{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14657/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14657","id":"gutenberg_14657","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14657","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism","Philo, of Alexandria"],"text":"PHILO-JUD\u00c6US\n\nOF ALEXANDRIA,\n\n\n\nBY\n\n\n\nNORMAN BENTWICH\nSometime Scholar of Trinity College,\nCambridge.\n\n\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA\nTHE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA\n1910\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1910,\nBY THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n\nTO MY MOTHER [Greek: thrept\u00earia]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIt is a melancholy reflection upon the history of the Jews that they\nhave failed to pay due honor to their two greatest philosophers.\nSpinoza was rejected by his contemporaries from the congregation of\nIsrael; Philo-Jud\u00e6us was neglected by the generations that followed\nhim. Maimonides, our third philosopher, was in danger of meeting the\nsame fate, and his philosophical work was for long viewed with\nsuspicion by a large part of the community. Philosophers, by the very\nexcellence of their thought, have in all races towered above the\ncomprehension of the people, and aroused the suspicion of the\nreligious teachers. Elsewhere, however, though rejected by the Church,\nthey have left their influence upon the nation, and taken a commanding\nplace in its history, because they have founded secular schools of\nthought, which perpetuated their work. In Judaism, where religion and\nnationality are inextricably combined, that could not be. The history\nof Judaism since the extinction of political independence is the\nhistory of a national religious culture; what was national in its\nthought alone found favor; and unless a philosopher's work bore this\nnational religious stamp it dropped out of Jewish history.\n\nPhilo certainly had an intensely strong Jewish feeling, but his work\nhad also another aspect, which was seized upon and made use of by\nthose who wished to denationalize Judaism and convert it into a\nphilosophical monotheism. The favor which the Church Fathers showed to\nhis writings induced and was balanced by the neglect of the rabbis.\n\nIt was left till recently to non-Jews to study the works of Philo, to\npresent his philosophy, and estimate its value. So far from taking a\nJewish standpoint in their work, they emphasized the parts of his\nteaching that are least Jewish; for they were writing as Christian\ntheologians or as historians of Greek philosophy. They searched him\nprimarily for traces of Christian, neo-Platonic, or Stoic doctrines,\nand commiserated with him, or criticised him as a weak-kneed eclectic,\na half-blind groper for the true light.\n\nEven during the last hundred years, which have marked a revival of the\nhistorical consciousness of the Jews, as of all peoples, it has still\nbeen left in the main to non-Jewish scholars to write of Philo in\nrelation to his time and his environment. The purpose of this little\nbook is frankly to give a presentation of Philo from the Jewish\nstandpoint. I hold that Philo is essentially and splendidly a Jew, and\nthat his thought is through and through Jewish. The surname given him\nin the second century, \"Jud\u00e6us,\" not only distinguishes him from an\nobscure Christian bishop, but it expresses the predominant\ncharacteristic of his teaching. It may be objected that I have pointed\nthe moral and adorned the tale in accordance with preconceived\nopinions, which--as Mr. Claude Montefiore says in his essay on\nPhilo--it is easy to do with so strange and curious a writer. I\nconfess that my worthy appeals to me most strongly as an exponent of\nJudaism, and it may be that in this regard I have not always looked on\nhim as the calm, dispassionate student should; for I experience\ntowards him that warmth of feeling which his name, [Greek: philon],\n\"the beloved one,\" suggests. But I have tried so to write this\nbiography as neither to show partiality on the one side nor\nimpartiality on the other. If nevertheless I have exaggerated the\nJewishness of my worthy's thought, my excuse must be that my\npredecessors have so often exaggerated other aspects of his teaching\nthat it was necessary to call a new picture into being, in order to\nredress the balance of the old.\n\nAlthough I have to some extent taken a line of my own in this Life, my\nobligations to previous writers upon Philo are very great. I have used\nfreely the works of Drummond, Sch\u00fcrer, Massebieau, Zeller, Conybeare,\nCohn, and Wendland; and among those who have treated of Philo in\nrelation to Jewish tradition I have read and borrowed from Siegfried\n(_Philon als Ausleger der heiligen Schrift_), Freudenthal\n(_Hellenistische Studien_), Ritter (_Philo und die Halacha_), and Mr.\nClaude Montefiore's _Florilegium Philonis_, which is printed in the\nseventh volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review. Once for all Mr.\nMontefiore has selected many of the most beautiful and most vital\npassages of Philo, and much as I should have liked to unearth new\ngems, as beautiful and as illuminating, I have often found myself\nirresistibly attracted to Mr. Montefiore's passages. Dr. Neumark's\nbook, _Geschichte der j\u00fcdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters_,\nappeared after my manuscript was set up, or I should have dealt with\nhis treatment of Philo. With what he says of the relation of Plato to\nJudaism I am in great part in agreement, and I had independently come\nto the conclusion that Plato was the main Greek influence on Philo's\nthought.\n\nTo these various books I owe much, but not so much as to the teaching,\ninfluence, and help of one whose name I have not the boldness to\nassociate with this little volume, but whose notes on my manuscript\nhave given it whatever value it may possess. The index I owe to the\nkindly help of a sister, who would also be nameless. Lastly I have to\nthank Dr. Lionel Barnett, professor of Sanscrit at University College,\nLondon, and my father, who read my manuscript before it was sent to\nthe printers. The one gave me the benefit of his wide and accurate\nscholarship, the other gave me much valuable advice and removed many a\nblazing indiscretion.\n\nNORMAN BENTWICH.\n\n_February 28, 1907._\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  PAGE\n\n      I. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA\n\n     II. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO\n\n    III. PHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD\n\n     IV. PHILO AND THE TORAH\n\n      V. PHILO'S THEOLOGY\n\n     VI. PHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER\n\n    VII. PHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION\n\n   VIII. THE INFLUENCE OF PHILO\n\n         BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n         ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR THE REFERENCES\n\n         INDEX\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPHILO-JUD\u00c6US OF ALEXANDRIA\n\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA\n\n\nThe three great world-conquerors known to history, Alexander, Julius\nC\u00e6sar, and Napoleon, recognized the pre-eminent value of the Jew as a\nbond of empire, an intermediary between the heterogeneous nations\nwhich they brought beneath their sway. Each in turn showed favor to\nhis religion, and accorded him political privileges. The petty tyrants\nof all ages have persecuted Jews on the plea of securing uniformity\namong their subjects; but the great conqueror-statesmen who have made\nhistory, realizing that progress is brought about by unity in\ndifference, have recognized in Jewish individuality a force making for\nprogress. Whereas the pure Hellenes had put all the other peoples of\nthe world in the single category of barbarians, their Macedonian\nconqueror forced upon them a broader view, and, regarding his empire\nas a world-state, made Greeks and Orientals live together, and\nprepared the way for a mingling of races and culture. Alexander the\nGreat became a notable figure in the Talmud and Midrashim, and many a\nmarvellous legend was told about his passing visit to Jerusalem during\nhis march to Egypt.[1] The high priest--whether it was Jaddua, Simon,\nor Onias the records do not make clear--is said to have gone out to\nmeet him, and to have compelled the reverence and homage of the\nmonarch by the majesty of his presence and the lustre of his robes. Be\nthis as it may, it is certain that Alexander settled a considerable\nnumber of Jews in the Greek colonies which he founded as centres of\ncosmopolitan culture in his empire, and especially in the town by the\nmouth of the Nile that received his own name, and was destined to\nbecome within two centuries the second town in the world; second only\nto Rome in population and power, equal to it in culture. By its\ngeographical position, the nature of its foundation, and the sources\nof its population, and by the wonderful organization of its Museum, in\nwhich the records of all nations were stored and studied, Alexandria\nwas fitted to become the meeting-place of civilizations.