagan idolatry; and while theauthor writes in Greek and shows the influence of Greek ideas, hemakes the Psalms and the Proverbs his models of literary form. "Loverighteousness, " he begins, "ye that be judges of the earth; think yeof the Lord with a good mind and in singleness of heart seek ye Him. "His appeal for godliness is addressed to the Gentile world in alanguage which they understood, but in a spirit to which most of themwere strangers. The early history of the Israelites in Egypt comeshome to him with especial force, for he sees it "in the light ofeternity, " a striking moral lesson for the godless Egyptian worldaround him in which the house of Jacob dwelt again. With poeticalimagination he tells anew the story of the ten plagues as though hehad lived through them, and seen with his own eyes the punishment ofthe idolatrous land. He ends with a pæan to the God who had saved Hispeople. "For in all things Thou didst magnify them, and Thou didstglorify them, and not lightly regard them, standing by their side inevery time and place. "

At this epoch, and at Alexandria especially, Judaism was noself-centred, exclusive faith afraid of expansion. The mission ofIsrael was a very real thing, and conversion was widespread in Rome, in Egypt, and all along the Mediterranean countries. The Jews, saysthe letter of Aristeas, "eagerly seek intercourse with other nations, and they pay special care to this, and emulate each other therein. "And one of the most reliable pagan writers says of them, "They havepenetrated into every state, and it is hard to find a place where theyhave not become powerful. "[27] Nor was it merely material power whichthey acquired. The days had come which the prophet Amos (viii. 11) hadpredicted, when "God will send a famine in the land, not a famine ofbread, nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words ofthe Lord. " The Greek world had lost faith in the poetical gods of itsmythology and in the metaphysical powers of its philosophical schools, and was searching for a more real object to revere and lean on. Thepeople were thirsting for the living God. And in place of the gods ofnature, whom they had found unsatisfying, or the impersonalworld-force, with which they sought in vain to come into harmony, theJews offered them the God of history, who had preserved their racethrough the ages, and revealed to them the law of Moses. 

The missionary purpose was largely responsible for the rise of aphilosophical school of Bible commentators. The Hellenistic world wasthoroughly sophisticated, and Alexandria was distinguished above alltowns as the home of philosophical lectures and book-making. One ofPhilo's contemporaries is said to have written over one thousandtreatises, and in one of his rare touches of satire Philo relates[28]how bands of sophists talked to eager crowds of men and women day andnight about virtue being the only good, and the blessedness of lifeaccording to nature, all without producing the slightest effect, savenoise. The Jews also studied philosophy, and began to talk in thecatchwords of philosophy, and then to re-interpret their Scripturesaccording to the ideas of philosophy. The Septuagint translation ofthe Pentateuch was to the cultured Gentile an account in rather baldand impure Greek of the history of a family which grew into a pettynation, and of their tribal and national laws. The prophets, it istrue, set forth teachings which were more obviously of general moralimport; but the books of the prophets were not God's specialrevelation to the Jews, but rather individual utterances andexhortations: and their teaching was treated as subordinate to theDivine revelation in the Five Books of Moses. Those, then, who aimedat the spread of Jewish monotheism were impelled to draw out aphilosophical meaning, a universal value from the Books of Moses. Nowadays the Bible is the holy book of so much of the civilized worldthat it is somewhat difficult for us to form a proper conception ofwhat it was to the civilized world before the Christian era. We haveto imagine a state of culture in which it was only the Book of booksto one small nation, while to others it was at best a curious recordof ancient times, just as the Code of Hammurabi or the Egyptian Bookof Life is to us. The Alexandrian Jews were the first to popularizeits teachings, to bring Jewish religion into line with the thought ofthe Greek world. It was to this end that they founded a particularform of Midrash--the allegorical interpretation, which is largely adistinctive product of the Alexandrian age. The Palestinian rabbis ofthe time were on the one hand developing by dialectic discussion theoral tradition into a vast system of religious ritual and legaljurisprudence; on the other, weaving around the law, by way ofadornment to it, a variegated fabric of philosophy, fable, allegory, and legend. Simultaneously the Alexandrian preachers--they were neverquite the same as the rabbis--were emphasizing for the outer world aswell as their own people the spiritual side of the religion, elaborating a theology that should satisfy the reason, and seeking toestablish the harmony of Greek philosophy with Jewish monotheism andthe Mosaic legislation. Allegorical interpretation is "based upon thesupposition or fiction that the author who is interpreted intendedsomething 'other' [Greek: allo] than what is expressed"; it is themethod used to read thought into a text which its words do notliterally bear, by attaching to each phrase some deeper, usually somephilosophical meaning. It enables the interpreter to bring writings ofantiquity into touch with the culture of his or any age; "the gates ofallegory are never closed, and they open upon a path which stretcheswithout a break through the centuries. " In the region of jurisprudencethere is an institution with a similar purpose, which is known as"legal fiction, " whereby old laws by subtle interpretation are made toserve new conditions and new needs. Allegorical interpretation must becarefully distinguished from the writing of allegory, of whichBunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" is the best-known type. One is theconverse of the other; for in allegories moral ideas are representedas persons and moral lessons enforced by what purports to be a storyof life. In allegorical interpretation persons are transformed intoideas and their history into a system of philosophy. The Greekphilosophers had applied this method to Homer since the fourth centuryB. C. E. , in order to read into the epic poet, whose work they regardedalmost as a Divine revelation, their reflective theories of theuniverse. And doubtless the Jewish philosophers were influenced bytheir example. 

Their allegorical treatment of the Bible was intended, not merely toadapt it to the Greek world, but to strengthen its hold on theAlexandrian Jews themselves. These, as they acquired Hellenic culture, found that the Bible in its literal sense did not altogether satisfytheir conceptions. They detected in it a certain primitiveness, andhaving eaten further of the tree of knowledge, they were aware of itsphilosophical nakedness. It was full of anthropomorphism, and itseemed wanting in that which the Greek world admired above allthings--a systematic theology and systematic ethics. The idea that thewords of the Bible contained some hidden meanings goes back to theearliest Jewish tradition and is one of the bases of the oral law; butthe special characteristic of the Alexandrian exegesis is that itsearched out theories of God and life like those which the Greekphilosophers had developed. The device was necessary to secure theallegiance of the people to the Torah. And from the need of expoundingthe Bible in this way to the Jewish public at Alexandria, there arosea new form of religious literature, the sermon, and a new form ofcommentary, the homiletical. The words "homiletical" and "homily"suggest what they originally connoted; they are derived from the Greekword [Greek: homilia], "an assembly, " and a homily was a discoursedelivered to an assembly. The Meturgeman of Palestine and Babylon, whoexpounded the Hebrew text in Aramaic, became the preacher ofAlexandria, who gave, in Greek, of course, homiletical expositions ofthe law. In the great synagogue each Sabbath some leader in thecommunity would give a harangue to the assembly, starting from aBiblical text and deducing from it or weaving into it the ideas ofHellenic wisdom, touched by Jewish influence; for the synagogues atAlexandria as elsewhere were the schools (_Schule_) as much as thehouses of prayer; schools, as Philo says, of "temperance, bravery, prudence, justice, piety, holiness, and in short of all virtues bywhich things human and Divine are well ordered. "[29] He speaksrepeatedly of the Sabbath gatherings, when the Jews would become, ashe puts it, a community of philosophers, [30] as they listened to theexegesis of the preacher, who by allegorical and homiletical fancieswould make a verse or chapter of the Torah live again with a newmeaning to his audience. The Alexandrian Jews, though the form oftheir writing was influenced by the Greeks, probably brought with themfrom Palestine primitive traces of allegorism. Allegory and itscounterpart, allegorical interpretation, are deeply imbedded in theOriental mind, and we hear of ancient schools of symbolists in theoldest portions of the Talmud. [31] At what period the Alexandriansbegan to use allegorical interpretation for the purpose of harmonizingGreek ideas with the Bible we do not know, but the first writer inthis style of whom we have record (though scholars consider that hisfragments are of doubtful authenticity) is Aristobulus. He is said tohave been the tutor of Ptolemy Philometor, and he must have written atthe beginning of the first century B. C. E. He dedicated to the king his"Exegesis of the Mosaic Law, " which was an attempt to reveal theteachings of the Peripatetic system, _i. E. _, the philosophy ofAristotle, within the text of the Pentateuch. All anthropomorphicexpressions are explained away allegorically, and God's activity inthe material universe is ascribed to his [Greek: Dunamis] or power, which pervades all creation. Whether the power is independent andtreated as a separate person is not clear from the fragments thatEusebius[32] has preserved for us. Aristobulus was only one link in acontinuous chain, though his is the only name among Philo'spredecessors that has come down to us. Philo speaks, fifteen times inall, of explanations of allegorists who read into the Bible this orthat system of thought[33] regarding the words of the law as "manifestsymbols of things invisible and hints of things inexpressible. " And iftheir work were before us, it is likely that Philo would appear as thecentral figure of an Alexandrian Midrash gathered from many sources, instead of the sole authority for a vast development of the Torah. Wemust not regard him as a single philosophical genius who suddenlysprings up, but as the culmination of a long development, the suprememaster of an old tradition. 

If the allegorical method appears now as artificial and frigid, itmust be remembered that it was one which recommended itself stronglyto the age. The great creative era of the Greek mind had passed awaywith the absorption of the city-state in Alexander's empire. Thenfollowed the age of criticism, during which the works of the greatmasters were interpreted, annotated, and compared. Next, as creativethought became rarer, and confidence in human reason began to beshaken, men fell back more and more for their ideas and opinions uponsome authority of the distant past, whom they regarded as an inspiredteacher. The sayings of Homer and Pythagoras were considered asdivinely revealed truths; and when treated allegorically, they wereshown to contain the philosophical tenets of the Platonic, theAristotelian, or the Stoic school. Thus, in the first century B. C. E. , the Greek mind, which had earlier been devoted to the free search forknowledge and truth, was approaching the Hebraic standpoint, whichconsidered that the highest truth had once for all been revealed tomankind in inspired writings, and that the duty of later generationswas to interpret this revealed doctrine rather than searchindependently for knowledge. On the other hand, the Jewishinterpreters were trying to reach the Greek standpoint when they setthemselves to show that the writers of the Bible had anticipated thephilosophers of Hellas with systems of theology, psychology, ethics, and cosmology. Allegorism, it may be said, is the instrument by whichGreek and Hebrew thought were brought together. Its development was inits essence a sign of intellectual vigor and religious activity; butin the time of Philo it threatened to have one evil consequence, whichdid in the end undermine the religion of the Alexandrian community. Some who allegorized the Torah were not content with discovering adeeper meaning beneath the law, but went on to disregard the literalsense, _i. E. _, they allegorized away the law, and held in contempt thesymbolic observance to which they had attached a spiritual meaning. Onthe other hand, there was a party which adhered strictly to theliteral sense ([Greek: to hrêton]) and rejected allegorism. [34] Philoprotested against these extremes and was the leader of those who wereliberal in thought and conservative in practice, and who venerated thelaw both for its literal and for its allegorical sense. To effect thetrue harmony between the literal and the allegorical sense of theTorah, between the spiritual and the legal sides of Judaism, betweenGreek philosophy and revealed religion--that was the great work ofPhilo-Judæus. 

Though the religious and intellectual development of the Alexandriancommunity proceeded on different lines from that of the main body ofthe nation in Palestine, yet the connection between the two wasmaintained closely for centuries. The colony, as we have noticed, recognized whole-heartedly the spiritual headship of Jerusalem, and atthe great festivals of the year a deputation went from Alexandria tothe holy sanctuary, bearing offerings from the whole community. InJerusalem, on the other hand, special synagogues, where Greek was thelanguage, [35] were built for Alexandrian visitors. Alexandrianartisans and craftsmen took part in the building of Herod's temple, but were found inferior to native workmen. [36] The notices within thebuilding were written in Greek as well as in Aramaic, and the goldengates to the inner court were, we are told by Josephus, [37] the giftof Philo's brother, the head of the Alexandrian community. Somefragments have come down to us of a poem about Jerusalem in Greekverse by a certain Philo, who lived in the first century B. C. E. , andwas perhaps an ancestor of our worthy. He glorifies the Holy City, extols its fertility, and speaks of its ever-flowing waters beneaththe earth. His greater namesake says that wherever the Jews live theyconsider Jerusalem as their metropolis. The Talmud again tells howJudah Ben Tabbai and Joshua Ben Perahya, during the persecution of thePharisees by Hyreanus, fled to Alexandria, and how later Joshua BenHanania[38] sojourned there and gave answers to twelve questions whichthe Jews propounded to him, three of them dealing with "the Wisdom. "The Talmud has frequent reference to Alexandrian Jews, and that itmakes little direct mention of the Alexandrian exegesis is explainedby the distrust of the whole Hellenistic movement, which the rise ofChristianity and the growth of Gnosticism induced in the rabbis of thesecond and third centuries. They lived at a time when it had beenproved that that movement led away from Judaism, and its main tenetshad been adopted or perverted by an antagonistic creed. It was atragic necessity which compelled the severance between the Eastern andWestern developments of the religion. In Philo's day the breach wasalready threatened, through the anti-legal tendencies of the extremeallegorists. His own aim was to maintain the catholic tradition ofJudaism, while at the same time expounding the Torah according to theconceptions of ancient philosophy. Unfortunately, the balance was notpreserved by those who followed him, and the branch of Judaism thathad blossomed forth so fruitfully fell off from the parent tree. Buttill the middle of the first century of the common era the Alexandrianand the Palestinian developments of Jewish culture were complementary:on the one side there was legal, on the other, philosophicalexpansion. Moreover, the Judæo-Alexandrian school, though, through itsabandonment of the Hebrew tongue, it lies outside the main stream ofJudaism, was an immense force in the religious history of the world, and Philo, its greatest figure, stands out in our annals as theembodiment of the Jewish religious mission, which is to preach to thenations the knowledge of the one God, and the law of righteousness. 

 * * * * *

II

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO

"The hero, " says Carlyle, "can be poet, prophet, king, priest, or whatyou will, according to the kind of world he finds himself borninto. "[39] The Jews have not been a great political people, but theirexcellence has been a peculiar spiritual development: and thereforemost of their heroes have been men of thought rather than action, writers rather than statesmen, men whose influence has been greater onposterity than upon their own generation. Of Philo's life we know oneincident in very full detail, the rest we can only reconstruct fromstray hints in his writings, and a few short notices of thecommentators. From that incident also, which we know to have takenplace in the year 40 C. E. , we can fix the general chronology of hislife and works. He speaks of himself as an old man in relating it, sothat his birth may be safely placed at about 20 B. C. E. The first partof his life therefore was passed during the tranquil era in whichAugustus and Tiberius were reorganizing the Roman Empire after ahalf-century of war; but he was fated to see more troublesome timesfor his people, when the emperor Gaius, for a miserable eight years, harassed the world with his mad escapades. In the riots which ensuedupon the attempt to deprive the Jews of their religious freedom hisbrother the alabarch was imprisoned;[40] and he himself was calledupon to champion the Alexandrian community in its hour of need. Although the ascent of the stupid but honest Claudius dispelledimmediate danger from the Jews and brought them a temporary increaseof favor in Alexandria as well as in Palestine, Philo did not returnentirely to the contemplative life which he loved; and throughout thelatter portion of his life he was the public defender as well as theteacher of his people. He probably died before the reign of Nero, between 50 and 60 C. E. In Jewish history his life covered the reignsof King Herod, his sons, and King Agrippa, when the Jewish kingdomreached its height of outward magnificence; and it extended probablyup to the ill-omened conversion of Judæa into a Roman province underthe rule of a procurator. It is noteworthy also that Philo was partlycontemporary with Hillel, who came from Babylon to Jerusalem in 30B. C. E. , and according to the accepted tradition was president of theSanhedrin till his death in 10 C. E. In this epoch Judaism, by contactwith external forces, was thoroughly self-conscious, and the world wasmost receptive of its teaching; hence it spread itself far and wide, and at the same time reached its greatest spiritual intensity. Hilleland Philo show the splendid expansion of the Hebrew mind. In thehistory of most races national greatness and national genius appeartogether. The two grandest expressions of Jewish genius immediatelypreceded the national downfall. For the genius of Judaism isreligious, and temporal power is not one of the conditions of itsdevelopment. 

Philo belonged to the most distinguished Jewish family ofAlexandria, [41] and according to Jerome and Photius, the ancientauthorities for his life, was of the priestly rank; his brotherAlexander Lysimachus was not only the governor of the Jewishcommunity, but also the alabarch, _i. E. _, ruler of the whole Deltaregion, and enjoyed the confidence of Mark Antony, who appointed himguardian of his second daughter Antonia, the mother of Germanicus andthe Roman emperor Claudius. Born in an atmosphere of power andaffluence, Philo, who might have consorted with princes, devotedhimself from the first with all his soul to a life of contemplation;like a Palestinian rabbi he regarded as man's highest duty the studyof the law and the knowledge of God. [42] This is the way in which heunderstood the philosopher's life[43]: man's true function is to knowGod, and to make God known: he can know God only through Hisrevelation, and he can comprehend that revelation only by continuedstudy. [Hebrew: v-nbi' lbb hkma], God's interpreter must have a wiseheart, [44] as the rabbis explained. Philo then considered that the trueunderstanding of the law required a complete knowledge of general culture, and that secular philosophy was a necessary preparation for the deepermysteries of the Holy Word. "He who is practicing to abide in the cityof perfect virtue, before he can be inscribed as a citizen thereof, must sojourn with the 'encyclic' sciences, so that through them he mayadvance securely to perfect goodness. "[45] The "encyclic, " orencyclopædic sciences, to which he refers, are the various branches ofGreek culture, and Philo finds a symbol of their place in life in thestory of Abraham. Abraham is the eternal type of the seeker after God, and as he first consorted with the foreign woman Hagar and hadoffspring by her, and afterwards in his mature age had offspring bySarah, so in Philo's interpretation the true philosopher must firstapply himself to outside culture and enlarge his mind with thattraining; and when his ideas have thus expanded, he passes on to themore sublime philosophy of the Divine law, and his mind is fruitful inlofty thoughts. [46]

As a prelude to the study of Greek philosophy he built up a harmony ofthe mind by a study of Greek poetry, rhetoric, music, mathematics, andthe natural sciences. His works bear witness to the thoroughness withwhich he imbibed all that was best in Greek literature. His Jewishpredecessors had written in the impure dialect of the Hellenisticcolonies (the [Greek: koinê dialektos]), and had shown littleliterary charm; but Philo's style is more graceful than that of anyGreek prose writer since the golden age of the fourth century. Likehis thought, indeed, it is eclectic and not always clear, but full ofreminiscences of the epic and tragic poets on the one hand, and ofPlato on the other, [47] it gives a happy blending of prose and poetry, which admirably fits the devotional philosophy that forms its subject. And what was said of Plato by a Greek critic applies equally well toPhilo: "He rises at times above the spirit of prose in such a way thathe appears to be instinct, not with human understanding, but with aDivine oracle. " From the study of literature and kindred subjectsPhilo passed on to philosophy, and he made himself master of theteachings of all the chief schools. There was a mingling of all theworld's wisdom at Alexandria in his day; and Philo, like the otherphilosophers of the time, shows acquaintance with the ideas ofEgyptian, Chaldean, Persian, [48] and even Indian thought. The chiefGreek schools in his age were the Stoic, the Platonic, the Skeptic andthe Pythagorean, which had each its professors in the Museum and itspopular preachers in the public lecture-halls. Later we will noticemore closely Philo's relations to the Greek philosophers: suffice ithere to say that he was the most distinguished Platonist of his age. 

Philo's education therefore was largely Greek, and his method ofthought, and the forms in which his ideas were associated andimpressed, were Greek. It must not be thought, however, that thisinvolved any weakening of his Judaism, or detracted from the purity ofhis belief. Far from it. The Torah remained for him the supremestandard to which all outside knowledge had to be subordinated, andfor which it was a preparation. [49] But Philo brought to bear upon theelucidation of the Torah and Jewish law and ceremony not only thereligious conceptions of the Jewish mind, but also the intellectualideas of Greek philosophy, and he interpreted the Bible in the lightof the broadest culture of his day. Beautiful as are the thoughts andfancies of the Talmudic rabbis, their Midrash was a purely nationalmonument, closed by its form as by its language to the general world;Philo applied to the exposition of Judaism the most highly-trainedphilosophic mind of Alexandria, and brought out clearly for theHellenistic people the latent philosophy of the Torah. 

Greek was his native language, but at the same time he was not, as hasbeen suggested, entirely ignorant of Hebrew. The Septuaginttranslation was the version of the Bible which he habitually used, butthere are passages in his works which show that he knew andoccasionally employed the Hebrew Bible. [50] Moreover, his etymologiesare evidence of his knowledge of the Hebrew language; though hesometimes gives a symbolic value to Biblical names according to theirGreek equivalent, he more frequently bases his allegory upon a Hebrewderivation. That all names had a profound meaning, and signified thetrue nature of that which they designated, is among the most firmlyestablished of Philo's ideas. Of his more striking derivations one maycite Israel, [Hebrew: v-shr-'l], the man who beholdeth God; Jerusalem, [Hebrew: yrv-shlom], the sight of peace; Hebrew, [Hebrew: 'bri], one whohas passed over from the life of the passions to virtue; Isaac, [Hebrew:ytshk], the joy or laughter of the soul. These etymologies are moreingenious than convincing, and are not entirely true to Hebrew philology, but neither were those of the early rabbis; and they at least show thatPhilo had acquired a superficial knowledge of the language of Scripture. Nor can it be doubted that he was acquainted with the Palestinian Midrash, both Halakic and Haggadic. At the beginning of the "Life of Moses" hedeclares that he has based it upon "many traditions which I havereceived from the elders of my nation, "[51] and in several places hespeaks of the "ancestral philosophy, " which must mean the Midrashwhich embodied tradition. Eusebius also, the early Christianauthority, bears witness to his knowledge of the traditionalinterpretations of the law. [52]

It is fairly certain, moreover, that Philo sojourned some time inJerusalem. He was there probably during the reign of Agrippa (_c. _ 30C. E. ), who was an intimate friend of his family, and had found arefuge at Alexandria when an exile from Palestine and Rome. In thefirst book on the Mosaic laws[53] Philo speaks with enthusiasm of thegreat temple, to which "vast assemblies of men from a countlessvariety of cities, some by land, some by sea, from East, West, North, and South, come at every festival as if to some common refuge andharbor from the troubles of this harassed and anxious life, seeking tofind there tranquillity and gain a new hope in life by its joyousfestivities. " These gatherings, at which, according to Josephus, [54]over two million people assembled, must, indeed, have been a strikingsymbol of the unity of the Jewish race, which was at once national andinternational; magnificent embassies from Babylon and Persia, fromEgypt and Cyrene, from Rome and Greece, even from distant Spain andGaul, went in procession together through the gate of Xistus up thetemple-mount, which was crowned by the golden sanctuary, shining inthe full Eastern sun like a sea of light above the town. Philodescribes in detail the form of the edifice that moved the admirationof all who beheld it, and for the Jew, moreover, was invested with themost cherished associations. Its outer courts consisted of doubleporticoes of marble columns burnished with gold, then came the innercourts of simple columns, and "within these stood the temple itself, beautiful beyond all possible description, as one may tell even fromwhat is seen in the outer court; for the innermost sanctuary isinvisible to every being except the high priest. " The majesty of theceremonial within equalled the splendor without. The high priest, inthe words of Ben Sira (xlv), "beautified with comely ornament andgirded about with a robe of glory, " seemed a high priest fit for thewhole world. Upon his head the mitre with a crown of gold engravedwith holiness, upon his breast the mystic Urim and Thummim and theephod with its twelve brilliant jewels, upon his tunic goldenpomegranates and silver bells, which for the mystic ear pealed theharmony of the world as he moved. Little wonder that, inspired by thestriking gathering and the solemn ritual, Philo regarded the temple asthe shrine of the universe, [55] and thought the day was near when allnations should go up there together, to do worship to the One God. 

Sparse as are the direct proofs of Philo's connection with PalestinianJudaism, his account of the temple and its service, apart from thegeneral standpoint of his writings, proves to us that he was a loyalson of his nation, and loved Judaism for its national institutions aswell as its great moral sublimity. His aspiration was to bring homethe truths of the religion to the cultured world, and therefore hedevised a new expression for the wisdom of his people, and transformedit into a literary system. Judaism forms the kernel, but Greekphilosophy and literature the shell, of his work; for the audience towhich he appealed, whether Jewish or Gentile, thought in Greek, andwould be moved only by ideas presented in Greek form, and by Greekmodels he himself was inspired. 

Philo's first ideal of life was to attain to the profoundest knowledgeof God so as to be fitted for the mission of interpreting His Word:and he relates in one of his treatises how he spent his youth and hisfirst manhood in philosophy and the contemplation of the universe. [56]"I feasted with the truly blessed mind, which is the object of alldesire (_i. E. _, God), communing continually in joy with the Divinewords and doctrines. I entertained no low or mean thought, nor did Iever crawl about glory or wealth or worldly comfort, but I seemed tobe carried aloft in a kind of spiritual inspiration and to be bornealong in harmony with the whole universe. " The intense religiousspirit which seeks to perceive all things in a supreme unity Philoshares with Spinoza, whose life-ideal was the intuitional knowledge ofthe universe and "the intellectual love of God. " Both men show thepursuit of righteousness raised to philosophical grandeur. 

In his early days the way to virtue and happiness appeared to Philo tolie in the solitary and ascetic life. He was possessed by a noblepessimism, that the world was an evil place, [57] and the worldly lifean evil thing for a man's soul, that man must die to live, andrenounce the pleasures not only of the body but also of society inorder to know God. The idea was a common one of the age, and was theoutcome of the mingling of Greek ethics and psychology and the Jewishlove of righteousness. For the Greek thinkers taught a psychologicaldualism, by which the body and the senses were treated as antagonisticto the higher intellectual soul, which was immortal, and linked manwith the principle of creation. The most remarkable and enduringeffect of Hellenic influence in Palestine was the rise of the sect ofEssenes, [58] Jewish mystics, who eschewed private property and thegeneral social life, and forming themselves into communisticcongregations which were a sort of social Utopia, devoted their livesto the cult of piety and saintliness. It cannot be doubted that theirmanner of life was to some degree an imitation of the Pythagoreanbrotherhoods, which ever since the sixth century had spread a sort ofmonasticism through the Greek world. Nor is it unlikely that Hinduteachings exercised an influence over them, for Buddhism was at thisage, like Judaism, a missionizing religion, and had teachers in theWest. Philo speaks in several places of its doctrines. [59] Whateverits moulding influences, Essenism represented the spirit of the age, and it spread far and wide. At Alexandria, above all places, where thelife of luxury and dissoluteness repelled the serious, ascetic ideastook firm hold of the people, and the Therapeutic life, _i. E. _, thelife of prayer and labor devoted to God, which corresponded to thesystem of the Essenes, had numerous votaries. The first centurywitnessed the extremes of the religious and irreligious sentiments. The world was weary and jaded; it had lost confidence in human reasonand faith in social ideals, and while the materialists abandonedthemselves to hideous orgies and sensual debaucheries, thehigher-minded went to the opposite excess and sought by flight fromthe world and mortification of the flesh to attain to supernaturalstates of ecstasy. A book has come down to us under the name ofPhilo[60] which describes "the contemplative life" of a Jewishbrotherhood that lived apart on the shores of Lake Mareotis by themouth of the Nile. Men and women lived in the settlement, though allintercourse between the sexes was rigidly avoided. During six days ofthe week they met in prayer, morning and evening, and in the intervaldevoted themselves in solitude to the practice of virtue and the studyof the holy allegories, and the composition of hymns and psalms. Onthe Sabbath they sat in common assembly, but with the women separatedfrom the men, and listened to the allegorical homily of an elder; theypaid special honor to the Feast of Pentecost, reverencing the mysticalattributes of the number fifty, and they celebrated a religiousbanquet thereon. During the rest of the year they only partook of thesustenance necessary for life, and thus in their daily conductrealized the way which the rabbis set out as becoming for the study ofthe Torah: "A morsel of bread with salt thou must eat, and water bymeasure thou must drink; thou must sleep upon the ground and live alife of hardship, the while thou toilest in the Torah. "[61]

We do not know whether Philo attached himself to one of thesebrotherhoods of organized solitude, or whether he lived even morestrictly the solitary life out in the wilderness by himself. Certainlyhe was at one period in sympathy with ascetic ideas. It seemed to himthat as God was alone, so man must be alone in order to be likeGod. [62] In his earlier writings he is constantly praising the asceticlife, as a means, indeed, to virtue rather than as a good in itself, and as a helpful discipline to the man of incomplete moral strength, though inferior to the spontaneous goodness which God vouchsafes tothe righteous. Isaac is the type of this highest bliss, while the lifeof Jacob is the type of the progress to virtue through asceticism. [63]The flight from Laban represents the abandonment of family and sociallife for the practical service of God, and as Jacob, the ascetic, became Israel, "the man who beholdeth God, " so Philo determined "toscorn delights and live laborious days" in order to be drawn nearer tothe true Being. But he seems to have been disappointed in his hopes, and to have discovered that the attempt to cut out the natural desiresof man was not the true road to righteousness. "I often, " he says, [64]"left my kindred and friends and fatherland, and went into a solitaryplace, in order that I might have knowledge of things worthy ofcontemplation, but I profited nothing: for my mind was sore tempted bydesire and turned to opposite things. But now, sometimes even when Iam in a multitude of men, my mind is tranquil, and God scatters asideall unworthy desires, teaching me that it is not differences of placewhich affect the welfare of the soul, but God alone, who knows anddirects its activity howsoever he pleases. "

The noble pessimism of Philo's early days was replaced by a nobleoptimism in his maturity, in which he trusted implicitly in God'sgrace, and believed that God vouchsafed to the good man the knowledgeof Himself without its being necessary for him to inflictchastisements upon his body or uproot his inclinations. In this moodmoderation is represented as the way of salvation; the abandonment offamily and social life is selfish, and betrays a lack of the humanitywhich the truly good man must possess. [65] Of Philo's own domesticlife we catch only a fleeting glimpse in his writings. He realized theplace of woman in the home; "her absence is its destruction, " he said;and of his wife it is told in another of the "Fragments" that whenasked one day in an assembly of women why she alone did not wear anygolden ornament, she replied, "The virtue of a husband is a sufficientornament for his wife. "

Though in his maturity Philo renounced the ascetic life, his idealthroughout was a mystical union with the Divine Being. To a certainschool of Judaism, which loves to make everything rational andmoderate, mysticism is alien; it was alien indeed to the Sadduceerealist and the Karaite literalist; it was alien to the systematicAristotelianism of Maimonides, and it is alien alike to Westernorthodox and Reform Judaism. But though often obscured and crushed byformal systems, mysticism is deeply seated in the religious feelings, and the race which has developed the Cabbalah and Hasidism cannot beaccused of lack of it. Every great religion fosters man's aspirationto have direct communion with God in some super-rational way. Particularly should this be the case with a religion which recognizesno intermediary. The Talmudic conceptions of [Hebrew: nb'a], prophecy, [Hebrew: shkyna], the Divine Presence, and [Hebrew: rua hkdsh], theholy spirit, which was vouchsafed to the saint, certainly are mystic, andat Alexandria similar ideas inspired a striking development. Once again wecan trace the fertilizing influence of Greek ideas. Even when the oldnaturalistic cults had flourished in Greece, and political life hadprovided a worthy goal for man, mystical beliefs and ceremonies had apowerful attraction for the Hellene; and, when the belief in the oldgods had been shattered, and with the national greatness the liberallife of the State had passed away, he turned more and more to thoserites which professed to provide healing and rest for the sickeningsoul. Many of the Alexandrian Jews must have been initiated into theseGreek mysteries, for Philo introduces into his exegesis of the law ofMoses an ordinance forbidding the practice. [66] He himself advocates amore spiritual mysticism, and it is a cardinal principle of hisphilosophy to treat the human soul as a god within and its absorptionin the universal Godhead as supreme bliss, the end of all endeavor. Heclaimed to have attained, himself, to this union, and to have receiveddirect inspiration. Giving a Greek coloring to the Hebrew notion ofprophecy, "My soul, " he says, "is wont to be affected with a Divinetrance and to prophesy about things of which it has no knowledge"[67]. .. . "Many a time have I come with the intention of writing, and knowingexactly what I ought to set down, but I have found my mind barren andfruitless, and I have gone away with nothing done, but at times I havecome empty, and suddenly been full, for ideas were invisibly raineddown upon me from above, so that I was seized by a Divine frenzy, andwas lost to everything, place, people, self, speech, and thought. Ihad gotten a stream of interpretation, a gift of light, a clear surveyof things, the clearest that eye can give. "[68]

In his "Guide of the Perplexed, "[69] Maimonides describes the variousdegrees of the [Hebrew: rua hkdsh], or what we call religious "genius, "with which man may be blessed. He distinguishes between the man whopossesses it only for his own exaltation, and the man who feelshimself compelled to impart it to others for their happiness. To thishigher order of genius Philo advanced in his maturity. He consciouslyregarded himself as a follower of Moses, who was the perfectinterpreter of God's thought. So he, though in a lesser degree, was aninspired interpreter, a hierophant (as he expressed it in the languageof the Greek mystics) who expounded the Divine Word to his owngeneration by the gift of the Divine wisdom. When he had fled fromAlexandria, to secure virtue by contemplation, he had as his finalgoal the attainment of the true knowledge of God, and as he advancedin age, he advanced in decision and authority. He was conscious of hisphilosophic grasp of the Torah, and the diffidence with which heallegorized in his early works gave place to a serene confidence thathe had a lesson for his own and for future generations. Hoping for thetime when Judaism should be a world-religion, he spoke his message forJew and Gentile. We can imagine him preaching on Sabbaths to the greatcongregation which filled the synagogue at Alexandria, and on otherdays of the week expounding his philosophical ideas to a smallercircle which he collected around him. 

Essentially, then, he was a philosopher and a teacher, but he wascalled upon to play a part in the world of action. Following thepassage already quoted, wherein Philo speaks of the blessings of thelife of contemplation that he had led in the past, [70] he goes on torelate how that "envy, the most grievous of all evils, attacked me, and threw me into the vast sea of public affairs, in which I am stilltossed about without being able to make my way out. " A Frenchscholar[71] conjectures that this is only a metaphorical way of sayingthat he was forced into some public office, probably, a seat in theAlexandrian Sanhedrin; and he ascribes the language to the bitterdisappointment of one who was devoted to philosophical pursuits andfound himself diverted from them. Philo's language points rather toduties which he was compelled to undertake less congenial than thoseof a member of the Sanhedrin would have been; and probably must referto the polemical activity which he was called upon to exert indefending his people against misrepresentation and persecution. Duringthe reign of Augustus and the early years of Tiberius (30 B. C. E. -20C. E. ) the Roman provinces were firmly ruled, and the governors were asfirmly controlled by the emperor. To Rectus, who was the prefect ofEgypt till 14 C. E. , and who was removed for attempted extortion, Tiberius addressed the rebuke, "I want my sheep to be shorn, notstrangled. " But when Tiberius fell under the influence of Sejanus, andleft to his hated minister the active control of the empire, hardertimes began for the provincials, and especially for the Jews. Sejanuswas an upstart, and like most upstarts a tyrant; and for somereason--it may be jealousy of the power of the Jews at Rome--he hatedthe Jewish race and persecuted it. The great opponent of Sejanus wasAntonia, the ward of Philo's brother, and a loyal friend to hispeople; and this, too, may have incited Sejanus' ill-feeling. Whateverthe reason, the Alexandrian Jews felt the heavy hand, and when Philocame to write the story of his people in his own times, he devoted onebook to the persecution by Sejanus. Unfortunately it has not survived, but veiled hints of the period of stress through which the peoplepassed are not wanting in the commentary on the law. 

There were always anti-Semites spoiling for a fight at Alexandria, andthere was always inflammable material which they could stir up. TheEgyptian populace were by nature, says Philo, "jealous and envious, and were filled moreover with an ancient and inveterate enmity towardsthe Jews, "[72] and of the degenerate Greek population, many wereanxious from motives of private gain as well as from religious enmityto incite an outbreak; since the Jews were wealthy and the booty wouldbe great. Among the cultured, too, there was one philosophical schoolpowerful at Alexandria, which maintained a persistent attitude ofhostility towards the Jews. The chief literary anti-Semites of whom wehave record at this period were Stoics, and it is probably their"envy" to which Philo refers when he complains of being drawn into thesea of politics. In writings and in speeches the Stoic leaders Apionand Chæremon carried on a campaign of misrepresentation, and sought togive their attacks a fine humanitarian justification by drawing fancypictures of the Jewish religion and Jewish laws. The Jews worshippedthe head of an ass, [73] they hated the Gentiles, and would have nocommunication with them, they killed Gentile children at the Passover, and their law allowed them to commit any offences against all buttheir own people, and inculcated a low morality. When it was notmorally bad, it was degraded and superstitious. Whereas the modernanti-Semite usually complains about Jewish success and dangerouscleverness, Apion accused them of having produced no original ideasand no great men, and no citizen as worthy of Alexandria as himself!Against these charges Philo, the most philosophical Jew of the timeand the most distinguished member of the Alexandrian community, wascalled upon to defend his people, and that part of his works whichEusebius calls [Greek: Hypotheticha]; _i. E. _ apologetics, was probablywritten in reply to the Stoic attacks. The hatred of the Stoics was areligious hatred, which is the bitterest of all; the Stoics were thepropagators of a rival religious system, which had originally beenfounded by Hellenized Semites and borrowed much from Semitic sources. They had their missionaries everywhere and aspired to found auniversal philosophical religion. In their proselytizing activity theytried to assimilate to their pantheism the mythological religion ofthe masses, and thus they became the philosophical supporters ofidolatry. Their greatest religious opponents were the Jews, who notonly refused to accept their teachings, but preached to the nations atranscendental monotheism against their impersonal and accommodatingpantheism, and a divinely-revealed law of conduct against their vaguenatural reason. In the Stoic pantheism the first stand of the pagannational deities was made against the God of Israel, and at Alexandriaduring the first century the fight waxed fierce. It was a fight ofideas in which persons only were victims, but at the back of theintermittent persecutions of which we have record we may alwayssurmise the influence of the Stoic anti-Semites. The war of wordstranslated itself from time to time into the breaking of heads. 

Philo, indeed, never mentions Apion by name, but he refers covertly inmany places to his insolence and unscrupulousness. [74] Josephus wrotea famous reply to his attacks, refuting "his vulgar abuse, grossignorance and demagogic claptrap, "[75] and the fact that a PalestinianJew thought this apology necessary, proves the wide dissemination ofthe poison. The disgrace and death of Sejanus seem to have brought arelief from actual persecution to the Alexandrian Jews; but theill-will between the two races in the city smouldered on, and it onlyrequired a weakening of the controlling hand at Rome to set thepassions aflame again. Right through Philo's treatise "On theConfusion of Tongues, " we can trace the tension. As soon as Gaius, surnamed Caligula, came to the imperial chair, the opportunity of theanti-Semites returned. Gaius, after reigning well a few months, fellill, was seized with madness, and proved how much evil can be done ina short space by an imbecile autocrat. Flaccus, the governor of Egypt, who had hitherto ruled fairly, hoping to ingratiate himself bymisrule, allowed himself to be led by worthless minions, who, frommotives of private greed, desired a riot at Alexandria; he was wonover by the anti-Semites and gave the mob a free hand in their attacksupon the "alien Jews. "[76] The arrival of Agrippa, the grandson ofHerod, who was on his way to his kingdom of Palestine, which thecapricious emperor had just conferred upon him, excited the ill-willof the Alexandrian mob. Flaccus looked on while the people attackedthe Jewish quarters, sacked the houses, and assailed everyone thatcame within their reach. The most distinguished Jews were not spared, and thirty members of the Council of Elders were dragged to themarketplace and scourged. Philo's account gives a picture strikinglysimilar to that of a modern pogrom. The brutal indifference of Flaccusdid not indeed avail to ingratiate him with the emperor, and he wasrecalled to Italy, exiled, and afterwards executed. 