\n\nThere was already a considerable settlement of Jews in Egypt before\nAlexander's transplantation in 332 B.C.E. Throughout Bible times the\nconnection between Israel and Egypt had been close. Isaiah speaks of\nthe day when five cities in the land of Egypt should speak the\nlanguage of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts (xix. 18); and when\nNebuchadnezzar led away the first captivity, many of the people had\nfled from Palestine to the old \"cradle of the nation.\" Jeremiah (xliv)\nwent down with them to prophesy against their idolatrous practices and\ntheir backslidings; and Jewish and Christian writers in later times,\ndaring boldly against chronology, told how Plato, visiting Egypt, had\nheard Jeremiah and learnt from him his lofty monotheism. Doubt was\nthrown in the last century upon the continuance of the Diaspora in\nEgypt between the time of Jeremiah and Alexander, but the recent\ndiscovery of a Jewish temple at Elephantine and of Aramaic papyri at\nAssouan dated in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. has proved that\nthese doubts were not well founded, and that there was a\nwell-established community during the interval.\n\nFrom the time of the post-exilic prophets Judaism developed in three\nmain streams, one flowing from Jerusalem, another from Babylon, the\nthird from Egypt. Alexandria soon took precedence of existing\nsettlements of Jews, and became a great centre of Jewish life. The\nfirst Ptolemy, to whom at the dismemberment of Alexander's empire\nEgypt had fallen,[2] continued to the Jewish settlers the privileges\nof full citizenship which Alexander had granted them. He increased\nalso the number of Jewish inhabitants, for following his conquest of\nPalestine (or Coele-Syria, as it was then called), he brought back to\nhis capital a large number of Jewish families and settled thirty\nthousand Jewish soldiers in garrisons. For the next hundred years the\nPalestinian and Egyptian Jews were under the same rule, and for the\nmost part the Ptolemies treated them well. They were easy-going and\ntolerant, and while they encouraged the higher forms of Greek culture,\nart, letters, and philosophy, both at their own court and through\ntheir dominions, they made no attempt to impose on their subjects the\nGreek religion and ceremonial. Under their tolerant sway the Jewish\ncommunity thrived, and became distinguished in the handicrafts as well\nas in commerce. Two of the five sections into which Alexandria was\ndivided were almost exclusively occupied by them; these lay in the\nnorth-east along the shore and near the royal palace--a favorable\nsituation for the large commercial enterprises in which they were\nengaged. The Jews had full permission to carry on their religious\nobservances, and besides many smaller places of worship, each marked\nby its surrounding plantation of trees, they built a great synagogue,\nof which it is said in the Talmud, \"He who has not seen it has not\nseen the glory of Israel.\"[3] It was in the form of a basilica, with a\ndouble row of columns, and so vast that an official standing upon a\nplatform had to wave his head-cloth or veil to inform the people at\nthe back of the edifice when to say \"Amen\" in response to the Reader.\nThe congregation was seated according to trade-guilds, as was also\ncustomary during the Middle Ages; the goldsmiths, silversmiths,\ncoppersmiths, and weavers had their own places, for the Alexandrian\nJews seem to have partially adopted the Egyptian caste-system. The\nJews enjoyed a large amount of self-government, having their own\ngovernor, the ethnarch, and in Roman times their own council\n(Sanhedrin), which administered their own code of laws. Of the\nethnarch Strabo says that he was like an independent ruler, and it was\nhis function to secure the proper fulfilment of duties by the\ncommunity and compliance with their peculiar laws.[4] Thus the people\nformed a sort of state within a state, preserving their national life\nin the foreign environment. They possessed as much political\nindependence as the Palestinian community when under Roman rule; and\nenjoyed all the advantages without any of the narrowing influences,\nphysical or intellectual, of a ghetto. They were able to remain an\nindependent body, and foster a Jewish spirit, a Jewish view of life, a\nJewish culture, while at the same time they assimilated the different\nculture of the Greeks around them, and took their part in the general\nsocial and political life.\n\nAt the end of the third and the beginning of the second century\nPalestine was a shuttlecock tossed between the Ptolemies and the\nSeleucids; but in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (_c._ 150 B.C.E.)\nit finally passed out of the power of the Ptolemaic house, and from\nthis time the Palestinian Jews had a different political history from\nthe Egyptian. The compulsory Hellenization by Antiochus aroused the\nbest elements of the Jewish nation, which had seemed likely to lose by\na gradual assimilation its adherence to pure monotheism and the Mosaic\nlaw. The struggle of foe as against the Hellenizing party of his own\npeople, which, led by the high priests Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus,\ntried to crush both the national and the religious spirit. The\nMaccab\u00e6an rule brought not only a renaissance of national life and\nnational culture, but also a revival of the national religion. Before,\nhowever, the deliverance of the Jews had been accomplished by the\nnoble band of brothers, many of the faithful Palestinian families had\nfled for protection from the tyranny of Antiochus to the refuge of his\nenemy Ptolemy Philometor. Among the fugitives were Onias and\nDositheus, who, according to Josephus,[5] became the trusted leaders\nof the armies of the Egyptian monarch. Onias, moreover, was the\nrightful successor to the high-priesthood, and despairing of obtaining\nhis dignity in Jerusalem, where the office had been given to the\nworthless Hellenist Alcimus, he conceived the idea of setting up a\nlocal centre of the Jewish religion in the country of his exile. He\npersuaded Ptolemy to grant him a piece of territory upon which he\nmight build a temple for Jewish worship, assuring him that his action\nwould have the effect of securing forever the loyalty of his Jewish\nsubjects. Ptolemy \"gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs\ndistant from Memphis, in the nomos of Heliopolis, where he built a\nfortress and a temple, not like that at Jerusalem, but such as\nresembled a tower.\"[6] Professor Flinders Petrie has recently\ndiscovered remains at Tell-el-Yehoudiyeh, the \"mound of the Jews,\"\nnear the ancient Leontopolis, which tally with the description of\nJosephus, and may be presumed to be the ruins of the temple.\n\nIt is difficult to arrive at an accurate idea of the nature and\nimportance of the Onias temple, because our chief authority,\nJosephus,[7] gives two inconsistent accounts of it, and the Talmud\nreferences[8] are equally involved. But certain negative facts are\nclear. First, the temple did not become, even if it were designed to\nbe, a rival to the temple of Jerusalem: it did not diminish in any way\nthe tribute which the Egyptian Jews paid to the sacred centre of the\nreligion. They did not cease to send their tithes for the benefit of\nthe poor in Jud\u00e6a, or their representatives to the great festivals,\nand they dispatched messengers each year with contributions of gold\nand silver, who, says Philo,[9] \"travelled over almost impassable\nroads, which they looked upon as easy, in that they led them to\npiety.\" The Alexandrian-Jewish writers, without exception, are silent\nabout the work of Onias; Philo does not give a single hint of it, and\non the other hand speaks[10] several times of the great national\ncentre at Jerusalem as \"the most beautiful and renowned temple which\nis honored by the whole East and West.\" The Egyptian Jews, according\nto Josephus, claimed that the prophecy of Isaiah had been\naccomplished, \"that there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst\nof the land of Egypt\" (Is. xix. 19). But the altar, it has recently\nbeen suggested,[11] was rather a \"Bamah\" (a high place) than a temple.\nIt served as a temporary sanctuary while the Jerusalem temple was\ndefiled, and afterwards it was a place where the priestly ritual was\ncarried out day by day, and offerings were brought by those who could\nnot make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Though the synagogue was the\nmain seat of religious life in the Diaspora, there was still a desire\nfor the sacrificial worship, and for a long time the rabbis looked\nwith favor upon the establishment of Onias. But when the tendency to\nfound a new ritual there showed itself, they denied its holiness.