The recall of Flaccus did not, however, put an end to the troubles;the mob had got out of hand, the anti-Semitic demagogues were elated, and a fresh opportunity for outrage soon presented itself. The mademperor, having exhausted ordinary human follies, went on to imaginehimself first a god and then the Supreme God, and finally ordered hisimage to be set up in every temple throughout his dominion. The Jewscould not obey the order, and the mob rushed into fresh excesses uponthem, defiled the synagogues with images of the lunatic, and in thegreat synagogue itself set up a bronze statue of him, inscribed withthe name of Jupiter. With bitterness Philo points out that it was easyenough for the vile Egyptians, who worshipped reptiles and beasts, toerect a statue of the emperor in their temples; for the Jews, withtheir lofty idea of God, it was impossible. Against the attack upontheir liberty of conscience they appealed directly to Gaius. Anembassy was sent to lay their case before him, and Philo went to Italyat the head of the embassy. "He who is learned, gentle, and modest, and who is beloved of men, he shall be leader in the city. " So saidone of the rabbis of old, and the maxim is especially appropriate toPhilo, who in name and deed was "beloved of men. " Philo has left us avery full account of his mission, so that this incident of his life isa patch of bright light, which stands out almost glaringly from thegeneral shadow. The account is not merely, nor, indeed, entirelyhistory. Looking always for a sermon or a subject for a philosophicallesson, Philo has tricked out the record of the facts with muchmoralizing observation on the general lot of mankind, and elaboratedthe part of Providence more in the spirit of religious romance than ofscientific history. Yet the main facts are clear. Philo prepared along philosophical "apologia" for the Jews and set out with fivecolleagues for Italy. Nor were the enemies of the Jews remiss; andApion, the Alexandrian anti-Semite, was sent at the head of a hostiledeputation. The emperor, Gaius, was in one of his most flippant moodsand little inclined to listen to philosophical or literarydisquisitions. At first he received the Jewish deputation in afriendly way, and led them to think that he was favorable; but whenthey came to plead their cause, they had a rude awakening. Philo, whowas not likely to appreciate the bitter humor of the situation, tells[77] with gravity that he expected that the emperor would hearthe two contending parties in all proper judicial form, but that infact he behaved like an insolent, overbearing tyrant. The audience--ifit can be so called--took place in the gardens of the palace, and theemperor dragged the unfortunate deputation after him about the place, while he gave orders to his gardeners, builders, and workmen. Wheneverthey tried to put forward their arguments, he would rush ahead, enjoying the fright and dismay of his helpless victims. At times hewould stop to make some ribald and jeering remark, as, "Why don't youeat pork, you fools?" at which the Egyptians following loudlyapplauded. Philo and his comrades, half-dead with agony, could onlypray; and in response to the prayer, says our moralizing chronicler, the emperor's heart was turned to pity, so that he dismissed themwithout giving any hostile answer. According to Josephus, he drovethem away in a passion, and Philo had to cheer his companions byassuring them of the Divine aid. [78]

The affair was a pathetic farce, and the Jewish actors in it had asorry time. The people about the palace, taking their lead from theemperor, treated them as clowns, and hissed and mocked them, and evenbeat them. The scene is somewhat revolting when one conjures up thepicture of the aged Jewish philosopher being roughly handled by theset of ruffians and impudent slaves who surrounded a Roman emperor. Happily Gaius jeered once too often in his mad life. One Chaerea, aRoman of position, nursed an insult of the emperor, and stabbed himshortly after these events; and the world had the respite of atolerably sane emperor before the crowning horror of Nero was letloose upon it. 

The murder of the capricious tyrant released not only the Jews ofAlexandria, but also the Jews of Palestine, from the burden of fearfor their religion. The order had been given to set up a bronze statueof the emperor in the temple; the Roman governor Petronius was averseto obeying the edict, but the emperor insisted. King Agrippa, who hadbeen but lately advanced by him to the kingdom of Judæa, intercededzealously on behalf of his people. Philo gives us an account of thisappeal by the Jewish king, [79] which recalls at every turn the scenesof the book of Esther. We have again the fasting, the banquet, theemperor's request, the appeal of the royal favorite for his people. One higher critic, indeed, has been found to suggest that the Biblicalbook really relates Agrippa's intercession at Rome disguised in thesetting of a Persian story. Agrippa secured for a short time therescission of the fateful decree, but the capricious madman soonreturned to his old frame of mind, and ordered his image to be set upimmediately. Had not his death intervened, there would certainly havebeen rebellion in Palestine. As it was, the great revolt was postponedfor thirty years. For a little the Jews prevailed over theiradversaries; the anti-Semitic influences were put down in Judæa andin Alexandria, and in both places "there was light and joy andgladness for the Jews. " Their political privileges were reaffirmed byimperial decree, and Philo's brother Alexander, who had beenimprisoned, was restored to honor. [80] "It is fitting, " ran therescript of Claudius, "to permit the Jews everywhere under our sway toobserve their ancient customs without hindrance. And I charge them touse my indulgence with moderation, and not to show contempt for thereligious rites of other peoples. "

The note of triumph rings through the political references to be foundin the last parts of Philo's allegorical commentary, and no doubt itwas accentuated in the lost book which he added as an epilogue, orpalinode, to his history of the embassy. God had again preserved hispeople, and discomfited their foes; recently-discovered papyri haverevealed that the arch anti-Semites, Isidorus and Lampon, were triedat Rome and executed. Claudius was well-disposed to the Jewish race, and before the final storm there was a calm. Howbeit, after the deathof Agrippa, in 44 C. E. , Judæa became a Roman province, and under therapacious governorship of Felix Florus and Cestius Gallus, thehostility of the people to the Romans grew more and more bitter. Butin Alexandria there was tranquillity, or at least we know of nodisquieting events during the next decade. 

"Old age, " said Philo, "is an unruffled harbor, "[81] and the sayingrefers possibly to his own experience. For he must have died full ofyears and full of honors. Through his life he was the spiritual andphilosophical guide, and finally he had become the champion of hispeople against their persecutors, giving dignity to their cause andinspiring respect even in their enemies. He was happy in the time ofhis death, for he did not live to see the destruction of the nationalhome of his people and of that temple which he had loved tocontemplate as the future centre of a universal religion. Thedisintegration of his own community at Alexandria followed full soonon the greater disaster; the temple of Onias was dismantled andinterdicted against Jewish worship by Vespasian in the year 73 C. E. , and though, as has been noted, this was not in itself of greatimportance, it is symbolic of the uprooting of national life in theDiaspora as well as in Palestine itself. On the downfall of Jerusalemin 70 C. E. Many of the extreme anti-Roman party, known as the Zealots, fled to Alexandria and stirred up rebellion and dissension. Nothingbut disaster could have attended the outbreak, but it is a sadreflection that the governor who put it down and ruthlesslyexterminated the rebels was none other than Tiberius Alexander, thenephew of Philo, who was in turn procurator of Judæa and Egypt. Byanother irony of history he had in the previous year been largelyinstrumental in securing for Vespasian, who was besieging Jerusalem, the imperial throne of Rome. [82] With him ends our knowledge ofPhilo's family, and it ends significantly with one who has ceased tobe a Jew. The ruin of the Jewish-Alexandrian community was completedby a desperate revolt in the reign of Trajan, 114-117 C. E. , afterwhich they were deprived of their chief political privileges; andfinally, after incessant conflicts with the Christians, they wereexpelled from the city by the all-powerful Bishop Cyril (415 C. E. ). 

Philo himself passed out of Jewish tradition within a short time, tobecome a Christian worthy. The destruction of the nation and thegradual severance of the Christian heresy from the main communitycompelled the abandonment of missionary activity and distrust of thework of its exponents. The dangerous aspect of the Alexandriandevelopment was revealed. Its philosophical allegorizing might attractthe Gentile to the Jewish Scriptures, but it also led the Jew awayfrom his special conduct of life. The Alexandrian Church, whichclaimed to continue the tradition of Philo, departed further andfurther from the Jewish standpoint, and formulated a dogmatic creedthat was utterly opposed to Jewish monotheism. A philosophical Judaismfor the whole world was a splendid ideal, but unfortunately in Philo'stime it was incapable of accomplishment. The result of the attempt tofound it was the establishment of a religion in which, together withthe adoption of Hebraic teachings about God, certain ideas ofAlexandrian mysticism became stereotyped as dogmas, and Jewish law wasabrogated. When Babylon replaced Palestine as the centre of Jewishintellect, the works of Philo, like the rest of the Hellenistic-Jewishliterature, written as they were in a strange tongue, fell intodisuse, and before long were entirely forgotten. The Christians, onthe other hand, found in Philo a notable evidence for many of theirbeliefs and a philosophical testimony for the dogmas of their creed. They claimed him as their own, and the Church Fathers, to bind himmore closely to their tradition, invented fables of his meeting withPeter at Rome and Mark at Alexandria, They traced, in the treatise "Onthe Contemplative Life, " a record of early Christian monasticcommunities, and on account of this book especially regarded Philoalmost with the reverence of an apostle. To the Christian theologiansof Alexandria we owe it that the interpretation of Judaism to theHellenic world in the light of Hellenic philosophy has been preserved. Of the two Jewish philosophers who have made a great contribution tothe world's intellectual development, Spinoza was excommunicated inhis lifetime, and Philo suffered moral excommunication after hisdeath. The writings of both exercised their chief influence outsidethe community; but the emancipated Jewry of our own day can in eithercase recognize the worth of the thinker, and point with pride to thesaintliness of the man. 

 * * * * *

III

PHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD

The first thing that strikes a reader of Philo is the great volume ofhis work: he is the first Jewish writer to produce a large andsystematic body of writings, the first to develop anything in thenature of a complete Jewish philosophy. He had essentially theliterary gift, the capacity of giving lasting expression to his ownthought and the thought of his generation. Treating him merely as aman of letters, he is one of the chief figures in Greek literature ofthe first century. We have extant over forty books of his composition, and nearly as many again have disappeared. His works are one and allexpositions of Judaism, but they fall into six distinct classes ofexegesis:

I. The allegorical commentary, or "Allegories of the Laws, " which is aseries of philosophical treatises based upon continuous texts inGenesis, from the first to the eighteenth chapter. Together with this, the best authorities place the two remaining books on the "Dreams ofthe Bible, " which are a portion of a larger work, and dealallegorically with the dreams of Jacob and Joseph. 

II. The Midrashic commentary on the Five Books of Moses, for which wehave no single name, but which was clearly intended to be an ethicaland philosophical treatise upon the whole law. 

III. A commentary in the form of "Questions and Answers to Genesis andExodus, " which is incomplete now, and save for detached fragmentsexists only in a Latin translation. In its original form it provided ashort running exegesis, verse by verse, to the whole of the firstthree books of the Pentateuch, and was contained in twelve parts. 

IV. A popular and missionizing presentation of the Jewish system inthe form of a "Life of Moses, " and three appended tractates on thevirtues "Courage, " "Humanity, " and "Repentance. " Scholars[83] are ofopinion that there are gaps in the extant "Life of Moses, " but thegeneral plan of the work is clear. It is at once an abstract and aninterpretation of Jewish law for the Greek world, and also an idealbiography of the Jewish lawgiver. 

V. Philosophical monographs, not so intimately connected with theBible as the preceding works; but in the nature of rhetoricalexercises upon the stock subjects of the schools, which receive aJewish coloring by reason of Biblical illustrations. 

VI. Historical and apologetic works that set out the case of thecontemporary Jews against their persecutors and traducers. Of thesewritings the larger part has disappeared, and of a portion of thosewhich remain the genuineness has been doubted. 

Lastly, there is a miscellaneous number of works ascribed to Philo, which all good scholars[84] now admit to be spurious: "On theIncorruptibility of the World, " "On the Universe, " "On Samson, " and"On Jonah, " etc. 

It will be seen from this classification of Philo's works, that he hasdealt in several ways with the Biblical material. The reason of thisis partly that his mind developed, and the interpretation of hismaturer years differed widely from that of his earliest writings. Partly, however, it arises from the fact that the different treatmentswere meant for different audiences, and Philo always took the measureof those whom he was addressing. His most representative works are "atriple cord" with which he binds the Jewish Scripture to Greekculture. For the Greek-speaking populace he set out a broad statementof the Mosaic law; for the cultured community of Alexandria, Jew andGentile, a more elaborate exegesis, in which each character and eachordinance of the Pentateuch received a particular ethical value; and, finally, for the esoteric circle of Hellenic-Jewish philosophers, atheological and psychological study of the allegories of the law. Origen, the first great Christian exegete of the Bible and a closestudent of the Philonic writings, distinguished three forms ofinterpreting: the historical, the moral, and the philosophical; heprobably took the distinction from Philo, who exemplifies it in hiscommentaries upon the Books of Moses. 

Varied as is its scope, the religious idea dominates all his work, andendows it with one spirit. Whether he is writing philosophical, ethical, or mystical commentary, whether history, apology, or essay, his purpose is to assert the true notion of the one God, and theDivine excellence of God's revelation to His chosen people. Thus heregards history as a theodicy, vindicating the ways of God to man, andHis special providence for Israel; philosophy as the inner meaning ofthe Scriptures, revealed by God in mystic communion with His holyprophets, [85] and, if comprehended aright, able to lead us on to atrue conception of His Divine being. The greater part of theHellenistic-Jewish literature has disappeared, but Philo sums up forus the whole of the Alexandrian development of Judaism. He representsit worthily in both its main aspects: the infusion of Greek cultureinto the Jewish pursuit of righteousness, and the recommendation ofJewish monotheism and the Torah to the Greek world. Aristaeus, Aristobulus, and Artapanus are hardly more than names, but theirspirit is inherited and glorified in Philo-Judæus. His work, therefore, is more than the expression of one great mind; it is therecord and expression of a great culture. 

The chronology of Philo's writings is as uncertain as the chronologyof his life. Yet it is possible to trace a deepening of outlook and anincreasing originality, if we work our way up from the sixth to thefirst division of the classification. It does not follow that theworks were written in this order--and it may well be that Philo wasproducing at one and the same time books of several classes--but wemay use this order as an ideal scale by which to mark off the stagesof his philosophical progress. In the first place come the [Greek:Hypotheticha], or apologetic works, which have a practical purpose. With these we may associate the moralizing history that dealt in fivebooks respectively with the persecutions of Sejanus, Flaccus, andCaligula, the ill-starred embassy, and the final triumph of the Jewsover their enemies. The [Greek: Hypotheticha] proper, as we gatherfrom Eusebius, contained a general apology for Judaism, and an accountof the Essenes--which have disappeared--and the suspected book on theTherapeutic sect known by the title "On the Contemplative Life. "Whether they received this generic name because they are suggestionsfor the Jewish cause, or because they are written to answer theinsinuations ([Greek: kath' hypothesin]) of adversaries, is a mootpoint. But their general purport is clear: they were an apologeticpresentation of Jewish life, written to show the falsity ofanti-Semitic calumnies. The Jews are good citizens and their manner oflife is humanitarian. The Essene sect is a living proof of Jewishpractical socialism and practical philosophy, the Therapeutae show theJewish zeal for the contemplative life. 

Next we come to Philo's philosophical monographs, which are not, asone might expect, the work of his mature thought, but rather theexercises of youth. Dissertations or declamations upon hackneyedsubjects were part of the regular course of the university student atAlexandria, and Philo prepared himself for his Jewish philosophy bycomposing in the approved style essays upon "Providence, " "The Libertyof the Good, " and "The Slavery of the Wicked, " etc. What chieflydistinguishes them above other collections of commonplaces is theappeal to the Bible for types of goodness, and here again the Essenesfigure as the type of the philosophical life. [86] The writer, whilestill engaged in the studies of the Greek university, is feeling hisway towards his system of universal Mosaism. 

This he expounds confidently and enthusiastically in his "Life ofMoses. " Philo in this book is not any longer the apt pupil of Greekphilosophers, nor the eloquent defender of the Jewish-Alexandriancommunity against lying detractors. He preaches a mission to the wholeworld, and he lays before it his gospel of monotheism and humanity. Each Greek school has its ideal type, its Socrates, Diogenes, orPythagoras; but Philo places above them all "the most perfect man thatever lived, Moses, the legislator of the Jews, [87] as some hold, butaccording to others the interpreter of the sacred laws, and thegreatest of men in every way. " And above all the ethical systems ofthe day he sets the law of life that God revealed to His greatestprophet: "The laws of the Greek legislators are continually subject tochange; the laws of Moses alone remain steady, unmoved, unshaken, stamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, from the day whenthey were written to the present day, and will so remain for all timeso long as the world endures. Not only the Jews but all other peopleswho care for righteousness adopt them. .. . Let all men follow this codeand the age of universal peace will come about, the kingdom of God onearth will be established. "[88] Nor is the Greek to fear the lot of aproselyte. "God loves the man who turns from idolatry to the truefaith not less than the man who has been a believer all his life;"[89]and in the little essays upon Repentance and Nobility, which areattached to the larger treatise, Philo appeals to his own people towelcome the stranger within the community. "The Life of Moses" is thegreatest attempt to set monotheism before the world made before theChristian gospels. And it is truer to the Jewish spirit, because itbreathes on every page love for the Torah. Philo in very truth wishedto fulfil the law. 

If Judaism was to be the universal religion, it must be shown tocontain the ultimate truth both about real being, _i. E. _ God, andabout ethics; for the philosophical world in that age--and thephilosophical world included all educated people--demanded of religionthat it should be philosophical, and of philosophy that it should bereligious. The desire to expound Judaism in this way is the motive ofPhilo's three Biblical commentaries. The "Questions and Answers toGenesis and Exodus" constitute a preliminary study to the moreelaborate works which followed. In them Philo is collecting hismaterial, formulating his ideas, and determining the main lines of hisallegory. They are a type of Midrash in its elementary stage, theexplanation of the teacher to the pupil who has difficulties about thewords of the law: at once like and unlike the old Tannaitic Midrash;like in that they deal with difficulties in the literal text of theBible; unlike in that the reply of Philo is Agadic more usually thanHalakic, speculative rather than practical. In these books, [90] as hasbeen pointed out, there are numerous interpretations which Philoshares with the Palestinian schools. A few specimens taken from thefirst book will illustrate Philo's plan, but it should be mentionedthat in every case he sets out the simple meaning of the text, the_Peshat_, as well as the inner meaning, or _Derash_. 

"Why does it say: 'And God made every green herb of the field beforeit was upon the earth'? (Gen. Ii. 4. )

"By these words he suggests symbolically the incorporeal Idea. Thephrase, 'before it was upon the earth, ' marks the original perfectionof every plant and herb. The eternal types were first created in thenoetic world, and the physical objects on earth, perceptible by thesenses, were made in their likeness. "

In this way Philo reads into the first chapter of the Bible thePlatonic idealism which we shall see was a fundamental part of hisphilosophy. 

"Why, when Enoch died, does it say, 'And he pleased God'? (Gen. V. 24. )

"He says this to teach that the soul is immortal, inasmuch as after itis released from the body it continues to please. "

"What is the meaning of the expression, 'And Noah opened the roof ofthe ark'? (Gen. Viii. 13. )

"The text appears to need no interpretation; but in its symbolicalmeaning the ark is our body, and that which covers the body and for along time preserves its strength is spoken of as its roof. And this isappetite. Hence when the mind is attracted by a desire for heavenlythings, it springs upwards and makes away with all material desires. It removes that which threw a shade over it so as to reach the eternalIdeas. "

The "Questions and Answers" are essentially Hebraic in form, designedfor Jews who knew and studied their Bible; and we can feel in them theinfluences of a training in traditional Mishnah and Midrash; but Philopassed from them to a more artistic expression and a more thoroughlyHellenized presentation of the philosophy of the Bible. This work isthe largest extant expression of his thought and mission; it embracesthe treatises which we know as "On the Creation of the World, " "TheLives of Abraham and Joseph, " "On the Decalogue, " and finally those"On the Specific Laws, " which are partly thus entitled and partly haveseparate ethical names, as "On Honoring Parents, " "On Rewards andPunishments, " "On Justice, " etc. Large portions of it havedisappeared, notably the "Lives of Isaac and Jacob"; and also the"Life of Moses, " which was introductory to his laws. For the bookwhich we have under that name does not belong to the series, but isseparate. The purpose of the work broadly is to deepen the value ofthe Bible for the Jews by revealing its constant spiritual message, and to assert its value for the whole of humanity by showing in it aphilosophical conception of the universe and its creation, the mostlofty ethical and moral types, the most admirable laws, and, aboveall, the purest ideas of God and His relation to man. All that seemstribal and particularist is explained away, and the spiritual aspectof every chapter--of every word almost--of the Torah is emphasized. Philo expounds the sacred book, not of one particular nation, but ofmankind. The Roman and Greek peoples were waiting for a religiousmessage which should at once harmonize with rational ideas and satisfytheir longing for God. All the philosophical schools were convertingthe scientific systems of the classical age into [Greek: Tropoi Biou], "plans of life, " and Philo challenges them all with a new faith whichhas as its basis a God who not only was the sole Creator and Ruler ofthe world, but who had revealed to man the way of happiness, and thegood life, social as well as individual. To-day, when the world aboutus has accepted--or has professed to accept--the ethical law of theBible, we are apt to regard the essentials of Judaism as the belief inOne God and the observance of ceremonies. But to Philo Judaism wassomething more comprehensive. It was the spiritual life, and theMosaic law is the complete code of the Divine Republic, of which allare or can be citizens. In the introduction to the "Life of Abraham, "Philo explains the scheme of his work:[91]

 "'The Sacred Laws' [as he regularly calls the Bible] were written in five books, of which the first is entitled Genesis. It derives its title from the account of the creation which it contains, though it deals also with endless other subjects, peace and war, hunger and plenty, great cataclysms, and the histories of good and evil men. We have examined with great care the accounts of the creation in our former treatise ['On the Making of the Universe'], and we now go on naturally to inquire into the laws; and postponing the particular laws, which are as it were copies, we will first of all examine the more universal, which are their models. Now men who have lived irreproachable lives are these laws, and their virtues are recorded in the Holy Scriptures not only by way of eulogy, but in order to lead on those who read about them to emulate their life. They are become living standards of right reason, whom the lawgiver has glorified for two reasons: (1) To show that the laws laid down are consistent with nature [the conception of a natural law binding upon all peoples was one of the fixed ideas of the age]. (2) To show that it is not a matter of terrible labor to live according to our positive laws if a man has the will to do so; seeing that the patriarchs spontaneously followed the unwritten principles before any of the particular laws were written. So that a man may properly say that the code of law is only a memorial of the lives of the patriarchs. For the patriarchs, of their own accord and impulse, chose to follow nature, and, regarding her course with truth as the most ancient ordinance, they lived a life according to the law. "

Philo dwells affectionately on the patriarchs, because, as he held, they proved the Jewish life to be truest to man's nature and to thehighest ideal of humanity, and served therefore as examples to theGentile world of the universal truth of the religion. The rabbis alsotook the patriarchs as the perfect type of our life, saying, "Everything that happens to them is a sign to future generations, "[92]and again: "The patriarchs are the true [Hebrew: mrbba], manifestation ofGod. " But while he emphasized the broad moral teachings of Judaismexemplified by the patriarchs, Philo nevertheless upheld in itsintegrity the Mosaic law, and found in every one of the six hundredand thirteen precepts a spiritual meaning. Even the details of thetabernacle offerings have their universal lesson when he expounds themas symbols. Voltaire speaks cynically of Judaism as a religion ofsacrifices: Philo shows that the ritual of sacrifice suggests morallessons. The command of the red heifer, a part of the law which wasparticularly subject to attack, emphasizes the law of moral as well asof physical cleanliness. The prohibition to add honey or leaven to thesacrifice[93] (Lev. Ii. 13) points the lesson that all superfluouspleasure is unrighteous; and so on with each prescription. 

The Mosaic code in his exposition is commensurate with life in all itsaspects. It deals not only with the duties of the individual but alsowith the good government of the state. The life of Joseph is made thetext of a political treatise, and throughout the books "On theSpecific Laws, " the socialism of the Bible is emphasized, [94] and heldup as the ideal order of the future. The Jewish State is enlarged inPhilo's vision from a national theocracy into a world-city inspired bythe two ideas of love of God and love of humanity. In this conception, no doubt, the influence of Greek philosophy is to be seen; the Jewishinterpreter keeps before him the "Republic" of Plato, and the "Polity"of Aristotle. With him, however, the ideal state is not a vision"laid up in heaven";[95] its foundation is already laid upon earth, its capital is Jerusalem, and it is the mission of his people toextend its borders till it embraces all nations[96]--an idea whichpermeates the Jewish litany. 

This commentary of the law is allegorical in the sense that beneaththe particular law the interpreter constantly reveals a spiritualidea, but it is not allegorical in the sense that he makes an exchangeof values. He is not for the most part reading into the textconceptions which are not suggested by it, but really and trulyexpounding; and where he gives a philosophical piece of exegesis, aswhen he explains the visit of the three angels to Abraham as a theoryof the human soul about God's being, [97] he does so with diffidence orwith reference to authorities that have founded a tradition. It isquite otherwise with the last class of Philo's work, the fruit of hismaturest thought, with which it remains to deal. 

Throughout the "Allegories of the Laws" he takes the verse of theBible not so much as a text to be amplified and interpreted, but as apretext for a philosophical disquisition. The allegories indeed areonly in form a commentary on the Bible; in one aspect they are ahistory of the human soul, which, if they had been completed, wouldhave traced the upward progress from Adam to Moses. It is not to beexpected, however, that Philo should adhere closely to any plan in theallegories. Theology, metaphysics, and ethics have as large a part inthe medley of philosophical ideas as the story of the soul. HisHebraic mind, even when fortified by the mastery of philosophy, wasunable to present its ideas systematically; it passed from subject tosubject, weaving the whole together only by the thread of a continuouscommentary upon Genesis. Parts of the work are missing, it is true, which adds to the seeming want of plan; and--greatest loss of all--thefirst part, which gave the philosophical account of the first chapterof Genesis, the first six days of creation, referred to as "TheHexameron" [Greek: to Hexêmeron], has disappeared. [98] Here musthave been the general introduction to the allegories, wherein Philodeclared his purpose and his method of exposition. The first treatisethat we possess starts abruptly with a comment on the first verse ofthe second chapter, "'And the heaven and earth and all their worldwere completed. ' Moses has previously related the creation of the mindand sense, and now he proceeds to describe their perfection. Theirperfection is not the individual mind or sense, but their archetypal'ideas. ' And symbolically he calls the mind heaven, because in heavenare the ideas of the mind, and the sense he calls earth, because it iscorporeal and material. "[99]

So in a rambling, unsystematic way Philo embarks upon a discourse onidealism and psychology, making a fresh start continually from a verseor a phrase of the Bible. The Biblical narrative in the earliestchapters offered a congenial soil for his explorations, but no groundis too stubborn for his seed. The genealogy of Noah's sons is asfertile in suggestion as the story of Adam and Eve, for each namerepresents some hidden power or possesses some ethical import. 

The allegorical commentary is clearly the work of Philo's maturity, wherein he exhibits full mastery of an original method of exegesis. His allegories are no longer tentative, and he writes with theconfidence of the sage, who has received not only the admiration ofhis people, but the inspiration of God. Another sign of their maturityis that asceticism seems no longer the true path to virtue, as it wasto the author of "The Lives of the Patriarchs" and "The SpecificLaws, " but, on the contrary, a moderate use of the world's goods and ashare in political life are marks of the perfect man. Thesecharacteristics bespeak the firmer hand and the profounder experience. Yet the series of works which form together Philo's esoteric doctrinewere certainly put together over a long period of years, as the variedpolitical references indicate. It has indeed been suggested by amodern German scholar[100] that large parts were originally given inthe form of detached lectures and sermons, and that Philo latercomposed them together into a continuous commentary, working them upwith much literary elaboration. In support of this theory, it may beurged that several of the treatises contain political addresses topublic audiences, notably the _De Agricultura_ and _De ConfusioneLinguarum_, while in others there are invocations to prayer, or asummons to read a passage in the Bible, addressed apparently by thepreacher to the Hazan, who had before him the scroll of the law. FromPhilo's own statements we know that the wisest men used to deliverphilosophical homilies upon the Bible on the Sabbath day; and it isnatural that the man who was appointed to head the Jewish embassy toGaius had made himself known in the past to his brethren for oratoryand wisdom of speech. "Sermons, " said Jowett, "though they deal witheternal subjects, are the most evanescent form of literature. " Thedictum is true for the most part, but occasionally the sermon, by itsdepth of thought, the universality of its message, and the beauty ofits expression, has become part of the world's heritage from the ages. Moreover, at Alexandria philosophy was associated with preaching. Andthe sermons of the Jewish-Hellenistic writer, in their style as wellas in their thought, represent an epoch. Philo spoke in the languageof the intellectual world of his day, and strove to associate theintellectual precepts of Hellenism with the Hebraic passion forrighteousness. In his great moments, however, the Hebraic spirittowers supreme. "He was, " said Croiset, the historian of Greekliterature, "the first Greek prose writer who could speak to God andof God to man with the ardent piety and reverence of the Jewishprophets. "[101]

It is a serious misconception to imagine that Philo's philosophicalallegories were meant for the general body of Alexandrian Jews. Hefrequently[102] declares that he is speaking to a specially initiatedsect, and warns his hearers not to divulge his teaching. Thenotion of an esoteric doctrine for the aristocracy of intellect hadbecome a fixed idea in the Greek schools for three centuries, eversince the days of Aristotle; and whether through Greek influence orotherwise it had been generally adopted by the Jewish teachers. Therabbis of the Talmud derived from the first chapters of Genesis theinner mystery of the law, which was cognizable only by the sage; andthe same idea is found in later Jewish tradition, which, expoundingParadise ([Hebrew: prds]) as four stages of interpretation, eachmarked by a letter of the word, Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod([Hebrew: sod]), [103] regarded the last as the final reward of thedevoted seeker after God, as it is said in the Psalms, "The secret ofthe Lord is for those who fear Him. " Jewish religious philosophershave in all ages designed their work for a select few. The Halakah, orway of life, is the fit study of the many. So Maimonides wrote hisMoreh only for those who already were masters of the law. And Philolikewise at Alexandria taught an esoteric doctrine to an esotericcircle, which alone was fitted to receive the profoundesttheology. [104] The allegories of the law do not take the place of thelaw itself, nor of its ethical ordinances. They are additional to theother exegesis and distinct, destined only for the man of learning. And as we shall see, he asserts emphatically in the midst of hisallegories[105] that the perception of the philosophical value doesnot release man from the practice itself. The wise man even as thefool must obey the law. 

Why, it may be asked, does Philo artificially attach his philosophy tothe Scriptures? He does so for two reasons: first, because he holdsand wishes to prove that between faith and philosophy there is noconflict, and his generation worked out the agreement by this method;he does so also because he wishes to establish the Torah and Judaismupon a sure foundation for the man of outside culture. The pursuit ofphilosophy must have menaced the attachment to Judaism and challengedthe authority of the Bible at Alexandria. A superficial knowledge ofthe materialistic or rationalistic theories, which were propagatedrespectively by the Epicurean and Stoic schools, was made the excusefor indifference to the law. Then as now the advanced Jew would maskhis self-indulgence under the guise of a banal philosophy, and jeereasily at archaic myths and tribal laws. The dominating motive ofPhilo's work is to show that the Bible contains for those who willseek it the richest treasures of wisdom, that its ethical teaching ismore ideal and yet more real than that which hundreds of sophistspoured forth daily in the lecture-theatres[106] to the gapingdilettanti of learning, and lastly that the cultured Jew may searchout knowledge and truth to their depths, and find them expressed inhis holy books and in his religious beliefs and practices. Philofrequently introduces into his philosophical interpretation a polemicagainst the disintegrating and demoralizing forces which were at workin the Alexandria of his day. His commentary therefore is a strangemedley, compounded of idealistic speculation, theology, homiletics, moral denunciation, and polemical rhetoric. The idea, which is notuncommon, that Philo represents the extreme Hellenic development ofJudaism, and that he gathered into his writings the opinions of allGreek schools to the ruin of his Jewish individuality, is utterlyerroneous. In fact, he chooses out only the valuable parts of Greekthought, which could enter into a true harmony with the Hebraicspirit; and he not only rejects, but he attacks unsparingly thoseelements which were antagonistic to holiness and righteousness. Withthe enthusiasm of a Maccabee, if with other weapons, he fought againstthe bastard culture, which meant self-indulgence and the excessiveattention to the body, the idol-worship, the degraded ideas of theDivine power, and the disregard of truth and justice, that werecurrent in the pagan society about him. The seeking after sensualpleasure and luxury was the most glaring evil of his city--as theTalmud says, [107] of ten parts of lust nine were given toAlexandria--and with every variety of denunciation he returns againand again to the charge. Epicureanism is detestable not only for itslow idea of human life, but for its godless conception of theuniverse. Its theory that the world was a fortuitous concourse ofatoms, which was governed by blind chance, and that the gods livedapart in complete indifference to men--this was to Philo utteratheism, and as such the greatest of sins. He attacked paganism notonly in its crude form of idolatry, [108] but in its more seductivedisguise of a pretentious philosophy. Always and entirely he was thechampion of monotheism. 

Nearly as godless, and therefore as vile in his eyes as the followerof Epicurus, is the follower of the Stoic doctrines. It has been shownthat the Jews and the Stoics were continually in conflict atAlexandria; and the "Allegories of the Laws" are filled with attacks, overt and hidden, upon the Stoic doctrines. The Stoics, indeed, believed in one supreme Divine Power, not however in a transcendentaland personal God, but a cosmic, impersonal, fatalistic world-force. [109]To Philo this conception, with its denial of the Divine will and theDivine care for the individual, was as atheistic as the Epicurean"chance. " Equally repulsive to his religious standpoint was the Stoicdogma, that man is, or should be, independent of all help, and thatthe human reason is all-powerful and can comprehend the universe byits own unaided power. [110] Repulsive also were their pride, theirrejection of the emotions, their hard rationalism. The battle of Philoagainst the Stoics is the battle of personal monotheism againstimpersonal pantheism, of religious faith and revelation againstarrogant rationalism, and of idealism against materialism. Hostile ashe is to the Stoic intellectual dogmatism, Philo is none the lessopposed to its converse, intellectual skepticism and agnosticism. Man, he is convinced, has a Divine revelation[111] which he may not denywithout ruin. He holds with Pope that we have

 "Too much of knowledge for the Skeptic side, Too much of weakness for the Stoic's pride, "

and he attacks the Skeptics of the day who devoted their minds todestructive dialectical quibbling and sophistry[112] instead ofseeking for God and the human good. They are the Ishmaels ofphilosophy. 

Philo's polemic is directed less against the Greek schools inthemselves than against the Jewish followers of the Greek schools. Hesaw the danger to Judaism in the teachings of these anti-religiousphilosophers, and deeply as he loved Greek culture, he loved moredeeply his religion. He wanted to reveal a philosophy in the Biblewhich should win back to Judaism the men who had been captivated byforeign thought. In one aspect, therefore, his master-work is a pleafor unity. The community at Alexandria was a very heterogeneous body;not only were the sects which had appeared in Palestine, the Sadducees, Samaritans, Pharisees, and Essenes, represented there too, but inaddition there were parties who attached themselves to one or other ofthe Greek schools, the Pythagoreans, Skeptics, and the like, andlastly Gnostic groups, who cultivated an esoteric doctrine of theGodhead, and were lax in their observance of the law, which they heldto be purely symbolical and of no account in its literal meaning. Themental activity which this growth of sects exemplified was in somerespects a healthy sign, but it contained seeds of religious chaos, which bore their fruit in the next century. Men started by thinkingout a philosophical Judaism for themselves; they ended by ceasing tobe Jews and philosophers. Philo foresaw this danger, and he tried tocombat it by presenting his people with a commentary of the Biblewhich should satisfy their intellectual and speculative bent, but atthe same time preserve their loyalty to the Bible and the law. To theGreek world he offered a philosophical religion, to his own people areligious philosophy. Thus the allegorical commentary is the crowningpoint of his work, the offering of his deepest thought to the mostcultured of the community; and though much of its detail had onlyrelevancy for its own time, and its method may repel our modern taste, yet the spirit which animates it is of value to all ages, and shouldbe an inspiration to every generation of emancipated Jews. That spiritis one of fearless acceptance of the finest culture of the agecombined with unswerving love of the law and loyalty to catholicJudaism. 

We have already treated of the general characteristics of Philo'smethod of allegorical interpretation, but we must now consider rathermore closely the way in which he employs it. The general principleupon which he depends is, that besides and in addition to the literalmeaning which the Bible bears for the common man, it has a hidden anddeeper meaning for the philosopher. It is, as it were, a sort ofpalimpsest; the writing on the top all may read, the writing below thestudent alone can decipher. With the rabbis Philo holds that the Torahwas written "in the language of the sons of man, "[113] but he believeswith them again that it contains all wisdom. And if the ideas ofreason do not appear in its literal meaning, then they must besearched out in some inner interpretation. Commenting on the verse inGenesis (xi. 7), "Let us confound their language, that they may notunderstand one another's speech, " he says: "Those who follow theliteral and obvious interpretation think that the origin of the Greekand barbarian languages is here described; [the contrast betweenGreek, on the one hand, and barbarian--in which Hebrew, it seems, isincluded--on the other, is remarkable]. I would not find fault withthem, because they also, perhaps, employ right reason, but I wouldcall on them not to remain content with this, but to follow me to themetaphorical renderings, considering that the actual words of the holyoracle are, as it were, shadows of the real bodies, and the powerswhich they reflect are the true underlying ideas. "[114]

Elsewhere he tells a story of the condign punishment which befell agodless and impious man, perchance a Samaritan Jew, who made mock ofthe race of allegorical interpreters, jeering at the idea that thechange of names from Abram to Abraham and from Sarai to Sarahcontained some deep meaning. He soon paid a fitting penalty for hiswicked wit, for on some very trivial pretext he went and hangedhimself. Which was just, says Philo; for such a rascal deserved arascal's death. [115] It is noteworthy that the Talmud also lays stressupon the deep meaning of the patriarch's change of name. [116] "He whocalls Abraham Abram, " said Bar Kappara, "transgresses a positivecommand" [Hebrew: mtsva 'sha]. "Nay, " said Rabbi Levi, "he transgressesboth a positive and a negative command (and commits a double sin). " Clearlythis was a test-question and an article of faith, possibly because theletter [Hebrew: h], which was added to the name, was a letter ofmystical import in the opinion of the age. Both the rejection of theliteral and the rejection of the allegorical value of the Bible, Philoregarded as impious, and he had to struggle against opposite factionsthat were one-sided. The true son of the law believes in both [Greek:to hrêton] and [Greek: to en hyponoiais]. [117] Seeing that theBible was the inspired revelation of God, who is the fountain of allwisdom and knowledge--this is Philo's cardinal dogma--it is not to besupposed, on the one hand, that it was silent about the profoundestideas of the human mind, or, on the other, that it contained ideasopposed to right reason and truth. Yet at first sight it seemed tolack any definite philosophy and to offer anthropomorphic views ofGod. Hence the true interpreter must use the actual words of the sageas metaphors, following the maxim, "Turn it about and about, becauseall is in it, and contemplate it and wax grey over it, for thou cansthave no better rule than this. "[118] The principle upon which Philo, Saadia, Maimonides, and in fact the whole line of Jewish philosophicalexegetes have worked, is that the "words of the law are fruitful andmultiply"; or, as the Bible phrase runs, "The Torah which Mosescommanded unto us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. " Itis the separate inheritance of each generation, which each mustcultivate so as to gather therefrom its own fruit. 