[12]\nThe religious importance of the temple, however, was never great, and\nits chief interest is that it shows the survival of the affection for\nthe priestly service among the Hellenized community, and helps\ntherefore to disprove the myth that the Alexandrians allegorized away\nthe Levitical laws.\n\nDuring the checkered history of Egypt in the first century B.C.E.,\nwhen it was in turn the plaything of the corrupt Roman Senate, who\nsupported the claims of a series of feeble puppet-Ptolemies, the prize\nof the warriors, who successively aspired to be masters of the world,\nJulius C\u00e6sar, Mark Antony, and Octavian, and finally a province of the\nRoman Empire, the political and material prosperity of the Alexandrian\nJews remained for the most part undisturbed. Julius C\u00e6sar and\nAugustus, who everywhere showed special favor to their Jewish\nsubjects, confirmed the privileges of full citizenship and limited\nself-government which the early Ptolemies had bestowed.[13] Josephus\nrecords a letter of Augustus to the Jewish community at Cyrene, in\nwhich he ordains: \"Since the nation of the Jews hath been found\ngrateful to the Roman people, it seemed good to me and my counsellors\nthat the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs, and that\ntheir sacred money be not touched, but sent to Jerusalem, and that\nthey be not obliged to go before the judge on the Sabbath day nor on\nthe day of preparation for it after the ninth hour,\" _i.e._, after the\nearly evening.[14] This decree is typical of the emperor's attitude to\nhis Jewish subjects; and Egypt became more and more a favored home of\nthe race, so that the Jewish population in the land, from the Libyan\ndesert to the border of Ethiopia, was estimated in Philo's time at not\nless than one million.[15]\n\nThe prosperity and privileges of the Jews, combined with their\npeculiar customs and their religious separateness, did not fail at\nAlexandria, as they have not failed in any country of the Diaspora, to\narouse the mixed envy and dislike of the rude populace, and give a\nhandle to the agitations of self-seeking demagogues. The third book of\nthe Maccabees tells of a Ptolemaic persecution during which Jewish\nvictims were turned into the arena at Alexandria, to be trodden down\nby elephants made fierce with the blood of grapes, and of their\ndeliverance by Divine Providence. Some fiction is certainly mixed with\nthis recital, but it may well be that during the rule of the stupid\nand cruel usurper Ptolemy Physcon (_c._ 120 B.C.E.) the protection of\nthe royal house was for political reasons removed for a time from the\nJews. Josephus[16] relates that the anniversary of the deliverance was\ncelebrated as a festival in Egypt. The popular feeling against the\npeculiar people was of an abiding character, for it had abiding\ncauses, envy and dislike of a separate manner of life; and the\nprofessional anti-Semite,[17] who had his forerunners before the reign\nof the first Ptolemy, was able from time to time to fan popular\nfeelings into flame. In those days, when history and fiction were not\nclearly distinguished, he was apt to hide his attacks under the guise\nof history, and stir up odium by scurrilous and offensive accounts of\nthe ancient Hebrews. Hence anti-Jewish literature originated at\nAlexandria.\n\nManetho, an historian of the second century B.C.E., in his chronicles\nof Egypt, introduced an anti-Jewish pamphlet with an original account\nof the Exodus, which became the model for a school of scribes more\nvirulent and less distinguished than himself. The Battle of Histories\nwas taken up with spirit by the Jews, and it was round the history of\nthe Israelites in Egypt that the conflict chiefly raged. In reply to\nthe offensive picture of a Manetho and the diatribes of some\n\"starveling Greekling,\" there appeared the eulogistic picture of an\nAristeas, the improved Exodus of an Artapanus. Joseph and Moses\nfigured as the most brilliant of Egyptian statesmen, and the Ptolemies\nas admirers of the Scriptures. The morality of this apologetic\nliterature, and more particularly of the literary forgeries which\nformed part of it, has been impugned by certain German theologians.\nBut apart from the necessities of the case, it is not fair to apply to\nan age in which Cicero declared that artistic lying was legitimate in\nhistory, the standard of modern German accuracy. The fabrications of\nJewish apologists were in the spirit of the time.\n\nThe outward history of the Alexandrian community is far less\ninteresting and of far less importance than its intellectual progress.\nWhen Alexander planted the colony of Jews in his greatest foundation,\nhe probably intended to facilitate the fusion of Eastern and Western\nthought through their mediation. Such, at any rate, was the result of\nhis work. His marvellous exploits had put an end for a time to the\npolitical strife between Asia and Europe, and had started the movement\nbetween the two realms of culture, which was fated to produce the\ngreatest combination of ideas that the world has known. Now, at last,\nthe Hebrew, with his lofty conception of God, came into close contact\nwith the Greek, who had developed an equally noble conception of man.\nDisraeli, in his usual sweeping manner, makes one of his characters in\n\"Lothair\" tell how the Aryan and Semitic races, after centuries of\nwandering upon opposite courses, met again and, represented by their\ntwo choicest families, the Hellenes and the Hebrews, brought together\nthe treasures of their accumulated wisdom and secured the civilization\nof man. Apart from the question of the original common source, of\nwhich we are no longer sure, his rhetoric is broadly true; but for two\ncenturies the influence was nearly all upon one side. The Jew,\nattracted by the brilliant art, literature, science, and philosophy of\nthe Hellene, speedily Hellenized, and as early as the third century\nB.C.E. Clearchus, the pupil of Aristotle, tells of a Jew whom his\nmaster met, who was \"Greek not only in language but also in mind.\"[18]\nThe Greek, on the other hand, who had not yet comprehended the majesty\nof his neighbor's monotheism, for lack of adequate presentation, did\nnot Hebraize. In Palestine the adoption of Greek ways and the\nintroduction of Greek ideas proceeded rapidly to the point of\ndemoralization, until the Maccabees stayed it. Unfortunately, the\nHellenism that was brought to Palestine was not the lofty culture, the\neager search for truth and knowledge, that marked Athens in the\nclassical age; it was a bastard product of Greek elegance and Oriental\nluxury and sensuousness, a seeking after base pleasures, an assertion\nof naturalistic polytheism. And hence came the strong reaction against\nGreek ideas among the bulk of the people, which prevented any\npermanent fusion of cultures in the land of Israel.\n\nThe Hellenism of Alexandria was a more genuine product. The liberal\npolicy of the early Ptolemies made their capital a centre of art,\nliterature, science, and philosophy. To their court were gathered the\nchief poets, savants, and thinkers of their age. The Museum was the\nmost celebrated literary academy, and the Library the most noted\ncollection of books in the world. Dwelling in this atmosphere of\nculture and research, the Hebrew mind rapidly expanded and began to\ntake its part as an active force in civilization. It acquired the love\nof knowledge in a wider sense than it had recognized before, and\nassimilated the teachings of Hellas in all their variety. Within a\nhundred years of their settlement Hebrew or Aramaic had become to the\nJews a strange language, and they spoke and thought in Greek. Hence it\nwas necessary to have an authoritative Greek translation of the Holy\nScriptures, and the first great step in the Jewish-Hellenistic\ndevelopment is marked by the Septuagint version of the Bible.\n\nFancy and legend attached themselves early to an event fraught with\nsuch importance for the history of the race and mankind as the\ntranslation of the Scriptures into the language of the cultured world.\nFrom this overgrowth it is difficult to construct a true narrative;\nstill, the research of latter-day scholars has gone far to prove a\nbasis of truth in the statements made in the famous letter of the\npseudo-Aristeas, which professes to describe the origin of the work.\nWe may extract from his story that the Septuagint was written in the\nreign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C.E., with the approval, if\nnot at the express request, of the king, and with the help of rabbis\nbrought from Palestine to give authority to the work. But we need not\nbelieve with later legend that each of the seventy translators was\nlocked up in a separate cell for seventy days till he had finished the\nwhole work, and that when they were let out they were all found to\nhave written exactly the same words. Philo gives us a version of the\nevent, romantic, indeed, but more rational, in his \"Life of\nMoses.\"[19] He tells how Ptolemy, having conceived a great admiration\nfor the laws of Moses, sent ambassadors to the high priest of Juddea,\nrequesting him to choose out a number of learned men that might\ntranslate them into Greek. \"These were duly chosen, and came to the\nking's court, and were allotted the Isle of Pharos as the most\ntranquil spot in the city for carrying out their work; by God's grace\nthey all found the exact Greek words to correspond to the Hebrew\nwords, so that they were not mere translators, but prophets to whom\nit had been granted to follow in the divinity of their minds the\nsublime spirit of Moses.\" \"On which account,\" he adds, \"even to this\nday there is in every year celebrated a festival in the Island of\nPharos, to which not only Jews but many persons of other nations sail\nacross, reverencing the place in which the light of interpretation\nfirst shone forth, and thanking God for His ancient gift to man, which\nhas eternal youth and freshness.\" It is significant that Philo makes\nno mention in his books of the festival of Hanukah, while the Talmud\nhas no mention of this feast of Pharos; the Alexandrian Jews\ncelebrated the day when the Bible was brought within reach of the\nGreek world, the Palestinians the day when the Greeks were driven out\nof the temple. At the same time the celebrations in honor of the\nSeptuagint and of the deliverance from the Ptolemaic persecution[20]\nare remarkable illustrations of a living Jewish tradition at\nAlexandria, which attached a religious consecration to the special\nhistory of the community.\n\nIt is not correct to say with Philo that the translator rendered each\nword of the Hebrew with literal faithfulness, so as to give its proper\nforce. Rather may we accept the words of the Greek translator of Ben\nSira: \"Things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force in\nthem when they are translated into another tongue, and not only these,\nbut the law itself (the Torah) and the prophecies and the rest of the\nbooks have no small difference when they are spoken in their original\nlanguage.\"[21]\n\nFrom the making of the translation one can trace the movement that\nended in Christianity. By reading their Scriptures in Greek, Jews\nbegan to think them in Greek and according to Greek conceptions.\nCertain commentators have seen in the Septuagint itself the infusion\nof Greek philosophical ideas. Be this as it may, it is certain that\nthe version facilitated the introduction of Greek philosophy into the\ninterpretation of Scripture, and gave a new meaning to certain Hebraic\nconceptions, by suggesting comparison with strange notions. This\naspect of the work led the rabbis of Palestine and Babylon in later\ndays, when the spread of Hellenized Judaism was fraught with misery to\nthe race, to regard it as an awful calamity, and to recount a tale of\na plague of darkness which fell upon Palestine for three days when it\nwas made;[22] and they observed a fast day in place of the old\nAlexandrian feast on the anniversary of its completion. They felt as\nthe old Italian proverb has it, _Traduttori, traditori!_ (\"Translators\nare traitors!\"). And the Midrash in the same spirit declares[23] that\nthe oral law was not written down, because God knew that otherwise it\nwould be translated into Greek, and He wished it to be the special\nmystery of His people, as the Bible no longer was.\n\nThe Septuagint translation of the Bible was one answer to the lying\naccounts of Israel's early history concocted by anti-Semitic writers.\nAs we have seen,[24] the Alexandrian Jews began early to write\nhistories and re-edit the Bible stories to the same purpose. And for\nsome time their writings were mainly apologetic, designed, whatever\ntheir form, to serve a defensive purpose. But later they took the\noffensive against the paganism and immorality of the peoples about\nthem, and the missionary spirit became predominant. Alexander\nPolyhistor, who lived in the first century, included in his \"History\nof the Jews\" fragments of these early Jewish historians and\napologists, which the Christian bishop Eusebius has handed down to us.\nFrom them we can gather some notion of the strange medley of fact and\nimagination which was composed to influence the Gentile world. Abraham\nis said to have instructed the Egyptians in astrology; Joseph devised\na great system of agriculture; Moses was identified variously with the\nlegendary Greek seer Musaeus and the god Hermes. A favorite device for\nrebutting the calumnies of detractors and attracting the outer world\nto Jewish ideas, was the attachment to some ancient source of\npanegyrics upon Judaism and monotheism. To the Greek philosopher\nHeraclitus and the Greek historian Hecat\u00e6eus, who wrote a history of\nthe world, passages which glorify the Hebrew people and the Hebrew God\nwere ascribed. Still more daring was the conversion into archaic\nhexameter verse of the stories of Genesis and Exodus, and of Messianic\nprophecies in the guise of Sibylline oracles. The Sibyl, whom the\nsuperstitions of the time revered as an inspired seeress of\nprehistoric ages, was made to recite the building of the tower of\nBabel, or the virtues of Abraham, and again to prophesy the day when\nthe heathen nations should be wiped out, and the God of Israel be the\nGod of all the world. Although the fabrication of oracles is not\nentirely defensible, it is unnecessary to see, with Sch\u00fcrer, in these\nwritings a low moral standard among the Egyptian Jews. They were not\nmeant to suggest, to the cultured at any rate, that the Sibyl in one\ncase or Heraclitus in another had really written the words ascribed to\nthem. The so-called forgery was a literary device of a like nature\nwith the dialogues of Plato or the political fantasies of More and\nSwift. By the striking nature of their utterances the writers hoped to\ncatch the ear of the Gentile world for the saving doctrine which they\ntaught. The form is Greek, but the spirit is Hebraic; in the third\nSibylline oracle, particularly, the call to monotheism and the\ndenunciation of idolatry, with the pictures of the Divine reward for\nthe righteous, and of the Divine judgment for the ungodly, remind us\nof the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah; as when the poet says,[25]\n\"Witless mortals, who cling to an image that ye have fashioned to be\nyour god, why do ye vainly go astray, and march along a path which is\nnot straight? Why remember ye not the eternal founder of All? One only\nGod there is who ruleth alone.\" And again: \"The children of Israel\nshall mark out the path of life to all mortals, for they are the\ninterpreters of God, exalted by Him, and bearing a great joy to all\nmankind.\"[26] The consciousness of the Jewish mission is the dominant\nnote. Masters now of Greek culture, the Jews believed that they had a\nphilosophy of their own, which it was their privilege to teach to the\nGreeks; their conception of God and the government of the world was\ntruer than any other; their conception of man's duty more righteous;\neven their conception of the state more ideal.\n\nThe apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, which was probably written\nat Alexandria during the first century B.C.E., is marked by the same\nspirit. There again we meet with the glorification of the one true God\nof Israel, and the denunciation of pagan idolatry; and while the\nauthor writes in Greek and shows the influence of Greek ideas, he\nmakes the Psalms and the Proverbs his models of literary form. \"Love\nrighteousness,\" he begins, \"ye that be judges of the earth; think ye\nof the Lord with a good mind and in singleness of heart seek ye Him.\"\nHis appeal for godliness is addressed to the Gentile world in a\nlanguage which they understood, but in a spirit to which most of them\nwere strangers. The early history of the Israelites in Egypt comes\nhome to him with especial force, for he sees it \"in the light of\neternity,\" a striking moral lesson for the godless Egyptian world\naround him in which the house of Jacob dwelt again. With poetical\nimagination he tells anew the story of the ten plagues as though he\nhad lived through them, and seen with his own eyes the punishment of\nthe idolatrous land. He ends with a p\u00e6an to the God who had saved His\npeople. \"For in all things Thou didst magnify them, and Thou didst\nglorify them, and not lightly regard them, standing by their side in\nevery time and place.