The Halakah is the outcome of this devotion in one aspect, thephilosophical exegesis in another. In the one case Jewishjurisprudence and the body of legal tradition, in the other, philosophical ideas inspired by outer civilization, are attached tothe text of the Bible by ingenious devices of association. The deviceis partly a pious fiction, partly a genuine belief; in other words, the teachers honestly thought that there was respectively a hiddenphilosophical meaning in the Bible and an oral tradition, supplementary to the written law and arising out of it; but on theother hand they would not have urged that their particularinterpretation alone was portended by the Scriptures. This is shown inthe Talmud by the fact that different rabbis deduced the same lessonsfrom different verses, and contrary laws from the same verse; in Philoby the fact that he often gives various interpretations of one text indifferent parts of his work. All that was claimed was that knowledgeand truth must be primarily referred to the Divine revelation, and alllaw and practice to the authority of the Mosaic code. Philo, then, inthe same way as the rabbis, deduces all his teaching from the Bible, not because he holds that it was explicitly contained there, butbecause he desires to give to his philosophical notions Divineauthority. Like the rabbis, again, he suggests definite rules ofinterpretation which may always be applied [Greek: kanones têsallêgorias]. [119] He declares that every name in the Torah has a deepsymbolical meaning, and symbolizes some power. [120] Thus the names ofthe sons of Jacob typify each some moral quality, and these qualitiestogether make the perfect man and the perfect nation. Reuben is "theson of insight" [Hebrew: ru'bn], Simeon is learning [Hebrew: shm'-on], Judah [Hebrew: yhuda] stands for the praise of God. [121] It may be noted, by the way, that all these values show traces of Hebrew etymology. Again, the synonyms in the Bible are to be carefully studied, while evenparticles and parts of words have their special value and importance. And the skilful exegete may for homiletical purposes make slightchanges in a word, following the rabbinical rule, [122] "Read not so, but so. " Thus he plays upon the name Esau, and takes the Hebrew wordas though it were written, not [Hebrew: 'eshaw] but [Hebrew: 'ashav], athing made. [123] Whence he shows that Esau represents the sham(made-up) greatness, which is boastful and insolent and shameless. Philo is referring perhaps to Apion, the vainglorious anti-Semite, whom he often covertly attacks. Again, whenever there is repetition inthe text, a deeper meaning is portended. Dealing with the verse, "Sarah the wife of Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian" (Gen. Xvi. 3), Philo comments, that we already knew that Sarah was Abraham's wife:why, then, does the Bible mention it again? And following certainvalues which he has made, he draws the lesson that the study ofphilosophy must always go together with the study of generalculture. [124] These examples are not isolated; yet it is rather abarren science to search for the canons of Philo's allegory, asSiegfried has done. 

For his allegory is a very flexible instrument, which can be employedat pleasure to deduce anything from anything. And Philo regards these"points of construction" as the excuse, not as the motive, of hisethical and philosophical teaching. He does not depend on suchdevices, for he wanders into allegory more often than not without anypretext of the kind. 

The modern reader may consider the allegorical method artificial andunconvincing, even if he does not go so far as Spinoza, and say thatit is "useless, harmful, and absurd. "[125] We prefer to-day to showthe inner agreement of philosophical with Biblical teaching, ratherthan pretend that all philosophy is contained within the Bible; and weaccept the Bible as it stands, as a book of supreme religious worth, without requiring more of it. But that is mainly a difference of tasteor of method, and in Philo's day, and in fact down to the time of thesixteenth-century Renaissance, Jew and Gentile alike preferred theother way. For thought, ancient and mediæval, was pervaded with thecraving for authority or a plausible show of it. The Bible was notonly the great book of morality, but the standard of truth, that fromwhich knowledge in all its branches started, and that by which it wasto be judged. As all knowledge came from God, so all knowledge was inGod's Book; and allegory was the method by which the intellectualconceptions of succeeding ages were attached to it. 

The two main heads of Biblical interpretation which the Jewishreligious genius developed, Peshat and Derash, --these represent twopermanent attitudes of mind. In the first the commentator tries to getat the exact meaning of the text before him, to make its lesson clearand discuss the circumstances of the composition, the exact relationsof its parts. He is satisfied to take the writer of the Biblical bookfor what he says in his own form of utterance. In the second thecommentator is more anxious to inculcate ideas and lessons which donot arise obviously from the text, and to widen the significance ofwhat he finds in the Bible. The interpretation ceases to be a mereexposition; it becomes creative or conciliating thought, and theinterpreter becomes a religious reformer, a philosopher, a prophet. Tothis school Philo belongs, and the framework of his teaching or theingenuity by which he develops it from his text is of small account. It is what he teaches and what he considers to be the vital things inreligion and life to which we must pay attention. Judged on thisground Philo is a supreme master of Derash, and must take a placeamong the most creative of the interpreters of the Bible. 

 * * * * *

IV

PHILO AND THE TORAH

Over and over again Philo declares that his function is to expound thelaw of Moses. Moses was the interpreter of God's word to Israel; andPhilo aspired to be the interpreter of the revelation of Moses to theHellenistic world, "the living voice of the holy law. " He believedthat Israel was a chosen people in the sense that it had received theDivine message on behalf of the whole human race, [126] a Kingdom ofPriests, in that it occupied to other nations the position which thepriest--using the word in the fullest sense--occupied to the commonpeople. [127] The Torah is God's covenant, not only with one smallnation, but with all His children, and its teachings are true for alltimes and for all places. "The Bible, " as Professor Butcher says, [128]"is the one book which appears to have the capacity of eternalself-adjustment, of uninterrupted correspondence with an ever-shiftingand ever-widening environment. " Nowadays this appears a truism, butthe truth first presented itself to the Jewish-Alexandrian communitywhen they came in contact with external culture. The Palestinian andBabylonian Jews, free for the most part from outside influences, developed the Torah for the Jewish people, amplified the tradition, and determined the Halakah, the practical law. But the AlexandrianJews in the first place found their own attitude to the Torah affectedby their acquaintance with Greek ethics and metaphysics, and alsofound it necessary to interpret the Bible in a new fashion in order tomake its value known to their environment. The Greek world required tobe shown the general principle, the broad ethical idea in eachordinance. And thus it came about that the Alexandrian interpretersalways emphasized the universal beneath the particular, the moralspirit beneath the forms. 

It had been one of the chief functions of the prophets to demonstratethe moral import of the law. In their vision the God of Israel becamethe God of the universe, and His law of conduct was spread over allmankind. "For the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of theLord from Jerusalem" (Micah iv. 2). Philo in effect expounds Judaismin their spirit, though he speaks their message in the voice of Platoand to a people whose minds were trained in Greek culture. Yet it issignificant that he wrote all his commentaries round the Five Books ofMoses, and used the prophets and other Biblical books only toillustrate and support the Mosaic teaching, which contains the wholeway of life and the whole religious philosophy. According to therabbis also the Prophets formed only a complement to the Torah, "aspecies of Agadah";[129] and the prophetic vision of Moses was muchclearer than that of his successors. Philo, too, clearly realized thatJudaism was the religion of the law. His view of the Torah is what themodern world would call uncritical: that is to say, he accepts theidea that the whole of the Five Books was an objective revelation toMoses at Sinai. But though--or because--he is innocent of the highercriticism, and believes in the literal inspiration of the Torah, hisconception is none the less enlightened and spiritual. The law--theDivine Logos--is not the enactment of an outside power, arbitrarilyimposed, and to be obeyed because of its miraculous origin; it is theexpression of the human soul within, when raised to its highest powerby the Divine inspiration. Every man may fit himself to receive theDivine word, which is, in modern language, revelation. [130] Moses, then, is distinguished above all other legislators, not because healone received it, but because he received it in its purest form, andbecause he was the most noble interpreter of it. It is for this reasonthat the law of Moses is of universal validity for conduct. The Divinespirit possessed him so fully that his Logos, or revelation, iseternally true, and by following it all men become fit to be blessedwith the Divine gift themselves. This is true of the other prophets ofthe Bible to a smaller degree, and in a still minor degree Philo hopedthat it was true of himself. 

It should be premised that the "law of nature" was at the time ofPhilo an idea as widely accepted as "evolution" is to-day. Menbelieved that by a study of the processes of the universe theindividual might discover the law of conduct that should bring hisaction into harmony with the whole. What the Greek philosophersdeclared to be the privilege of the few, Philo declared to have beenimparted by God to His people as their law of life. Hence the Mosaiclegislation is the code of nature and reason, and the righteous mandirects his conduct in accordance with those rules of nature by whichthe cosmos is ordered. [131] Obedience to the law should not beobedience to an outward prescription, but rather the following out ofour own highest nature. The ideal which the Stoic sage continuallyaspired for and never attained to--the life according to nature andright reason--this Philo claimed had been accomplished in the Mosaicrevelation, handed down by God to Israel and through them to theworld. 

Before we deal with Philo's treatment of the law in its narrowersense, it will be as well to consider briefly his interpretation ofthe historical parts of the Torah. Here likewise he finds ideas ofnatural reason and eternal truths embodied. To Philo, as we have seen, the Torah is a unity, and every part of it has equal validity andvalue. He had to contend against certain higher critics of his day, who declared that Genesis was a collection of myths ([Greek:mythôn plasmata]). [132] Moreover, the long catalogues ofgenealogies in Genesis and the longer recitals of sacrifices inLeviticus and Numbers seemed to refute those who declared that everypart of the Pentateuch was a Divine revelation. In the third book ofthe "Questions to Genesis" Philo directly grapples with thisobjection. Commenting on the verse (Gen. Xv. 9), "Take for me a heiferof three years old and a goat of three years old, " etc. , he says thatin interpreting any part or any verse of Scripture we must look to thepurpose of the whole and explain it from this outlook, "withoutdissecting or disturbing its harmony or disintegrating itsunity. "[133] Why should God, asked the scoffer, reveal these trivialor prolix details? Philo's answer is in fact to spiritualizeeverything that is material, and universalize everything that isparticular. While he believes in the literal inspiration of the Bible, he does not insist upon the literal truth of every word of it, and inthe opening chapters of Genesis in particular, he treats the tales assymbolical or allegorical myths. His philosophical commentary on thecreation, corresponding to the [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] of therabbis, is found in the book _De Mundi Opificio_, which stands inmodern editions at the head of his writings. Its main theme is totrace in the text the Platonic idealism, _i. E. _, the theory that Godfirst created transcendental, incorporeal archetypes of allphysical and material things. Philo uses the double account of thecreation of man in the first and second chapters of Genesis as clearevidence that the Bible describes--for those who have the mind tosee--the creation of an ideal before the terrestrial man. 

In the "Allegories of the Laws, " which is the profounder philosophicaldoctrine, the account of Adam and Eve is deliberately chosen by Philoas the text of a psychological treatise, in which he analyzes[134] therelations of the mind, the senses, and the pleasures, representedrespectively by Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. The necessity ofexplaining the story symbolically is professedly based on the factthat otherwise we are driven to the idea that the Bible spokeinaccurately about God. "It is silly, " he says, "to suppose that Adamand Eve can have hidden themselves in the Garden of Eden, for Godfilled the whole. " We are driven then to suggest another meaning; andPhilo passes into a homily about the false opinion of the man whofollows the bidding of the senses (Eve) at the instigation of pleasure(the Serpent). [135]

The story of Cain and Abel is another piece of moral philosophyembodied in a concrete form. Abel symbolizes pious humility, Cain thedeadly sin of atheism and intellectual pride, which denies theabsolute and ever-present power of the Deity. Philo asks himself thequestion that other commentators have frequently raised, some inreverence, some in ridicule, "Who was Cain's wife?"[136] And heanswers that the Bible expression about the children of Cain cannot betaken literally, but suggests the union of the ill-ruled mind withimpious opinions, which have as their issue false pride and sin. 

Philo here treats the stories in the opening of Genesis as pureallegories, in which the men and women represent symbolicallycharacters and qualities. It should be remembered, however, that theseinterpretations occur in the commentary where our author is not somuch expounding the Torah as deducing secret doctrines from it. Hisproper exposition of the law proceeds from the book on the Creation tothe lives of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then to thelives of Joseph and Moses. And in this commentary the Bible narrativeis taken as historical truth: only in addition to the historical factthere is a moral and universal value in every figure and everyepisode. The patriarchs' lives represent the unwritten law which theGreek world held in high honor, for it was considered to contain thebroad principles of individual and social conduct, and to be priorlogically and chronologically to the written codes. Moses, therefore, the perfect legislator, according to Philo, has presented in the threefounders of the Hebrew race embodiments of the unwritten law of goodconduct for all mankind. Each of them is a moral type of eternalvalidity and represents one of the ways in which blessedness may beattained. [137] Abraham represents the goodness which comes frominstruction; Isaac, the spontaneous goodness that is innate, and thejoy (or laughter) of the soul that is God's gift to his favored sons;Jacob, the goodness that comes after long effort, through the life ofpractice and severe discipline. Before this triad, the Bible presentsanother group of three, who represent the virtues preparatory to theacquisition of perfect goodness: Enosh, Enoch, and Noah. [138] Theytypify respectively, as their names indicate, hope, repentance, andjustice. It is a pretty thought, helped by an error in the Septuaginttranslation, [139] which sees in the name of the first (_i. E. _, man, [Hebrew: 'nosh]) the symbol of hope. Hope, the commentator suggests, is thedistinguishing characteristic of man[140] as compared with otheranimals, and hope therefore is our first step towards the Divinenature, the seed of which faith is the fruit. Next in order comerepentance and natural justice, and from these stepping-stones we canrise to the higher self. Philo's interpretation of these Bible figureswould appear to have behind it an old Midrashic tradition. As far backas the book of Ben Sira, in the passage on "the Praises of Famous Men"(xliv), they are taken as typical of the different virtues, and Enochnotably is the type of repentance. In the first century the world wasbecoming incapable of understanding abstract ideas, and requiredethics to be concretely embodied in examples of life. Philo foundwithin the Jewish Scriptures what the Christian apostles latertransferred to other events. 

Joseph, whose life followed that of the patriarchs, is the type of thepolitical life, the model of the man of action and ambition. Takenalone, this is inferior to the life of the saint and philosopher, butmixed with the other it produces the perfect man, for the truly goodman must take his part in public life. The story of Joseph, then, illustrates the full humanity of Moses' scheme, and it marks also, according to Philo, the great moral lesson, that if there be one sparkof nobility in a man's soul, God will find it and cause it to shineforth. [141] For Joseph, until he comes down to Egypt, is not avirtuous man, but full of conceit and unworthy aspiration forsupremacy; he shows his true worth when he is sold into slavery; andthen by the Divine inspiration he becomes the ideal statesman. Verysuggestive is Philo's homily, by which he develops the Biblenarrative, that the function of the statesman is to expounddreams;[142] because his task is to interpret the life of man, whichis one long dream of changing scenes, wherein we forget what has gonebefore, as the fleeting shadow leads us from childhood to youth, fromyouth to manhood, from manhood to old age. Lastly, from the story ofJoseph he draws the lesson that when the Hebrew has attained to a highposition in a foreign land, as in Egypt, where there is utterblindness about the true God, he can and should retain his nationallaws, [143] and not assimilate the practices of his environment. 

Eusebius[144] mentions, among the works of Philo which he had beforehim, a book on "The Statesman, " in which doubtless the principles ofgovernment and social life were more fully treated. The book hasdisappeared, but the life of Joseph suffices to show that Philorecognized the place of public service in the human ideal. 

Moses is not only the divinely inspired legislator, but he typifiesalso the perfection of the human soul, the highest example of the manat one with God, supreme as king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet. He isthe link between God and man, the perfect interpreter of the DivineWord; and though Philo avoids the suggestion of any Divine powerincarnate in man, he speaks imaginatively of the Logos of Moses, [145]_i. E. _, his reason, as identical with the Logos of God, the Divine lawof the universe. It is significant of his attitude to religion that helays no stress upon the miracles of the Bible narrative. Not that herationalizes them away; he rejects all rationalizing whatsoever; buthe interprets them as great spiritual signs, rather than as diversionsfrom the laws of nature. His allegory of the burning bush, which Mosessaw at Horeb is typical, and presents a truth to which the wholehistory of Israel bears witness. The weak thorn-bush, which was notconsumed by the fire, is the image of the idea of Israel, which almostcries to the people in their misfortune: "Do not despair! Yourweakness is your strength, and by it you shall wound race after race. You will be preserved by those who wish to destroy you, and you shallnot perish. In evil days you shall not suffer, and when a tyrantthinks to uproot you, you shall shine forth the more in brighterglory. "[146] The passage is typical also of the rhetorical artificewith which Philo, following the taste of the time, recommended theBible to the Greeks. 

We turn now to Philo's treatment of the Mosaic legislation, the Torahin its narrower sense, which is to modern Jewry perhaps the moststriking part of his commentary. His problem was the same as ours--tobring the ancient law into harmony with the ideas of a non-Jewishenvironment, and to show its essential value when tried by an externalcultural standard. Briefly his solution is that he sees everything inthe Torah _sub specie æternitatis_, in the light of eternity; and byhis faithfulness to the law, combined with his spiritualinterpretation of it, he stands forth as the greatest Jewishmissionary of his age. Unfortunately for Judaism, depth of thought andphilosophical judgment are not the qualities which mark the successfulreligious missionary. Philo's philosophical treatment of the Torah wasunderstood only of the few; the fanatical Pauline rejection of the lawappealed to the masses. The spirit of the age demanded, indeed, theethical interpretation of the Bible, and it was carried out in manyways, some true, some untrue to Judaism. Philo and Josephus tell ushow Judaism was spreading over the world. [147] "There is not any cityof the Greeks, " says the historian, "nor of the barbarians, nor of anynation whatsoever, to which our custom of resting on the seventh dayhas not been introduced, and where our fasts and our dietary laws arenot observed. .. . As God Himself pervadeth all the universe, so hathour law passed through the world. " And their testimony is supported bythe frequent gibes against Judaizing Romans in the Roman poets, [148]and by the explicit statements of Strabo, [149] the famous geographer, and, more remarkable still, of Seneca, the Stoicphilosopher-statesman. The bitter foe of the Jews, he confessed thatthis superstitious pest was infecting the whole world, and that theconquered people (Judæa had lately been made a Roman province) weretaking their conquerors captive. [150] Philo, with his ardent hope, looked for the near coming of the time when the worship of the JewishGod would prevail over the world, and sought to show that the Jewishlaw, which is the expression of Jewish belief, and which differs fromall others, not only in the extent of its sway, but in itsunchangeableness, could be universalized to fit its new service. Tothis end he interpreted the Mosaic code, which "no war, tyrant, persecution, or visitation, human or Divine, can destroy: for it iseternal. "[151] In the arrangement of the Torah, Philo finds a proof ofits universality. It begins with the account of the creation, to teachus that the same Being that is the Creator and Father of the universeis also its Legislator, and, again, that he who follows the law willchoose to live in harmony with nature, and will exhibit consistency ofaction with words and of words with action. Other philosophers, notably the Stoics, claimed to lay down a plan of life that followedthe law of nature; but their practice notoriously fell below theirunrealizable professions. In Judaism alone spirit and practice were atone, so that each inspired the other and secured human excellence. "Not theory but practice is the root of the matter" ([Hebrew: l' hmdrsh'kr 'l' hm'sha]), according to the rabbis:[152] and Philo, who, contemplative philosopher as he was, yet recognized the all-importance ofconduct, writes in the same spirit:[153] "We must first study and then act, for we learn, not for learning's sake, but in order to action. "

Philo seeks to arrange the law under general moral heads, and he findsin the Decalogue the holy text upon which the rest of the code is buta commentary. He may be following a tradition common among all theJews, for in the Midrash to Numbers (xiii) it is said that the sixhundred and thirteen precepts are all contained in the TenCommandments: [Hebrew: shtrig mtsvt klilit bhn]. We do not know, however, in what way the early rabbis carried out this idea, whereas we possessPhilo's arrangement; and some of its features are very suggestive. [154]To the first two commandments he attaches the ritual laws relating topriests and sacrifices, to the fourth the laws of all the festivals, tothe seventh the criminal and civil law, to the tenth the dietary laws. The Decalogue he conceives as falling into two divisions, between whichthe fifth commandment is a link. For the first four commandments areordinances that determine man's relation to God, and the last fivethose which determine his relation to his fellows. Honor of theparents is the link between the Divine and the human virtues, even asparents themselves are a link between immortal God and mortal man. Corresponding to the two divisions of the Decalogue are the twogeneric virtues which the Mosaic legislation has set as its goal, piety, and humanity, or what the rabbis called charity ([Hebrew: tsdka]). "He who loves God, but does not show love towards his own kind, has but the half of virtue. "[155] Thus in one and the same age Hillel, incited by a single scoffer, and Philo, moved by the taunts of a tribeof anti-Semites, looked for the most vital lesson of the Torah, andthey found it alike in "the love of our neighbor. " That was Judaism onits practical side. 

In order to show the humanitarian spirit of the Torah, Philoemphasizes its socialistic institutions, the law of the seventh year'srest to the land ([Hebrew: shnt hshmita]), of the emancipation of theslaves, and of the Jubilee. These to him are not tribal laws, but theideal institutions for the whole world, which shall one day be set upwhen the theocracy has been established over all mankind. And in an agewhen slavery was as accepted a condition as factory-labor is to-day, he ventured to assert the principle of the equality of man. "If, "saith the law, "one of thy brethren be sold to thee, let him servethee for six years, and in the seventh year let him go free withoutpayment. " And Philo thereon comments:[156] "A second time Moses callsour fellow-creature brother, to impress upon the master that he has atie with his servant, so that he may not neglect him as a stranger. Nay, but if he follows the direction of the law, he will feel sympathywith him, and will not be vexed when he is about to liberate him. Forthough we call our servants slaves, yet in verity they are onlydependents who serve us in order to have the means of life. " Thiscorresponds with the Talmud dictum, "Whoever buys a Jewish slave buysa master for himself. "[157] Commenting again upon the verse in Exodusxxi. 6, which says with seeming harshness that a servant who wishes tostay with his master after the year of emancipation has arrived, shallbe nailed by the ear to a door, he explains that no man should consentof his own will to be a slave, for we should only be servants of God;and if a man deliberately rejects freedom for comfort, he should weara mark of degradation. The so-called Christian principle of thedignity of human life and the equality of man, Philo shows to be thespirit of the Mosaic law, not limited within the confines of onenation, but valid for the world. Nor is it contained therein as a meresentimental aspiration, but it is realized in the institutions of theJewish polity. 

Philo looked for the same broad principles in his treatment of theceremonial law. The Sabbath day is the central observance, one mightsay, the lodestar of the Jewish life, round which the other ceremoniesrevolve. The Sabbath is the call to man's higher nature, for it is theday on which we are bidden to devote ourselves to the Divine powerwithin us and to seek to know God. "The six days in which the Creatormade the universe are an example to us to work, but the seventh day, on which He rested, is an example to us to meditate. As on that dayGod is said to have looked upon His work, so we, too, shouldcontemplate the universe thereon, and consider our highest welfare. Let us never neglect the example of the best life, the combination ofaction and thought, but keeping a clear vision of it before our minds, so far as our human nature will permit, let us liken ourselves toimmortal God by word and deed. "[158] High-flown this language may be, but what Philo wishes to mark is the spiritual value of the Sabbath. It is not merely a day of rest from workaday toil, but it is a dayupon which we devote all our thoughts to God, and enter into closercommunion with Him, [Hebrew: mnoht 'hba vndba], a repose of love anddevotion. Heine said that on one day of the week the lowliest Jew becamea prince, Philo that he became a philosopher. As in all of Philo'sinterpretations of Jewish custom, there is something mystic in hisconception of the Sabbath. For he regards all Divine service and allprayer as a mystic rite which leads the human soul unto God. In thespecial ordinances of the day he finds a spiritual motive. We may nottouch fire, because fire is the seed and beginning of industry. [159]The servant of the house may not work, [160] because on this day heshall have a taste of freedom and humanity, and he will work the morecheerfully during the remaining six days. Some rabbis later, whennumbers of Gentiles had adopted this without the other institutions ofJudaism, claimed the Sabbath as the special heritage of Israel; and inthe book of Jubilees[161] it is said that Israel alone has the rightto observe the Sabbath. Not so Philo, who, desiring to give the day avalue for all, regards it as God's covenant with the whole ofhumanity. [162]

The Sabbath idea is reflected in all the festivals, which have astheir dominating idea man's joyful gratitude to God. Influencedprobably by a mystic fondness for certain numbers, Philo enumeratesten festivals, as follows:[163] (1) Each day in the year, if we use itaright--a truly Philonic conception; (2) The Sabbath; (3) The newmoon--then in Alexandria, as in Palestine, a solemn day; (4) ThePassover; (5) The bringing of the first barley ('Omer); (6) The Feastof Unleavened Bread. These last three are separate aspects of onecelebration, which is divided up so as to produce the holy decad. (7)Pentecost; (8) New Year; (9) Atonement (to the mystic the Feast offeasts); (10) Tabernacles. Following his design of revealing inJudaism a religion of universal validity, Philo points out in allthese festivals a double meaning. On the one hand, they mark God'sprovidence to His chosen people, shown in some great event of theirhistory--this is the special meaning for the Israelite--and, on theother, they indicate God's goodness as revealed in the march ofnature, and thus help to bind man to the universal process. SoPassover is the festival of the spring and a memorial of the creation([Hebrew: zbr lm'sha br'shit]) as well as the memorial of the great Exodus, and of our gratitude for the deliverance from the inhospitable land ofEgypt. And those who look for a deeper moral meaning may find in it asymbol of the passing over from the life of the senses to the life withGod. Similarly, Philo deals with the other festivals, [164] and in theirparticular ceremonies he finds symbols which stamp eternal lessons ofhistory and of morality upon our hearts. The unleavened bread is themark of the simple life, the New Year Shofar of the Divine rule ofpeace, the Sukkot booth of the equality of all men, and, as he puts itelsewhere, of man's duty in prosperity to remember the troubles of hispast, so that he may worthily recognize God's goodness. Much of thismay appear trite to us; and the association of the festivals with theseasons of nature may to some appear a false development of historicalJudaism; nevertheless Philo's treatment of this part of the Torah isnotable. It shows remarkable feeling for the ethical import of thelaw, and it establishes the harmony between the Greek and Hebrewconceptions of the Deity by combining the God of history with the Godof nature in the same festival. The ideas were not unknown toPalestinian rabbis; Philo, by giving them a Greek dress, opened themto the world. 

Equally remarkable and equally suggestive is Philo's treatment of thedietary laws. We have seen that he placed them under the governingprinciple of the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet, " or, morebroadly, "Thou shalt not have base desires. " The dietary laws are atonce a symbol and a discipline of temperance and self-control. We knowthat the Greeks, as soon as they had a superficial knowledge of Jewishobservance, jeered at the barbarous and stupid superstition ofrefusing to eat pork. Again we are told in the letter of the falseAristeas that when Ptolemy's ambassadors went to Jerusalem, to summonlearned men to translate the Torah into Greek, Eleazar, the highpriest, instructed them in the deeper moral meaning of the dietarylaws. Further, in the fourth book of the Maccabees--an Alexandriansermon upon the Empire of Right Reason--we find an eloquent defence ofthese same laws as the precepts of reason which fortify our minds. Philo, then, is following a tradition, but he improves upon it. Accepting the Platonic psychology, which divided the soul into reason, temper (_i. E. _, will), and desire, he shows how the aim of the Mosaiclaw about food is to control desire and will, so as to make themsubservient to reason. By practicing self-restraint in the twocommonest actions of life--eating and drinking--the Israelite acquiresit in all things. The hard ascetic who would root out bodily desireserrs against human nature, but the wise legislator controls them andcurbs them by precepts, so that they are bent to the higher reason. 

Modern apologists for Judaism have been found who, trying to forcescience to support their tottering faith, allege that the dietary lawis hygienic. Philo relies on no such treacherous reed. We may not eat, he says, [165] the flesh of the pig or shell-fish, not because they areunhealthy, but because they are the sweetest and most delightful ofall food, and for that very reason they are marks of the sensual life. This and this alone is the true religious justification of the dietarylaw. 

In this way, by showing how the letter represents the spirit, Philofulfils the law; his religion is liberal in thought, conservative inpractice. He sees clearly that to throw off the law and rejecttradition involves in the end chaos and the overthrow ofrighteousness. And certain Christian--and other--theologians, if onemay make bold to say so, fail to realize the spirit of Philo, whenthey speak of him as a man who approached the light, but was too tieddown by the old traditions to receive the full illumination. Rather isit true that the Jewish aspiration of "freedom under the law, " orspirit through the letter, is absolutely fundamental in Philo, andloyalty to the Torah is a guiding principle in his religious outlook. He asserts it clearly and strikingly, not only in his ethicalcommentary on the law, but in his philosophical allegories. Bothpassages deserve quotation, since they mark the fundamental contrastbetween Philo and non-Jewish allegorists of the law. In the firstPhilo is commenting upon the command "Thou shalt not add to or takeaway from the law" (Deut. Xix. 14). [166] He shows first how each ofthe virtues is marred by excess in either direction; virtue in fact, according to the Aristotelian formula, is "a mean. "

 "And in the same way, if we add anything great or small to piety, the queen of virtues, or take anything away, we mar it and change its form. Addition will engender superstition, and diminution impiety, and true piety will disappear, which above all things we should pray for to enlighten our souls: for it is the cause of the greatest of goods, inducing in us a knowledge of our conduct towards God, which is a thing more royal and kingly than any public office or distinction. Further, Moses lays down another general command, 'Do not remove the boundary stone of thy neighbor, which thy ancestors have set up. ' This, methinks, does not refer merely to inheritances and the boundary of land, but it is ordained with a view to the preservation of ancient customs. For customs are unwritten laws, the decrees of men of old, not carved indeed upon pillars and inscribed upon parchment, but engraved upon the souls of the generations who through the ages maintain the chosen community. Children should take over the paternal customs from their parents as part of their inheritance, for they were reared on them, and lived on them from their swaddling days, and they should not neglect them merely because the tradition is not written. The man who obeys the written laws is not, indeed, worthy of praise, for he may be constrained thereto by fear of punishment. But he who holds fast to the unwritten laws gives proof of a voluntary goodness and is worthy of our eulogy. "

Clearly he is arguing here for the observance of the oral law, whichlater was standardized in the Halakah. 

In the other passage, which occurs in the philosophical book "On theMigration of Abraham, "[167] he sets forth the reason of the authorityof the law with more argument, and controverts those who wouldallegorize away the ordinances. 

 "To whom, then, God has granted both to be and to seem good, he is truly happy and truly renowned. And we must have a great care for reputation, as a matter of great importance and of much value, for our social and bodily life. [By reputation Philo means reputation of being loyal Jews. He is addressing here an esoteric circle who, if they were lax, would bring philosophy into disrepute. ] And almost all can secure it, who are well content not to disturb established customs, but diligently preserve the constitution of their nation. But there are some who, looking upon the written laws as symbols of intellectual things, lay great stress on these, but neglect the former. Such men I would blame for their shallowness of mind [Greek: euchereia]. For they ought to give good heed to both--to the accurate investigation of the unseen meaning, but also to the blameless observance of the visible letter. But now, as if they were living by themselves in a desert, and were souls without bodies, and knew nothing of city or village or house or intercourse with men, they despise all that seems valuable to the many, and search for bare and naked truth as it is in itself. Such people the sacred Scripture teaches to give good heed to a good reputation, and to abolish none of those customs which greater and more inspired men than we instituted in the past. For, because the seventh day teaches us symbolically concerning the power of the uncreated God, and the inactivity of the creature, we must not therefore abolish its ordinances, so as to light a fire, or till the ground, or bear a burden, or prosecute a lawsuit, or demand the restoration of a deposit, or exact the repayment of a loan, or do any other thing, which on week-days is allowed. Because the festivals are symbols of spiritual joy and of our gratitude to God, we must not therefore give up the fixed assemblies at the proper seasons of the year. Nor, because circumcision symbolizes the excision of all lusts and passions, and the destruction of the impious opinion according to which the mind imagines that it is itself capable of production, must we therefore abolish the law of fleshly circumcision. We should have to neglect the service of the temple, and a thousand other things, if we were to restrict ourselves only to the allegorical or symbolic sense. That sense resembles the soul, the other sense the body. Just as we must be careful of the body, as the house of the soul, so must we give heed to the letter of the written laws. For only when these are faithfully observed, will the inner meaning, of which they are the symbols, become more clearly realized, and, at the same time, the blame and accusation of the multitude will be avoided. "[168]

Philo's position is, then, that man on the one hand owes loyalty tohis nation, and on the other is not only a creature of spirit, but hasa body and bodily passions. He cannot, therefore, have a religionwhich is individual or merely spiritual, but he requires common formsand ceremonies that can bind him with the rest of the community, andtrain his body by good habit to obey his reason. We do not reach thespirit by denying but by obeying the letter. To the mere formalobservance of the law and the unreasoning custom which blindly followsthe practice of our fathers [Greek: synêtheia] Philo is equallyopposed, and he protests, with the earnestness of an Isaiah, againstsuperstitious sacrifice and against the lip-service of thematerialist. [169]

 "If a man practices ablutions and purifications, but defiles his mind while he cleanses his body; or if, through his wealth, he founds a temple at a large outlay and expense; or if he offers hecatombs and sacrifices oxen without number, or adorns the shrine with rich ornaments, or gives endless timber and cunningly wrought work, more precious than silver or gold--let him none the more be called religious ([Greek: eusebês]). For he has wandered far from the path of religion, mistaking ritual for holiness, and attempting to bribe the Incorruptible, and to flatter Him whom none can flatter. God welcomes genuine service, and that is the service of a soul that offers the bare and simple sacrifice of truth, but from false service, the mere display of material wealth, he turns away. "

Lot's daughter, born of a pillar of stone, symbolizes this unthinking, hypertrophied religion; and custom, its mother, which always lagsbehind and has no seed of life, is the enemy of truth. The religiousman pursueth righteousness righteously, the superstitiousunrighteously. 

Thus Philo holds the balance between a formless spirituality and anunspiritual formalism. The end of religious observance is the love ofGod, but the love of God requires more than feeling; it mustimpregnate life. Dubnow, in his summary of Jewish history, formulatesan epigram, which, like most of its kind, becomes in its concisenessand pointed antithesis a half-truth. "At Jerusalem, " he says, "Judaismappeared as a system of practical ceremonies; at Alexandria as acomplex of abstract symbols. " No doubt it is true that at Jerusalemthe practical side of the law was most prominent, but the spiritualexaltation to which it should lead was appraised as the true end bythe great rabbis. Witness Hillel, and indeed all the writers of thegnomic wisdom in the "Ethics of the Fathers. " At Alexandria, again, while the philosophical principle underlying the outward practice wasespecially emphasized, the practice itself was loyally observed, andits value perceived, by those who most thoroughly understood Judaism. Witness the writings of Philo, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the fourthbook of the Maccabees. The antithesis between letter and spirit, faithand works, is in truth a false one; and wherever the significance ofJudaism has been fully comprehended, the two aspects of the law havebeen inextricably intertwined. As Philo understood the Jewish mission, it was not merely to diffuse the Jewish God-idea, but quite as much todiffuse the Jewish attitude to God, the way of life. Abstract ideas, however lofty, can never be the bond of a religious community, nor canthey be a safeguard for moral conduct. Sooner or later congregationsmust submit themselves to some law, be it a law of dogma, or be it alaw of conduct. Antinomianism, the opposition to the law, to whichPaul later gave powerful, even fanatical, expression, was a strongmovement at Alexandria in Philo's day. Preparatory to the spread ofChristianity, numerous sects sprang up there which purported to followa spiritual Judaism wherein the law was abrogated because, forsooth, its symbolism was understood! In the extreme allegorists, whom Philoattacks for their shallowness, one may discern the prototypes of theCainites, Ophites, Melchizedecians, and the rest of the hereticalparties that produced the religious chaos of the next centuries. Fromthat welter of opinions there at last emerged dogmatic Christianity. The Christian reformers came to free man from the yoke of the law; buttheir successors imposed on the mind the fetters of dogma, and, inorder to check the passions of the body, advocated renunciation andasceticism. So that not only Judaism as a system of belief, butJudaism as a system of life was lost in their handiwork. Spiritualitylacking knowledge and allegorism in excess led to this result. InPhilo they are controlled by affection for the Torah, and by aconviction of the need for national cohesion. 

Philo is loyal to the Jewish tradition not only because he had a deepfeeling for what a modern teacher has called the catholic conscienceand the historical continuity of Judaism, but because his philosophywas based on a conviction that the Jewish religion was the truestguide to conduct and righteousness and to the love of God. To him, asto Plato and Aristotle, the law was the outward register of the moralideal; the "word-and-deed symbols" of ceremonial and prayer wereemblems indeed of moral principles, but at the same time they had anintrinsic value, in that they impressed these principles upon themind, and brought belief and action into harmony. "Religion is law, not philosophy, " said Hobbes. With Philo, religion is law _and_philosophy. Thus the love of the Torah is of the essence of hisreligious thought. As he puts it in the exhortation to hisfellow-ambassadors before Gaius, [170] "to die in defence of it is akind of life. " In his philosophical Judaism he sought always for theuniversal and the spiritual, but so as always to increase the honor ofthe law, and not only of the law but of the customs of his ancestors, thinking with the Psalmist that "the Torah is a tree of life to thosewho keep fast hold of her, and those who support her are blessed. "

 * * * * *

V

PHILO'S THEOLOGY

"The most remarkable feature about Judaism, " says Darmesteter, "isthat without a philosophical system it had reached a philosophicalconclusion about the government of the world and the nature ofGod. "[171] The same idea underlies the statement of the Peripateticwriter Theophrastus (who lived in the latter part of the fourthcentury B. C. E. ) that the Jews are a people of philosophers, [172] andthe epigram of Heine, that they pray in metaphysics. Intuitively, thelawgiver and prophets of the Hebrew race had attained a conception ofmonotheism to which the greatest of the Greek philosophers had hardlystruggled by reason. The Greeks had started with separatenature-powers, which they had finally resolved into a supremenature-force; the Hebrews had started with the historical God of theirfathers, whom they had universalized into the Creator of the world andFather of all the human race. Wellhausen has suggested that theintellectual development of Judaism with its tendency to become apurified monotheism moved in the same direction towards which Greekthought tended in its philosophical speculation of the universe. Thedifference between the two conceptions of God, however, remained evenin their universalized aspect; the one was an impersonal world-force, the other a personal God in direct relation with individual man. Elsewhere than in Judæa, it has been well said, religious developmentreaches unity only by sacrificing personality. But the prophets, whoseconception of God was imaginative rather than rational, preserved Hisnearness while expanding His sway. Israel, to use Philo's etymology, is the man who sees God, [173] and his religious genius gave to theworld a personal incorporeal Deity, who is both transcendent andimmanent, personal and yet above human conception. It is unnecessaryto quote evidence of this view of the Godhead in the Bible, and itwould be superfluous to adduce passages from the rabbis, did they notbear a striking similarity to the words of Philo. God to them is notonly the Creator of the world, but also the Father of the world, theGovernor of the world, the Only One of the world, the Space of theworld, filling it as the soul fills the body. [174] Now, this Jewishconception of God is dominant in Philo. To him also God is not onlythe Creator but the Father of the universe. [175] He is the One and theAll. [176] He is ever at rest, yet he outstrippeth everything, nearestto everyone, yet far removed, everywhere and nowhere, above andoutside the universe, yet filling creation with Himself. [177] Philoloves to attach to the Deity these opposite predicates, for in thisway alone can we form for ourselves some conception, howeverinadequate, of His Being. Strictly, God is unconditioned, and cannotbe the subject of predication, for all determination involvesnegation, and hence in one aspect He is not conceivable nordescribable, nor nameable. [178] Siegfried and Zeller press thisnegative attitude to the Deity, and find that there is an inherentcontradiction in Philo's system, which ruins it, in that his God, uponwhom all depends and who is the object of all knowledge, is absolutelyunknowable and unapproachable. But this is to take Philo according tothe strict letter to the neglect of the spirit, and to do that withone so eloquent and so careless of verbal accuracy is utterly tomisunderstand him. 