\"\n\nAt this epoch, and at Alexandria especially, Judaism was no\nself-centred, exclusive faith afraid of expansion. The mission of\nIsrael was a very real thing, and conversion was widespread in Rome,\nin Egypt, and all along the Mediterranean countries. The Jews, says\nthe letter of Aristeas, \"eagerly seek intercourse with other nations,\nand they pay special care to this, and emulate each other therein.\"\nAnd one of the most reliable pagan writers says of them, \"They have\npenetrated into every state, and it is hard to find a place where they\nhave not become powerful.\"[27] Nor was it merely material power which\nthey acquired. The days had come which the prophet Amos (viii. 11) had\npredicted, when \"God will send a famine in the land, not a famine of\nbread, nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of\nthe Lord.\" The Greek world had lost faith in the poetical gods of its\nmythology and in the metaphysical powers of its philosophical schools,\nand was searching for a more real object to revere and lean on. The\npeople were thirsting for the living God. And in place of the gods of\nnature, whom they had found unsatisfying, or the impersonal\nworld-force, with which they sought in vain to come into harmony, the\nJews offered them the God of history, who had preserved their race\nthrough the ages, and revealed to them the law of Moses.\n\nThe missionary purpose was largely responsible for the rise of a\nphilosophical school of Bible commentators. The Hellenistic world was\nthoroughly sophisticated, and Alexandria was distinguished above all\ntowns as the home of philosophical lectures and book-making. One of\nPhilo's contemporaries is said to have written over one thousand\ntreatises, and in one of his rare touches of satire Philo relates[28]\nhow bands of sophists talked to eager crowds of men and women day and\nnight about virtue being the only good, and the blessedness of life\naccording to nature, all without producing the slightest effect, save\nnoise. The Jews also studied philosophy, and began to talk in the\ncatchwords of philosophy, and then to re-interpret their Scriptures\naccording to the ideas of philosophy. The Septuagint translation of\nthe Pentateuch was to the cultured Gentile an account in rather bald\nand impure Greek of the history of a family which grew into a petty\nnation, and of their tribal and national laws. The prophets, it is\ntrue, set forth teachings which were more obviously of general moral\nimport; but the books of the prophets were not God's special\nrevelation to the Jews, but rather individual utterances and\nexhortations: and their teaching was treated as subordinate to the\nDivine revelation in the Five Books of Moses. Those, then, who aimed\nat the spread of Jewish monotheism were impelled to draw out a\nphilosophical meaning, a universal value from the Books of Moses.\nNowadays the Bible is the holy book of so much of the civilized world\nthat it is somewhat difficult for us to form a proper conception of\nwhat it was to the civilized world before the Christian era. We have\nto imagine a state of culture in which it was only the Book of books\nto one small nation, while to others it was at best a curious record\nof ancient times, just as the Code of Hammurabi or the Egyptian Book\nof Life is to us. The Alexandrian Jews were the first to popularize\nits teachings, to bring Jewish religion into line with the thought of\nthe Greek world. It was to this end that they founded a particular\nform of Midrash--the allegorical interpretation, which is largely a\ndistinctive product of the Alexandrian age. The Palestinian rabbis of\nthe time were on the one hand developing by dialectic discussion the\noral tradition into a vast system of religious ritual and legal\njurisprudence; on the other, weaving around the law, by way of\nadornment to it, a variegated fabric of philosophy, fable, allegory,\nand legend. Simultaneously the Alexandrian preachers--they were never\nquite the same as the rabbis--were emphasizing for the outer world as\nwell as their own people the spiritual side of the religion,\nelaborating a theology that should satisfy the reason, and seeking to\nestablish the harmony of Greek philosophy with Jewish monotheism and\nthe Mosaic legislation. Allegorical interpretation is \"based upon the\nsupposition or fiction that the author who is interpreted intended\nsomething 'other' [Greek: allo] than what is expressed\"; it is the\nmethod used to read thought into a text which its words do not\nliterally bear, by attaching to each phrase some deeper, usually some\nphilosophical meaning. It enables the interpreter to bring writings of\nantiquity into touch with the culture of his or any age; \"the gates of\nallegory are never closed, and they open upon a path which stretches\nwithout a break through the centuries.\" In the region of jurisprudence\nthere is an institution with a similar purpose, which is known as\n\"legal fiction,\" whereby old laws by subtle interpretation are made to\nserve new conditions and new needs. Allegorical interpretation must be\ncarefully distinguished from the writing of allegory, of which\nBunyan's \"Pilgrim's Progress\" is the best-known type. One is the\nconverse of the other; for in allegories moral ideas are represented\nas persons and moral lessons enforced by what purports to be a story\nof life. In allegorical interpretation persons are transformed into\nideas and their history into a system of philosophy. The Greek\nphilosophers had applied this method to Homer since the fourth century\nB.C.E., in order to read into the epic poet, whose work they regarded\nalmost as a Divine revelation, their reflective theories of the\nuniverse. And doubtless the Jewish philosophers were influenced by\ntheir example.\n\nTheir allegorical treatment of the Bible was intended, not merely to\nadapt it to the Greek world, but to strengthen its hold on the\nAlexandrian Jews themselves. These, as they acquired Hellenic culture,\nfound that the Bible in its literal sense did not altogether satisfy\ntheir conceptions. They detected in it a certain primitiveness, and\nhaving eaten further of the tree of knowledge, they were aware of its\nphilosophical nakedness. It was full of anthropomorphism, and it\nseemed wanting in that which the Greek world admired above all\nthings--a systematic theology and systematic ethics. The idea that the\nwords of the Bible contained some hidden meanings goes back to the\nearliest Jewish tradition and is one of the bases of the oral law; but\nthe special characteristic of the Alexandrian exegesis is that it\nsearched out theories of God and life like those which the Greek\nphilosophers had developed. The device was necessary to secure the\nallegiance of the people to the Torah. And from the need of expounding\nthe Bible in this way to the Jewish public at Alexandria, there arose\na new form of religious literature, the sermon, and a new form of\ncommentary, the homiletical. The words \"homiletical\" and \"homily\"\nsuggest what they originally connoted; they are derived from the Greek\nword [Greek: homilia], \"an assembly,\" and a homily was a discourse\ndelivered to an assembly. The Meturgeman of Palestine and Babylon, who\nexpounded the Hebrew text in Aramaic, became the preacher of\nAlexandria, who gave, in Greek, of course, homiletical expositions of\nthe law. In the great synagogue each Sabbath some leader in the\ncommunity would give a harangue to the assembly, starting from a\nBiblical text and deducing from it or weaving into it the ideas of\nHellenic wisdom, touched by Jewish influence; for the synagogues at\nAlexandria as elsewhere were the schools (_Schule_) as much as the\nhouses of prayer; schools, as Philo says, of \"temperance, bravery,\nprudence, justice, piety, holiness, and in short of all virtues by\nwhich things human and Divine are well ordered.\"[29] He speaks\nrepeatedly of the Sabbath gatherings, when the Jews would become, as\nhe puts it, a community of philosophers,[30] as they listened to the\nexegesis of the preacher, who by allegorical and homiletical fancies\nwould make a verse or chapter of the Torah live again with a new\nmeaning to his audience. The Alexandrian Jews, though the form of\ntheir writing was influenced by the Greeks, probably brought with them\nfrom Palestine primitive traces of allegorism. Allegory and its\ncounterpart, allegorical interpretation, are deeply imbedded in the\nOriental mind, and we hear of ancient schools of symbolists in the\noldest portions of the Talmud.