The Greek philosophers in their attempt to formulate an exact notionof the First Being by abstract metaphysics had, indeed, conceived itin this fashion; and Philo, harmonizing Greek metaphysics and Hebrewintuition, is drawn at times into a presentation of God which appearsto deny His personality and make of Him an abstraction. What has beensaid of Spinoza is true no less of Philo. [179] "The tendency to unity, to the infinite, to religion, overbalanced itself till, by its mereexcess, it seemed to be changed into its opposite. But this is not hisspirit, only the dead ultimate result of an imperfect logic thatconfuses an abstract with a concrete unity. " In truth, the moment mantries to define his conception of God's essence in words, he eitherimpairs and perverts his idea, or he must use words that do not reallymake the idea any clearer than it was unexpressed. Thus in the Hymn of[Hebrew: ygdl] the writer, versifying the creeds of Maimonides, seeks todefine God: "He is a Unity, but there is no Unity like His; He ishidden and there is no end to His oneness. " But nobody can claim thatthis gives any adequate conception of what he means; so, too, Philo, when he tries to analyze God's being metaphysically, only obscures theGod of his soul, who was the historical God of Israel. 

The Hebraic God, like the Greek First Being, has no qualities, butunlike the other He has ethical attributes, and it is by these that weknow Him and by these that He is related to the universe and to man. "Failing to comprehend Him in His essence we must aim at the next bestthing, to comprehend Him as He is manifested to the world. "[180] So inthe "Hymn of Unity" it is written, "In images they told of Thee, butnot according to Thy essence! They but likened Thee in accordance withThy works. "[181] And this is the manner in which Philo conceives Him:"God's grace and goodness it is which are the causes of creation. "[182]"The just man, seeking the nature of all things, makes this mostexcellent discovery, that all things are due to the grace of God. " "Tothose who ask the origin of creation, one could most easily reply thatit is the goodness and grace of God which He bestowed on the race thatis after His image. "[183] "For all that is in the universe and theuniverse itself are the gift and bounty and grace of God. "[184] Again, "God is omnipotent; He could make all evil, but He wills only what isbest. "[185] "All is due to God's grace, though nothing is worthy ofit;[186] but God looked to His own eternal goodness, and consideredthat to do good befitted His own blessed and happy nature. "

Philo's life-aim, as we have seen, [187] was to see God in all thingsand all things in God. He is the sole principle of being, exercisingcontinuous causality; and yet He is always at rest, for His energy isthe expression of His being. "He never ceases to create, for creationis as proper to Him as it is proper to fire to burn and to snow tocause cold. "[188] Further, to Him all human activity and excellenceare directly due. He fertilizes virtue by sending down the seed fromHeaven, [189] and He brings forth wisdom from the human mind by His ownDivine effluence. "It is the distinctive feature of Jewish thought, "said Spinoza, "never to make account of particular and secondarycauses, but in a spirit of devotion, piety, and godliness to refer allthings directly to the Deity. " No Jewish thinker ever applied thisprinciple more thoroughly than Philo; and it gives an unique color tohis work in the history of ancient philosophy. All our lives are oneunceasing miracle, due to the constant manifestation of God's power;and the miracles of the Bible are examples of the universal working ofDivine care rather than exceptions from it. 

The dominant feeling behind Greek thought is that man is the measureof all things: Plato, attacking the standpoint of his nation, haddeclared that God is the measure, and Philo repeats his maxim with anew intensity. It means for him that man's mind is a fragment orparticle of the Divine universal mind, which, however, is impotenttill called into activity by the further Divine gift of inspiration. Knowledge and happiness, therefore, come not through God, but fromGod. [190] "The Divine Word streams down from the fount of wisdom, andwaters the plants of virtuous souls. "[191] "To God alone is it fittingto use the word 'my, '"[192] or, put in another way, man has only theusufruct and God the ownership of his powers. Pride of intellect istherefore a deadly sin, because it involves a false, incomplete ideaof God, and true knowledge involves reverence. The ideal of the Greeksage, the independent reason, is a godless thing, and those in whom aknowledge of Greek philosophy produces intellectual pride are notdisciples of Divine Wisdom. In a fine passage Philo charges withhypocrisy those who talk in high-sounding language about theall-powerful Deity, and yet declare that by their own intellect theycan comprehend the world. [193] This was the attitude not only of theproud Stoic, but of certain kindred Jewish sects, which were subjectto Greek influences, such as the Gnostics and the Cainites. And uponthem Philo appears to be pouring his wrath when he exclaims: "How haveyou the effrontery to go on making and listening to fine professionsabout piety and the honor of God, when you have within you, forsooth, the mind equal to God that comprehends all human things, and cancombine good and evil portions, giving to some a mixed, to others anunmixed lot? And when anybody accuses you of impiety, you brazenlydeclare that you belong to the school of that noble guide and teacherCain (_i. E. _ insolent reason), who bade you pay honor to the secondaryrather than the primary cause. "

Philo has often been reproached with intellectualism, and excessiveregard to acquired wisdom, and it may be urged that by his allegoricalmethod he tried to find in the Bible the sanction of two degrees ofreligious faith, the higher for the philosopher and the lower for theordinary man. At the same time, however, before his God he retains thechildlike simplicity of the most un-Hellenic rabbi, and the perfecthumility of the Hasid. His conviction of the dependence of all uponGod's grace is the perfect corrective of his intellectualexclusiveness. The idea of God as the unity which comprehendseverything and causes everything is the great Jewish contribution tothought, and binds our literature together in all its manifestations. It characterizes and unites the poetical utterance of the Bibleprophets, the pious wisdom of the rabbis, the philosophical systems ofPhilo and Maimonides. 

The more sublime and exalted the conception of God, the moreimperative became the need for the thinking Jew to explain how theperfect infinite Being came into relation with the imperfect finiteworld of man and matter. How can the incorporeal God be the founder ofthe material universe? How can the infinite mind be present in thefinite thought of man? How can the all-good Power be the creator ofthe evil which we see in the material world and of the wickedness thatflourisheth among men? These questions presented themselves to theIsraelite after he had consummated his marvellous religious intuition, and became the starting-point of a theology which is nascent in theWisdom literature of the Bible. Theology is the reasoning about Godwhich follows always in the footsteps of religious certitude. First, man by his intuitive reason rises to some idea of the Godheadsatisfying to his emotion; next, by his discursive reason, heendeavors to justify that idea to his experience in analyzing God'soperations. Renan, disposing sweepingly of a great question, declaresthat the Jewish monotheism excluded any true theology. But, in fact, in Palestine, and still more in Alexandria from the third centuryB. C. E. , Jewish thought had as one of its constant aims to develop atheory of the operations of the one God in the world of materialplurality. When the Jews came in contact with the cosmologicalmythology of Babylon, their God seemed to soar beyond the reach ofmen, and they looked to powers nearer them to bridge the wideninggulf. To some extent this aim engendered a modification in thereligious monotheism, and led to the interposition of intermediateconceptions between the Inconceivable and man. "The whole angelology, "says Deutsch, [194] "so strikingly simple before the Captivity and sowonderfully complex after it, owes its quick development in Babyloniansoil to some awe-stricken desire which grows with growing culture, removing the inconceivable Being further and further from human touchor knowledge. " Speaking generally, it may be said that reflectionabout God's relations produced in Palestine the doctrine of angels, inAlexandria the doctrine of Wisdom and the Logos. At the same time theWisdom and the Word were not unknown to the Palestinian Midrash, andthe hierarchies of angels to the Alexandrian, for the suggestion ofthe different subordinate powers had been evolved before the twotraditions had become independent. The doctrine of angels never indeedwon recognition from the rabbis, but it was for centuries an elementof popular belief. 

More philosophical than the doctrine of angels was the conception ofdifferent attributes of God [Hebrew: mdot], which were differentmanifestations of His activity, to the human mind separable anddistinguishable from each other, though absolutely they wereinseparable aspects of the Godhead. Chief among these were theattribute of mercy and the attribute of justice, [Hebrew: mdt hrhmim]and [Hebrew: mdt hdin], [195] by which, according to a Midrash, Adamwas driven from Eden. And these conceptions, though distrusted by theSynagogue, entered into later parts of the Prayer Book. "Attribute ofMercy, reveal thyself for us; make our supplication to fall at the feet ofThy Creator; and on behalf of Thy people beseech for mercy"; thus runsa fine prayer in the Ne'ilah service of the Day of Atonement, and manyof the other Selihot prove the persistence of this development ofJewish belief. The theory of Divine attributes was common to Palestineand Alexandria, and plays, as we shall see, an important part inPhilo's[196] thought; but the distinctive Hellenistic theology is thehypostasis of the Wisdom and the Word of God. In the Bible itself, andnotably in Proverbs, we find Wisdom personified--the first vague, poetical suggestion of a Jewish theology. As the Jews came intocontact with Hellenic influence, the tendency to develop thepersonification into a power increased, and may be traced through thefirst flower of Græco-Jewish culture, the Wisdom literature. The Greekphilosophers had conceived the First Cause as a ruling Mind, oruniversal Reason, and influenced by this conception, yet loyal totheir monotheistic faith, the Jewish writers of the Hellenistic agespoke of the Wisdom as the minister of God, the power by which Heruled creation. The apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdomof Solomon exhibit Wisdom passing from the poetical personification ofthe Bible to the separate hypostasis of theology. In the verse of theBible sage, "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out herseven pillars" (Prov. Ix. 1), she is the creation of the purelypoetical fancy, but in the Wisdom of Solomon she has become a linkbetween Heaven and earth, the creation of the theologian's reflection. "She reacheth from one end of the world to the other with strength, and ordereth all things graciously. She is settled by God on Histhrone, and by her He made the world, by her the righteous were saved. She watched over the father of the human race, and she deliveredIsrael from Egypt. " In Ecclesiasticus it is written, "All Wisdom isfrom the Lord and is with Him forever. She cometh forth from the mouthof the Most High, and was created before all things. God havingfashioned her from the beginning placed her over all His works. Thenshe covered the earth as a mist, she pitched her tent in high placesand her palace was in a pillar of cloud. She ministered in thetabernacle, and was established in Zion, in Jerusalem, the belovedcity. " In similar strain, in the apocalyptic book of Enoch (xxx), Godsays, "On the sixth day I ordered My Wisdom to make man"; and in theSibylline Oracles and Aristobulus she appears as the assessor of Godwho ruleth over men. 

Parallel with Wisdom, the Word of God was developed into somethingbetween a poetical image and a separate power. Again the developmentstarts from a Biblical metaphor. "By the word of the Lord were theheavens created, and all their host by the breath of His mouth" (Ps. Xxxiii). "God of our Fathers and Lord of Mercy, who didst make allthings by Thy word, " says the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon. Inspired again by the phrase of the Psalmist, "He sent His word, andhealed them" (Ps. Cvi. 20), he hymns the Divine Logos as theall-powerful emissary doing God's bidding among men. "It was neitherherb nor emollient that cured Israel in the wilderness (when bitten bythe fiery scorpions), but Thy Logos, O Lord, which heals all things. "Later, when he describes the destruction of the first-born in Egypt, he rises in a pæan to a finer poetical flight: "When tranquil silencefolded all things, and night in her own swiftness was in the midst ofher course, Thy all-powerful Logos leaped from heaven, from his royalthrone, a stern warrior into the midst of the doomed land, bearing asa sharp sword Thy Divine commandment, and having taken his standfilled all things with death: and he touched heaven and walked uponearth. " The Jewish poet, rejecting the idea that the perfect God coulddescend to earth and slay men, brushes away the anthropomorphism ofthe Bible, and summons from his mind this creation mixed of Hebrewimagination and Greek reason. So, too, Onkelos, wherever activity uponearth was ascribed to God, wrote, in his translation (Targum) ofScripture, "the word of the Lord, " and for the material hand hesubstituted the more abstract might. The same development, [197] underthe names of Memra and (less frequently) of [Hebrew: dbor], shows thatthe word-agent of God appealed to certain of the rabbis in theirdesire to explain away, on the one hand, expressions in the Biblewhich seemed to invest the Deity with corporeal qualities, and, on theother, so to divide His infinite perfection as to make His presenceimmanent upon earth. 

The teachers at Alexandria were above all others induced to developthe Word into the active power, since they seemed thereby to find inthe Bible a remarkable anticipation of Greek philosophy. The GreekLogos, by which "the Word" was translated in the Septuagint, meantalso thought and reason, and during the Hellenistic age was theregular term by which the philosophical schools expressed theimpersonal world-force which governed all things. The Logos idea amongthe Jews was a modification of intuitive and naïve monotheism; amongthe Greeks it was a step upwards, demanded by reason, from polytheismto a monistic view of the universe. By the first century itsrecognition as the ruling power in both the physical and moraluniverse had become a point of union in all philosophical schools--thecommon stamp of philosophical theology. Between the Semiticministerial word uttered by a personal Being and the Greek pantheisticgoverning reason, there was probably an early connection, due toEastern influences which operated upon the founders of Greekphilosophy, which later schools lost sight of. When the HebrewScriptures were translated, the two coalesced more fruitfully in theGreek term Logos, and a point of union was provided between thephilosophical and the Jewish theology. Moreover the local Egyptianinfluence aided the union, for the god Thoth was also identified withthe Logos, which thus appeared as a religious conception common to allraces, the basis of a universal creed. And besides the world-reason ofthe philosophers, another Greek influence no doubt tended to furtherthe development of the Logos in Jewish thought. One of the most markedcharacteristics of the Hellenistic age is the renascence of wonder atthe institutions of human life, and more especially at numbers andspeech. 

Numbers were held to contain the essence of things, and the marvellouspowers of four, seven, and ten received honor from all sects andschools. Words, too, were regarded almost as a mystic power, distinctfrom thought, incorporeal things which made thought real and gave itexpression. The mystical susceptibility of Philo to the power ofnumbers has been noticed by every critic and exaggerated by not a few;his mystical valuation of words and speech, though far more importantin his thought, has been commonly passed over. The analysis whichGreek writers made of the relation between the mental thought, thesound which utters it, and the mind which thinks it, was invested withspecial importance for the Jewish thinker, who transferred it from thehuman to the Divine sphere. He applied it to interpret the constantBiblical phrases "and God said" or "and God spoke, " according tonotions in which philosophy and theology are mixed; and propounded amystic idealism and a mystic cosmology, in which God's thought orcomprehensive Word becomes the archetype of the visible universe, Hissingle words the substantive universe and the laws of nature. Acentury before Philo, Aristobulus--assuming the genuineness of hisFragments--wrote:[198] "We must understand the Word of God, not as aspoken word, but as the establishment of actual things, seeing that wefind throughout the Torah that Moses has declared the whole creationto be words of God. " Philo, following his predecessor, says, "Godspeaks not words but things, "[199] and, again, commenting on the firstchapter of Genesis, "God, even as He spake, at the same momentcreated. "[200] And of human speech he has this pretty conceit a littlebefore: "Into the mouth there enter food and drink, the perishablefood of a perishable body; out of it issue words, immortal laws of animmortal soul, by which rational life is guided. "[201] If human speechis "immortal law, " much more is the speech of God. His words are ideasseen by the eye of the soul, not heard by the ear. [202] The tencommandments given at Sinai were "ideas" of this incorporeal nature, and the voice that Israel heard was no voice such as men possess, butthe [Hebrew: shkina], the Divine Presence itself, which exalted themultitude. [203] Philo is here expanding and developing Jewishtradition. In the "Ethics of the Fathers" (v) we read: "By ten wordswas the world created"; and in the pages of the Midrash the [Hebrew:bt-kol], i. E. _, the mystic emanation of the Deity, which revealed itselfafter the spirit of prophecy had ceased to be vouchsafed, is creditedwith wondrous and varied powers, now revealing the Decalogue, nowperforming some miracle, now appearing in a vision to the blessed, nowprophesying the future fate of the race to a pious rabbi. Thefertilizing stream of Greek philosophical idealism nourished thegrowth of the Jewish pious imagination, and in the Logos of Philo thefruit matured. It is idle to try to formulate a single definite notionof Philo's Logos. For it is the expression of God in all His multipleand manifold activity, the instrument of creation, the seat of ideas, the world of thought which God first established as the model of thevisible universe, the guiding providence, the sower of virtue, thefount of wisdom, described sometimes in religious ecstasy, sometimesin philosophical metaphysics, sometimes in the spirit of the mysticalpoet. Of his last manner let us take a specimen singled out by aChristian and a Jewish theologian as of surprising beauty. Commentingon the verse of the Psalmist, "The river of God is filled with water, "Philo declares that it is absurd to call any earthly stream the riverof God. 

 "The poet clearly refers to the Divine Logos that is full of the fountain of wisdom, and is in no part itself empty. Nay, it is diffused through the universe, and is raised up on high. In another verse the Psalmist says, 'The course of the river gladdens the city of God. ' And in truth the continuous rush of the Divine Logos is borne along with eager but regular onset, and overflows and gladdens all things. In one sense he calls the world the city of God, for it has received the 'full cup' of the Divine draught, and has quaffed a perpetual, eternal joy. But in another sense he gave this name to the soul of the wise, wherein God is said to walk as in a city. And who can pour out the sacred measures of their joy to the blissful soul which holds out the holy cup, that is its own reason, save the Logos, the cupbearer of God, the master of the feast? Nor is the Logos cupbearer only, but it is itself the pure draught, itself the joy and exultation, itself the pouring forth and the delight, itself the ambrosial philtre and potion of bliss. "[204]

Through the luxury of metaphor and imagination one may discern theunderlying thought of the mystic writer, that the Logos is theeffluence of God, either in the whole universe or the individual man, filling the one as the other with the Divine Shekinah. It is the linkwhich joins God and man, the ladder of Jacob's dream, which stretchesfrom Heaven to earth. [205] That man can attain the Divine state by thehelp of God's effluence was a cardinal thought of Philo's; this, indeed, is the form in which he conceives the Messianic hope. God doesnot come down to earth incarnate in man's form, but God's activeinfluence possesses the soul of man, and makes it live with God, andif man be peculiarly blessed, carries it up to the ineffable Spirit. Similarly his idea of the Messiah is more spiritual than that of thepopular belief. The ascent of man to God's height, not the descent ofGod to man's level, will produce the age of universal peace. 

There are various degrees of the Divine influence, stretching fromcomplete possession by the Deity Himself to the advent of singleDivine thoughts. These Philo regards as [Greek: logoi], words orthoughts--for he does not clearly distinguish between the two--and heresolves the realistic angels of the Bible into this spiritualconception. [206] Thus he says, "the place" where Jacob alighted andhad the vision (Gen. Xxvii. 11) is the symbol of the perfectcontemplation of God; the angels which he saw ascending and descendingare the inferior light of Divine precepts. These thoughts arecontinually vouchsafed to all of us, prompting us to noble actions, comforting us in times of sadness, inspiring lofty ideas. 

 "Up and down through the whole soul the Logoi of God move without end; when they ascend, drawing it up with them, and severing it from the mortal part, and showing only the vision of ideal things; but when they descend, not casting it down, but descending with it from humanity or compassion towards our race, so as to give assistance and help, in order that, inspiring what is noble, they may revive the soul which is borne along on the stream of the body. "[207]

Conversely, the rabbis taught that from each word that proceeded fromthe mouth of God an angel was created, as it is said: "By the word ofthe Lord the Heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breathof His mouth. "[208]

Apart from these sudden and occasional emanations of the DivineSpirit, the individual man has within him a permanent Divine Logos bywhich he may direct his conduct aright. Viewed in this aspect, theLogos, _i. E. _, the activity of God, is conscience, the Judge in thesoul, which is the true man dwelling within, [209] ruler and king, judge and arbiter, witness and accuser, correcting and restraining. Rising to bolder personification, Philo, who loves to present aspiritual thought in a concrete image, calls it the undefiled highpriest in us. [210] In this power he finds a sure refutation ofskepticism; for in virtue of the Divine voice man may secure moralcertitude: and he finds also a philosophical value for popularsuperstition. It was a common notion of the pagans as well asthe Jews of the time that an intermediate order of beings passedbetween heaven and earth and brought supernatural aid to men; and alsothat a familiar spirit, or Dæmon, dwelt within the soul of each man. The finer spirit of Philo resolves the attendant Dæmon and themessenger-dæmons or angels into the spiritual effluences of the oneDeity; save for a few places where he makes a pose of agreement withpopular notions and speaks of winged denizens of Heaven[211] whodescend to earth, he habitually expounds angels as inward revelationsof God. 

As the revelation of God to the individual is a Logos, so, too, is hisrevelation to the whole of mankind. It was pointed out in the lastchapter that Philo identified the Torah with the law of nature, and hedid this by regarding it as the Divine Logos. The more perfectemanation of God is in one view the power by which He directs thephysical creation, in another the perfect law which He set up as themodel of conduct for His highest creatures. The rabbis, indeed, wereprone to glorify the law as the primal creation of God, and theinstrument of all the later creations, [Hebrew: kli hmra shbu gbraoshmim]. [212] They speak of it as the light, the pillar, and the bondof the universe, the model whereon the architect looked;[213] and Philoamplifies this simple poetical concept and develops it afresh in thelight of Greek idealistic and cosmical notions, [214] so that the Torah, as the Logos of God, is equated with the source of all being, wisdom, andknowledge, with the ideal world which is the archetype of thematerial, and with all the law and order of nature. And as the Torahis the Logos, so also its particular precepts are Logoi. 

It seems difficult to trace the unity among all these differentaspects of the "Word, " but in fact they are only different expressionsof the Divine activity in the universe. All these are comprehended inthe Logos, and then again divided out of it, so that it is, as itwere, a crystal prism reflecting the light of the Godhead in a myriaddifferent ways. One curious illustration of the universal sense inwhich Philo understood the Logos is his interpretation of the manna;it is typical also of his manner of exegesis and his habit ofspiritualizing the material. It is related in Exodus (xvi. 15) thatwhen the Israelites saw the heavenly food they exclaimed [Hebrew: mnhu'], "What is it?" and hence the food obtained its name of manna. Now theGreek Septuagint word for [Hebrew: mn] is [Greek: ti], which means notonly "what" but "anything. " Philo sees in the gift of the heavenlyfood a symbol of the inspiration of the chosen people by the DivineLogos, and says that the Logos is rightly called manna, _i. E. _, anything, because it is the "most generic of all things, and that bywhich man may be nourished. "[215]

The central thought of Philo's system is that God is immanent in allHis work; but it would seem to him sacrilegious to apply to theGodhead itself this universal, unceasing activity, and so he developsthe Logos as the most ideal attribute of the Deity, and the sum of allHis immanence and effluence. He preferred the Logos to the olderWisdom, probably because he could by this conception bring his idea ofGod into closer relation with Greek philosophical notions, for alreadythe Hellenistic world had come spontaneously to revere the cosmicalLogos. Only Philo gave to the expression of their physical andmetaphysical speculation a religious warmth new to it, when heassociated it with the word uttered by the personal God. Philosophy, theology, and religion were all joined and harmonized in hisconception. 

If we have followed thus far the spirit of Philo aright, the Logos isonly the immanent manifestation of the One God, who is bothtranscendental and immanent, metaphorically, not metaphysically, separate. In other words, it is the complete aspect of God as Hereveals Himself to the world. Above it and including it is the beingor essence of God, seen in Himself, and not in relation to His outwardactivity. But it is often suggested that the Logos appears to Philo asa second God, subordinate, indeed, to the Supreme Being, but yet aseparate personality. It is said, with truth, that he speaks of it asa person, now calling it king, priest, primal man, the first-born sonof God, even the second God, and identifying it at other times withsome personal being, Melchizedek or Moses, and apostrophizing it asman's helper, guide, and advocate. [216] Now we have reason to thinkthat Gnostic sects of Jews, both in Alexandria and in Palestine, wereat this time tending towards the division of the Godhead into separatepowers. The heresy of "Minut, " frequently mentioned in the Talmud, consisted originally, in the opinion of modern scholars, of a Gnosticditheism;[217] and during the latter part of the first century andthereafter we hear of sects in Egypt and Syria which supported similartheories. Theology here produced its fantastic offspring theosophy, and the followers of the esoteric wisdom let their speculations carrythem away from the cardinal principle of Judaism. Influenced byEgyptian speculation, they imagined an incarnation of the DivineSpirit, and in the mystical thought of the day they adumbratedtheories of virgin birth. 

Now these prototypes of Christian belief had undoubtedly manifestedthemselves at Alexandria in Philo's day. His treatises show traces ofthem, [218] and the question is whether he countenanced them or triedto summon the theosophists of his generation back to the true Jewishconception of God. Certain Christian and philosophical critics ofPhilo, for whom the wish was perhaps father to the thought, have foundin Philo's Logos a conception which is at times impersonal, at timespersonal, at times an aspect of the One God, and at times a secondindependent God. If we take Philo literally, this certainly is thecase. But let it be clearly understood, this interpretation not onlyinvolves Philo in inconsistency, but it utterly ruins and destroys hisreligious and philosophical system. It means that the champion ofJewish monotheism wanders into a vague ditheism. And in view of this, the modern commentators of Philo, notably Professor Drummond, [219]have examined his words more carefully and studied them in relation totheir context; and they have shown how, judged in this criticalfashion, the personality of the Logos is only figurative. It is, indeed, probable that certain extreme passages, where the Logos ispresented most explicitly as a separate Deity, are due toChristological interpolation. The Church Fathers found in the popularbelief in the Divine Word a remarkable support of the Trinity, andregarding, as they did, Philo's writings as valuable testimony to thetruth of Christianity, they had every temptation to bring his passagesabout the Logos still closer to their ideas. And between the first andthe fifth century, when we first hear from Eusebius of manuscripts ofPhilo at the Christian monastery of Cæsarea--from which we can traceour texts in direct line--there was no high standard in dealing withancient authorities. It is the Christian teachers who preserved Philo, and they preserved him not as scholars but as missioners. The besteditors have recognized that our text has been interfered with byevidenced-making scribes, as where a passage about the new Jerusalemappears, agreeing almost word for word with the picture ofRevelations. Similarly, not a few passages about the Logos areprobably spurious. [220]

Yet, even when we have expurgated our text of Philo, there remain, itwill be said, numerous passages where the Logos is spoken of andapostrophized as a person. This is so, but the conclusion which isdrawn, that the Logos is regarded as a second deity, is unjustifiable. The Jewish mind from the time of the prophets unto this day hasthought in images and metaphors, and the personification of the Logosis only the most striking instance of Philo's regular habit ofpersonifying all abstract ideas. The allegorical habit particularlyconduces to this, for as persons are constantly resolved into ideas, so ideas come to be naturally represented as persons. There are thustwo steps in Philo's theology, which seem to some extent to counteracteach other; in the first place, he resolves the concrete physicalexpressions of the Bible into spiritual ideas, in the second heportrays those ideas in pictorial language and clothes them inpersonifications. The allegorizer requires an allegorist to interprethim aright. 

Nor must it be forgotten that Philo was preaching spiritual monotheismnot only to Jews, but also to the Hellenic world, for whom it was avast bound from their naturalistic polytheism. Zealous as he was forthe pure faith, he realized that mankind could not attain it directly, but must approach it by conceptions of the One God graduallyincreasing in profundity and truth. The Greek thinkers hadapproximated closest to the Hebraic God-idea when they conceived onesupreme, immanent reason in the universe; and Philo, in carrying hisaudiences beyond this to the transcendent-immanent Being, transformedthe Greek cosmical concept into a Divine power of the One Being. Forthe true believer this is the stepping-stone to the perfect idea. "TheLogos, " he says, "is the God of us imperfect people, but the truesages worship the One Being. "[221] And, again, "The imperfect have astheir law the holy Logos. "[222] And in this sense, it is "intermediate([Greek: methorios]) between God and man. "[223] What such passagesmean is that the separation of the Logos is a stage in man's progressup to the true idea of God. It is a second-best Deity, so to say, rather than a second Deity; for those who regard the Logos as God haveno conception at all of the perfect Being of which it is only theprincipal attribute. 

The theology of Philo is characterized throughout by a tolerant andphilosophical grasp of the difficulty of pure monotheism, and of thenecessity of a long intellectual searching before the goal can beattained. To declare the Unity of God is simple enough; to have a realconception of it is a very different and a very difficult thing. AndPhilo's theology has a two-fold aim, in which either part complementsthe other. It explains, on the one hand, how God is revealed to theworld through His powers or attributes or modes of activity, and, onthe other, how man can ascend to an ecstatic union with the Real Beingthrough comprehension of those powers. By the ideal ladder whichbrings down God to earth, man can climb again to Heaven. The threechief rungs of the ladder are the attributes of creation, and ofruling power, and the Logos. The perfect unity of the Godhead is not, of course, properly the subject of attributes, but the limited mind ofman so conceives it for its own understanding, and speaks of God'sjustice, God's goodness, God's wisdom. These are, to use philosophicalterminology, categories of the religious understanding, which arefinally resolved by the perfect sage in "the synthetic apperception ofUnity. "

Philo follows what may have been a Hebrew tradition in explaining thetwo names of God, "Elohim" and "Jehovah, " as connoting His two chiefattributes: (1) the creative or beneficent, (2) the ruling orjudicial, or, as it is sometimes called, the law-giving power. [224]Names, as we know, were always regarded by Philo as profound symbols, and naturally the names of God are of vital import; and the twofoldexpression for the Hebrew Deity, of which the higher critics have mademuch destructive use, was noticed by the earliest commentators, butmade the basis by them of a constructive theology. The ruling and thecreative attributes of God are outlined and contained in the highestmode of all, the Logos, "the reason of God in every phase and form ofit that is discoverable and realizable by man. " For by the Logos, Godis both ruler and good. [225] This is the profound interpretation ofthe story in Genesis, that "God placed at the east of the garden ofEden the two Cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way tokeep the way of the tree of life" (Gen. Iv. 24). The Cherubim are thesymbols of the powers of majesty and goodness; the flaming sword isthe Logos; "because, " says our author quaintly, "all thought andspeech are the most mobile and the most ardent (_i. E. _, the mostintensive) of things, and especially the thought and speech of theonly Principle. "[226]

To correspond with the descending attributes of God we have theascending dispositions of man towards Him, fear, love, and thirdlytheir synthesis in loving knowledge. When we are in the first stage ofreligion we obey the law in hope of reward or fear of punishment; whenwe have progressed higher in thought, we worship God as the goodCreator; when we have ascended one further stage, we surpass both fearand love in an emotion which combines them, realizing, as Browningputs it, that "God is law and God is love. " In illustration of thisscheme of Philo's we may examine two passages out of his philosophicalcommentary. In the first he is commenting upon the appearance of thethree angels to Abraham as he sat outside his tent (Gen. Xviii). [227]And, by the way, it may be remarked that the Midrash commenting onthis passage notes that it begins, "And the Lord appeared untoAbraham, " and then continues, "And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood before him. " Hence we may learn that it wasreally the one God who appeared to the Patriarch, and that the threeangels were but a vision of his mind. This is the dominant note ofPhilo's interpretation, but he as usual elaborates the old Midrashphilosophically. 

 "The words, " he says, "are symbols of things apprehended by intelligence alone--the soul receives a triple expression of one being, of which one is the representative of the actual existent, and the other two are shadows, as it were, cast from this. So it happens also in the physical world, for there often occur two shadows of bodies at rest or in motion. Let no one suppose, however, that shadow is properly used in relation to God. It is only a popular use of words for the clearer understanding of our subject. The reality is not so, but, as one standing nearest to the truth might say, the middle one is the Father of the universe, who is called in Scripture the 'Self-existent'; and those on either side of Him are the two oldest and chief powers, the Creative and the Regal. The middle one, then, being attended by the others as by a bodyguard, presents to the contemplative mind a mental image or representation now of one and now of three; of one whenever the soul, being properly purified and perfectly initiated, rises to the idea which is unmingled and free from limitation, and requires nothing to complete it; but of three whenever it has not yet been initiated into the great mysteries, and still celebrates the lesser rites, unable to apprehend the Being in itself without modification, but apprehending it through its modes as either creating or ruling. This is, as the proverb says, a second-best course, but yet it partakes of godlike opinion. But the former does not partake of--for it _is_ itself--the Godlike opinion, or rather it is truth, which is more precious than all opinion. 

 "Further, there are three classes of human character, to each of which one of the three conceptions of God has been assigned. The best class goes with the first, the conception of the absolute Being; the next goes with the conception of Him as a Benefactor, in virtue of which He is called God; the third with the conception of Him as a Ruler, in virtue of which He is called Lord. The noblest character serves Him who is in all the purity of His absolute Being; it is attracted by no other thing or aspect, but is solely and intently devoted to the honor of the one and only Being; the second is brought to the knowledge of the Father through His beneficent power; the third through His regal power. "

In the second passage, which occurs in the treatise on flight from theworld, [228] Philo is allegorizing the law about founding six cities ofrefuge (Exodus xxxii). These are but material symbols for the sixstages of the ascent of the mind to the pure God-idea. The chief city, the metropolis, is the Divine Logos, next come the two powers alreadyconsidered, and then three secondary powers, the retributive, thelaw-giving, and the prohibitive. "Very beautiful and well-fencedcities they are, worthy refuges of souls that merit salvation. " Eachof these cities is an aspect of the religious mind; when it settles inthe first it obeys the law from fear of punishment and thinks of Godas the Judge; in the second it observes the precepts in hope of rewardand conceives God as the legislator of a fixed code; in the next it isrepentant and throws itself on God's grace, marking the first step ofthe spiritual life. Then it ascends in order to the idea of God as thegovernor of the universe, and the emotion which the rabbis called[Hebrew: yrat shmim], the fear of Heaven; and to the idea of God as theCreator and the universal Providence, which has as its emotionalreflex the love of Heaven, [Hebrew: 'hbt shmim]. 

But even this, which is the highest stage for many men, is not anadequate conception. Above it is the contemplation of God, apart fromall manifestations in the perceptible world, in His ideal nature, theLogos, which at once transcends and comprehends the universe. And theattitude of this man can be best expressed perhaps by Spinoza'sphrase, "the intellectual love of God, " _amor intellectualis Dei_. Theworshipper of the Logos has grasped and has harmonized all themanifestations of the Deity; he sees and honors all things in God; hecomprehends the universe as the perfect manifestation of one goodBeing. 

Is this the highest point which man can reach? Many religiousphilosophers have held that it is, but Philo, the mystic, yearning totrack out God "beyond the utmost bound of human thought, " imagines onehigher condition. The Logos is only the image or the shadow of theGodhead. [229] Above it is the one perfect reality, the transcendentEssence. Now, man cannot by any intellectual effort attain knowledgeof the Infinite as He truly is, for this is above thought. But to afew blessed mortals God of His grace vouchsafes a mystic vision of Hisnature. Thus Moses, the perfect hierophant, had this perfectapprehension, and passed from intellectual love to holy adoration. Andthe true philosopher has as the goal of his aspirations theheaven-sent ecstasy, in which he sees God no longer through Hiseffects, or in the modes of His activity, but through Himself in Hisown essence. The philosopher, when he receives this vision ([Greek:epopteia]) is possessed by the Shekinah, [230] and, losingconsciousness of his individuality, becomes at one with God. 

So much for Philo's theory of man's upward progress. We may add a wordabout his treatment of the problem which troubled thinkers in thatage, and which has harassed theologians ever since, viz. , to show howpunishment and evil could be derived from a God who was all-powerfuland all-good. The Gnostics were driven by the difficulty to imagine anevil world-power, which was in incessant conflict with the Good God:and popular belief had conjured up a legion of subordinate powers, whotook part in the work of creation and the government of the world. When Philo is speaking popularly, he accepts this current theology andspeaks also of a punitive power of God[231] ([Greek: dunamiskolastikê]); but not when he is the philosopher. For then, inperfect faith, he denies the absolute existence of evil. "It isneither in Paradise nor indeed anywhere whatsoever. "[232] Man, however, by his free will causes evil in the human sphere; and whenGod formed in man a rational nature capable of choosing for itself, moral evil became the necessary contrary of good. [233] Moreover, thepunitive activity of God, though it seems to cause suffering andmisery, is in truth a good, simulating evil, and if men judged theuniversal process as a whole, they would find it all good. Theexistence of evil involves no derogation from the perfect unity ofGod. 

If we have understood correctly Philo's theology, neither Logos, norsubordinate powers, nor angels, nor demons have an objectiveexistence; they are mere imaginings of varying incompleteness whichthe limited minds of men, "moving in worlds not realized, " make forthemselves of the one and only true God. Philo's theology is thephilosophical treatment of Jewish tradition, just as Philo's legalexegesis is the philosophical treatment of the Torah. Whilemaintaining and striving to deepen the conception of God's unity, heaims at expounding to the reason how, on the one hand, that unity isrevealed in the world about us, and how, on the other, we may advanceto its true comprehension. It was, however, unfortunate that Philoexpressed his theology in the current language, which was vague andinexact, and adapted certain foreign theosophical ideas to Judaism;hence succeeding generations, paying regard to the pictorialrepresentation rather than to the principles of his thought, soughtand found in him evidence of theories of Divine government to whichJudaism was pre-eminently opposed. The first chapter of the FourthGospel shows that gradual process of thought which finally made theLogos doctrine the antithesis of Judaism. In the first verse we have athought which might well have been written by Philo himself: "In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod. " But in the fourteenth verse there is manifest the sharpcleavage: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and webeheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. " There may be a fine spiritual thoughtbeneath the letter here, but the notion of the Incarnation is notJewish, nor philosophical, nor Philonic. Philo's work was made toserve as the guide of that Christian Gnosticism which, within the nexthundred years, proclaimed that Judaism was the work of an evil God, and that the essential mission of Jesus--the good Logos--was todethrone Jehovah! But though the Logos conception was turned tonon-Jewish and anti-Jewish purposes, it was in Philo the offspring ofa pure and philosophical monotheism. Whatever the later abuse of histeaching, Philo constructed a theology which, though affected byforeign influences, was essentially true to Judaism; and more thanthat, he was the first to weave the Jewish idea of God into theworld's philosophy. 