[31] At what period the Alexandrians\nbegan to use allegorical interpretation for the purpose of harmonizing\nGreek ideas with the Bible we do not know, but the first writer in\nthis style of whom we have record (though scholars consider that his\nfragments are of doubtful authenticity) is Aristobulus. He is said to\nhave been the tutor of Ptolemy Philometor, and he must have written at\nthe beginning of the first century B.C.E. He dedicated to the king his\n\"Exegesis of the Mosaic Law,\" which was an attempt to reveal the\nteachings of the Peripatetic system, _i.e._, the philosophy of\nAristotle, within the text of the Pentateuch. All anthropomorphic\nexpressions are explained away allegorically, and God's activity in\nthe material universe is ascribed to his [Greek: Dunamis] or power,\nwhich pervades all creation. Whether the power is independent and\ntreated as a separate person is not clear from the fragments that\nEusebius[32] has preserved for us. Aristobulus was only one link in a\ncontinuous chain, though his is the only name among Philo's\npredecessors that has come down to us. Philo speaks, fifteen times in\nall, of explanations of allegorists who read into the Bible this or\nthat system of thought[33] regarding the words of the law as \"manifest\nsymbols of things invisible and hints of things inexpressible.\" And if\ntheir work were before us, it is likely that Philo would appear as the\ncentral figure of an Alexandrian Midrash gathered from many sources,\ninstead of the sole authority for a vast development of the Torah. We\nmust not regard him as a single philosophical genius who suddenly\nsprings up, but as the culmination of a long development, the supreme\nmaster of an old tradition.\n\nIf the allegorical method appears now as artificial and frigid, it\nmust be remembered that it was one which recommended itself strongly\nto the age. The great creative era of the Greek mind had passed away\nwith the absorption of the city-state in Alexander's empire. Then\nfollowed the age of criticism, during which the works of the great\nmasters were interpreted, annotated, and compared. Next, as creative\nthought became rarer, and confidence in human reason began to be\nshaken, men fell back more and more for their ideas and opinions upon\nsome authority of the distant past, whom they regarded as an inspired\nteacher. The sayings of Homer and Pythagoras were considered as\ndivinely revealed truths; and when treated allegorically, they were\nshown to contain the philosophical tenets of the Platonic, the\nAristotelian, or the Stoic school. Thus, in the first century B.C.E.,\nthe Greek mind, which had earlier been devoted to the free search for\nknowledge and truth, was approaching the Hebraic standpoint, which\nconsidered that the highest truth had once for all been revealed to\nmankind in inspired writings, and that the duty of later generations\nwas to interpret this revealed doctrine rather than search\nindependently for knowledge. On the other hand, the Jewish\ninterpreters were trying to reach the Greek standpoint when they set\nthemselves to show that the writers of the Bible had anticipated the\nphilosophers of Hellas with systems of theology, psychology, ethics,\nand cosmology. Allegorism, it may be said, is the instrument by which\nGreek and Hebrew thought were brought together. Its development was in\nits essence a sign of intellectual vigor and religious activity; but\nin the time of Philo it threatened to have one evil consequence, which\ndid in the end undermine the religion of the Alexandrian community.\nSome who allegorized the Torah were not content with discovering a\ndeeper meaning beneath the law, but went on to disregard the literal\nsense, _i.e._, they allegorized away the law, and held in contempt the\nsymbolic observance to which they had attached a spiritual meaning. On\nthe other hand, there was a party which adhered strictly to the\nliteral sense ([Greek: to hr\u00eaton]) and rejected allegorism.[34] Philo\nprotested against these extremes and was the leader of those who were\nliberal in thought and conservative in practice, and who venerated the\nlaw both for its literal and for its allegorical sense. To effect the\ntrue harmony between the literal and the allegorical sense of the\nTorah, between the spiritual and the legal sides of Judaism, between\nGreek philosophy and revealed religion--that was the great work of\nPhilo-Jud\u00e6us.\n\nThough the religious and intellectual development of the Alexandrian\ncommunity proceeded on different lines from that of the main body of\nthe nation in Palestine, yet the connection between the two was\nmaintained closely for centuries. The colony, as we have noticed,\nrecognized whole-heartedly the spiritual headship of Jerusalem, and at\nthe great festivals of the year a deputation went from Alexandria to\nthe holy sanctuary, bearing offerings from the whole community. In\nJerusalem, on the other hand, special synagogues, where Greek was the\nlanguage,[35] were built for Alexandrian visitors. Alexandrian\nartisans and craftsmen took part in the building of Herod's temple,\nbut were found inferior to native workmen.[36] The notices within the\nbuilding were written in Greek as well as in Aramaic, and the golden\ngates to the inner court were, we are told by Josephus,[37] the gift\nof Philo's brother, the head of the Alexandrian community. Some\nfragments have come down to us of a poem about Jerusalem in Greek\nverse by a certain Philo, who lived in the first century B.C.E., and\nwas perhaps an ancestor of our worthy. He glorifies the Holy City,\nextols its fertility, and speaks of its ever-flowing waters beneath\nthe earth. His greater namesake says that wherever the Jews live they\nconsider Jerusalem as their metropolis. The Talmud again tells how\nJudah Ben Tabbai and Joshua Ben Perahya, during the persecution of the\nPharisees by Hyreanus, fled to Alexandria, and how later Joshua Ben\nHanania[38] sojourned there and gave answers to twelve questions which\nthe Jews propounded to him, three of them dealing with \"the Wisdom.\"\nThe Talmud has frequent reference to Alexandrian Jews, and that it\nmakes little direct mention of the Alexandrian exegesis is explained\nby the distrust of the whole Hellenistic movement, which the rise of\nChristianity and the growth of Gnosticism induced in the rabbis of the\nsecond and third centuries. They lived at a time when it had been\nproved that that movement led away from Judaism, and its main tenets\nhad been adopted or perverted by an antagonistic creed. It was a\ntragic necessity which compelled the severance between the Eastern and\nWestern developments of the religion. In Philo's day the breach was\nalready threatened, through the anti-legal tendencies of the extreme\nallegorists. His own aim was to maintain the catholic tradition of\nJudaism, while at the same time expounding the Torah according to the\nconceptions of ancient philosophy. Unfortunately, the balance was not\npreserved by those who followed him, and the branch of Judaism that\nhad blossomed forth so fruitfully fell off from the parent tree. But\ntill the middle of the first century of the common era the Alexandrian\nand the Palestinian developments of Jewish culture were complementary:\non the one side there was legal, on the other, philosophical\nexpansion. Moreover, the Jud\u00e6o-Alexandrian school, though, through its\nabandonment of the Hebrew tongue, it lies outside the main stream of\nJudaism, was an immense force in the religious history of the world,\nand Philo, its greatest figure, stands out in our annals as the\nembodiment of the Jewish religious mission, which is to preach to the\nnations the knowledge of the one God, and the law of righteousness.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO\n\n\n\"The hero,\" says Carlyle, \"can be poet, prophet, king, priest, or what\nyou will, according to the kind of world he finds himself born\ninto.\"[39] The Jews have not been a great political people, but their\nexcellence has been a peculiar spiritual development: and therefore\nmost of their heroes have been men of thought rather than action,\nwriters rather than statesmen, men whose influence has been greater on\nposterity than upon their own generation. Of Philo's life we know one\nincident in very full detail, the rest we can only reconstruct from\nstray hints in his writings, and a few short notices of the\ncommentators. From that incident also, which we know to have taken\nplace in the year 40 C.E., we can fix the general chronology of his\nlife and works. He speaks of himself as an old man in relating it, so\nthat his birth may be safely placed at about 20 B.C.E. The first part\nof his life therefore was passed during the tranquil era in which\nAugustus and Tiberius were reorganizing the Roman Empire after a\nhalf-century of war; but he was fated to see more troublesome times\nfor his people, when the emperor Gaius, for a miserable eight years,\nharassed the world with his mad escapades. In the riots which ensued\nupon the attempt to deprive the Jews of their religious freedom his\nbrother the alabarch was imprisoned;[40] and he himself was called\nupon to champion the Alexandrian community in its hour of need.