 * * * * *

VI

PHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER

Save for a few monographs of no great importance, because of theabsence of original thought, Philo's works form avowedly an exegesisof the Bible and not a series of philosophical writings. Nor must thereader expect to find an ordered system of philosophy in his separateworks, much more than in the writings of the rabbis. As ProfessorCaird says, [234] "The Hebrew mind is intuitive, imaginative, incapableof analysis or systematic connection of ideas. " Philo's philosophicalconceptions lie scattered up and down his writings, "strung on thethread of the Bible narrative which determines the sequence of histhoughts. " Nevertheless, though he has not given us explicit treatiseson cosmology, metaphysics, ethics, psychology, etc. , and though he wasincapable of close logical thinking, he has treated all these subjectssuggestively and originally in the course of his commentary, and hisreaders may gather together what he has dispersed, and find aco-ordinated body of religious philosophy. However loosely they areset forth in his treatises, his ideas are closely connected in hismind. Herein he differs from his Jewish predecessors, for the notionof the old historians of the Alexandrian movement, that there was asystematic Jewish philosophy before Philo, does not appear to havebeen well-founded. All that Aristeas and Aristobulus and theApocryphal authors had done was to assimilate certain philosophemes totheir religious ideas; they had not re-interpreted the whole system ofphilosophy from a Jewish point of view or traced an independentsystem, or an eclectic doctrine in the Holy Scriptures. This was theachievement of Philo. His thought is not original in the sense ofpresenting a new scheme of philosophy, but it is original in the senseof giving a fresh interpretation to the philosophical ideas of his ageand environment. He ranges them under a new principle, puts them in anew light, and combines them in a new synthesis. This again ischaracteristic of the Jewish mind. Intent on God, it does not endeavorto make its own analysis of the universe by independent reasoning, butit utilizes the systems of other nations and endeavors to harmonizethem with its religious convictions. Hence it is that nearly allJewish philosophy appears to be eclectic; its writers have rangedthrough the fields of thought of many schools and culled flowers fromeach, which they bind together into a crown for their religion. Theydo not, with few exceptions, pursue philosophy with the purpose ofwidening the borders of secular knowledge; but rather in order tobring the light of reason to illuminate and clarify faith, toharmonize Judaism with the general culture of its environment, and torevivify belief and ceremony with a new interpretation. All thisapplies to our worthy, but at the same time he was a philosopher atheart, because he believed that the knowledge of God came bycontemplation as well as by practice, and, further, because he had afirm faith in the universalism of Judaism; and he believed that thisuniversal religion must comprehend all that is highest and truest inhuman thought. Like most Jewish philosophers he is synthetic ratherthan analytic, believing in intuition and distrusting the discursivereason, careless of physical science and soaring into religiousmetaphysics. Again, like most Jewish philosophers, he is deductive, starting with a synthesis of all in the Divine Unity, and making nofresh inductions from phenomena. It has been said that, though Philowas a philosopher and a Jew, yet Saadia was the first Jewishphilosopher. But Philo's philosophical ideas are in complete harmonywith his Judaism; and if by the criticism it is meant that most of thecontent of his works is based upon Greek models, it is true on theother hand that the spirit which pervades them is essentially Jewish, and that by the new force which he breathed into it he reformed andgave a new direction to the Greek philosophy of his age. 

Philo's philosophy is certainly eclectic in some degree, and we findin it ideas taken from the schools of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the Stoics. Its fixed point was his theology, and wherever hefinds anything to support this he adapts it to his purpose. Heapproached philosophy from a position opposed to that of the Greeks:they brought a questioning and free mind to the problems of theuniverse; he comes full of religious preconceptions. Yet in this lieshis strength as well as his limitation, for he gains thus a point ofcertainty and a clear end, which other eclectic systems of the day didnot possess. He welds together all the different elements of histhought in the heat of his passion for God. His cosmology and hisontology are a philosophical exposition of the Jewish conception ofGod's relation to the universe, his ethics and his psychology of theJewish conception of man's relation to God. 

The religious preconceptions of Philo drew him to Plato above allother philosophers, so that his thought is essentially a religiousdevelopment of Platonism. It is not too much to say that Philo's workhas a double function, to interpret the Bible according to Platonicphilosophy and to interpret Plato in the spirit of the Bible. Theagreement was not the artificial production of the commentator, for intruth Plato was in sympathy with the religious conscience as a whole. The contrast between Hellenism and Hebraism is true, if we restrict itto the average mind of the two races. The one is intent on thingssecular, the other on God. But the greatest genius of the Hellenicrace, influenced perhaps by contact with Oriental peoples, possessed, in a remarkable degree, the Hebraic spirit, which is zealous for Godand makes for righteousness. Plato was not only a great philosopher, but also a great theologian, a great religious reformer, and a greatprophet, the most perfectly developed mind which the world, ancient ormodern, has known. His "Ideas, " which are the archetypes of sensiblethings, were not only logical concepts but also a kingdom of Heavenconnected with the human individual by the Divine soul. And as he grewolder so his religious feeling intensified, and he translated hisphilosophy into theology and positive religion. Platonism, it has beenwell said, is a temper as much as a doctrine; it is the spirit thatturns from the earth to Heaven, from creation to God. In his lastwork, "The Laws, " wherein he designs a theocratic state, which hasstriking points of resemblance with the Jewish polity, he says: "Theconclusion of the matter is this, which is the fairest and truest ofall sayings, that for the good man to sacrifice and hold converse withthe Deity by means of prayers and service of every kind is the noblestthing of all and the most conducive to a happy life, and above allthings fitting. "[235]

This is typical of Plato's attitude towards life in his old age; andfurther, his metaphysical system of monistic idealism is the mostremarkable approach to Hebrew monotheism which the Greek world made. The Patristic writers in the first centuries of the Christian era wereso struck by this Hebraism in the Greek thinker, that they attributedit to direct borrowing. Aristobulus had written of a translation ofthe Pentateuch older than the Septuagint, which Plato was supposed tohave studied. Clement called him the Hebrew philosopher, Origen andAugustine comment on his agreement with Genesis, and think that whenhe was in Egypt he listened to Jeremiah. [236] Eusebius worked out indetail his correspondences with the Bible. Some early neo-Platonist, perhaps Numenius, declared that Plato was only the Attic Moses; and inmore modern times the Cambridge Platonists of the sixteenth centuryharbored similar ideas, and Nietzsche spoke bitterly of the day when"Plato went to school with the Jews in Egypt. "

Of Philo, then, we may say, as Montaigne said of himself, that he wasa Platonist before he knew who Plato was. Yet he was the firstHellenistic Jew who perceived the fundamental harmony between thephilosopher's idealism and Jewish monotheism, and he was the firstimportant commentator of Plato who developed the religious teaching ofhis master into a powerful spiritual force. 

It is true that the seeds of neo-Platonism, _i. E. _, the religiousre-interpretation of Platonism under the influence of Eastern thought, had been sown already; and Philo must have received from hisenvironment to some extent the mystical version of the master'ssystem, with its goal of ecstatic union with God, and its tendency toasceticism as a means thereto. But the earlier products of themovement had been crude, and had lacked a powerful moving spirit. Thiswas provided by Philo when he introduced his overmastering conceptionof God. The popular saying, "Either Plato Philonizes or PhiloPlatonizes"[237] contains a deep truth in its first as well as in itssecond part. It not only marks the likeness in style of the twowriters, but it suggests that Philo, on the one hand, made fruitfulthe religious germ in Plato's teaching by his Hebraism, and, on theother, nourished the philosophical seed in Judaism by his Platonism. Plato's teaching falls into two main classes, the dialectical and themythical, and it is with the latter that Philo is in specially closeconnection. For in his myths Plato tries to achieve a synthesis byimaginative flight where he had failed by discursive reason. Heunifies experience by striking intuitions, something in the spirit ofa Hebrew prophet. Moreover his style, as well as his thought, has hereaffinity with Jewish modes of thought. As Zeller says, speaking of themyths: "From the first, in the act of producing his work he thinks inimages. They mark the point where it becomes evident that he cannot bewholly a philosopher because he is still too much of a poet. " And thisis true of all Philo's writings, and to generalize somewhat widely, ofmost Jewish philosophy. In "The Timæus, " particularly, Plato, throughout, is the poet-philosopher, writing imaginative myths, whichpresent pictorially an idealistic scheme of the universe; and "TheTimæus" is for Philo, after the Bible, the most authoritative ofbooks, the source of his chief philosophical ideas. 

The dominant philosophical principle of Plato is what is known as theTheory of Ideas. He imagined a world of real existences, invisible, incorporeal, eternal, grasped only by thought, prior to the objects ofthe physical universe, and the models or archetypes of them. In "TheTimæus, " which is a system of cosmology at once religious andmetaphysical, the "Ideas" are represented as the thoughts of the oneSupreme Mind, the intermediate powers by which the Supreme Unity, known as the "Idea of the Good, " or "the Creator, " evolves thematerial universe. Thus the universe is seen as the manifestation ofone Beneficent Spirit, who brings it into existence and rules over itthrough His "ideal" thoughts. Philo adopts completely and uncriticallythis theory of transcendental ideas in his philosophical exegesis ofthe cosmogony in Genesis. "Without an incorporeal archetype God bringsno simple thing to fulfilment. "[238] There is an idea of stars, ofgrass, of man, of virtue, of music. And the Platonic conceptionreceives a religious sanction. The ideas are a necessary step betweenGod and the material universe, and those who deny them throw allthings into confusion. [239] "God would not touch matter Himself, butHe did not grudge a share of His nature to it through His powers, ofwhich the true name is ideas. " We have already noticed[240] howingeniously Philo deduces the Theory of Ideas from the Biblicalaccount of the creation, and associates it with the Hebraic conceptionof the ministerial Wisdom and Word. He, however, gives a new directionto the Platonic theory, owing to his Hebraic conception of God. Theideas with him are not the thoughts of an impersonal mind, but theemanations of a personal, volitional Deity. Keeping close to Jewishtradition, he says that they are the words of the Deity speaking. Ashuman speech consists of incorporeal ideas, which produce an effectupon the minds of others, so the Divine speech is a pattern ofincorporeal ideas which impress themselves upon a formless void, andso create the material world. [241] In this way Philo associates hiscosmology with his theology. The creative "Ideas" are equatedcollectively with the Supreme Logos, [242] individually with the Logoiwhich represent God's particular activities. Thus the Logos representsthe whole ideal or noetic world, "the kingdom of Heaven"; and it is inthis metaphysical sense that the Logos is the first creation, "thefirst-born son of God, " prior to the physical universe, which is Hisgrandson. The whole universe is thus seen as the orderly manifestationof one principle. Philo, expanding a favorite image of the Haggadah, illustrates God's creation by the simile of a king founding a city. "He gets to him an architect, who first designs in his mind the partsof the perfect city, and then, looking continually to his model, begins to construct the city of stones and wood. So when God resolvedto found the world-city, He first brought its form into mind, andusing this as a model he completed the visible world. "[243]

The theory of religious idealism is the centre of Philo's philosophy, and provides the basis of his explanation of the material universe. Physics, indeed, he considered of small account, because he believedthere could be no certainty in such speculations. [244] His mind wasutterly unscientific; but as a religious philosopher he found itnecessary to give a theory of the creation. Jewish dogma held that theworld had been called into being out of nothing; the Greekphilosophers repudiated such an idea, and held that creation must bethe result of a reasonable process; Aristotle had imagined that matterwas a separately existent principle with mind, and that the world waseternal; and the Stoics held that matter was the substance of allthings, including the pantheistic power itself:

 "All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is, and God the soul. "

Philo impugns both these theories, [245] the one because it denies thecreative power of God, the other because it confuses the Creator withHis creation. He looked for a system which should satisfy at once theJewish notion that the world was brought out of nothing by the will ofGod, and the philosophical concept that God is all reality; and hefound in Plato's idealism a view of the creation which he couldharmonize with the religious view. Plato declared that the materialworld had been created out of the _Non-Ens_ ([Greek: mê on]) _i. E. _, that which has no real existence. He conceived space and matter as themere passive receptacle of form, which is nothing till the form hasgiven it quality. Though Philo's language is vague, this seems to behis view when he is speaking philosophically. It is, perhaps, a slightdeviation from the earlier religious standpoint of the Jews, whichlooks to a direct and deliberate creation of the world-stuff, ratherthan to the informing of space by spirit, and regards the world asseparate from God, and not as a manifestation of His being. But themore philosophical conception appears likewise in the Wisdom ofSolomon. "For Thine all-powerful hand that created the world out offormless matter, " says the author (xi. 17), establishing before Philothe compromise between two competing influences in his mind. Moreemphatically Philo rejects the notion of creation in time. [246] Time, he says, came into being after God had made the universe, and has nomeaning for the Divine Ruler, whose life is in the eternal present. 

Summing up, we may say that Philo regards the universe as the image ofthe Divine manifestation or evolution in thought produced by Hisbeneficent will; and this view is true to the religious standpoint oftraditional Judaism in spirit if not in letter. 

In his conception of the human soul, Philo again harmonizes the simpleJewish notion with the developed Greek psychology by means of thePlatonic idealism. The soul in the Bible is the breath of God; inPlato it is an Idea incarnate, represented in "The Timæus" as aparticle of the Supreme Mind. Philo, following the psychology of hisage, divides the soul into a higher and a lower part: (1) the Nous;(2) the vital functions, which include the senses. He lays all thestress upon the former, which gives man his kinship with God and theideal world, while the other part is the necessary result of itsincarnation in the body. He variously describes the Nous as aninseparable fragment of the Divine soul, a Divine breath which Godinspires into each body, a reflection, an impression, or an image ofthe blessed Logos, sealed with its stamp. [247] Following the Platonicconception, Philo occasionally speaks of the Divine soul as having aprenatal existence, [248] holding, as the English poet put it, that

 "The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting And cometh from afar. "

Here, too, he follows an older Jewish-Hellenistic tradition, whichappears in the Wisdom of Solomon (viii. 19 and 20), where it iswritten: "A good soul fell to my lot. Nay rather, being good, I cameinto a body undefiled. " The Nous is in fact the god within, and itbears to the microcosm Man the relation which the infinite God bearsto the macrocosm. [249] Indeed, it is the Logos descended from above, but yearning to return to its true abode. Thus Philo sings its Divinenature:

 "It is unseen, but sees all things: its essence is unknown, but it comprehends the essence of all things. And by arts and sciences it makes for itself many roads and ways, and traverses sea and land, searching out all things within them. And it soars aloft on wings, and when it has investigated the sky and its changes it is borne upwards towards the æther and the revolutions of the heavens. It follows the stars in their orbits, and passing the sensible it yearns for the intelligible world. "

The Nous is the king of the whole organism, the governing and unifyingpower, and hence is often called the man himself. The senses, resembling the powers of God, are only the bodyguard, subordinateinstruments, and inferior modes of the Divine part. [250] So Philoexplains that all our faculties are derived from the Divine principle, and he draws the moral lesson that our true function is to bend themall to the Divine service, so as to foster our noblest part. The aimof the good man is to bring the god within him into union with the Godwithout, and to this end he must avoid the life of the senses, [251]which mars the Divine Nous, and may entirely crush it. The Divinesoul, as it had a life before birth, so also has a life after death;for what is Divine cannot perish. Immortality is man's most splendidhope. If the Divine Presence fills him with a mystic ecstasy, he has, indeed, attained it upon this earth, but this bliss is only for thevery blessed sage; and he, too, looks forward to the more lasting unionwith the Godhead after this terrestrial life is over. [252] True atonce to the principles of Platonism and Judaism, Philo admits noanthropomorphic conception of Heaven or of Hell. He is convinced thatthere is a life hereafter, and finds in the story of Enoch theBiblical symbol thereof, [253] but he does not speculate about thenature of the Divine reward. The pious are taken up to God, he says, andlive forever, [254] communing alone with the Alone. [255] The unrighteoussouls, Philo sometimes suggests, in accordance with current Pythagoreanideas, are reincarnated according to a system of transmigration withinthe human species ([Greek: palengenesia]). [256] Yet the sinnersuffers his full doom on earth. The true Hades is the life of thewicked man who has not repented, exposed to vengeance, with uncleansedguilt, obnoxious to every curse. [257] And the Divine punishment is tolive always dying, to endure death deathless and unending, the deathof the soul. [258]

The Divine Nous constitutes the true nature of man; Philo, however, insists with almost wearisome repetition, that the god within us hasno power in itself, and depends entirely on the grace and inspirationof God without for knowledge, virtue, and happiness. [259] The Stoicdogma, that the wise man is perfectly independent and self-contained([Greek: autarchês]) appears to him as a wicked blasphemy. "Thosewho make God the indirect, and the mind the direct cause are guilty ofimpiety, for we are the instruments through which particularactivities are developed, but He who gives the impulse to the powersof the body and the soul is the Creator by whom all things aremoved. "[260] All thought-functions, memory, reasoning, intuition, arereferred directly to Divine inspiration, which is in Platonicterminology the illumination of the mind by the ideas. Thus, finally, all human activity is referred back to God. 

This guiding principle determines Philo's attitude to knowledge, involving, as it does, that we only know by Divine inspiration, or, ashe says, by the immanence of the Logoi. [261] The possibility ofknowledge was one of the burning questions of the age, and it was thefailure of the old dogmatic schools to answer it which led to a greatreligious movement in Greek philosophy. How can man attain to trueknowledge, it was asked, about the universe, seeing that perceptionsvary with each individual, and of conceptions we have no certainstandard? The old Hebrew attitude to this question is expressed by theverse of the Psalmist: "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, butthe earth hath He given to the sons of men" (Psalm cxv), which impliesthat man must not try to penetrate the secrets of the universe. Philois sufficiently a philosopher to desire knowledge about things Divineand human, but at the same time he has a complete distrust in thepowers of human sense and human reason. About the physical universe heis frankly a skeptic, [262] but his religious faith leads him to holdthat God vouchsafes to man some knowledge of Himself and of the properway of life, _i. E. _, ethics. "Man knows all things in God. "[363] Platosimilarly had despaired of knowledge of the physical world, and hadturned to the heavenly ideas as the true object of thought. Moreover, in his early period, while his theory was still poetical and mystical, he had conceived that knowledge was made possible in the subject, bythe entrance of "forms, " or emanations, from the ideas. This theoryPhilo adapts to his Jewish outlook. Like Plato, he turns away from thephysical to the ideal world, [264] and he regards the ideas of wisdom, virtue, bravery, etc. , which are theologically powers of God, ascontinually sending forth Logoi, forms or forces (the angels ofpopular belief), to inform and enlighten our minds. Throughout, God isthe cause of all knowledge as well as of being, for these effluencesare but an expression of God's activity. In Philo's theory, object andsubject are really one. What can be known are the modes or attributesof God, which philosophically are "Ideas"; what knows is the emanationof the Idea, which God sends into the human soul that is prepared toreceive it by pious contemplation. "Through the heavenly Wisdom, wisdom is seen, for wisdom sees itself. " "Through God, God is known, for He is His own light. "[265]

Thus all knowledge is intuition, and man's function is not so much toreason as to lead a life of piety and contemplate the Divine work inthe hope of being blessed with inspiration. It would be a mistake, however, to take Philo's words quite literally. He does not deny theneed of human effort and striving for knowledge; for the Divineinfluence is not vouchsafed till we have prepared for it andconsecrated all our faculties to God. But, devout mystic as he is, he ascribes every consummation to the direct help of the Deity. "Themind is the cause of nothing, but rather the Deity, who is prior tomind, generates thought. "[266] The Greek philosopher had ascribed thefinal synthesis of knowledge to a superhuman force. Philo ascribes toGod all the intermediate steps from sense-perception. It may beadmitted that his passive notion of philosophy involves theabandonment of the Greek ideal, the eager searching of Plato aftertruth. He lived in an age in which, through loss of intellectualpower, man had come to despair of the attainment of knowledge by humaneffort, and to rely entirely upon supernatural means, Divinerevelations, visions, and the like. It is consistent with his wholeposition that the crown of life is represented, not as an intellectualstate, but as a superhuman ecstasy of the Nous, wherein it is freednot only from the body but from the rest of the soul, and is, so tosay, led out of itself. [267] He comments on the verse, "And the sunwent down and a deep sleep fell on Abraham" (Gen. Xv. 12). "When theDivine light, " he says, "shines upon the mortal soul, the mortal lightsinks, and our reason is driven out at the approach of the Divinespirit. "[268] This is the Alexandrian interpretation of [Hebrew: shkina]and [Hebrew: nboah], and though it is much affected by Greek mysticalideas, yet at the same time it is broadly true to the spirit of Jewishmysticism, as we see it presented in writers of all ages, and as thePsalmist expressed it, "to abide under the shadow of the Almighty. "

Philo's ethics, like the rest of his philosophy, exhibits thetransfusion of Greek ideas with his Hebrew spirit. The Greekphilosophers had evolved a rational plan of life, while the Jewishteachers were impregnated with burning ardor for the living God; andPhilo brings the two things together, making ethics dependent onreligion. The Stoics, who were the most powerful school of his day, regarded as the ideal of goodness life according to unbending reasonand in complete independence of God or man. Philo understands God as apersonal power making for righteousness, and man's excellence, accordingly, which is likeness to God, is piety and charity. [269]Above all he insists upon Faith ([Greek: pistis]) and he definesvirtue as a condition of soul which fixes its hopes upon the trulyExistent God. The Stoics also professed to honor faith or confidenceabove all things, but the virtue which they meant was reliance uponman's own powers. Philo's virtue is almost the converse of this. Manmust feel completely dependent upon God, and his proper attitude ishumility and resignation. So only can he receive within his soul theseed of goodness, and finally the Divine Logos. [270] Yet at the sametime Philo remains loyal to the Jewish ideal of conduct: faith withoutworks is empty, and, as he puts it, "The true-born goods are faith andconsistency of word and action. "[271]

The attainment of the highest excellence demands severe discipline, save for those few blessed souls whom God perfects without any efforton their part. The rest can only secure self-realization byself-renunciation; they must avoid the bodily passions and bodilylusts. [272] At times the Divine enthusiasm causes Philo, like many aJewish saint and like his master Plato, to scorn all bodilylimitations and recommend "insensibility" ([Greek: apatheia])[273]by which he means that man should crush his physical desires andrepress his feelings. Not that the good life seems to him to implyabsence of pleasure. On the contrary, it is filled with the purest ofjoy, for when man rises to the love of God "in calm of mind, allpassion spent, " then and then alone has he tasted true joyousness. Thesymbol of this bliss is Isaac ([Hebrew: ytshk]), the laughter of thesoul. 

It was noticed in the second chapter that Philo modified his ethicalideas during his life. In the earlier period he insists more stronglyon the need of ascetic self-denial, and has almost a horror of theworld. Maturer experience, however, taught him that man is made forthis world, and that a wise use of its goods was a surer path tohappiness and to God than flight from all temptations. In his laterwritings, therefore, he exhibits a striking moderation. He reproachesthe ascetics for their "savage enthusiasm, "[274] probably hinting atthe extreme sects of the Essenes and the Therapeutæ. "Those who followa gentler wisdom seek after God, but at the same time do not despisehuman things. "

 "Truth will properly blame those who without discrimination shun all concern with the life of the State, and say that they despise the acquisition of good repute and pleasure. They are only making grand pretensions, and they do not really despise these things. They go about in torn raiment and with solemn visage, and live the life of penury and hardship as a bait, to make people believe that they are lovers of good conduct, temperance, and self-control. "[275]

Philo's aphorism, which follows, "Be drunk in a sober manner, " ischaracteristic. The Stoic extreme of passionlessness is almost asfalse as the Epicurean hedonism, and the mean between them is theideal Jewish life, in which godliness and humanity are blended. 

We have now examined the main divisions of Philo's philosophy, and wesee that his metaphysics, cosmology, theory of knowledge, and ethicsare all religious in tone, and all determined in their main lines byhis Jewish outlook. His Hebraism is a seal which stamps all thatenters his mind from Greek sources, and the Bible, spirituallyinterpreted, is the canon of all his wisdom. 

There remains one minor aspect of his work which must be brieflyexamined, because it has become closely associated with his name. Thisis his number-symbolism, by which he ascribes important powers tocertain numbers, so that they are regarded as holy themselves andsanctifying that to which they are attached. This feature of histhought is commonly ascribed to Pythagorean influence, which wasstrong at Alexandria, and, indeed, throughout the world, at this era. The exact details of the holiness of four, seven, ten, fifty, etc. , Philo may have borrowed from neo-Pythagorean sources, but the generaltendency was the natural result of his environment and his stage ofthought. It was a feature of the recurring childishness of ideas andthe renascence of wonder at common things which is apparent on manyhands. To have denied the powers of numbers would have seemed asabsurd and eccentric then as to deny the powers of electricity to-day. And in all ages people have been found to regard numbers mystically asa link between God and earth, and a means of solving all physical andmetaphysical problems. The Hebrew intellect, primitive as it was, tended particularly to the reverence of the numerical powers. Witnessthe Bible itself, which emphasizes certain numbers; and witness alsothe fifth chapter of the Pirke Abot, with its lists ranged under four, seven, and ten, which is only typical of the rabbinical attitude. Philo is not original in his views concerning numbers, not above norbelow the loose thinking of his age. He accepts unquestioningly thepotency of seven, because of its marvellous mathematical properties, ratios, etc. , its geometrical efficacy, and because of the sevenperiods of life from infancy to old age, of the seven parts of thebody, the seven motions, the seven strings of the lyre, the sevenvowels, and the very name, which is connected with worship ([Greek:sebasmos]). All this is trifling and trite, but what is ofimportance is the use which Philo makes of the sentiment. He convertsit throughout to the support and glorification of Jewish institutions. Thus, if a man honors seven, he says, he will devote the Sabbath tomeditation and philosophy. [276] Further, as seven is the symbol ofrest and tranquillity, the Sabbath must be a day of perfect rest. Tenis magnified so as to honor the Decalogue, [277] fifty so as to honorthe Feast of Pentecost. So, too, the Pythagoreans' mathematicalconceptions of God as "the beginning and limit of all things, " or, again, as the principle of equality, are approved by Philo, "becausethey breed in the soul the fairest and most nourishing fruit--piety. "In short, Philo's Pythagoreanism only emphasizes his commandingpurpose--to deepen and recommend the Jewish God-idea and the Jewishmethod of life. 

Jewish influences throughout are the determining element of Philo'steaching; they are the dynamic forces working upon the Greek matterand producing the new Platonism, which constitutes Philo'scontribution to Greek philosophy. It may, indeed, be said that hisHebraism makes Philo anti-philosophical, because he has no desire orhope of adding to positive knowledge, but aims only at the calm of theindividual soul in union with its God. The Platonic Theory of Ideas, metaphysical in origin, plays a very important part in his works, butit is adapted mystically, and turned from an ideal of the humanintellect to a support of monotheism and piety. Here Philo is at oncethe leader and the child of his generation; men were no longersatisfied with rational systems, but wanted a religious philosophy, based upon a transcendental principle and a Divine revelation whichcould give them some certainty and some positive hope in life. Doubtless, the strong mystical tendency in Philo destroyed the balancebetween the intuitive and the discursive reason which makes theperfect philosopher. In his overpowering passion for God, he distrustsovermuch the analytical efforts of the human mind. Nevertheless, hisacquired Hellenism gives his Jewish conceptions a philosophicalimpress, and this has made him the model of the school of religiousphilosophers. The ministerial "Word" became the "ideal" expression ofGod's mind, the governing reason, the world-soul; the angels werespiritualized as a kingdom of Ideas. Piety received an intellectual aswell as a religious value, and the Mosaic law was raised to a higherdignity as an ethical code of universal validity. 

A complete harmony between the Hellenic and the Hebraic outlook uponlife was impossible, but Philo at least accomplished a harmony betweenHebraic monotheism and Greek metaphysics. He desired to show thatfaith and philosophy were in agreement, and that the imaginative andreflective conceptions of God and the Divine government were inunison. And he may be considered to have realized his desire in hissynthesis of Jewish theology and Platonic idealism. He is through andthrough a great interpreter, elucidating points of unity betweendistinct systems of thought. In him the fusion of cultures, whichbegan with the Septuagint translation, reached its culmination. Itreached its zenith and straightway the severance began. 

In the next chapter we shall trace Philo's place in Jewish thought;here we may glance at his place in the development of Greekphilosophy. The fusion between Eastern and Western thought, which hehimself so strikingly illustrates, continued to dominate philosophyfor the next four hundred years; and Plato, who, with his deepreligious spirit, had a broad affinity with the Oriental conception ofthe universe, was the supreme philosophical master. All the chiefteachers looked to him for the intellectual basis of their ideas andread into his works their particular religious beliefs; but theyfailed to maintain a true harmony between the two. The cultures of allcountries and races mingled, even as their peoples mingled under theRoman Empire, but they were so combined as to lose the purity andindividuality of each element. The Eastern Platonists who followedPhilo brought to their interpretation less noble conceptions of theGodhead, the Gnosticism of Syria, the dualism of Persia, theimpersonal pantheism of India, and the theurgies of Egypt, andproduced strange hybrids of the human mind. The one point of agreementbetween them is that they conceive the Supreme God as impersonal andentirely inactive, "a deified Zero, " and endeavor by a system ofemanation to trace the descent of this baffling principle into man andthe universe. Philo was as unfortunate in his philosophical as in hisreligious following, who both transformed his poetical metaphors intofixed and rigid dogmas. His doctrine of the Logos was, on the onehand, the forerunner of the Trinity of the Church, on the other of theTrinity of the Alexandrian neo-Platonists. It is difficult, indeed, totrace with certainty the connection between Philo and the later schoolof Alexandrian Platonists, but there appears to be at least one clearlink in the teaching of the Syrian Numenius, who flourished in themiddle of the second century. To him are attributed the two sayings:"Either Plato Philonizes or Philo Platonizes, " and "What is Plato butthe Attic Moses?" Modern scholars have questioned the correctness ofthe reference, but be this as it may, it is certain that Numenius usedthe Bible as evidence of Platonic doctrines. "We should go back, " hesays, in a fragment, "to the actual writings of Plato and call in astestimony the ideas of the most cultured races; comparing their holybooks and laws we should bring in support the harmonious ideas whichare to be found among the Brahmans and the Jews. "[278] Origen tellsus, [279] moreover, that he often introduced excerpts from the books ofMoses and the Prophets, and allegorized them with ingenuity. In one ofthe few remains of his writings which have come down to us, we findhim praising the verse in the first chapter of Genesis, "The spirit ofGod was upon the waters"; because, as Philo had interpretedit--following perhaps a rabbinical tradition--water represents theprimal world-stuff. And elsewhere he mentions the efforts of theEgyptian magicians to frustrate the miracles of Moses, followingPhilo's account in his life of the Jewish hero. 

The work of Philo helped to spread a knowledge of the HebrewScriptures far and wide and to give them general authority as aphilosophical book; but it did not succeed in spreading the pureHebrew monotheism. The exalted Hebrew idea of God was still toosublime for the pagan nations, even for their philosophers. The worldin truth was decaying morally and intellectually, and most of all inpowers of imagination; and its hunger for God found expression incrude and stunted conceptions of His nature. Unable any longer to soarto Heaven, it sullied the majesty of the Deity, and divided theGodhead in order to bridge the gap. Numenius represents in philosophythe Gnostic ideas about God which were widely held by the heretics, Jewish and Christian, of the second century. He divides the Godheadinto two separate powers: (1) the impersonal Being behind all reality, free from all activity whatsoever; (2) the Demiurge or active governorof the universe, who again is subdivided into a transcendent and animmanent power. 

The teaching of Plotinus, the most famous of the later Alexandrianneo-Platonists, shows a further step in the development of religiousPlatonism. Viewed from its higher side it is an attempt to explaineverything as the emanation of the One. But philosophy in the thirdcentury debased itself in order to support the tottering polytheisticreligion of the pagan world against the modified Hebraic creed, Christianity, which was fast demolishing its power. Against theTrinity of the Church the philosophers set up a heavenly Trinity ofso-called reason: the Ineffable One, the Demiurgic Mind, and the WorldSoul; and between this Trinity and man they placed intermediatehierarchies of gods, angels, and demons--in fact, the whole fugitivearmy of Greek polytheism thinly disguised. All the vulgar fancies andsuperstitions which Philo had intellectualized, these later EasternPlatonists sought to revive and justify by conceptions of physicalemanation blended of false science and mysticism. They hoped to founda universal religion by finding room in one system for the deities ofall nations!

From Plotinus down to Proclus, neo-Platonism became moreunintellectual, more insane, more pagan, and, finally, with its vapiddreams, it brought the history of Greek philosophy to an ingloriousclose. Its finer teachings, however, deeply affected mediaevalphilosophy, and not least the Arab-Jewish school. The theory ofemanations and spiritual hierarchies pervades the writings of IbnEzra, Ibn Gabirol, and Ibn Daud, and thus indirectly provides aconnection between the culture of Alexandrian Judaism and the cultureof Spanish Judaism. The praise of God known as the [Hebrew: ktr mlkot] byIbn Gabirol is a splendid example of the Hebraizing of neo-Platonicdoctrines, which, though probably quite independent of his teaching, recalls constantly the ideas of Philo. 

By his place at the head of the neo-Platonic school Philo enters thebroad stream of the world's philosophical development, but his morelasting influence was exercised over the religious philosophy ofChristianity. He was the direct master of what is known as thePatristic school, which sought to combine the intellectual conceptionsof Plato with the religious ideas of the Gospels. Its most celebratedteachers were Clement and Origen, both of Alexandria, who flourishedin the second century. They resorted largely to allegoricalinterpretation, learning from Philo to trace in the Bible principlesof universal thought and profound philosophy; but they used his methodand his lessons to support notions of God and the Logos which werealien to his spirit. He had possessed pre-eminently the soaringimagination of poetry, which is the crown of the intellectual and ofthe religious mind, and unites them in their highest excellence; butthey bounded their philosophy within the narrow limits of dogma, andthereby destroyed the harmony between Hebraism and Hellenism which hehad contrived to effect. The controversy of Origen and Celsus beganagain the battle between reason and faith, "which was to destroy forcenturies the independence of philosophy and to break the continuityof civilization. " Had Philo really been ploughing the sand, and was anagreement between faith and reason, between religion and philosophy, impossible? Can the two finest creations of the mind only be combinedon the terms that one is subordinate, or rather servile, to the other?In Judaism, if anywhere, the combination should be possible, forJudaism has as its basis an intuitional conception of God, which is inharmony with the philosophical conception of the universe, and it haslittle dogma besides. The neo-Platonists and the Church Fathers failedto carry on the ideal of Philo, but it was to be expected that amonghis own people, the nation of philosophers, as he had called them, hewould have found true successors. Yet the use made of his work by theChristians compelled his people to regard him as a betrayer of the lawand to avoid his goal as a treacherous snare. For centuries Greekphilosophy was banned from Jewish thought, and Philo's works are notmentioned by any Jewish writer. Strangers possessed his inheritance, and his name alone, "Philo-Judæus, " bore witness to his nationality. It is an interesting speculation to consider how different might havebeen the history, not only of the Jews, but of the world, if theHellenistic Judaism of Philo had prevailed in the Roman-Greek worldinstead of "the impurer Hellenism of Christianity. " When, in the tenthcentury, the leaders of Jewish thought broke the bonds of seclusion, and brought anew to the interpretation of their religion the cultureof the outer world, Greek philosophy became again a powerfulinfluence, though it was Aristotle rather than Plato whom theystudied. The harmonizing spirit of Philo, which may be accounted partof the genius of the race, lives on in Saadia, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Gabirol, and Judah Halevi. But the difference between him and theArabic school is marked. They do not inherit his whole object, forthey aimed not at a philosophical Judaism which should be aworld-religion, but at a philosophical Judaism for the moreenlightened Jews alone. Philo's work was the culminating point, indeed, of a great development in Judaism, produced by the mingling ofthe finest products of human reason and human imagination, but it wasparticularly the expression of his own commanding genius. He lacked atrue successor, for those who shared his aim did not inherit hisJewish outlook, and those who shared his Jewish outlook did notinherit his aim. What is characteristic of and peculiar to Philo isthe combination of the missionary and the philosopher. Living at atime when the Jewish genius expanded most brilliantly, and whenJudaism exercised its greatest influence, he hoped to make hisreligion universal by showing it to be philosophical, and to bringabout by the aid of Plato the ideal of the prophets. 

 * * * * *

VII

PHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION

We have seen from time to time how Philo's interpretation of the Biblecorresponds with Palestinian Jewish tradition; and we must nowconsider more in detail the relations of the two schools of Jewishlearning. Until the last century it was commonly supposed that noclose relation existed, and that the Alexandrian and Palestinianschools were independent and opposed; Scaliger, the greatest scholarof the seventeenth century, wrote[280] that "Philo was more ignorantof Hebraic and Aramaic lore than any Gaul or Scythian, " and this wasthe opinion generally held. The researches of Freudenthal andSiegfried[281] have shown the falsity of these views; and, mostimportant of all, Philo refutes them out of his own mouth. He refersin many different parts of his works[282] to the tradition and thewisdom of his ancestors, he tells us how on the Sabbath the Jewsstudied in their synagogues their special philosophy, [283] and hecommences his "Life of Moses" by declaring that against the falsecalumnies of Greek writers he will set forth the true account which hehas learnt from the sacred writings and "from certain elders of hisrace. " In support of his statement we have the remark of Eusebius, theChristian historian, and our chief ancient authority for Philo'swork, [284] that he set forth and expounded not only the laws of theBible, but many institutions and opinions of his fathers. Apart fromthese direct references, the numerous points of correspondence betweenPhilo's interpretations and those of the Talmud and later Midrashwould compel us to admit a connection between Alexandria andJerusalem. 

The break between the two schools did not show itself till after thetime of Philo. Up to the first century of the Christian era the rabbisencouraged the union of Shem and Japheth--the two good sons of oneparent--and the stream of ideas flowed quite freely between theteachers in Palestine and the Hellenized colony in Egypt. [285] Hencethe Palestinian Jews, on the one hand, received the first fruits ofthis mingling of cultures, and the Alexandrian Jews, on the other, must have inherited the early tradition of the rabbinical interpretersembodied in ancient Halakah and Haggadah. By this common heritage, rather than by any direct borrowing, it seems more reasonable toaccount for the correspondence in the two Midrashim. It should beremembered that until the second century of the common era the mass ofJewish tradition was a floating and developing body of opinion notconsigned to writing or formalized, but handed down by word of mouthfrom teacher to pupil, and preacher to congregation: in this way itwas diffused throughout the mind of the race, indefinitely and, tosome extent, unconsciously shaping its thought. The detailed points ofagreement between Philo and the Talmud and Midrash are not of greatmoment in themselves, but they are the signs of a unity of developmentand the catholicity of Judaism in the East and West. Doubtless thedevelopment was more national and at the same time more legal inJudæa, in Alexandria more Hellenistic and philosophical, but there isa common spiritual bond between the two expressions, pious images, fancies, similes, interpretations which they share. They are, as itwere, children of one family, and despite the varying influences ofenvironment they maintain a family resemblance. With the Sibyllineoracles we may compare Daniel and the Psalms of Solomon; with Aristeasand his fellow-Apologists, Josephus; with the allegorical commentariesof Philo, the Midrashim. Modern scholars have gone far to prove thatPhilo was the expounder of an Hellenic Midrash upon the Bible, inwhich were gathered the thoughts and ideas that had been brought toEgypt by the Jewish settlers, modified, no doubt, by Greek influences, but still bearing the stamp of their origin. Philo, then, appears inthe direct line of the tradition which from the time of the GreatSynagogue was disseminated through two channels, the schools ofPalestine and the writers of Alexandria. He developed the nationalJewish theology in a literary form, which made it available for theworld, but with him the tradition as a Jewish tradition ends; in itsfurther Hellenistic development it departed entirely from its originalprinciples. 