\nAlthough the ascent of the stupid but honest Claudius dispelled\nimmediate danger from the Jews and brought them a temporary increase\nof favor in Alexandria as well as in Palestine, Philo did not return\nentirely to the contemplative life which he loved; and throughout the\nlatter portion of his life he was the public defender as well as the\nteacher of his people. He probably died before the reign of Nero,\nbetween 50 and 60 C.E. In Jewish history his life covered the reigns\nof King Herod, his sons, and King Agrippa, when the Jewish kingdom\nreached its height of outward magnificence; and it extended probably\nup to the ill-omened conversion of Jud\u00e6a into a Roman province under\nthe rule of a procurator. It is noteworthy also that Philo was partly\ncontemporary with Hillel, who came from Babylon to Jerusalem in 30\nB.C.E., and according to the accepted tradition was president of the\nSanhedrin till his death in 10 C.E. In this epoch Judaism, by contact\nwith external forces, was thoroughly self-conscious, and the world was\nmost receptive of its teaching; hence it spread itself far and wide,\nand at the same time reached its greatest spiritual intensity. Hillel\nand Philo show the splendid expansion of the Hebrew mind. In the\nhistory of most races national greatness and national genius appear\ntogether. The two grandest expressions of Jewish genius immediately\npreceded the national downfall. For the genius of Judaism is\nreligious, and temporal power is not one of the conditions of its\ndevelopment.\n\nPhilo belonged to the most distinguished Jewish family of\nAlexandria,[41] and according to Jerome and Photius, the ancient\nauthorities for his life, was of the priestly rank; his brother\nAlexander Lysimachus was not only the governor of the Jewish\ncommunity, but also the alabarch, _i.e._, ruler of the whole Delta\nregion, and enjoyed the confidence of Mark Antony, who appointed him\nguardian of his second daughter Antonia, the mother of Germanicus and\nthe Roman emperor Claudius. Born in an atmosphere of power and\naffluence, Philo, who might have consorted with princes, devoted\nhimself from the first with all his soul to a life of contemplation;\nlike a Palestinian rabbi he regarded as man's highest duty the study\nof the law and the knowledge of God.[42] This is the way in which he\nunderstood the philosopher's life[43]: man's true function is to know\nGod, and to make God known: he can know God only through His\nrevelation, and he can comprehend that revelation only by continued\nstudy. [Hebrew: v-nbi' lbb hkma], God's interpreter must have a wise\nheart,[44] as the rabbis explained. Philo then considered that the true\nunderstanding of the law required a complete knowledge of general culture,\nand that secular philosophy was a necessary preparation for the deeper\nmysteries of the Holy Word. \"He who is practicing to abide in the city\nof perfect virtue, before he can be inscribed as a citizen thereof,\nmust sojourn with the 'encyclic' sciences, so that through them he may\nadvance securely to perfect goodness.\"[45] The \"encyclic,\" or\nencyclop\u00e6dic sciences, to which he refers, are the various branches of\nGreek culture, and Philo finds a symbol of their place in life in the\nstory of Abraham. Abraham is the eternal type of the seeker after God,\nand as he first consorted with the foreign woman Hagar and had\noffspring by her, and afterwards in his mature age had offspring by\nSarah, so in Philo's interpretation the true philosopher must first\napply himself to outside culture and enlarge his mind with that\ntraining; and when his ideas have thus expanded, he passes on to the\nmore sublime philosophy of the Divine law, and his mind is fruitful in\nlofty thoughts.[46]\n\nAs a prelude to the study of Greek philosophy he built up a harmony of\nthe mind by a study of Greek poetry, rhetoric, music, mathematics, and\nthe natural sciences. His works bear witness to the thoroughness with\nwhich he imbibed all that was best in Greek literature. His Jewish\npredecessors had written in the impure dialect of the Hellenistic\ncolonies (the [Greek: koin\u00ea dialektos]), and had shown little\nliterary charm; but Philo's style is more graceful than that of any\nGreek prose writer since the golden age of the fourth century. Like\nhis thought, indeed, it is eclectic and not always clear, but full of\nreminiscences of the epic and tragic poets on the one hand, and of\nPlato on the other,[47] it gives a happy blending of prose and poetry,\nwhich admirably fits the devotional philosophy that forms its subject.\nAnd what was said of Plato by a Greek critic applies equally well to\nPhilo: \"He rises at times above the spirit of prose in such a way that\nhe appears to be instinct, not with human understanding, but with a\nDivine oracle.\" From the study of literature and kindred subjects\nPhilo passed on to philosophy, and he made himself master of the\nteachings of all the chief schools. There was a mingling of all the\nworld's wisdom at Alexandria in his day; and Philo, like the other\nphilosophers of the time, shows acquaintance with the ideas of\nEgyptian, Chaldean, Persian,[48] and even Indian thought. The chief\nGreek schools in his age were the Stoic, the Platonic, the Skeptic and\nthe Pythagorean, which had each its professors in the Museum and its\npopular preachers in the public lecture-halls. Later we will notice\nmore closely Philo's relations to the Greek philosophers: suffice it\nhere to say that he was the most distinguished Platonist of his age.\n\nPhilo's education therefore was largely Greek, and his method of\nthought, and the forms in which his ideas were associated and\nimpressed, were Greek. It must not be thought, however, that this\ninvolved any weakening of his Judaism, or detracted from the purity of\nhis belief. Far from it. The Torah remained for him the supreme\nstandard to which all outside knowledge had to be subordinated, and\nfor which it was a preparation.[49] But Philo brought to bear upon the\nelucidation of the Torah and Jewish law and ceremony not only the\nreligious conceptions of the Jewish mind, but also the intellectual\nideas of Greek philosophy, and he interpreted the Bible in the light\nof the broadest culture of his day. Beautiful as are the thoughts and\nfancies of the Talmudic rabbis, their Midrash was a purely national\nmonument, closed by its form as by its language to the general world;\nPhilo applied to the exposition of Judaism the most highly-trained\nphilosophic mind of Alexandria, and brought out clearly for the\nHellenistic people the latent philosophy of the Torah.\n\nGreek was his native language, but at the same time he was not, as has\nbeen suggested, entirely ignorant of Hebrew. The Septuagint\ntranslation was the version of the Bible which he habitually used, but\nthere are passages in his works which show that he knew and\noccasionally employed the Hebrew Bible.[50] Moreover, his etymologies\nare evidence of his knowledge of the Hebrew language; though he\nsometimes gives a symbolic value to Biblical names according to their\nGreek equivalent, he more frequently bases his allegory upon a Hebrew\nderivation. That all names had a profound meaning, and signified the\ntrue nature of that which they designated, is among the most firmly\nestablished of Philo's ideas. Of his more striking derivations one may\ncite Israel, [Hebrew: v-shr-'l], the man who beholdeth God; Jerusalem,\n[Hebrew: yrv-shlom], the sight of peace; Hebrew, [Hebrew: 'bri], one who\nhas passed over from the life of the passions to virtue; Isaac, [Hebrew:\nytshk], the joy or laughter of the soul. These etymologies are more\ningenious than convincing, and are not entirely true to Hebrew philology,\nbut neither were those of the early rabbis; and they at least show that\nPhilo had acquired a superficial knowledge of the language of Scripture.\nNor can it be doubted that he was acquainted with the Palestinian Midrash,\nboth Halakic and Haggadic. At the beginning of the \"Life of Moses\" he\ndeclares that he has based it upon \"many traditions which I have\nreceived from the elders of my nation,\"[51] and in several places he\nspeaks of the \"ancestral philosophy,\" which must mean the Midrash\nwhich embodied tradition. Eusebius also, the early Christian\nauthority, bears witness to his knowledge of the traditional\ninterpretations of the law.[52]\n\nIt is fairly certain, moreover, that Philo sojourned some time in\nJerusalem. He was there probably during the reign of Agrippa (_c._ 30\nC.E.), who was an intimate friend of his family, and had found a\nrefuge at Alexandria when an exile from Palestine and Rome. In the\nfirst book on the Mosaic laws[53] Philo speaks with enthusiasm of the\ngreat temple, to which \"vast assemblies of men from a countless\nvariety of cities, some by land, some by sea, from East, West, North,\nand South, come at every festival as if to some common refuge and\nharbor from the troubles of this harassed and anxious life, seeking to\nfind there tranquillity and gain a new hope in life by its joyous\nfestivities.