It is natural that the larger number of parallels between Philo andthe rabbis is to be found in the Haggadic portions of Talmudicteaching, for the Haggadah represents the same spirit as underliesPhilo's work, though in a more peculiarly Jewish form; it is anallegory, a play of fancy, a tale that points a moral, or illustratesa question. It had, too, largely the same origin, for it gatheredtogether the popular discourses given in the synagogue on theSabbaths. Yet the relation of Philo to the other domain of the Talmud, the code of life, or the Halakah, is of great interest; for, as wehave seen, [286] the Alexandrian community had a Sanhedrin of theirown, of which Philo's brother was the president, and he himselfprobably a member; and in his exposition of the "Specific Laws" he haspreserved for us the record of certain interpretations of the Jewishcode, which are illuminating as much by their difference from, as bytheir agreement with, the practices of Palestine. The general aim ofPhilo's exegesis of the law was to show its broad principles ofjustice and humanity rather than to formulate its exact detail. It istrue, he makes it an offence[287]--unknown to the rabbis--fora Jew to be initiated into the Greek mysteries, but usually he isconcerned to recommend the Halakah to the world rather than expand itfor his own community. This is shown in his treatment of the civil asmuch as the moral law. The great system of jurisprudence in his day, with which every code claiming to have universal value had necessarilyto challenge comparison, was Roman Law. That part of it which wasapplied throughout the Empire, the _jus gentium_, was regarded as"written reason. " It is probable that contact with Roman jurisprudencehad affected the practical interpretations which the AlexandrianSanhedrin put upon the Biblical legislation, and was the cause of someof their differences from the Palestinian Halakah. In treating theethical law, Philo's object was to show its agreement with theloftiest conceptions of Greek philosophers, and, indeed, itsprofounder truth; in treating the civil law of the Bible, his objectlikewise was to show its agreement with the highest principles ofjurisprudence and its superiority to pagan codes. If at times hesupports a greater severity than the Palestinian rabbis eventuallyallowed, that is where greater severity implies a closer relation toRoman Law. Thus he has not the horror of capital punishment which theJerusalem Sanhedrin exhibited; he would condemn to death the man whocommits wilful homicide, whether by his own hand or by poison;[288]whereas the other Halakah allows it only in the former case. He whocommits perjury also is to suffer capital punishment. [289] He adds alaw which finds no place in the Palestinian tradition, making theexposure of children a capital crime. [290] Again, following the textof the Biblical law literally (see Deut. Xxi. 18), he gives power oflife and death to parents over their rebellious children, whereas theJewish law demands a trial before a court to make the death sentencelegal. He approves of the _lex talionis_, "an eye for an eye, a toothfor a tooth, " agreeing here, indeed, with the opinion of earlierrabbis like R. Eliezer (see Baba Kama 84, [Hebrew: 'yn tht 'yn mmsh], "the law of eye for eye is to be taken literally"), and disagreeing withthe later Halakic interpretation, which says that the law of Moses meansthe award of the value of an eye for an eye, etc. 

This is one instance among many of Philo's adoption of the oldertradition, established probably under the Sadducæan predominance, which was modified in the rabbinical schools of the first and thesecond century. Paradoxically, in his exposition of the law, Philofollows the letter more closely as the expression of justice, whilethe later rabbis often allegorize it in order to support their humanerinterpretation. Thus, commenting on the passage in Exodus xxii. 3about the law of theft, "If the sun be risen upon him, blood shall beshed for blood, " he, like R. Eliezer, interprets [Hebrew: dbrim kktbm][291]_i. E. _, literally. "If, " he says, "the owner catches the thief beforesunrise, he may kill him, but after the sun has risen he must bring himbefore the court. "[292] This also was the Roman law, but the Halakahinterprets more artificially: "If it were as clear as sunlight thatthe thief would not have killed the owner, then the owner may not killhim. " Philo would justify the old law; the rabbis explain it away. Onthe other hand, in his treatment of the law relating to slaves, Philoextends the liberality both of the Bible and the Halakah. He declaresthat the slave is to be set free when by his master's violence he losesan eye or even a tooth. [293] The Bible and the Talmud direct emancipationonly where the slave loses a limb; but Philo writes eloquently of thehumanity of which man is deprived by the loss of sight; and he wouldapparently condemn the master who injured his slave more seriously to thefull penalties of the ordinary law. [294] Maimonides, in his exposition ofthe law, approves the milder practice, [295] and this suggests that ithad an old tradition behind it. Beautiful is Philo's stray maxim, "Behave to your servants as you pray that God may behave to you. Foras we hear them, so shall we be heard, and as we regard them, so shallwe be regarded. "[296] In his whole treatment of slavery, Philo showsremarkable enlightenment for his age. He objects, indeed, to theinstitution altogether, and he tempers it continually with ideas ofequality. Thus, following the Halakah, he directs the redemption of aslave seven years after his purchase, and he treats the laws of theseventh-year rest to the land and of the jubilee as of universalvalidity. 

Coming to the more specifically religious laws we find that Philo, missionary as he is, prohibits altogether marriage with Gentiles, [297]and that though, in the opinion of certain rabbinic teachers, theBiblical prohibition extended only to marriage with the Canaanitetribes, and unions with other Gentiles were permitted. [298] Philorecognizes how dangerous such unions are for the cause which he had sodearly at heart, the spreading of Judaism. "Even, " says he, "if youyourself remain true to your religion through the influence of theexcellent instruction of your parents, yet there is no small dangerthat your children by such a marriage may be beguiled away by badcustoms to unlearn the true religion of the one only God. "[299]Throughout, Philo is true to the mission of Israel in its highestsense. That mission is not assimilation, and it is to be brought aboutby no easy method of mixing with the surrounding people. It can beeffected only by holding up the Torah in its purity as a light to thenations, and by offering them examples of life according to the law. 

Of the special ordinances for Sabbaths and festivals Philo mentionsonly those consecrated by the Biblical law or ancient tradition, whichprobably were the only ones settled in his day. He lays down theprohibition to kindle fire, [300] to make or return deposits, or toplead in the law courts on the Sabbath; he speaks of the reading ofthe Haggadah and Hallel on the night of Passover, of the bringing of abarley cake during the 'Omer and of the first fruits to the Temple onthe Feast of Weeks, of the Shofar at New Year, and of the Sukkah, butnot of the Lulab at Tabernacles. It should be remembered that theHalakah was not consolidated till the second or third century, and inPhilo's time it was in the process of formation by different schoolsof rabbis. But the passage quoted in an earlier chapter, about addingto the law, proves his reverence for the oral law. [301]

Though his statement of the civil and religious law is of greatinterest to the student of Halakic development, Philo's work presentsgreater correspondence, on the whole, with the Haggadah, which in aprimitive way draws philosophical and ethical lessons from the Biblenarrative. It is a free interpretation of the Scriptures, theexpression of the individual moralist; it loves to point a moral andadorn a tale, and in many cases it is in agreement with theHellenistic school. To take a few typical examples: An earlyinterpretation explains the story of the Brazen Serpent, as Philodoes, [302] to mean that as long as Israel are looking upward to theFather in Heaven they will live, but when they cease to do so theywill die. Another, like him again, finds the motive of the command tobore the ear of the slave who will not leave his master at the seventhyear of redemption, in the principle that men are God's servants, andshould not voluntarily throw away their precious freedom. So, too, theHaggadah agrees in numerous points with Philo's stories about thepatriarchs. [303] If one were to go through the Midrashicinterpretations of the Five Books of Moses, he would find in nearlyevery section interpretations reminiscent of Philo. In some cases, however, there are striking contrasts in the two commentaries. Thusthe Midrash[304] tells that the four rivers of Eden symbolize the fourgreat nations of the old world; to Philo, they represent the fourcardinal virtues established by Greek philosophers. The Palestiniancommentators were prone to see an historical where Philo saw aphilosophical image. 

The question may be asked, Who is the originator and who the borrowerof the common tradition? And it is a question to which chronology cangive no certain answer, and for which dates or records have nomeaning. For the Haggadah was not committed to writing till manygenerations had known its influences, and it was not finally compiledtill many generations more had handed it down with continuousaccretions. The Haggadah in fact is part of the permanent spirit ofthe race going back to a hoary past, and stretching down "the echoinggrooves of time" to the tradition of Judaism in our own day. TheHebrew Word means, and the thing is, "what is said": the utterances ofthe inspired teacher, some tale, some happy play of fancy, some moralaphorism, some charming allegory which captivated the hearers, and washanded down the generations as a precious thought. It is significantin this regard that the Haggadah is remarkable for the number offoreign words which it contains, Greek, Persian, and Roman termsjostling with Hebrew and Aramaic. For while the Halakah was theproduction of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools alone, theHaggadah brought together the harvest of all lands; and scraps ofGreek philosophy found their way to Palestine before the Alexandrianschool developed its systematic allegory. In the Mishnah, the earliestbody of Jewish lore which was definitely formulated and written down, one section is Haggadic, the passages we know as the "Ethics of theFathers. " Now, we cannot place the date of this compilation before thefirst century, [305] and thus it would seem to be contemporary withPhilo's work, to which it affords numerous parallels. But the greatmass of the Haggadah, the Pesikta, the Mekilta, and the otherMidrashim, were all later compilations, some of them as late as thefifth and the sixth century. Are we to say, then, that where theycorrespond to Philo they show his influence? At first this wouldappear the natural conclusion. 

There is a better test of priority, however, than the date ofcompilation, the test of the thought itself and its expression. Andjudged by this test we see that the Haggadah is the more ancient, theprimal development of the Hebrew mind. The "Sayings of the Fathers"are typical of the finest and most concentrated wisdom of theHaggadah, and exhibit thought in its impulsive, unsystematic, gnomicexpression, neither logical nor illogical, because it knows not logic. Beautiful ethical intuitions and profound guesses at theological truthabound; anything like a definite system of ethics and theology is notto be found, whence it is said, "Do not argue with the Haggadah. " Evenmore so is this the case with the bulk of the Midrash. There, piousfancy will weave itself around the history and ideals of the people, and suddenly one comes across a sage reflection or a philosophicalutterance. With Philo it is otherwise. Compared with the Greeks he isunsystematic, inaccurate, wanting in logic, exuberant in imagination. Compared with the rabbis he is a formal and accurate philosopher, anexact and scholarly theologian. The floating poetical ideas of theHaggadah are woven by him into the fabric of a Jewish philosophy and aJewish theology, and knit together with the rational conceptions ofAristotle's "Metaphysics" and Plato's "Timæus. " We may say, then, almost with certainty, that Philo derives from the early Jewishtradition, though at the same time he introduced into that traditionmany an idea taken from the Greek thinkers, which found its way to thelater Palestinian schools of Jamnia and Tiberias, and was recast bythe Hebraic imagination. 

Over and over again we find that he adopts some fancy of his ancestorsand develops it rhetorically and philosophically in his commentary. Togive many examples or references to examples of this feature ofPhilo's work is not within the scope of this book, but of hisdevelopment of an old Palestinian tradition the following passage mayserve as a typical instance:

 "There is an old story, " he writes, "composed by the sages and handed down by memory from age to age. .. . They say that, when God had finished the world, he asked one of the angels if aught were wanting on land or in sea, in air or in heaven. The angel answered that all was perfect and complete. One thing only he desired, speech, to praise God's works, or to recount, rather than praise, the exceeding wonderfulness of all things made, even of the smallest and the least. For the due recital of God's works would be their most adequate praise, seeing that they needed no addition of ornament, but possessed in the sincerity of truth the most perfect eulogy. And the Father approved the angel's words, and afterwards appeared the race gifted with the muses and with song. This is the ancient story; and in accord with it, I say that it is God's peculiar work to do good, and the creature's work to give Him thanks. "[306]

Now this legend and moral appear in another form in the collection ofMidrash, the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, which apparently had ancient sourcesthat have disappeared. There it is told: "When the Holy One, blessedbe He, consulted the Torah as to the completeness of the work ofcreation, she answered him: 'Master of the future world, if there beno host, over whom will the King reign, and if there be no creaturesto praise him, where is the glory of the King?' And the Lord of theworld was pleased with her answer and forthwith He created man. "[307]

The Haggadah is rich also in allegorical speculation, of which there aretraces in the Biblical books themselves. In the book of Micah, forexample, we find that the patriarchs are taken as types of certainvirtues, Abraham of Kindness, [Hebrew: hsd], and Jacob of Truth, [Hebrew: 'mt] (vii. 20). And when the ideas of the people expandedphilosophically in Palestine and in Alexandria, the profounderconceptions were attached to Scripture by the device of allegoricalinterpretation, and certain rabbis attributed a higher value to theinner than to the literal meaning. Thus Akiba, who wrote an elaborateallegorical work upon the Song of Songs, [308] held that the book was themost profound in the Bible, and Rabbi Judah similarly regarded the bookof Job. [309] The Palestinian allegorists took to themselves a widerfield than the Alexandrian, and looked for the deeper meanings rather inthe Wisdom Literature than in the Pentateuch, which was to themessentially the Book of the Law, and, therefore, not a fit subject forMashal, _i. E. _, inner meanings. [310] Hence, their allegorism was morenatural, more real, and truer to the spirit of that which theyinterpreted. They allegorized when an allegory was invited, whereasPhilo and his school often forced their philosophical meanings in faceof the clear purport of the text, and without regard to the Hebrew. Inthe one case allegory was a genuine development, and might have beenadopted by the original prophet: in the other, it was reconstruction;and the artificial un-Hebraic character of the Hellenistic commentarywas one of the causes of its disappearance from Jewish tradition. Whilethe Palestinian allegorists based their continuous philosophicalinterpretation upon the Wisdom Books, they, at the same time, looked forsecondary meanings wherever opportunity offered, and found lessons inletters and teachings in names. An early school of commentators wasactually known as [Hebrew: dorsh rshomot][311] or interpreters of signs, and their method was by examination of the letters of a word, or bycomparison of different verses, to explore homilies. For instance, theverse, "And God showed Moses a tree" (Exod. Xvi. 26), by which hesweetened the waters at Marah, symbolized, by a play on the word[Hebrew: vyvrhu], [312] that God taught Moses the Torah, of which it issaid, "She is a tree of life" (Prov. Iii. 18). Another happy example ofthis method occurs in the sixth section of the Pirke Abot, where thenames in the itinerary, [Hebrew: mmtna nhlial, vmnhlial bmot] (Numb. Xxi. 19), are invested with a spiritual meaning. Whoever believes in theTorah, it is written, shall be exalted, as it is said, "From the gift ofthe law man attains the heritage of God, and by that heritage he reachesHeaven. "

In this passage of Palestinian allegorism, it may be noticed that theTorah is regarded as a spiritual bond between man and God, and as asort of intermediary power between them. This feature is almost asfrequent in the Midrash as the Logos-idea in Philo, so that it may besaid that rabbinic theology finds an idealism in the Torah whichcorresponds to the idealism of the Philonic Word. It is expressed, nodoubt, naïvely and fancifully, even playfully, without attempt atphilosophical deductions. It is informed by the same spirit as theAlexandrian allegory, but it is essentially poetical and impulsive, and set forth in mythical personification, not in deliberatemetaphysics. The Torah to the rabbis was the embodiment of the Wisdomwhich the writer of Proverbs had glorified, and it takes itsprerogatives. God gazes upon the Torah before He creates theworld. [313] The Torah, though the chief, is not, however, the onlyobject of rabbinic idealism. God and His name, it is said, aloneexisted before the world was created, [314] and in a Talmud legendrelating the birth of man, the ideal power is identified with Truth, which, like the Logos, is pictured as God's own seal. 

 "From Heaven to Earth, from Earth once more to Heaven Shall Truth, with constant interchange, alight And soar again, an everlasting link Between the world and Sky. "

 (Translation of Emma Lazarus. )[315]

Correspondingly, Philo identifies the Logos with the name of God andwith Truth. 

Of another piece of Talmudic idealism we catch a trace in Maimonides'"Guide of the Perplexed, "[316] where he says that the rabbis explainedthe designation of God, [Hebrew: lrubb b'rbot] [rendered in the authorizedversion, "He who rideth on the heavens" (Ps. Lxviii. 4)], to mean thatHe dwelt in the highest sphere of heaven amid the eternal ideas ofJustice and Virtue, as it is said: "Justice and Righteousness are thebase of Thy throne" (Ps. Lxxxix. 15). These fancies andinterpretations indicate that in Palestine as well as in Alexandria anidealistic theology and a religious metaphysics were developing atthis period, though in the East it was more imaginative, more Hebraic, more in the spirit of the old prophets. 

The more serious metaphysical and theological speculation of therabbis was embodied in the doctrine of the "Creation, " and the"Chariot, " [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] and [Hebrew: m'sha mrkba], which inform were commentaries on the early chapters of Genesis and the visionsof Ezekiel. They were reserved for the wisest and most learned, for therabbis had always a fear of introducing the student to philosophy untilhis knowledge of the law was well established. They held, with Plato, thatmetaphysical speculation must be the crown of knowledge, and if treated asits foundation, before the necessary discipline had been obtained, itwould produce all sorts of wild ideas. Judaism for them was primarilynot a philosophical doctrine but a system of life. The Hellenisticschool was so far false to their standpoint that it laid stress forthe ordinary believer upon the philosophical meaning as well as uponthe law. And as events proved, this led to the neglect of the law andthe dogmatic establishment of speculative theories as the basis of anew religion. Doubtless the consciousness that the philosophicaldevelopment led away from Judaism increased the distrust of the laterrabbis for such speculation, and made them regard esoteric as a milderterm for heretical; but the warning is already given in Ben Sira: "Itis not needful for thee to see the secret things. "[317] The Talmud, indeed, records certain ideas about the powers of God and His relationto the universe in the names of the great masters; and in these ideasthere are striking resemblances to Philo's conceptions. The Word isspoken of as an intermediate agency;[318] the finger of God is reallythe Word; the angels are sprung from the Words of God: Ben Zomadeclared that the whole work of creation was carried out by the Word, as it is written, "And God said. "[319] But on the other hand there arepassages in which the rabbis oppose the Alexandrian attitude, andpoint out in its excessive philosophizing a danger to Judaism, so thatin the end they exclude it. Rabbi Ishmael, we are told, warned hispupils of the danger of Greek wisdom. [320] Akiba, living at a timewhen the Jews were fighting for spiritual as well as for physical lifeagainst the combined forces of the Greeks and Romans, proposed to banall the [Hebrew: sfrim hitsonim], [321] and the Gemara argues that amongthese were included the Apocryphal works which showed Greek influence. Again, Elisha ben Abuya, the arch-heretic, is held up to reproach becausehe read [Hebrew: sfri minim], [322] under which title Greek Gnostic booksare probably implied. 

At the time when this spirit shows itself, the appearance of hereticaloffshoots from Judaism was already pronounced. Heresy was theaftermath of the combination of Judaism and Hellenism, and if furtherdisintegration was to be avoided, the seductive Greek influence had tobe discouraged. There is always the danger in a mingling of twocultures, that each will lose its particular excellence in a compoundwhich has certain qualities, but not the virtues, of either element. Compromises may be desirable in political affairs; in affairs ofthought they are perilous. Down to the time of Philo, the fusion ofthought at Alexandria had been beneficial, and had broadened theJewish outlook without impairing its strength, but the dissolvingforces of civilization never operated more powerfully than in theearly centuries of the common era, when the intellect of the world wasjaded and weary, and the great movement in culture was a jumblingtogether of the ideas of East and West. More especially in thecosmopolitan towns, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, national life, national culture, and national religion were undermined; and even theJew, despite the stronghold of his law and tradition, was caught inthe general vortex of mingling creeds and theologies. Out of thisconfusion (which was in one aspect a continuation of the work ofPhilo) emerged, first, fantastic Gnostic religious and philosophicalsects, and, finally, the Christian Church, which proved the systembest fitted to survive in the circumstances, but was in essence aswell as in origin a blending of different outlooks, and true to thecardinal points of neither Hebraism nor Hellenism. The rabbis, withremarkable intuition, saw that the Hellenistic development of Judaism, which had vainly striven to make Judaism universal, had ended inviolating its monotheism and abrogating its law; and in that era ofdisintegration, denationalization, and decomposition they determinedto keep their heritage pure and inviolate. Judaism by their effortswas the only national culture which survived, and some sacrifice hadto be made to secure this end. The literary monuments of theAlexandrian community from the Septuagint translation to thephilosophy of the Christian scholarchs were cut out of Jewishtradition, and the Babylonian school was ignorant altogether of the[Hebrew: hkma yonit] (Greek wisdom). When Ben Zoma desired to study the[Hebrew: sfrim hitsonim], and asked of his teacher at what hour of theday it was lawful to do so, he received the reply that it was permissibleat an hour which was neither day nor night; for the precept was to studythe Torah by day and night, as it is said, [Hebrew: ] (Josh. I. 8). BarKappara, indeed, a rabbi of the third century, explained Genesis ix. 27, "God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, " tomean that the words of the Torah shall be recited in the speech ofJapheth (_i. E. _, Greek) in the synagogues and schools, [323] but bymost other teachers the union between Shem and Japheth was no longerencouraged, because Japheth had become degraded and was allied withthe cruel children of Edom (Rome). 

Besides the Talmud and the Midrash we have, in the work of Josephus, another indication that there was in Philo's own day communicationbetween Alexandria and Palestine. The Jewish historian marks theinfluence of Hellenic ideas in Palestine in fullest measure, and likePhilo he seeks by embellishment to recommend the histories andScriptures of his people to the non-Jew and to bring home theirthought to the cultured Roman-Greek world. Thus, in the preface to his"Antiquities, " he notes, as Philo noted in his commentary, that Mosesbegins his laws with a philosophical cosmology; he says also thatMoses spoke some things under a fitting allegory, hiding beneath it avery remarkable philosophical theory. The allegorical commentary whichJosephus declared that he intended to write has not--if it waswritten--come down to us, but we have in his writings certainallegorical valuations of names that agree directly with Philo. Abelhe explains as signifying mourning, Cain, [Hebrew: kin], as selfishpossession. In the priestly garments of Aaron he sees with Philo asymbol of the universe, which the high priest supported when heentered the Holy of Holies. And the ritual vessels of the tabernaclehave also their universal significance. 

 "If, " says the Palestinian Hellenist, "any man do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle and regard the vestments of the high priest, he will find that our legislator was a Divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by those who attack us for tribal narrowness. For if he look upon these things without prejudice, he will find that each one was made by way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the years as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seven parts, he intimated the seven divisions of the planets. .. . The vestments of the high priest, being made of linen, signified the earth, the blue color thereof denoted the sky, the pomegranates symbolized lightning, and the noise of the bells resembled thunder. And the fashion of the ephod showed that God had made the world of four elements. "[324]

Let us now listen now to Philo: "The raiment of the priest isaltogether a representation and imitation of the universe, and itsparts are the parts of the other. His tunic is all of blue linen, thesymbol of the sky. [The rabbis had a similar fancy of the Tsitsith(fringes). ] And the flowers embroidered thereon mark the earth, fromwhich all things flower. And the pomegranates are a symbol of thewater, being skilfully called thus ([Greek: rhoischoi], _i. E. _, flowing fruit) because of their juice, and the bells are the symbolsof the harmony of all the elements. "[325]

It is true that the symbolism of two allegorists is varied, but acommon spirit and aim underlie their interpretations. This is truealike of their account of the ritualistic and civil law of Moses. Either, then, there was a common source of Jewish apologeticliterature, or Josephus must have borrowed from Philo. It issignificant that he is the only contemporary of Philo that mentionshim. He speaks of him as a distinguished philosopher, the brother ofthe alabarch, and the leader of the embassy to Gaius. [326] He knowsalso of the anti-Semitic diatribes of Philo's great enemy Apion, andtwo of his extant books are masterly reply to their outpourings. Henceit is not rash to assume that he knew at least that part of Philo'swork which had a missionary and apologetic purpose--the "Life ofMoses" and the "Hypothetica. " He makes no acknowledgment to them, itis true, but expressions of obligation were not in the fashion of thetime. Plagiarism was held to be no crime, and citation of authoritiesin notes or elsewhere was almost unknown in literature--save in theTalmud, [327] where to tell something in the name of somebody else is avirtue. But one can hardly doubt that the man who devoted himself torefuting the lying calumnies of Apion first made himself master of theclassical work of Apion's opponent, which claimed to give to the Greekworld the authoritative account of the Jewish lawgiver and hislegislation. 

What Josephus knew must have been known to other cultured Jews ofPalestine. Yet Philo, save in one doubtful case which will be noticed, is not mentioned by any Jewish writer between Josephus in the firstand Azariah dei Rossi in the sixteenth century. The compilers of theMidrashim and the Yalkut, the philosophers of the Dark and MiddleAges, finally the Cabbalists, are continually reminiscent of hisdoctrines, but they do not mention his works or his existence. TheMidrash Tadshé, [328] a tenth century compilation of allegoricalexegesis, contains definite parallels to Philonic passages, especiallyin its quotations from an Essene Tannaite, Pin[h. ]as ben Jaïr; butagain the trace of influence is indirect. On the other hand, theChristian writers from the time of Clement in the second century quotehim freely, make anthologies of his beautiful sayings, and in theirmore imaginative moments acclaim him the comrade of Mark and thefriend of Peter. The rise of the Christian Church, which coincidedwith the downfall of the nation, caused the rabbis to emphasize thenational character of Judaism in order to preserve the old faith oftheir fathers in the critical condition in which exile, persecution, and assimilation placed it. The first century was a time of feverishdreams and wild hopes that were not realizable: men had looked for thecoming of the days of universal peace and good-will, and theAlexandrian Jews in particular hoped for the spreading of Judaism overthe world. The rabbis recognized that this consummation was far away, and that Judaism must remain particularist for centuries in the hopeof a final universalism. Meantime it must hold fast to the law and, indefault of a national home, strengthen the national religious life ineach Jewish household. They regarded Greek as not only a strange but ahostile tongue, and the allegorical exegesis of the Bible, which hadled to the whittling away of the law, as a godless wisdom. TheSeptuagint translation, which had offered a starting point forphilosophical speculation, was replaced by a new Greek version of theOld Testament made by Aquila, a proselyte, in the first century. Itgave a baldly literal translation of the Hebrew text, sacrificing formand even lucidity to a faithful transcript. With unconscious irony therabbis, who rejoiced in its truth to the Hebrew, said of Aquila, "Thouart fairer than the children of men, grace is poured into thylips"[329] (Ps. Xlv). In truth the work was utterly innocent ofliterary grace. A translation of the Bible marked the end, as it hadmarked the beginning, of Jewish-Hellenistic literature, but if thefirst had suggested the admission, so the other suggested therejection of Greek philosophy from the interpretation of Judaism and areturn to the exclusive national standpoint. The rabbinicalappreciation of Aquila's work shows that, while the Jews were inPalestine, many still required a Greek translation of the Bible; butwhen in the third century C. E. The centre of the religion was moved toBabylon, Greek was forgotten, and the rabbis for a period lost sightof Greek culture. It is another irony of history that our manuscriptsof Philo go back to an archetype in the library of Cæsarea inPalestine, which Eusebius studied in the fourth century. Philo came tothe land of his fathers in the possession of his people's enemies, andat a time when he could no longer be understood by his people. 

Philo's works were not translated into Hebrew, and as Greek ceased tobe the language of the cultured, they could not, in their originalform, have influenced later Jewish philosophers. But the Christians, in their proselytizing activity, had translated them into Latin andArmenian before the fifth century, and through one of these means theymay possibly have exercised an influence upon the new school of Jewishphilosophy, which, opening with Saadia in the tenth century, blossomedforth in the Arabic-Spanish epoch. The light of historical research isbeginning to illumine the obscurity of the Dark Ages, and has revealedtraces of an Alexandrian allegorist in the writings of the Persian JewBenjamin al-Nehawendi, himself a distinguished allegorizer of theBible, who wrote in the ninth century and taught that God created theworld by means of one ministerial angel. [330] Benjamin relates thatthe doctrine was held by a Jewish sect known as the Maghariya, whichprobably sprang up in the fourth or the fifth century, when sects grewlike mushrooms. The Karaite al-Kirkisani, who wrote fifty years later, says that the Maghariya sect used in support of their doctrine the"prolegomena of an Alexandrian sage" who gave certain remarkableinterpretations of the Bible; and in one of Dr. Schechter's Genizahfragments, which is probably to be ascribed to Kirkisani, there arecontained examples of the Alexandrian's explanations of the Decalogue, which occur, and occur only, in Philo's treatise on the "TenCommandments. "

This connection between Philo and an obscure Jewish sect, or anobscurer Persian-Jewish writer, may appear far-fetched and not worththe making. In itself doubtless it is unimportant, but it serves tokeep Philo, however barely, within Jewish tradition. For it shows thatAlexandrian literature, though probably through the medium of aMohammedan source, was known to some Jews in the centuries oftransition. It may be that further examination of the great Genizahcollection, which has opened to Jewish scholarship a new world, willreveal further and stronger ties to unite Philo with his philosophicalsuccessors, of whom the first is Saadia Gaon (892-942 C. E. ). Indeedthe main interest of this newly-discovered connection, if it can beseriously so regarded, is that it suggests the possibility of Saadia'sacquaintance with Philo by means of a translation. That Saadia readthe works upon which Christian theologians relied, is certain; and afragment in which he refers to the teaching of Judah theAlexandrian[331]--also unearthed from the Cairo Genizah--goes some wayto support the suggestion. The passage refers to the connection of thenumber "fifty" with the different seasons of the year, and though itdoes not tally exactly with any piece of the extant Philo, it is inthe Philonic manner. And Philo, who was surnamed Judæus by the Church, would have been re-named by his own people, translating from theChurch writers, [Hebrew: yhuda]. One would the more willingly catch on tothis floating straw, because Saadia was at once a compatriot of Philo, born in the Fayyum of Egypt, and the first Jew who strove to carry onhis work. He aimed at showing the philosophy of the Torah, and itsharmony with Greek wisdom in particular. Aristotle, who had beentranslated into Arabic, had meantime supplanted Plato as the master ofphilosophy for theologians, and Saadia's _magnum opus_, [Hebrew: amonottsd'ot], is colored throughout by Aristotelian ideas. But the differenceof masters does not obscure the likeness of aim, and, albeitunconsciously, Saadia renews the task of the Hellenic-Jewish school. 

Saadia's work was carried on and expanded in a great outburst of theJewish genius, which showed itself most brilliantly in theMoorish-Spanish kingdom. The general cultural conditions of Alexandriain the first century B. C. E. Were reproduced in Spain in the tenthcentury. Once again the Jews found themselves politically emancipatedamid a sympathetic environment, and again they illumined theirreligious tradition with all the culture which their environment couldafford. The mingling of thought gave birth to a great literature, bothcreative and critical; to a striking body of lyric poetry; to asystematic theology, and a religious philosophy. 

While the study of the old Talmudic lore was maintained, the greatestteachers developed tradition afresh by a philosophical restatementdesigned to make it appeal to the mental attitude of the enlightened. The sermon flourished again, collections of Haggadah (Yalkut) weremade as storehouses of homilies, and metaphysical treatises modelledupon the works of the schoolmen set forth a philosophical Judaism forthe learned world. It is notable also that these last were not writtenin Hebrew or in the Talmudic dialect, but in Arabic, the language oftheir cultured environment; for though the missionary spirit was dead, the controversial activity of the period impelled the Jewishphilosophers to present their ideas in the form used by thephilosophers of the general community. 

It is not only the general conditions of the Arab-Jewish period, butalso the special development of Jewish ideas, which recalls the workof the Alexandrian school. This was, indeed, to be expected, seeingthat in both cases there was a mingling of Hebraism and Hellenism. InSpain, however, the Jews acquired Hellenism at second hand, andthrough the somewhat distorted medium of Arabic translations orscholastic misunderstanding, and hence the harmony is neither completenor pure. They endeavored to show that the teachings of Aristotle areimplicit in the written and the oral law, but the interpretation ishardly convincing even in "The Guide of the Perplexed, " of Maimonides, the monumental work which marks the culmination of mediæval Jewishphilosophy. 

If there is one figure in Jewish tradition with whom Philo challengesat once comparison and contrast, it is Maimonides, the brightest starof the Arabic, as he was of the Hellenic, development of the Jewishreligion. Though there is nothing on which to found any directinfluence of the one on the other, the aim, the method, the scope oftheir philosophical work are the same, the relation which they hold toexist between faith and philosophy wellnigh identical. The metaphysicsof the Bible, according to both, is hidden beneath an allegory, andis meant only for the more learned of the people. To Maimonides theBible is not only the standard of all wisdom, but it is "the Divineanticipation of human discovery. " In the words of Hosea, God hastherein "multiplied visions and spoken in similitudes" (xii. 11). Theduty of the Jewish philosopher is to expound these metaphors andsimiles; and Maimonides, endeavoring to knit Greek metaphysics closelywith Jewish tradition, propounds a science of allegorical values, which by exact philological study traces the inner as well as theouter meaning of the Hebrew words. But differentiated as it is bygreater mastery of the tradition and closer adherence to the Hebrewtext, his method is nearly as artificial and his thought as extraneousto the text as the method and thought of Philo. The content of theirphilosophies is, indeed, strikingly alike, save that the one is aPlatonist, the other an Aristotelian. This involves not so much adifference of philosophical views as a difference of temper and ofobjective. The followers of Plato are mystics, yearning for the loveof God; the followers of Aristotle are rationalists, seeking for theabstract knowledge of God. Hence in Maimonides there is less soaringand more argument than in Philo. Everything is deduced, so far as maybe, with exactitude and logical sequence--according to the logic ofthe schoolmen--and everything is formalized according to scholasticprinciples. But the subjects treated are the same--the nature of Godand His attributes, His relation to the universe and man, the mannerof the creation, and the way of righteousness. 

Maimonides, who is in form more loyal to Jewish tradition, is to alarger degree than Philo dependent on authority for the philosophicalideas which he applies to religion. To a great extent this is due tothe spirit of his age, for in the Middle Ages not only was the matterof thought, but also its form, accepted on authority, and Aristotleruled the one as imperiously as the Bible ruled the other. Thedifferences of form and substance do not, however, obscure theessential likeness with Philo's interpretation of Judaism. With himMaimonides holds that the essential nature of God is incognizable. [332]No positive predication can properly be applied to Him, but we knowHim by His activities in relation to man and the world, _i. E. _, by Hisattributes or by what Philo called His powers. Maimonides does notpreserve the absolute monarchy of the Divine government, but placesbetween God and man intermediate beings with subordinate creativepowers--the separate intelligences of the stars, which are identifiedwith the angels of the Bible. [333] But he maintains inviolate the solecausality of God and His immanence in the human soul. Maimonides, likePhilo, gives in addition to a metaphysical theology a philosophicalexposition of the law of Moses, which has the same guiding principleas the books on the "Specific Laws. " Moses was the perfectlegislator, [334] whose ordinances are [Hebrew: tsdikim], _i. E. _, perfectlyequitable, attaining "the mean"--the Aristotelian conception ofexcellence--and identical with the eternal laws of nature. [335]Numerous details of Maimonides' interpretations agree with those givenin the books on the "Specific Laws. " Whether correspondence of thoughtis merely an indication of the similar workings of Jewish genius insimilar conditions, or whether it is the effect of an early traditioncommon to both, or whether, finally, there was connection, howeverindirect, between the two minds, it is now impossible to say. But atleast the philosophy of Maimonides confirms the inner Jewishness ofthe philosophy of Philo, and its essential loyalty to Jewishtradition. 

Not less striking than his correspondence with later Jewish religiousphilosophy, though not less indefinite, is the relation of Philo tothe later Jewish mystical and theosophical literature, purporting alsoto be a development of hoary tradition, and indeed calling itselfsimply the tradition, [Hebrew: kbla]. Between Philo and the Cabbalah it isas difficult to establish any direct connection as between Philo andrabbinic Midrash, but the likeness in spirit and the signs of a commonsource are equally remarkable. To trace God in all things throughvarious attributes and emanations, to bring God and man into directunion, to prove that there is an immanent God within the soul of theindividual, and to show how this may be inspired with thetranscendental Deity--this is common to both. In the earliest timesthe mystic doctrine appears to have been a form of Jewish Gnosticism, speculation about the nature of God and His connection with the world. It probably embraced the [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] and the [Hebrew: m'shamrkba], though we know not what these exactly contained. [336] But it wasnot till the Middle Ages that Jewish mysticism received definite andseparate literary expression, and by that time it was mixed up with anumber of neo-Platonic and magical fancies and foreign theosophies. Thelater compilations of this character form what is more regularly knownas the Cabbalah; but, apart from the professions of the later writers, a continuous train of tradition affirms the existence of secretteachings in Judaism from the time of the Babylonian captivity. Jewishmysticism is as much a continuous expression of the spirit of the raceas the Jewish law. We may then without rashness conclude that thelater Cabbalah is a coarser development, for a less enlightened andless philosophical age, of the Gnostic material which Philorefashioned in the light of Platonism for the Hellenized community atAlexandria. Modern scholars have favored the idea that the Esseneswere the first systematizers of and the first practitioners in theCabbalah, and have interpreted their name[337] to mean those engagedin secret things, but the mystic tradition itself is earlier than thefoundation of a special mystic sect. It is part of the heritage fromthe Jewish prophets and psalmists and the Babylonian interaction withHebraism. 

Philo had large sympathies with the Essenic development of Judaism, andhe speaks at times as though he had joined one of their communities, andtherein had been initiated into the great mysteries and secretphilosophies of the sages. We have noted that he offers his mostprecious wisdom to the worthy few alone, "who in all humility practicegenuine piety, free from all false pretence. " They, in turn, are todiscourse on these doctrines only to other members of the brotherhood. "I bid ye, initiated brethren, who listen with chastened ears, receivethese truly sacred mysteries in your inmost souls, and reveal them notto one of the uninitiated, but laying them up in your hearts, guard themas a most excellent treasure in which the noblest of possessions isstored, the knowledge, namely, of the First Cause and of virtue, andmoreover of what they generate. "[338] These mysteries, it is notunlikely, represent according to some scholars the [Hebrew: sod] of theTalmudical rabbis, which was elaborately developed in the Zohar andkindred writings. Be this as it may, Philo's religious intensityexpresses the spirit of the Cabbalists, his mystic soaring is theprototype of their theosophical ecstasies; his persistent declarationthat God encloses the universe, but is Himself not enclosed by anything, contains the root of their conception of the En Sof ([Hebrew: 'ynsof]), [339] his Logos-idealism, with its Divine effluences, which arethe true causes of all changes, physical and mental, is companion totheir system of [Hebrew: 'olmim] and [Hebrew: sfirot], emanations andspheres. His fancies about sex and the struggle between a male andfemale principle in all things[340] are a constant theme of theirteachers, and form a special section of their wisdom, [Hebrew: sofhtsrog], the mystery of generation. His conception of the Logos as theheavenly archetype of the human race, the "Man-himself, " is the Platoniccounterpart of their [Hebrew: adm kdmon], or "primal man, " who is knownin the ancient allegorizing of the Song of Songs. His number-mysticismand his speech-idealism reappear more crudely, but not obscurely, intheir ideas of creative letters, of which the cosmogony by thetwenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in the Sefer Yezirah istypical. Finally, his teachings of ecstasy and Divine possession arerepeated in divers ways in their descriptions of the pious life([Hebrew: hnanot]). 

Philo, indeed, viewed from the Jewish standpoint, is the Hellenizernot only of the law but also of the Cabbalah, the philosophicaladapter of the secret traditional wisdom of his ancestors. He bringsit into close relation with Platonism and purifies it; he clears awayits anthropomorphisms and superstitious fantasies, or rather he raisesthem into idealistic conceptions and sublime exaltations of the soul. By his deep knowledge of the intellectual ideas of Greece he refinedthe strange compound of lofty imagination and popular fancy, andraised it to a higher value. Plato and the Cabbalah represent the samemystic spirit in different degrees of intellectual sublimity andreligious aspiration; Philo endeavored to unite the twomanifestations. He lived in a markedly non-rational age given over tomystical speculation; and Alexandria especially, by her cosmopolitancharacter, "furnished the soil and seed which formed the mysticphilosophy that knew how to blend the wisdom and folly of theages. "[341] Through the mass of apocalyptic literature that was pouredforth in the first centuries of the common era, through the laterbooks of the Apocrypha, through the Sefer Yezirah of the ninth and theZohar of the thirteenth century, and through the vast literatureinspired by these books, run the ideas that composed Philo's mystictheology. Philo himself was unknown, but his religious interpretationof Platonism had entered into the world's thought, and inspired themystics of his own race as well as of the Christian world. 

After a thousand years of Latin domination the Renaissance revived thestudy of Greek in Western Europe, and to the most cultured of his racePhilo was no longer a sealed book. The first Jewish writer to show anintimate acquaintance with him and a clear idea of his relation toJewish tradition was Azariah dei Rossi, who lived in the sixteenthcentury. His "Meor Einayim" dealt largely with the Hellenistic epochof Judaism, and its attitude towards it is summed up in the remarkthat "all that is good in Philo agrees with our law. "[342] He pointedout many instances of agreement, and some of disagreement, but heobjected in general to the allegorizing of the historical parts of theTorah and to the absence of the traditional interpretations in Philo'scommentaries. He shared largely the rabbinical attitude and could notgive an independent historical appreciation of Philo's work. That wasnot to come for two hundred years more. To Dei Rossi we owe the Jewishtranslation of Philo's name, [Hebrew: ydydim 'lksndri]. [343] To the outerworld Philo was "the Jew"; to his own people, "the Alexandrian. "

As soon as Greek was reintroduced into the scholarly world, Philobegan to reassert an important influence on theology. One remarkableschool of English mystics and religious philosophers, the CambridgePlatonists, who wrote during the seventeenth century, founded upon himtheir method and also their general attitude to philosophy. [344] Theywere Christian neo-Platonists, who looked for spiritual allegories inthe Old and New Testaments, and combined the teachings of Jesus withthe emotional idealism of the Alexandrian interpreters of Plato. Theyaffirmed enthusiastically God's revelation to the universe and toindividual man through the Logos. Their imitation of Philo'sallegorism serves to mark the important place that he occupied in thelearned world during the seventeenth century; and supports, howeverslightly, the suggestion that he influenced, directly or indirectly, the supreme Jewish philosopher of the age, Baruch de Spinoza. That hewas well known in Holland at the time is shown in divers ways. He isquoted by the famous jurist Grotius in his book which founded thescience of international law; he is quoted and criticised, as we haveseen, by Scaliger; and curiously enough, his name, "Philo-Judæus, " isapplied by Rembrandt to the portrait of his own father, now in theFerdinandeum at Innsbruck. It is tempting to conjecture that there wasa direct connection between the Jewish philosophers of the ancient andthe modern world. Whether it existed or not, there is certainlykinship in their ideas. Spinoza does actually refer in one place, inhis "Theologico-Political Tractate" (ch. X), to the opinion ofPhilo-Judæus upon the date of Psalm lxxxviii, and there are otherplaces in the same book, where he almost echoes the words of theJewish Platonist; as where he speaks of God's eternal Word beingdivinely inscribed in the human mind: "And this is the true originalof God's covenant, stamped with His own seal, namely, the idea ofHimself, as it were, with the image of His Godhead" (iv); or, again, "The supreme reward for keeping God's Word is that Word itself. "Spinoza knew no Greek, but, master as he was of Christian theology, hemay have studied Philo in a Latin translation, and caught some of hisphrases. With or without influence, he developed, as Philo had done, asystem of philosophy, starting from the Hebrew conception of God andblending Jewish tradition with scientific metaphysics. The Unity ofGod and His sole reality were the fundamental principles of histhought, as they had been of Philo's. He rejected, indeed, with scornthe notion that all philosophy must be deduced from the Bible, whichwas to him a book of moral and religious worth, but free from allphilosophical doctrine. Theology, the subject of the Bible, accordingto him, demands perfect obedience, philosophy perfect knowledge. [345]Both alike are saving, but the spheres of the two are distinct: andMoses and the prophets excel in law and imagination, not in reason andreflection. Hence Spinoza approached the Bible from the criticalstandpoint; and, on the other hand, he approached philosophy with afree mind searching for truth, independent of religious dogmatism, andhe was, therefore, the founder of modern philosophy. None the less hisview of the universe is an intellectual expression of the Hebraicmonotheism, which unites a religious with a scientific monism. Heregards God as the only reality, sees and knows all things in Him, anddeduces all things from His attributes, which are the incompleterepresentations that man makes of His true nature; he explains allthought, all movement, and all that seems material as the working ofHis modes; and, finally, he places as the end of man's intellectualprogress and the culmination of his moral life the love of God. Intruth, Jewish philosophy has its unity and its special stamp, no lessthan Jewish religion and tradition, from which it receives itsnurture. Thrice it has towered up in a great system: through Philo inthe classical, through Maimonides in the mediæval, through Spinoza inthe modern world. In the Renaissance of Jewish learning during thenineteenth century, Philo was at last studied and interpreted by scholarsof his own people. The first modern writer to reveal the philosophy ofJewish history was Nachman Krochmal (1785-1840), and his posthumous Hebrewbook, "The Guide of the Perplexed of the Time, " edited by Zunz, contained the first critical appreciation of the Hellenistic Jewishculture by a rabbinic scholar. He knew no Greek, but he studied theworks of German writers, and in his account of Philo gives a summaryof the remarks of the theologian Neander, himself a baptized Jew. Inhis own criticism he discerns the weakness and strength of Philo fromthe Jewish aspect. "There are, " he says, "many strange things inPhilo's exegesis, not only because he draws far-fetched allegoriesfrom the text, but also because he interprets single words without asure foundation in Hebrew philology. He uses Scripture as a sort ofclay which he moulds to convey his philosophical ideas. Yet we must begrateful to him because many of his interpretations are beautifulornaments to the text; and we may apply to them what Ibn Ezra said ofthe teachings of the Haggadah, 'Some of them are fine silks, others asheavy as sack-cloth. '"

Krochmal translated into Hebrew examples of Philo's allegories andgave parallels and contrasts from the Talmud. The relation between thePalestinian and the Alexandrian exegesis was more elaboratelyconsidered by a greater master of Hellenistic literature, ZachariasFrankel (1801-1875), who has been followed by a band of Jewish scholars. Yearly our understanding of the Alexandrian culture becomes fuller. Philo, too, has in part been translated into Hebrew. Indirect in thepast, his influence on Jewish thought in the future bids fair to bedirect and increasing. 

 * * * * *

VIII

THE INFLUENCE OF PHILO

The hope which Philo had cherished and worked for was the spreading ofthe knowledge of God and the diffusion of the true religion over thewhole world. [346] The end of Jewish national life was approaching, butrabbis in Palestine and philosophers at Alexandria, unconscious of theimminent doom, thought that the promise of the prophet was soon to befulfilled, and all peoples would go up to worship the one God at thetemple upon Mount Zion, which should be the religious centre of theworld. In Philo's day a universal Judaism seemed possible, a Judaismtrue to the Torah as well as to the Unity of God, [347] spread over theMegalopolis of all peoples; and in the light of this hope Philowelcomed proselytism. The Jews had a clear mission; they were to bethe light of the world, because they alone of all peoples hadperceived God. Israel ([Hebrew: 'shr'l]), to repeat Philo's etymology, isthe man who beholds God, and through him the other nations were to beled to the light. The mission of Israel was not a passive service, butan active preaching of God's word, and an active propagation of God'slaw to the Gentile. He must welcome the stranger that came within thegates. [348] Philo struggled against the separative and exclusivetendency which characterized a section of his race. He laid stressupon the valuelessness of birth, and the saving power of God's graceto the pagan who has come to recognize Him, in language whichChristian commentators call incredible in a Jew, but which was in facttypical of the common feeling at Alexandria. Appealing to theGentiles, Philo declared that "God has special regard for theproselyte, who is in the class of the weak and humble together withthe widow and orphan[349]; for he may be alienated from his kindredwhen he is converted to the honor of the one true God, and abandonsidolatrous, polytheistic worship, but God is all the more his advocateand helper. " And speaking to the Jews he says:[350] "Kinship is notmeasured by blood alone when truth is the judge, but by likeness ofconduct and by the pursuit of the same objects. " Similarly, in theMidrash, it is said that proselytes are as dear to God as those whowere born Jews;[351] and, again, that the Torah was given to Israelfor the benefit of all peoples;[352] or[353] that the purpose ofIsrael's dispersion was that they might make proselytes. Philo's shorttreatise on "Nobility" is an eloquent plea for the equal treatment ofthe stranger who joins the true faith; and the author finds in theBible narratives support for his thesis, that not good birth but thevirtue of the individual is the true test of merit. Of thevaluelessness of the one, Cain, Ham, and Esau are types; of thesupreme worth of the other, Abraham, who is set up as the model of theexcellent man brought up among idolaters, but led by the Divineoracle, revealed to his mind, to embrace the true idea of God. If thefounder of the Hebrew nation was himself a convert, then surely therewas a place within the religion for other converts. Remarkable is theclosing note of the book:

 "We should, therefore, blame those who spuriously appropriate as their own merit what they derive from others, good birth; and they should justly be regarded as enemies not only of the Jewish race, but of all mankind; of the Jewish race, because they engender indifference in their brethren, so that they despise the righteous life in their reliance upon their ancestors' virtue; and of the Gentiles, because they would not allow them their meed of reward even though they attain to the highest excellence of conduct, simply because they have not commendable ancestors. I know not if there could be a more pernicious doctrine than this: that there is no punishment for the wicked offspring of good parents, and no reward for the good offspring of evil parents. The law judges each man upon his own merit, and does not assign praise or blame according to the virtues of the forefathers. "

And, again, he writes: "God judges by the fruit of the tree, not bythe root; and in the Divine judgment the proselyte will be raised onhigh, and he will have a double distinction, because on earth he'deserted' to God, and later he receives as his reward a place inHeaven. "[354]

Unfortunately, the development of missionizing activity, whichfollowed Philo's epoch, threatening, as it did, the fundamentalprinciples of Judaism, necessitated the reassertion of its nationalcharacter and antagonism to an attitude which sought expansion bycompromise. It is the tragedy of Philo's work that his mission to thenations was of necessity distrusted by his own race, and that hisappeal for tolerance within the community was turned to a mockery bythe hostility which the converts of the next century showed to thenational ideas. Christian apologists early learned to imitate Philo'sallegorical method, and appropriated it to explain away the laws ofMoses. Within a hundred years of Philo's death, his ideal, at least inthe form in which he had conceived it, had been shattered for ages. While he was preaching a philosophical Judaism for the world atAlexandria, Peter and Paul were preaching through the Diaspora anheretical Judaism for the half-converted Gentiles. The disciples ofJesus spread his teaching far and wide; but they continually widenedthe breach which their Master had himself initiated, and so their workbecame, not so much a development of Judaism, as an attack upon it. Insome of its principles, indeed, the message of Jesus was the messageof Philo, emphasizing, as it did, the broad principles of morality andthe need of an inner godliness. But it was fundamentallydifferentiated by a doctrine of God and the Messiah which was neitherJewish nor philosophical, and by the breaking away from the law ofMoses, which cut at the roots of national life. Whatever the moralworth of the preaching of Jesus, it involved and involves theoverthrow of the Jewish attitude to life and religion, which may beexpressed as the sanctification of ordinary conduct, and as moralityunder the national law. To this ideal Philo throughout was true, andthe Christian teachers were essentially opposed, and however much theyapproximated to his method and utilized his thought, they were alwaysstrangers to his spirit. Philo's philosophy was in great part aphilosophy of the law; the Patristic school borrowed his allegorizingmethod and produced a philosophy of religious dogma! Those who spreadthe Christian doctrine among the Hellenized peoples and thesophisticated communities that dwelt round the Mediterranean found itnecessary to explain and justify it by the metaphysical and ethicalcatchwords of the day, and in so doing they took Philo as their model. They followed both in general and in detail his allegoricalinterpretations in their recommendation of the Old Testament to themore cultured pagans, as the apology of Justin, the commentaries ofOrigen, and the philosophical miscellany ([Greek: Strômateis]) ofClement abundantly show. 

Certain parts of the New Testament itself exhibit the combination ofHebraism and Hellenism which characterizes the work of Philo. In thesayings of Jesus we have the Hebraic strain, but in Luke and John andthe Epistles the mingling of cultures. Thus the Apostles seem to somethe successors of Philo, and the Epistles the lineal descendants ofthe "Allegories of the Laws. " In the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle tothe Hebrews especially the correspondence is striking. But there is, in fact, despite much that is common, a great gulf between them. Thelater missionaries oppose the national religion and the Torah: Philowas pre-eminently their champion. 

The most commanding of the Apostles, Paul of Tarsus, when he took thenew statement of Judaism out of the region of spirit and tried toshape it into a definite religion for the world, "forgot the rock fromwhich he was hewn. " As a modern Jewish theologian says, [355] "Hisbreak with the past is violent; Jesus seemed to expand andspiritualize Judaism; Paul in some senses turns it upside down. " Hiswork may have been necessary to bring home the Word to the heathen, but it utterly breaks the continuity of development. Paul himself waslittle of a philosopher, and those to whom he preached were notusually philosophical communities such as Philo addressed atAlexandria, but congregations of half converted, superstitious pagans. The philosophical exposition of the law was too difficult for them, while the observance of the law in its strictness demanded too great asacrifice. The spiritual teaching of Jesus was dissociated by hisApostle from its source, and the break with Judaism was deliberate andcomplete. The fanatical zest of the missionary dominated him, and heproclaimed distinctly where the new Hebraism which was offered to theGentile should depart from the historic religion of the Jews: "For Christis the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, "[356]he says to the Romans; and to the Galatians: "As many as are of the worksof the law are under the curse. "[357] "Christ hath redeemed us from thecurse of the law. .. . But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up with the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Whereforethe law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might bejustified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longerunder a schoolmaster. " Paul's position then--and he is the forerunnerof dogmatic Christianity--involved a rejection of the Torah; and it isthis which above all else constituted his cleavage from both Judaismand the Philonic presentation of it. 

Philo is commonly regarded as the forerunner of Christian teaching, and it is doubtless true that he suggested to the Church Fathers partsof their theology, and represented also the missionary spirit whichinspired the teaching of some Apostles. But it must be clearlyunderstood that he shared still more the spirit of Hillel, whose maximwas "to love thy fellow-creatures and draw them near to the Torah, "and that he would have been fundamentally opposed to the newmissionary attitude of Paul. The doctrines of the Epistle to theRomans, or the Epistle to the Ephesians, are absolutely antipatheticto the ideal of the "Allegories of the Laws. " Paul is allied inspirit--though his expression is that of the fanatic rather than ofthe philosopher--to the extreme allegorist section of philosophicalJews at Alexandria, attacked by Philo for their shallowness in thefamous passage, quoted from _De Migratione Abrahami_ (ch. 16[358]), who, because they recognized the spiritual meaning of the law, rejected its literal commands; because they saw that circumcisionsymbolized the abandonment of the sensual life, no longer observed theceremony. The same antinomian spirit is shown in the Epistle to theGalatians by the allegory of the children whom Abraham had by Hagarthe bondwoman and Sarah the free wife: "For there are the twocovenants, the one from the mount of Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar. .. . But we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children ofpromise. " To Philo the law and the observance of the letter were thehigh-road to freedom and the Divine spirit, and, remaining loyal tothe Jewish conception of religion, for all his philosophical outlook, he said: "The rejection of the [Greek: Nomos] will produce chaos inour lives. " To Paul the law was an obstacle to the spread of religioustruth and a fetter to the spiritual life of the individual. 

It is possible that an extremist section of the Jews pressed theletter of the law to excess, so as to lose its spirit, but theopposite excess, into which Paul plunged the new faith, was as narrow. It involved a glorification of belief, which did not imply anyrelation to conduct. Philo had pleaded no less earnestly than theApostle for the reliance upon grace and the saving virtue of faith, but he did not therefore absolve men from the law which made forrighteousness. [359] And lest it be thought that the stress laid uponfaith was peculiar to Hellenizing Judaism, we have only to note suchpassages as Dr. Schechter has adduced from the early Midrash on therabbinic conception. [360] "Great was the merit of faith which Israelput in God; for it was by the merit of this faith that the Holy Spiritcame over them, and they said the [Hebrew: shira], (_i. E. _, the Song ofMoses) to God, as it is said, 'And they believed in the Lord and Hisservant Moses. Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this songunto the Lord. '" Or again[361]--and the passage reminds us still morestrongly of both Philo and Christian Gospel--"Our Father Abraham cameinto the possession of this world and the world hereafter only by themerit of his faith. "

What is new in the Christian position is not the magnifying of faith;it is the severance of faith from the law and the particular faithwhich is magnified. Philo, and the rabbis, too, believed that faithwas the goal of virtue, and the culmination of the moral life; butfaith to them implied the sanctification of the whole of life, thelove of God "shown in obedience to a law of conduct. " Paul, however, hating the law, set up a new faith in the saving power of Jesus and incertain beliefs about him, which afterwards were crystallized, orpetrified, into merciless dogmas, contrary alike to the Jewish ideasof God and of life. The new religion, when it was denationalized, inevitably became ecclesiastical: for as the national regulation oflife was rejected, in order to ensure some kind of uniformity, it hadto bind its members together by definite articles of belief imposed bya central authority. The true alternative was not between a legal anda spiritual religion--for every religion must have some externalrule--but between a law of conduct and a law of belief. Philo and therabbis chose the former way; Paul and the Church, the latter. Christian theology, no less than the Christian conception of religion, exhibits also a complete breach with the Jewish spirit of Philo. Inthe Epistles there are, indeed, in many places doctrines of the Logosin the same images and the same Hebraic metaphors as Philo had workedinto his system; but their purport is entirely changed by associationwith new un-Jewish dogmas. Philo, allegorizing, [362] had seen the holyWord typified in the high priest, and in Melchizedek, the priest ofthe Most High; he had called it the son of God and His first-born. Paul, dogmatizing, exalts Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, aboveMelchizedek and the high priest, and calls on the Hebrews to gainsalvation by faith in the son of God, who died on behalf of the sinfulhuman race. Philo, in his poetic fancy, speaks of God associating withthe virgin soul and generating therein the Divine offspring of holywisdom;[363] the Christian creed-makers enunciated the irrationaldogma of the immaculate conception of Jesus. So, too, the earliestphilosophical exponents of Christianity, Clement of Alexandria, andOrigen, may have derived many of their detailed ideas from Philo, butthey converted--one might rather say perverted--his monotheistictheology into a dogmatic trinitarianism. They exalted the Logos, toPhilo the "God of the imperfect, " and a second-best Deity, to an equalplace with the perfect God. For man, indeed, he was nearer and thetrue object of human adoration. And this not only meant a departurefrom Judaism; it meant a departure from philosophy. The supreme unityof the pure reason was sacrificed no less than the unity of thesoaring religious imagination. The one transcendental God becameagain, as He had been to the Greek theologians, an inscrutableimpersonal power, who was unknown to man and ruled over the universeby His begotten son, the Logos. The sublimity of the Hebrewconception, which combines personality with unity, was lost, and theharmony of the intellectual and emotional aspirations achieved byPhilo was broken straightway by those who professed to follow him. Theskeleton of his thought was clothed with a body wherein his spiritcould never have dwelt. It was the penalty which Philo paid forvagueness of expression and luxuriance of words that his works becamethe support of doctrines which he had combated, the guide of those whowere opposed to his life's ideal. 

The experience of the Church showed how right was Philo's judgmentwhen he declared that the rejection of the Torah would produce chaos. The fourth and fifth centuries exhibit an era of unparalleled disorderand confusion in the religious world, [364] sect struggling with sect, creed with creed, churches rising and falling, dogmas set up bycouncils and forced upon men's souls at the point of the Roman sword!And out of this struggling mass of beliefs and fancies, theologies andsuperstitions, sects and political forces, there arose a tyrannical, dogmatic Church which laid far heavier burthens on men's minds thanever the most ruthless Pharisee of the theologian's imagination hadlaid upon their body and spirit. The yoke of the law of Moses, sanctifying the life, had been broken; the fiat of popes and thedecrees of synods were the saving beliefs which ensured the Kingdom ofHeaven! Was it to this that the allegorizing of the law, the searchfor the spirit beneath the letter, the reinterpretation of the holylaw of Moses in the light of philosophical reason, had broughtJudaism? And was the association of Jewish religion with Greekphilosophy one long error? That would be a hard conclusion, if we hadto admit that Judaism cannot stand the test of contact with foreignculture. But in truth the Hellenistic interpretation of the Bible, solong as it was genuinely philosophical, remained loyal to Judaism. Only when it became hardened into dogma, fixed not only as gooddoctrine, but as the only saving doctrine, as the tree of life opposedto the Torah, the tree of death--only then did it become anti-Jewish, and appear as a bastard offspring of the Hebraic God-idea and Greekculture. Nor should it be forgotten that the Christian theology andthe Christian conception of religion are a falling away also from thehighest Hellenic ideas; for to Plato as well God was a purelyspiritual unity, and religion "a system of morality based upon a lawof conduct and touched with emotion. " In Philo, as we have seen, theHebraic and Hellenic conceptions of God touch at their summits intheir noblest expressions; the conceptions of Plato are interfusedwith the imagination of the prophets. The Christian theology was adescent to a commoner Hellenism--or one should rather call it acommoner syncretism--as well as to an easier, impurer Hebraism. 

It must not be put down to the fault of the Septuagint or theallegorists or Philo that the Alexandrian development of Judaism ledon to Roman Christianity. It is to be ascribed rather to the infirmityof human nature, which requires the ideas of its inspired teachers andpeoples to be brought down to the common understanding, and causes theprogress towards universal religion to be a slow growth. The masses ofthe Alexandrian Jews in his own day cannot have grasped his teaching;for Philo, to some degree, lived in a narrow world of philosophicalidealism, and he did not calculate the forces which opposed and madeimpossible the spread of his faith in its integrity. He was aiming atwhat was and must for long remain unattainable--the establishmentamong the peoples of philosophical monotheism. 

No man is a prophet in his own land--or in his own time--and becausePhilo has in him much of the prophet, he seems to have failed. But itis the burden of our mission to sow in tears that we may reap in joy. And the work of the Alexandrian-Jewish school may be sad from oneaspect of Jewish history, but it is nevertheless one of the dominatingincidents of our religious annals. It did not succeed in bringing overthe world to the pure idea of God, but it did help in underminingcruder paganism. It brought the nations nearer to God, and itintroduced Hebraism into the thought of the Western peoples. Itmarked, therefore, a great step in the religious work of Israel; yetby the schools of rabbis who felt the hard hand of its offspring upontheir people it was regarded as a long misfortune, to be blotted frommemory. What seemed so ominous to them was that the annihilation ofthe nation came at the same time as the cleavage in the religion. Judaism seemed attacked no less by internal foes than by externalcalamity; and was likely to perish altogether or to drift into a lowerconception of God, unless it could find some stalwart defence. Hencethey insisted on the extension of the fence of the law, and abandonedfor centuries the mission of the Jews to the outer world. This was thetrue Galut, or exile; not so much the political exclusion from theland of their fathers, but the enforced exclusion from the mission ofthe prophets. Philo is one of the brightest figures of a golden age ofJewish expansion, which passed away of a sudden, and has never sincereturned. In the silver and bronze ages which followed, his place inJudaism was obscured. But this age of ours, which boasts of itshistorical sense, looking back over the centuries and freed from thebitter dismay of the rabbis, can appraise his true worth and see inhim one who realized for himself all that Judaism and Jewish culturecould and still can be. 

Some Jewish teachers have thought that Philo's work was a failure, others that it provides a warning rather than an example for latergenerations of Jews, proving the mischief of expanding Judaism for theworld. As well one might say that Isaiah's prophecy was a calamity, because the Christian synoptics used his words as evidences ofChristianity. What is universal in Jewish literature is in the fullestsense Jewish, and we should beware of renouncing our inheritance becauseothers have abused and perverted it. Other critics, again, say thatPhilo is wearisome and prolix, artificial and sophisticated. There iscertainly some truth in this judgment; but Philo has many beautifulpassages which compensate. Part of his message was for his owngeneration and the Alexandrian community, and with the passing away ofthe Hellenistic culture, it has lost its attraction. But part of it isof universal import, and is very pertinent and significant for everygeneration of Jews which, enjoying social and intellectual emancipation, lives amid a foreign culture. Doubtless the position of Philo and theAlexandrian community was to some extent different from that of the Jewsat any time since the greater Diaspora that followed the destruction ofthe temple. They had behind them a national culture and a centre ofJewish life, religious and social, which was a powerful influence incivilization and united the Jews in every land. And this gave acatholicity to their development and a standard for their teaching whichthe scattered communities of Jews to-day do not possess. None the lessPhilo's ideal of Judaism as religion and life is an ideal for our timeand for all time. Its keynote is that Israel is a holy people, a kingdomof priests, which has a special function for humanity. And theperformance of this function demands the religious-philosophicalordering of life. From the negative side Philo stands for the struggleagainst Epicureanism, which in other words is the devotion to materialpleasures and sensual enjoyments. In adversity, as he notes, the race istruest to its ideals, but as soon as the breeze of prosperity has caughtits sails, then it throws overboard all that ennobles life. The hedonistwhom he attacks, like the Epicuros ([Hebrew: 'fikuros]) of the rabbis, is not the banal thinker of one particular age, but a permanent type inthe history of our people. We seem to spend nearly all our moralstrength in the resistance of persecution, and with tranquillity fromwithout comes degradation within. Emancipation, which should be but ameans to the realization of the higher life, is taken as an end, andbecomes the grave of idealism. With a reiteration that becomes almostwearisome, but which is the measure of the need for the warning, Philoprotests against this desecration of life, of liberty, and of Judaism. His position is, that a free and cultured Jewry must pursue the missionof Israel alike by the example of the righteous life devoted to theservice of God, and by the preaching of God's revealed word. This is his"burden of the word of the Lord" to the worldly-wise and thematerialists of civilized Alexandria--and to Jews of other lands. 

From the positive side Philo stands for the spiritual significance ofthe religion. Judaism, which lays stress upon the law, the ceremonial, and the customs of our forefathers, is threatened at times with theneglect of the inward religion and the hardness of legalism. Not thatthe law, when it is understood, kills the spirit or fetters thefeelings, but a formal observance and an unenlightened insistence uponthe letter may crush the soul which good habits should nurture. Religion at its highest must be the expression of the individual soulwithin, not the acceptance of a law from without. Although Philo'sestimate of the Torah is from the historical and philologicalstandpoint uncritical, in the religious sense it is finely criticalinasmuch as it searches out true values. Philo looks in everyordinance of the Bible for the spiritual light and conceives the lawas an inspiration of spiritual truth and the guide to God, or, as heputs it sometimes, "the mystagogue to divine ecstasy. " For the crownof life to him is the saint's union with God. In mysticism religionand philosophy blend, for mysticism is the philosophical form offaith. Just as the Torah to Philo has an outward and an inwardmeaning, so, too, has the religion of the Torah; and the outwardJudaism is the symbol, the necessary bodily expression of the inward, even as the words of Moses are the symbol, the suggestive expressionof the deeper truth behind them. Yet mystic and spiritual as he is, Philo never allows religion to sink into mere spirituality, because hehas a true appreciation and a real love for the law. The Torah is thefoundation of Judaism, and one of the three pillars of the universe, as the rabbis said; and neither the philosopher nor the mystic inPhilo ever causes him to forget that Judaism is a religion of conductas well as of belief, and that the law of righteousness is a law whichmust be practiced and show itself in active life. He holds fast, moreover, to the catholicity of Judaism, which restrains theindividual from abrogating observance till the united conscience ofthe race calls for it; unless progress comes in this ordered way, thereformer will produce chaos. 

Philo is conservative then in practice, but he is pre-eminentlyliberal in thought. The perfect example himself of the assimilation ofoutside culture, he demands that Judaism shall always seek out thefullest knowledge, and in the light of the broadest culture of the ageconstantly reinterpret its religious ideas and its holy books. Aboveall it must be philosophical, for philosophy is "the breath and finerspirit of all knowledge, " and it vivifies the knowledge of God as wellas the knowledge of human things. Without it religion becomes bigoted, faith obscurantist, and ceremony superstitious. But the Jew does notmerely borrow ideas or accept his philosophy ready-made from hisenvironment; he interprets it afresh according to his peculiarGod-idea and his conception of God's relation to man, and therebymakes it a genuine Jewish philosophy, forming in each age a specialJewish culture. And as religion without philosophy is narrow, so, toPhilo, philosophy without religion is barren; remote from the truelife, and failing in the true purpose of the search for wisdom, whichis to raise man to his highest function. Philosophy, then, is not theenemy of the Torah: it is its true complement, endowing it with adeeper meaning and a profounder influence. Thus the saying runs in the"Ethics of the Fathers, "

[Hebrew: 'm 'yn tora 'yn hkma; 'm 'yn hkma 'yn tora]

"If there is no Torah, there is no wisdom; if there is no wisdom, there is no Torah. " The thought that study of the law is essential toJudaism Philo shares with the rabbis, and the Torah is in his eyesIsrael's great heritage, not only her literature but her life. AsSaadia said later, [365] "This nation is only a nation by reason of itsTorah. " It is because Philo starts from this conviction that hismission is so striking, and its results so tragical. The Judaism whichhe preached to the pagan world was no food for the soul with thestrength taken out to render it more easily assimilated. He emphasizesits spiritual import, he shows its harmony, as the age demanded, withthe philosophical and ethical conceptions of the time, but hesteadfastly holds aloft, as the standard of humanity, the law ofMoses. The reign of "one God and one law" seemed to him not a far-offDivine event, but something near, which every good Jew could bringnearer. He was oppressed by no craven fear of Jewish distinctiveness;and the Biblical saying that Israel was a chosen people was real tohim and moved him to action. It meant that Israel was essentially areligious nation, nearer God, and possessed of the Divine law of life, and that it had received the Divine bidding to spread the truth aboutGod to all the world. It was a creed, and more, it was an inspirationwhich constantly impelled to effort. It would be difficult to sum upPhilo's message to his people better than by the verses in Deuteronomywhich he, the interpreter of God's Word and the successor of Moses, ashe loved to consider himself, proclaims afresh to his own age, andbeyond it to the congregation of Jacob in all ages, "Keep therefore mycommandments and do them; for this is your wisdom and yourunderstanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all thesestatutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise andunderstanding people. 

"For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, asthe Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for?

"And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments sorighteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deut. Iv. 5-7). 

 * * * * *

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 The following are the chief works which have been consulted and are recommended to the student of Philo:

 The standard edition of Philo is still that of Thomas Mangey, _Philonis Judæi opera quæ reperiri potuerunt omnia. _ 1742. Londini. 

 A far more accurate and critical edition, which is provided with introductory essays and notes upon the sources of Philo, is in course of publication for the Berlin Academy, by Dr. Leopold Cohn and Dr. Paul Wendland. The first five volumes have already appeared, and the remainder may be expected before long. The only complete edition which contains the Latin text of the _Quaestiones_ as well as the Greek works is that published by Tauchnitz in eight volumes; but the text is not reliable. 

 There is an English translation of Philo's works in the Bohn Library (G. Bell & Sons) by C. D. Yonge (4 vols. ), but it is neither accurate nor neat. The same may he said of the German translation of Jost, but an admirable German version edited by Dr. L. Cohn is now appearing, which contains notes of the parallel passages in rabbinic and patristic literature. 

 Works bearing on Philo and his period generally:

 Schürer, "History of the Jewish People at the Time of Jesus Christ" (English translation). 

 Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandrien als Ausleger der heiligen Schrift_. 

 Zeller, _Geschiehte der Philosophie der Griechen_, vol. III, sec. 2. 

 Drummond, "Philo-Judæus and the Jewish Alexandrian School. " 2 vols. (London. )

 Herriot, _Philon le Juif_. 

 Vacherot, _École d'Alexandrie_, vol. I. 

 Eusebius, _Præparatio Evangelica_, ed. Gifford. 

 Freudenthal, J. , _Hellenistische Studien_. 

 Harnack, "History of Dogma, " vol. I. 

 Josephus, "Wars of the Jews"; "Antiquities of the Jews. "

 Mommsen, Th. , "The Roman Provinces. "

 Works bearing on the special subjects of the different chapters:

 I. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA Graetz, "History of the Jews" (Eng. Trans. ), vol. II. Swete, "introduction to the Septuagint. " Hirsch, S. A. , "The Temple of Onias, " in the Jews' College Jubilee Volume. Friedländer, M. (Vienna), _Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetitc_ and _Religiöse Bewegungen der Juden irn Zeitalter von Jesus. _

 II. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO Conybeare, edition of _De Vita Contemplativa_. (Oxford. ) Hils, _Les juifs en Rome. Revue des Etudes Juives_, vols. 8 and 11. Reinach, Théodor, _Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains rélatifs au Judaisme_. Bréhier et Massebieau, _Essai sur la chronologie de Philon. Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, _ 1906. 

 III. PHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD Hart, J. H. A. , "Philo of Alexandria, " Jewish Quarterly Review, vols. XVII and XVIII. Massebieau, _Du classement des oeuvres de Philon_. Cohn, Leopold, _Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philon_. 

 IV. PHILO AND THE TORAH Treitel, L. , _Der Nomos in Philon. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, 1905. 

 V. PHILO'S THEOLOGY Montefiore, C. , _Florilegium Philonis_, Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. VIII. Caird, Ed. , "Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers. " Heinze, _Die Lefire vom Logos_, Bucher, _Philonische Studien_. Von Arnim, _Philonische Studien. _

 VI. PHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER Freudenthal, Max, _Die Erkenntnisstheorie von Philo. _ Bigg, "The Christian neo-Platonists of Alexandria. " Bussell, "The School of Plato. " Stewart, J. A. , "The Myths of Plato. " Cuyot, H. , _Les reminiscences de Philon chez Plotin_. 1906. Neumark, _Geschichte der jildischen Philosophie des Mittelalters_. 

 VII. PHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION Schechter, "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. " Taylor, "Ethics of the Fathers. " Ritter, Bernhard, _Philo und die Halacha_. Breslau, 1879. Dei Rossi, "Meor Einayim, " ed. Cassel. Krochmal, "Moreh Nebuchei Hazeman, " ed. Zunz. Frankel, Z. , _Ueber den Einfluss der palästinensischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik_. Epstein, _Le livre des Jubilis, Philon et le Midrasch Tadsché_, Revue des Etudes Juives, XXI. Ginzberg, L. , "Allegorical Interpretation, " in Jewish Encyclopedia. Joel, M. , _Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte_. Treitel, L. , _Agadah bei Philo. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, 1909. 

ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR THE REFERENCES

The references to Philo's works are made according to the chapters inConn and Wendland's edition, so far as it has appeared. In referringto the works which they have not edited, I have used the pages ofMangey'a edition; but I have frequently mentioned the name of thetreatise in which the passage occurs, as well as the page-number. 

I have employed the following abbreviations in the references:

 L. A. I-III Legum Allegoriae. De Mundi Op. De Mundi Opificio. De Sacrif. De Sacrifices Abelis. Quod Det. Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur. De Post. C. De Posteritate Caini. De Gigant. De Gigantibus. Quod Deus. Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis. De Agric. De Agricultura. De Plant. De Plantatione. De Ebr. De Ebrietate. De Confus. De Confusione Linguarum. De Migr. De Migratione Abrahami. Quis Rer. Div. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres. De Cong. De Congressu Eruditorum Causa. De Fuga. De Fuga et Inventione. De Mut. Nom. De Mutatione Nominum. De Somn. De Somniis. De Abr. De Vita Abrahami. De Jos. De Vita Josephi. De V. Mos. De Vita Mosis. De Mon. De Monarchia. De Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus. De Sac. De Sacerdotum Honoribus et de Victimis. De Leg. De Legatione ad Gaium. In Flacc. In Flaccum. De Decal. De Decalogo. De Septen. De Septenario. De Concupisc. De Concupiscentia. De Just. De Justitia. De Exsecr. De Exsecrationibus. Ant. Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, tr. By Whiston. Bell. Jud. Wars of the Jews. C. Apion. Contra Apionem. Hist. Ecclesiast. Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica. Praep. Evang. Eusebius: Praeparatio Evangelica. Photius, Cod. Photius: Codex. 

INDEX

 Abraham (_see_ Lives of Abraham and Joseph), 83; model of the excellent man, 244. 

 Agrippa (King), Philo's life covers reign of, 45; Philo in Jerusalem during reign of, 50; arrives at Alexandria, 65; advanced to Kingdom of Judea, 69; intercedes at Rome for his people, 69; death of, 70. 

 Alexander (the Great), a notable figure in Talmud, 13; settles Jews in Greek colonies, 14; result of his work, 23. 

 Alexander Lysimachus, Alabarch of Delta region, 46; guardian of Antony's daughter, 46; restored to honor after imprisonment, 70. 

 Alexandria, Jewish community at (_see_ Jewish), 13 ff. , 41, 42 f. ; Jewish population of, under Ptolemy I, 15; meeting-place of civilizations, 14, 48, 95; centre of Jewish life, 15, 129; two sections occupied by Jews, 16; prosperity of Jews in, 21, 22, 32; anti-Semitic literature and influences in, 22, 62, 67, 74; Jewish tradition at, 27; synagogues at, 37; deputation to Jerusalem from, 41; rabbis flee to, 42; Agrippa finds a refuge at, 51, 65; mystical and ascetic ideas of people at, 55, 59; philosophical schools at, 63, 90, 92, 94, 140; development of Judaism in, 77, 255; Egyptian caste-system adopted at, 16; Jews of, popularize teachings of Bible, 34; Jews of, referred to, in Talmud, 42; Philo forced into Sanhedrin of, 61, 202, 203 f. ; Philo member of, 61; disintegration of community at, 71; Zealots flee to, on fall of Jerusalem, 71; replaced by Babylon as centre of Jewish intellect, 73; Samaritans in, 106; antinomian movement in, 130; prototypes of Christian belief at, 155; Pythagorean influence at, 188; national life and culture undermined at (_see_ National), 218. 

 Alexandrian, exegesis, characteristic of, 36; church, departs from Jewish standpoint, 72; Platonists, connection between Philo and later school of, 192; schools, relation of, to Palestinian, 199 f. , 213; literature in the Dark and Middle Ages, 225 f. 

 _Allegories of the Laws_, an allegorical commentary, 74, 87 f. ; attacks Stoic doctrines, 94; the _Epistles_, lineal descendants of, 247. 

 Angels, doctrine of, in Palestine, 140; Philo's treatment of, 150-1. 

 Antiochus Epiphanes, Palestine passes to, 17. 

 Anti-Semitic, party, Flaccus won over by, 65; literature and influences in Alexandria, 22, 62, 67, 74; party, punishment of, at Rome, 70. 

 Apion, a Stoic leader, 63; accuses Jews, 63, 67; Philo's references to, 63, 101; Josephus' reply to, 65. 

 Aquila, new Greek version of Old Testament made by, 224; rabbis' views of, 224. 

 Aristeas, spirit of, glorified in Philo, 77. 

 Aristobulus, first allegorist of Alexandria, 38; his spirit inherited by Philo, 77; on wisdom, 143; on the Word of God, 146; difference between Philo and, 168. 

 Artapanus, Jewish apologist, 77. 

 Assouan, Aramaic papyri at, 15. 

 Babylon, replaces Alexandria as centre of Jewish intellect, 73; Greek culture forgotten in, 224. 

 Bible, the, Philo's interpretation and views on, 49, 102, 108 ff. ; Philo reveals spiritual message of, 83; authority of, challenged at Alexandria, 92; wisdom personified in, 141, 142. 

 Cabbalah, the, Essenes practitioners in, 233; Philo as the Hellenizer of, 235. 

 Caligula. _See_ Gaius. 

 Chaldean, thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48. 

 Christian, monastic communities, 73; heresy, a severance from main community, 72; theologians, fail to realize spirit of Philo, 124; reformers, and the yoke of the law, 130; teachers preserve Philo's works, 156, 248; writers quote Philo, 223; apologists imitate allegorical method, 245. 

 Christianity, the movement towards, 28; rise of, 42; conflict with Judaism at Alexandria, 72; Philo's writings regarded as testimony to, 156; Philo's influence over religious philosophy of, 195. 

 Conversion to Judaism, in Egypt and Rome, 32. 

 _Courage_, tractate appended to _Life of Moses_, 75. 

 _Creation of the World_, description of, 83. 

 Croiset, criticism of Philo by, 90. 

 _Decalogue, The_, contents of, 83. 

 Derash, Philo a master of, 103. 

 _Dreams of the Bible_, classed with Allegories of the Laws, 74. 

 Dubnow, on Alexandrian Judaism, 129. 

 Egypt, Alexander's march to, 14; settlement of Jews in, 14; connection between Israel and, 14; visited by Plato, 15, 172; Diaspora in, after Jeremiah, 15; a favored home of the Jews, 21; conversion widespread in (_see_ Rome), 32; Flaccus, governor of, 65; Jews of, under same rule as Palestine Jews, 15. 

 Egyptian, populace, Philo on, 62; thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48. 

 _Epistles_, the Pauline, lineal descendants of Allegories of the Laws, 247; doctrines of the Logos in, 250. 

 Essenes, rise of, 34, 54; account of, in Philo's works, 78; type of the philosophical life, 79; practitioners in the Cabbalah, 233. 

 Flaccus, won over by Anti-Semites, 65; indifference of, to attacks of Jews, 66; recall of, 66; Philo on the persecutions of, 78. 

 Frankel Z. , writes on Alexandrian-Jewish culture, 241. 

 Gaius (Roman Emperor), comes to the imperial chair, 65; Jews appeal directly to, 66; receives Jewish deputation, 67; death of, 69. 

 Greek philosophers, Philo's relation to, 48, 52; philosophy, Philo's influence on, 49, 191 f. ; colonies, Alexander settles Jews in, 14. 

 Greek culture, various branches of, 47; the chief schools of, 48, 54; fertilizing influence of ideas of, 58; and Jewish Scripture, 76; neglected in Babylon, 224. 

 Haggadah, the, in Philo's works, 202, 207 f. ; antiquity of, 209 f. ; allegorical speculation in, 212. 

 Halakah, outcome of devotion to Torah, 99; Palestinian Jews determine, 105; observance of oral law standardized in, 126; relation of Philo to, 202 f. ; differences between Alexandrian Sanhedrin and Palestinian, 203 f. ; codification of, 207. 

 Hebrew, language, evidence of Philo's knowledge of, 49; included in barbarian languages, 97; Philo's derivations from, 50, 101; race, the three founders of, 110 f. ; tradition, Philo follows, 159; mind, Professor Caird on, 167. 

 Hellenism, of Palestine, 24, 25; of Alexandria (_see_ Greek culture), 25; influence of, in Palestine, 51; and the interpretation of the Bible, 254; New Testament, a combination of Hebraism and, 247; Christian theology a descent to a commoner, 254. 

 Hillel, Philo contemporary with, 45; shows expansion of Hebrew mind, 45; on chief lesson of Torah, 117, 118; spirit of, shared by Philo, 249. 

 _Humanity_, tractate appended to a _Life of Moses_, 75. 

 Incarnation, notion of, not Jewish, 166. 

 Indian, thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48. 

 Isaac, _See Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, 83. 

 Israel, Philo's derivation of the name, 50, 138; God's special providence for, 77; the mission of, 206, 242. 

 Italy, Philo visits, 66. 

 Jacob, _See Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, 83. 

 Jeremiah, prophesies in Egypt, 14; heard by Plato, 15. 

 Jerusalem, Alexander's visit to, 14; Philo, on national centre at, 20, 41, 86; spiritual headship of, 41; special synagogues for Alexandrians in, 41; derivation of name of, 50; Philo's sojourn at, 50; downfall of, 71; Judaism at, 129. 

 Jesus, spread of his teaching, 245; his message compared with that of Philo, 245; preaching of, effect on Jewish attitude to life, 246; Paul sets up a new faith in, 251. 

 Jewish, community at Alexandria (_see_ Alexandria), 13 ff. , 72; temple at Elephantine, 15; kingdom reaches its height, 45; mind, religous conception of, 49, 137, 166; law and ceremony, elucidation of, 49; race, symbol of the unity of, 51; aspiration toward "freedom under the law, " 124; influences, dominant in Philo, 133, 189; philosophy, eclectic, 168; philosophy, new school of in Middle Ages, 225 f. 

 Joseph (_see Lives of Abraham and Joseph_), 83; as Egyptian statesman, 23. 

 Josephus, on Onias and Dositheus, 18; inconsistent accounts of Onias temple, 19; on Egyptian Jews, 20; account of Herod's temple by, 41; writes a reply to Apion, 65; description of Gaius' conduct to Jewish deputation, 68; on the spreading of Judaism, 115; indicates communication between schools of Alexandria and Palestine, 220; relation to Philo and his works, 222. 

 Jowett, on sermons, 90. 

 Judaism, genius of, 46, 196; Philo's exposition of, 52, 74, 78, 81, 84, 105; Philo protests against desecration of, 258; mysticism in, 58; philosophical, 72, 230; Alexandrian development of, 77, 92; moral teachings of, 85; religion of the law, 106, 116, 260; Josephus on the spreading of, 115; a religion of universal validity, 121, 169; at Jerusalem and Alexandria, 129; catholic conscience of, 130, 131; Darmesteter on, 132; Logos doctrine and, 165; danger of union with Gentiles to, 206; a national culture, 219; influences of Jesus and Paul on, 247; Hellenistic interpretation of the Bible and, 254. 

 Judas Maccabæus, struggles against Hellenizing party, 18. 

 Krochmal, Nachman, criticism of Philo, 240. 

 _Life of Moses_, contents of, 75, 79 f. ; an attempt to set monotheism before the world, 80; tractates appended to, 75. 

 _Lives of Abraham and Joseph_, description of, 83. 

 _Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, contents of, 83. 

 Logos, 143 ff. ; its relation to God's Providence, 143; meaning of, 144-164, 148; Aristobulus on, 146; regarded as the effluence of God, 149; spoken of as a person, 156; the soul, an image of, 178; development of Philo's doctrine of, 192. 

 Maimonides, object of his Moreh, 91; principles of, 99, 229; comparison of Philo with, 229 f. 

 Mark Antony, Alexander Lysimachus in the confidence of, 46. 

 Monastic communities, supposed record of Christian, in Philo, 73. 

 Moses, Philo a follower of, 60, 113 f. ; Philo's ideal type, 79 f. ; Philo, as interpreter of his revelation, 104, 106 f. _See Life of Moses_. 

 National, centre at Jerusalem, Philo on, 20, 41, 86; life undermined at Rome and Alexandria, 218. 

 Old Testament, Septuagint translation of, 25-30; Aquila's new Greek version of, 224. 

 Onias, leader of army of Egyptian monarch, 18; successor to high priesthood, 18; builds temple, 18, 19 f. ; temple of, dismantled, 71; Jewish writers silent about work of, 19. 

 Oral law, observance of, standardized in the Halakah, 126. 

 Origen, distinguishes three methods of interpretation, 76; teacher of Patristic school, 195; imitates Philo, 186. 

 Palestine, struggle for, between Ptolemies and Seleucids, 17; Hellenism of, compared with that of Athens, 24, 25; rabbis of, 28; Philo visits, 50; effect of Hellenic influence in, 54; New Moon a solemn day in, 121; aims of Jewish thought in, 140; doctrine of angels in, 140. 

 Palestinian Jews, under same rule as Egyptian Jews, 15; rabbis, oral tradition, 34; development of Jewish culture, 42 f. , 200; Midrash, Philo's acquaintance with, 52; schools, relation existing between Alexandrian and, 199 f. , 203 f. , 213. 

 Paul, the most commanding of the apostles, 247; influence of, compared with that of Jesus, 247; rejection of the Torah by, 248; sets up a new faith in Jesus, 251. 

 Pentateuch, Samaritan doctrines with reference to, 106. 

 Peshat, as a form of interpretation, 103. 

 Philo, contemporary with Herod, 45, 50; family of, 46; works of 74 ff. ; philosophical training of, 49; flees from Alexandria, 60; meeting of Peter and Mark with, 73; forced into Sanhedrin of Alexandria, 61; writings of, regarded as testimony to Christianity, 73, 156; influence of, over Christian religious philosophy, 195, 242 ff. ; relation of, to Greek philosophers, 48, 52; acquaintance of, with Chaldean and Indian thought, 48; his interpretation and views of the Bible, 49, 102, 108 ff. ; evidence of his knowledge of Hebrew language, 49; follows Hebrew tradition, 159, 199 ff. ; compared with Spinoza, 73, 134, 163; on persecutions of Sejanus and Flaccus, 62, 78; replies to attacks of stoics, 64, 95; stoics' view of God compared with that of, 185; goes to Italy, 66; refers to Apion, 63, 101; Josephus' knowledge of the works of, 222; Christian teachers preserve works of, 156, 247; relation of, to the Halakah, 202 f. ; comparison of Maimonides with, 229 f. ; doctrine of the Logos (_see_ Logos), 144 ff. ; connection between Saadia and, 226 f. ; the Hellenizer of the Cabbalah, 235; opposed to missionary attitude of Paul, 249. 

 Plato, hears Jeremiah, 15; Philo's style reminiscent of, 48; conception of the Law in, 131; Philo's philosophy compared with that of, 170 ff. ; dominant philosophical principle of, 174; a mystic, 230; conception of God in, 254. 

 Ptolemies, the: Ptolemy I, increases number of Jewish inhabitants in Alexandria, 15; IV, gives Heliopolis to Onias, 16; admirers of Scriptures, 23. 

 _Questions and Answers to Genesis and Exodus_, now incomplete, 75, 81 f. ; a preliminary study to more elaborate works, 81; Hebraic in form, 82. 

 _Repentance_, tractate appended to _Life of Moses_, 75. 

 Rome, Alexandria second to, 14; conversion widespread in (_see_ Egypt), 32; Agrippa an exile from, 51; power of Jews at, 62; Jewish struggle with, 220; Philo's apocryphal meeting with Peter at, 73; national life and culture undermined at (_see_ National), 218. 

 Saadia, founds new school of Jewish philosophy, 225 f. ; connection between Philo and, 226 f. 

 Samaritan, doctrines with reference to Pentateuch, 106; Jew, story of, 98. 

 Sanhedrin, Hillel, president of, 45; Philo forced into Alexandrian, 61; duties of members of, 61; of Alexandrian community, 202; of Jerusalem and capital punishment, 203; differences between Palestinian Halakah and Alexandrian, 203 f. 

 Sejanus, Tiberius falls under influence of, 62; Antonia opponent of, 62; Philo's book on persecution of, 62, 78; disgrace and death of, 65. 

 Septuagint, Hellenistic development marked by, 25; Philo's version of origin of, 26; celebrations in honor of, 27; infusion of Greek philosophic ideas into, 28; Christianizing influence of, 29; value of, to the cultured Gentile, 33; replaced by new Greek version of Old Testament, 224. 

 Solomon, Wisdom of, written at Alexandria, 31. 

 _Specific Laws, The_, description of, 83; socialism of Bible emphasized in, 86. 

 Spinoza, his ideal of life, 53; compared with Philo's, 73, 134, 163, 239; on Jewish thought, 137; influenced by Philo, 237 ff. ; approaches Bible from critical standpoint, 239. 

 Stoics, the chief Anti-Semites, 63; Philo replies to attacks of, 64, 95; in conflict with Jews at Alexandria, 94; beliefs of, 64, 94, 116, 176; view of God compared with that of Philo, 185. 

 Synagogues, at Alexandria, 16, 37. 

 Tiberius Alexander, nephew of Philo, 71. 

 Tradition, Jewish, at Alexandria, 27; Philo and Jewish, 199 ff. 

 Zealots, flight of, to Alexandria, 71. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Comp. Leviticus Rabba 13. ]

[Footnote 2: Comp. Josephus, Ant. IX. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: Sukkah 51^{b}. ]

[Footnote 4: Quoted by Josephus, Ant. XIV. 7. ]

[Footnote 5: Ant. XII. 5, 9, XX. 10. ]

[Footnote 6: Josephus, _Bell. Jud. _ VII. 10. ]

[Footnote 7: Comp. The passages in the "Antiquities" above and the_Bell. Jud. _ V. 5. ]

[Footnote 8: Menahot 109, Abodah Zarah 52^{b}. ]

[Footnote 9: _De Leg. _ II. 578. ]

[Footnote 10: Comp. _De Mon. _ I. 5. ]

[Footnote 11: Dr. Hirseh, in The Jews' College Jubilee Volume, p. 39. ]

[Footnote 12: Menahot 119. ]

[Footnote 13: Comp. Ant. XIV. 14-16. ]

[Footnote 14: Ant. XVI. 7. ]

[Footnote 15: Philo, _In Flacc. _ 6. ]

[Footnote 16: _C. Apion. _ II. 5. ]

[Footnote 17: I have used the word anti-Semite because, though thehatred at Alexandria was not racial, but national, it has now becomesynonymous with Jew-hater generally. ]

[Footnote 18: Quoted in _C. Apion_. I. 22. ]

[Footnote 19: _De V. Mos_. II. 6, 7. ]

[Footnote 20: See p. 22, above. ]

[Footnote 21: Preface to Ecclesiasticus. ]

[Footnote 22: Tract. Soferim I. 7. ]

[Footnote 23: Tanhuma [Hebrew: ki tsha]]

[Footnote 24: See p. 23, above. ]

[Footnote 25: _Orac. Sib_. , ed. Alexandre, III. 8. ]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid. _, III. 195. ]

[Footnote 27: Comp. Strabo, Frag. 6, Didot. ]

[Footnote 28: _De Post. C. _ 24. ]

[Footnote 29: _De V. Mos_. II. 28. ]

[Footnote 30: Comp. _De Decal_. 20. ]

[Footnote 31: Comp. Yer. Berakot 24c. ]

[Footnote 32: _Praep. Evang_. VIII. 10, XIII. 12. ]

[Footnote 33: Comp. _De Abr_. 15 and 37, _De Jos_. II. 63, _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 32, _De Migr_. 89. ]

[Footnote 34: _Quod Deus_ 11, _De Abr. _ 36. ]

[Footnote 35: Comp. Acts of the Apostles VI. 9, and Tosef. Meg. III. 6. ]

[Footnote 36: Yoma 83^{a}. ]

[Footnote 37: _Bell. Jud. _ V. 5. ]

[Footnote 38: Comp. Niddah 69^{b}, Sotah 47^{a}. ]

[Footnote 39: "Heroes and Hero-Worship, " ch. 3. ]

[Footnote 40: Ant. XIX. 5. ]

[Footnote 41: Photius, _Cod. _ 108. ]

[Footnote 42: Comp. _De Confus. _ 15. ]

[Footnote 43: Comp. _De Mon. _ I. 6. ]

[Footnote 44: Comp. Maimonides, Moreh II, ch. 36. ]

[Footnote 45: _L. A. _ I. 135. ]

[Footnote 46: Comp. _De Cong. _ 6 ff. ]

[Footnote 47: Comp. Croiset, _Histoire de la littérature grecque_, V, pp. 425 ff. ]

[Footnote 48: Comp. Mills, "Zoroaster, Philo, and Israel. "]

[Footnote 49: Comp. _Quis Rer. Div. _ 43, _De Judice_ II, _De V. Mos. _II. 4. ]

[Footnote 50: Ritter, _Philon und die Halacha_. ]

[Footnote 51: Comp. _De V. Mos. _ I. 1, _In Flacc. _ 23 and 33, _De Mut. Nom. _ 39. ]

[Footnote 52: _Præp. Evang. _ VIII. V. ]

[Footnote 53: _De Mon. _ II. 1-3. ]

[Footnote 54: Comp. _Bell. Jud. _ VI. 9. 3. ]

[Footnote 55: Comp. _De V. Mos. _ II. 4. ]

[Footnote 56: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 1. ]

[Footnote 57: Comp. _De Migr. _ 4, _L. A. _ III. 45. ]

[Footnote 58: Comp. Graetz, "History of the Jews" III. 91 ff. ]

[Footnote 59: Comp. _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_ 11 ff. ]

[Footnote 60: The authenticity of this book is elaborately discussedby Conybeare in his edition of it. ]

[Footnote 61: "Ethics of the Fathers" VI. 4. ]

[Footnote 62: _De Mundi Op. _ I. 42. ]

[Footnote 63: Comp. _De Migr. _ 6 ff. ]

[Footnote 64: _L. A. _ II. 21. ]

[Footnote 65: _De Fuga_ 7 ff. ]

[Footnote 66: Comp. _De Spec. Leg. _ II. 260. ]

[Footnote 67: Comp. _De Cherubim_ 9. ]

[Footnote 68: _De Migr. _ 7-9. ]

[Footnote 69: II, ch. 36 ff. ]

[Footnote 70: Comp. _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 1. ]

[Footnote 71: Massebieau, _Du classement des oeuvres de Philon_. ]

[Footnote 72: _In Flacc. _ 5. ]

[Footnote 73: Comp. Th. Reinach, _Textes d'auteurs romains et grecsrelatifs au Judaisme_, pp. 120 ff. ]

[Footnote 74: Comp. _De Confus. _, _passim_. ]

[Footnote 75: Josephus, _C. Apion. _, Introduction. ]

[Footnote 76: _In Flacc. _ 10. ]

[Footnote 77: _De Leg_. 27 and 28. ]

[Footnote 78: Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. ]

[Footnote 79: _De Leg. , ad fin_. ]

[Footnote 80: Ant. XIX. 5. ]

[Footnote 81: Frag, preserved by John of Damascus, p. 404. ]

[Footnote 82: Comp. Ant. XX. 5. ]

[Footnote 83: Comp. Massebieau, _op. Cit. _]

[Footnote 84: Comp. Bernays, _Ueber die unter Philos Werken stehendenSchriften [Greek: peri tês aphtharsias Kosmou]_, and Siegfried, art. "Philo" in the Jewish Encyclopedia. ]

[Footnote 85: _Quod Deus_ 86. ]

[Footnote 86: _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_ 12 ff. ]

[Footnote 87: _De V. Mos. _ I. 1. ]

[Footnote 88: _De V. Mos_. II. 5. ]

[Footnote 89: "On Repentance, " II. ]

[Footnote 90: Comp. Treitel, _Agadah bei Philo. Monatsschrift_, 1909. ]

[Footnote 91: _De Abr. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 92: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 47. ]

[Footnote 93: _De Sac. Et Victimis_ 5 and 6. ]

[Footnote 94: _De Mon. _ II. 3 ff. ]

[Footnote 95: Comp. Plato, _Rep_. V, _ad fin_. ]

[Footnote 96: _De Exsecr_. II. 587. ]

[Footnote 97: _De Abr. _ 3. ]

[Footnote 98: Comp. _L. A. _ II. 4. ]

[Footnote 99: _L. A. _ I. 1. ]

[Footnote 100: Comp. Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_. ]

[Footnote 101: Croiset, _op. Cit. _ V, p. 427. ]

[Footnote 102: Comp. _De Cherubim_, _passim_. ]

[Footnote 103: Comp. Zohar III. ]

[Footnote 104: _De Cherubim_, 9 and 14, _De Somn. _ 8. ]

[Footnote 105: _De Migr. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 106: _De Post. C. _ 22. ]

[Footnote 107: Midrash Esther I. ]

[Footnote 108: Comp. _De Sac. _ II. 245. ]

[Footnote 109: Comp. _De Migr. _ 32. ]

[Footnote 110: Comp. _De Post C_, 11. ]

[Footnote 111: _Quaestiones in Gen. _ III. 33. ]

[Footnote 112: _De Cong. _ 10. ]

[Footnote 113: Comp. Berakot 51^{b}, _De Agric. _ 12, _De Somn. _ II. 25. ]

[Footnote 114: _De Confus. _ 38. ]

[Footnote 115: _De Mut. Nom. _ 8. ]

[Footnote 116: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 64. ]

[Footnote 117: _De Somn. _ I. 16 and 17. ]

[Footnote 118: Comp. "Ethics of the Fathers" V. 25. ]

[Footnote 119: Comp. _De Somn. _ I. 13. ]

[Footnote 120: _De Mut. Nom. _ 9. ]

[Footnote 121: _De Somn. _ I. 5. ]

[Footnote 122: Berakot 10^{a}. ]

[Footnote 123: _De Cong. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 124: _De Cong. _ 14. ]

[Footnote 125: "Theologico-Political Tractate" VII. ]

[Footnote 126: _De Abr. _ 19. ]

[Footnote 127: _De Mon. _ II. 6. ]

[Footnote 128: Harvard Studies, "Hellenism and Hebraism. "]

[Footnote 129: Comp. Schechter, "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, " p. 119. ]

[Footnote 130: Comp. _De V. Mos. _ II. 9 and 10, III. 1. ]

[Footnote 131: _L. A. _ I. 2. ]

[Footnote 132: Comp. _De Mundi Op. _ 2. ]

[Footnote 133: Comp. P. 85, above. ]

[Footnote 134: Comp. _L. A. _ I, _passim_. ]

[Footnote 135: _L. A. _ III. 12. ]

[Footnote 136: _De Post. C. _ 11. ]

[Footnote 137: _De Abr. _ 3 ff. ]

[Footnote 138: _Ibid. _ 6-10. ]

[Footnote 139: The LXX renders the verse Gen. Iv. 26, which istranslated in the Authorized Version: "Then began men to call upon thename of the Lord, " [Greek: outos êlpisen epi ton tôn olôn patera]_i. E. _, "He hoped in the Father of all. "]

[Footnote 140: _Quod Det. _ 38. ]

[Footnote 141: _De Jos. _ 21. ]

[Footnote 142: _De Jos. _ 22. ]

[Footnote 143: _De Jos. _ 42. ]

[Footnote 144: _Hist. Ecclesiast. _ II. 18, 1. ]

[Footnote 145: _De V. Mos. _ III. 4 ff. ]

[Footnote 146: _De V. Mos. _ II. 3. ]

[Footnote 147: _De V. Mos. _ II. 5, Josephus, _C. Apion. _ II. 37. ]

[Footnote 148: Comp. Horace, Satires I. 4, 138; I. 9, 60. ]

[Footnote 149: Frag. Preserved in Josephus, Ant. XIV. 7. ]

[Footnote 150: Comp. Reinach, _op. Cit. _, p. 262. ]

[Footnote 151: _De V. Mos. _ II. 3. ]

[Footnote 152: "Ethics of the Fathers" I. 17. ]

[Footnote 153: _De Fuga_ 6. ]

[Footnote 154: _De Decal. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 155: _De Decal. _ 23. ]

[Footnote 156: _De Septen. _ 9. ]

[Footnote 157: Kiddushin 20^{a}. ]

[Footnote 158: _De Decal. _ 20. ]

[Footnote 159: _De Septen. _ 7. ]

[Footnote 160: _De Septen. _ 6. ]

[Footnote 161: Ch. 2. 31. ]

[Footnote 162: Comp. _De Migr. _ 23. ]

[Footnote 163: _De Septen. _ 1. 2. ]

[Footnote 164: _De Septen. _ 18 ff. ]

[Footnote 165: _De Concupisc. _ 1-3. ]

[Footnote 166: Comp. _De Just. _ II. 360. ]

[Footnote 167: Ch. 16. ]

[Footnote 168: I have taken this translation and that on the next pagefrom Mr. Claude Montefiore's _Florilegium Philonis_. Jewish QuarterlyReview, vol. VII. ]

[Footnote 169: Comp. _De Ebr. _ 40, and _De Spec. Leg. _ II. 414. ]

[Footnote 170: _De Leg. _ II. 574. ]

[Footnote 171: _Essais, Les Prophètes d'Israël_. ]

[Footnote 172: Frag. Cited by Porphyry, _De Abstinentia_ II. 25. ]

[Footnote 173: _De Cong. _ 10. ]

[Footnote 174: Comp. Schechter, "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, " pp. 21ff. ]

[Footnote 175: _L. A. _ I. 7. ]

[Footnote 176: _L. A. _ I. 14. ]

[Footnote 177: _De Confus. _ 2, _De Post. C. _ 5. ]

[Footnote 178: Comp. _De Somn. _ I. 11, _De Mut. Nom. _ 4. ]

[Footnote 179: Caird, "Life of Spinoza" II. ]

[Footnote 180: _De Mon. _ I. 5. ]

[Footnote 181: Comp. "The Authorised Prayer Book. " p. 78. ]

[Footnote 182: _Quod Deus_ 23. ]

[Footnote 183: _De Mundi Op. _ 5. ]

[Footnote 184: _L. A. _ III. 24. ]

[Footnote 185: _De Somn. _ II. 38. ]

[Footnote 186: _L. A. _ III. 24. ]

[Footnote 187: See p. 77, above. ]

[Footnote 188: _L. A. _ I. 3. ]

[Footnote 189: _De Plant. _ 7, _Quod Det. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 190: _De Cherubim_ 35. ]

[Footnote 191: _L. A. _ II. 70. ]

[Footnote 192: _De Cherubim_ 32, _De Somn. _ II, 56. ]

[Footnote 193: _De Post. C. _ 11. ]

[Footnote 194: Essay on the Talmud. ]

[Footnote 195: Bereshit Rabba 21, and Yalkut 26. ]

[Footnote 196: Comp. _De Plant. _ 30. ]

[Footnote 197: Comp. [H. ]agigah 14. ]

[Footnote 198: Quoted by Euseb. , _op. Cit. _ XIII. 8. ]

[Footnote 199: _De Decal. _ 11. ]

[Footnote 200: _De Mundi Op. _ 24. ]

[Footnote 201: _Ibid. _ 20. ]

[Footnote 202: _De Migr. _ 9. ]

[Footnote 203: _De Decal. _ 11. ]

[Footnote 204: _De Somn. _ II. 37. ]

[Footnote 205: _De Somn. _ I. 23. ]

[Footnote 206: Comp. _De Somn. _ II. 11. ]

[Footnote 207: _De Somn. _ I. 22. ]

[Footnote 208: Comp. [H. ]agigah 14^{a}. ]

[Footnote 209: _Quod Deus_ 26 and 32. ]

[Footnote 210: _De Confus. _ 14. ]

[Footnote 211: _De Gigant. _ 2. ]

[Footnote 212: "Ethics of the Fathers" III. ]

[Footnote 213: Comp. Schechter, _op. Cit. _, "The Law as Personified inLiterature. "]

[Footnote 214: Comp. _L. A. _ III. 73, _De Somn. _ II. 33. ]

[Footnote 215: _De Cong. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 216: _De Confus. _ 14, Fragments I, _L. A. _ III. 23, _QuisRer. Div. _ 42, _De Gigant. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 217: Comp. Graetz, "Gnosticism and Judaism, " pp. 15 ff. ]

[Footnote 218: Comp. _De Cherubim_ 14 and 17, _De Gigant. _ 12. ]

[Footnote 219: Drummond, "Philo-Judæus and the Jewish HellenisticSchool, " vol. II. ]

[Footnote 220: _De Somn. _ I. 32, _De Confus. _ 14, _L. A. _ III. 25, _DeV. Mos. _ III. 14. ]

[Footnote 221: _L. A. _ III. 73. ]

[Footnote 222: _De Sacrif. _ 38. ]

[Footnote 223: _Quis Rer. Div. _ 42. ]

[Footnote 224: _De Plant. _ 21. ]

[Footnote 225: _L. A. _ III. ]

[Footnote 226: _De Cherubim_ 9. ]

[Footnote 227: _De Abr. _ 24 and 25. ]

[Footnote 228: _De Fuga_ 18. ]

[Footnote 229: _L. A. _ II. ]

[Footnote 230: _L. A. _ I. 13, II. 15, _Quis Rer. Div. _ 53. ]

[Footnote 231: Comp. _De Decal. _, _ad fin_. ]

[Footnote 232: _L. A. _ I. 20, _De Fuga_ 12. ]

[Footnote 233: _De Mundi Op. _ 54, _De Fuga_ 11. ]

[Footnote 234: "The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers"VIII. ]

[Footnote 235: Plato, "Laws" 718. ]

[Footnote 236: Comp. Bk. 12 of the _Præp. Evang. _]

[Footnote 237: Quoted by Suidas, _s. V. _ Philo. ]

[Footnote 238: _De Mundi Op. _ 43. ]

[Footnote 239: _De Victimis_ II. 260-262. ]

[Footnote 240: Comp. P. 81, above. ]

[Footnote 241: _De Sacrif. _ 24, _Quod Det. _ 24. ]

[Footnote 242: _De Mundi Op. _ 24. ]

[Footnote 243: _De Mundi Op. _ 4. ]

[Footnote 244: _De Somn. _ I. 4. ]

[Footnote 245: _De Victimis_ II. 260. ]

[Footnote 246: _Quod Deus_ 6, _De Post. C. _ 5. ]

[Footnote 247: _Quod Det. _ 24, _De Mundi Op. _ 45 and 51. ]

[Footnote 248: _L. A. _ I. 32, _De Confus. _ 27. ]

[Footnote 249: _De Mon_. II. 214, _De Mundi Op_. I. 16. ]

[Footnote 250: _De Mundi Op_. 22 and 48, _L. A. _ I. 13 and II. 12 ff. ]

[Footnote 251: _De Sacrif. _ 32. ]

[Footnote 252: _De Plant. _ 9. ]

[Footnote 253: _Quaestiones in Gen. _ II. 59. ]

[Footnote 254: _De Fuga_ 6. ]

[Footnote 255: _Quaestiones in Gen. _ IV. 140. ]

[Footnote 256: _De Cherubim_ 32. ]

[Footnote 257: _L. A. _ I. 15. ]

[Footnote 258: _L. A. _ II. 25. ]

[Footnote 259: _L. A. _ I. 11 ff. , II. 12-14. ]

[Footnote 260: _De Cherubim_ 35. ]

[Footnote 261: _De Somn. _ I. 12. ]

[Footnote 262: _De Somn. _ I. 4. ]

[Footnote 263: _De Plant. _ 7. ]

[Footnote 264: _Quod Det. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 265: _De Migr. _ 8, _De Spec. Leg. _ I. 9. ]

[Footnote 266: _L. A. _ I. 13. ]

[Footnote 267: _L. A. _ III. 13, 14. ]

[Footnote 268: _Quis Rer. Div. _ 53. ]

[Footnote 269: _De Mundi Op. _ 54. ]

[Footnote 270: _De Abr. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 271: _De Fuga_ 27. ]

[Footnote 272: _L. A. _ I. 32, II. 25. ]

[Footnote 273: Comp. _L. A. _ III. 45. ]

[Footnote 274: _Quod Det. _ 7. ]

[Footnote 275: _De Fuga_ 5 ff. ]

[Footnote 276: _De Mundi Op. _ 15, _L. A. _ I. 46. ]

[Footnote 277: _De Decal. _ 6-8. ]

[Footnote 278: Comp. Euseb. , _Praep. Evang. _ IX 411A. ]

[Footnote 279: _C. Celsum_ IV. 51. ]

[Footnote 280: _De Sectis Judaicis_ XVIII. ]

[Footnote 281: Comp. Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_, andSiegfried, _Philo als Ausleger der hieligen Schrift_. ]

[Footnote 282: Comp. _Quis Rer. Div. _ XLIII, and Chapter II above. ]

[Footnote 283: _De Mon_. II. 212. ]

[Footnote 284: _Hist. Ecclesiast. _ II. Iv. 2. ]

[Footnote 285: Comp. Graetz, "History" II. Xviii. ]

[Footnote 286: Comp. Chapter I, p. 17, above. ]

[Footnote 287: _De Spec. Leg_. II. 260. ]

[Footnote 288: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 17. ]

[Footnote 289: _Ibid. _ II. 6. ]

[Footnote 290: _De Parentibus Colendis_ 56. ]

[Footnote 291: Comp. Sifre Debarim 237. ]

[Footnote 292: _De Spec. Leg. _ IV. ]

[Footnote 293: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 36. ]

[Footnote 294: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 33 and 34. ]

[Footnote 295: Moreh Nebukim III, ch. 39. ]

[Footnote 296: _Fragmenta ex Antonio_ II. 672. ]

[Footnote 297: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 5, II. 304, 305. ]

[Footnote 298: Deut. Vii. 3, and Abodah Zarah 36^{b}. ]

[Footnote 299: _De Spec. Leg. _ III. 5, II. 304. ]

[Footnote 300: _De Septen. _ 5 ff. ]

[Footnote 301: See Chapter IV, p. 125, above. ]

[Footnote 302: Mishnah Rosh Hashanah III. 8, and Philo, _De Somn. _ II. 11. ]

[Footnote 303: Comp. _Agadah bei Philo_, by Treitel, _Monatsschrift_, 1909. ]

[Footnote 304: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 16, 4. ]

[Footnote 305: Comp. Taylor's edition. ]

[Footnote 306: _De Plant. _ 30. ]

[Footnote 307: It is impossible for me to make an adequateacknowledgment of my debt to Dr. Schechter, President of the JewishTheological Seminary of America. But I should say that I have borrowedfreely from his articles on rabbinic theology in the Jewish QuarterlyReview, vols. VI and VII, now included in his "Aspects of RabbinicTheology. "]

[Footnote 308: Mishnah Yodayim III. 5. ]

[Footnote 309: Bereshit Rabba 26. 7. ]

[Footnote 310: Comp. Schechter, _op. Cit. _, Introduction. ]

[Footnote 311: Berakot 24^{b}. ]

[Footnote 312: Mekilta [Hebrew: kshla] I. 1. ]

[Footnote 313: Bereshit Rabba I. 2. ]

[Footnote 314: Pirke R. Eliezer III. ]

[Footnote 315: Comp. Poems, II, p. 25. ]

[Footnote 316: Moreh II, ch. 70. ]

[Footnote 317: Eccles. III. 15. ]

[Footnote 318: [H. ]agigah 14 ff. , Sanhedrin 37^{a}. ]

[Footnote 319: Bereshit Rabba 4. ]

[Footnote 320: Mena[h. ]ot 99. ]

[Footnote 321: Mishnah Sanhedrin II. 1. ]

[Footnote 322: [H. ]agigah 15^{b}. ]

[Footnote 323: Bereshit Rabba 36. 8. ]

[Footnote 324: Ant. III. 2. ]

[Footnote 325: _De V. Mos. _ II. 12. ]

[Footnote 326: Comp. Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. ]

[Footnote 327: Comp. "Ethics of the Fathers" VI. 6. ]

[Footnote 328: See Epstein, _Philon et le Midrasch Tadsché_, Revue desEtudes Juives, XXI, p. 80. ]

[Footnote 329: Yer. Meg. I. 71^{c}. ]

[Footnote 330: Comp. An article by Dr. Poznànski in the _Revue desÉtudes Juives_, 1905, _Philo dans l'ancienne littérature judéo-arabe_, pp. 10 ff. ]

[Footnote 331: Comp. Poznànski, _op. Cit. _, p. 27. ]

[Footnote 332: Moreh II. Ch. 1 ff. ]

[Footnote 333: _Ibid. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 334: _Ibid. _ 31. ]

[Footnote 335: Moreh III. 43 ff. ]

[Footnote 336: Comp. Ginzberg, art. "Cabbalah, " Jewish Encyclopedia. ]

[Footnote 337: Comp. Taylor's "Ethics of the Fathers, " ch. 5, notes. ]

[Footnote 338: _De Cherubim_ 12 and 14. Comp. _De Somn. _ I. 8. ]

[Footnote 339: Comp. _De Somn. _ I. 12. ]

[Footnote 340: Comp. _De Fuga_ 9. ]

[Footnote 341: Comp. Hort, Introduction to Clement's [Greek:Etrômateis]. ]

[Footnote 342: Ed. Cassel, pp. 4 and 15^{b}. ]

[Footnote 343: Comp. Imre Binah. Meor Einayim, ch. 30. ]

[Footnote 344: Comp. J. A. Stewart, "Myths of Plato, " _ad fin. _]

[Footnote 345: Comp. "Theologico-Political Tractate" XV. ]

[Footnote 346: Comp. _De Humanitate_ II. 395. ]

[Footnote 347: _De V. Mos. _ II. 1-5. ]

[Footnote 348: Comp. _De Mon. _ II. 6. ]

[Footnote 349: _De Just. _ 6. ]

[Footnote 350: Comp. _De Nobilitate_ 6. ]

[Footnote 351: Bamidbar Rabba 8. ]

[Footnote 352: Tan[h. ]uma to Debarim. ]

[Footnote 353: Comp. Pesa[h. ]im 87^{b}. ]

[Footnote 354: _De Exsecr. _ 6. II. 433. ]

[Footnote 355: Comp. Montefiore, Jewish Quarterly Review, VI, p. 428. ]

[Footnote 356: Epistle to the Romans V. ]

[Footnote 357: Epistle to the Galatians III. 10. ]

[Footnote 358: Comp. Chapter IV, above, p. 126. ]

[Footnote 359: _De Abr. _ 46. ]

[Footnote 360: Comp. Schechter, _op. Cit. _, Introduction. ]

[Footnote 361: Comp. Mekilta 33^{a}, ed. Friedmann. ]

[Footnote 362: Comp. _L. A. _ III. 26, and Chapter V, above, p. 154. ]

[Footnote 363: _De Cherubim_ 12. ]

[Footnote 364: Comp. Gibbon, "Decline of the Roman Empire, " ch. 15. ]

[Footnote 365: [Hebrew: 'monot vd'ot] III. ]

 * * * * *