\" These gatherings, at which, according to Josephus,[54]\nover two million people assembled, must, indeed, have been a striking\nsymbol of the unity of the Jewish race, which was at once national and\ninternational; magnificent embassies from Babylon and Persia, from\nEgypt and Cyrene, from Rome and Greece, even from distant Spain and\nGaul, went in procession together through the gate of Xistus up the\ntemple-mount, which was crowned by the golden sanctuary, shining in\nthe full Eastern sun like a sea of light above the town. Philo\ndescribes in detail the form of the edifice that moved the admiration\nof all who beheld it, and for the Jew, moreover, was invested with the\nmost cherished associations. Its outer courts consisted of double\nporticoes of marble columns burnished with gold, then came the inner\ncourts of simple columns, and \"within these stood the temple itself,\nbeautiful beyond all possible description, as one may tell even from\nwhat is seen in the outer court; for the innermost sanctuary is\ninvisible to every being except the high priest.\" The majesty of the\nceremonial within equalled the splendor without. The high priest, in\nthe words of Ben Sira (xlv), \"beautified with comely ornament and\ngirded about with a robe of glory,\" seemed a high priest fit for the\nwhole world. Upon his head the mitre with a crown of gold engraved\nwith holiness, upon his breast the mystic Urim and Thummim and the\nephod with its twelve brilliant jewels, upon his tunic golden\npomegranates and silver bells, which for the mystic ear pealed the\nharmony of the world as he moved. Little wonder that, inspired by the\nstriking gathering and the solemn ritual, Philo regarded the temple as\nthe shrine of the universe,[55] and thought the day was near when all\nnations should go up there together, to do worship to the One God.\n\nSparse as are the direct proofs of Philo's connection with Palestinian\nJudaism, his account of the temple and its service, apart from the\ngeneral standpoint of his writings, proves to us that he was a loyal\nson of his nation, and loved Judaism for its national institutions as\nwell as its great moral sublimity. His aspiration was to bring home\nthe truths of the religion to the cultured world, and therefore he\ndevised a new expression for the wisdom of his people, and transformed\nit into a literary system. Judaism forms the kernel, but Greek\nphilosophy and literature the shell, of his work; for the audience to\nwhich he appealed, whether Jewish or Gentile, thought in Greek, and\nwould be moved only by ideas presented in Greek form, and by Greek\nmodels he himself was inspired.\n\nPhilo's first ideal of life was to attain to the profoundest knowledge\nof God so as to be fitted for the mission of interpreting His Word:\nand he relates in one of his treatises how he spent his youth and his\nfirst manhood in philosophy and the contemplation of the universe.[56]\n\"I feasted with the truly blessed mind, which is the object of all\ndesire (_i.e._, God), communing continually in joy with the Divine\nwords and doctrines. I entertained no low or mean thought, nor did I\never crawl about glory or wealth or worldly comfort, but I seemed to\nbe carried aloft in a kind of spiritual inspiration and to be borne\nalong in harmony with the whole universe.\" The intense religious\nspirit which seeks to perceive all things in a supreme unity Philo\nshares with Spinoza, whose life-ideal was the intuitional knowledge of\nthe universe and \"the intellectual love of God.\" Both men show the\npursuit of righteousness raised to philosophical grandeur.\n\nIn his early days the way to virtue and happiness appeared to Philo to\nlie in the solitary and ascetic life. He was possessed by a noble\npessimism, that the world was an evil place,[57] and the worldly life\nan evil thing for a man's soul, that man must die to live, and\nrenounce the pleasures not only of the body but also of society in\norder to know God. The idea was a common one of the age, and was the\noutcome of the mingling of Greek ethics and psychology and the Jewish\nlove of righteousness. For the Greek thinkers taught a psychological\ndualism, by which the body and the senses were treated as antagonistic\nto the higher intellectual soul, which was immortal, and linked man\nwith the principle of creation. The most remarkable and enduring\neffect of Hellenic influence in Palestine was the rise of the sect of\nEssenes,[58] Jewish mystics, who eschewed private property and the\ngeneral social life, and forming themselves into communistic\ncongregations which were a sort of social Utopia, devoted their lives\nto the cult of piety and saintliness. It cannot be doubted that their\nmanner of life was to some degree an imitation of the Pythagorean\nbrotherhoods, which ever since the sixth century had spread a sort of\nmonasticism through the Greek world. Nor is it unlikely that Hindu\nteachings exercised an influence over them, for Buddhism was at this\nage, like Judaism, a missionizing religion, and had teachers in the\nWest. Philo speaks in several places of its doctrines.[59] Whatever\nits moulding influences, Essenism represented the spirit of the age,\nand it spread far and wide. At Alexandria, above all places, where the\nlife of luxury and dissoluteness repelled the serious, ascetic ideas\ntook firm hold of the people, and the Therapeutic life, _i.e._, the\nlife of prayer and labor devoted to God, which corresponded to the\nsystem of the Essenes, had numerous votaries. The first century\nwitnessed the extremes of the religious and irreligious sentiments.\nThe world was weary and jaded; it had lost confidence in human reason\nand faith in social ideals, and while the materialists abandoned\nthemselves to hideous orgies and sensual debaucheries, the\nhigher-minded went to the opposite excess and sought by flight from\nthe world and mortification of the flesh to attain to supernatural\nstates of ecstasy. A book has come down to us under the name of\nPhilo[60] which describes \"the contemplative life\" of a Jewish\nbrotherhood that lived apart on the shores of Lake Mareotis by the\nmouth of the Nile. Men and women lived in the settlement, though all\nintercourse between the sexes was rigidly avoided. During six days of\nthe week they met in prayer, morning and evening, and in the interval\ndevoted themselves in solitude to the practice of virtue and the study\nof the holy allegories, and the composition of hymns and psalms. On\nthe Sabbath they sat in common assembly, but with the women separated\nfrom the men, and listened to the allegorical homily of an elder; they\npaid special honor to the Feast of Pentecost, reverencing the mystical\nattributes of the number fifty, and they celebrated a religious\nbanquet thereon. During the rest of the year they only partook of the\nsustenance necessary for life, and thus in their daily conduct\nrealized the way which the rabbis set out as becoming for the study of\nthe Torah: \"A morsel of bread with salt thou must eat, and water by\nmeasure thou must drink; thou must sleep upon the ground and live a\nlife of hardship, the while thou toilest in the Torah.\"[61]\n\nWe do not know whether Philo attached himself to one of these\nbrotherhoods of organized solitude, or whether he lived even more\nstrictly the solitary life out in the wilderness by himself. Certainly\nhe was at one period in sympathy with ascetic ideas. It seemed to him\nthat as God was alone, so man must be alone in order to be like\nGod.[62] In his earlier writings he is constantly praising the ascetic\nlife, as a means, indeed, to virtue rather than as a good in itself,\nand as a helpful discipline to the man of incomplete moral strength,\nthough inferior to the spontaneous goodness which God vouchsafes to\nthe righteous. Isaac is the type of this highest bliss, while the life\nof Jacob is the type of the progress to virtue through asceticism.[63]\nThe flight from Laban represents the abandonment of family and social\nlife for the practical service of God, and as Jacob, the ascetic,\nbecame Israel, \"the man who beholdeth God,\" so Philo determined \"to\nscorn delights and live laborious days\" in order to be drawn nearer to\nthe true Being. But he seems to have been disappointed in his hopes,\nand to have discovered that the attempt to cut out the natural desires\nof man was not the true road to righteousness. \"I often,\" he says,[64]\n\"left my kindred and friends and fatherland, and went into a solitary\nplace, in order that I might have knowledge of things worthy of\ncontemplation, but I profited nothing: for my mind was sore tempted by\ndesire and turned to opposite things. But now, sometimes even when I\nam in a multitude of men, my mind is tranquil, and God scatters aside\nall unworthy desires, teaching me that it is not differences of place\nwhich affect the welfare of the soul, but God alone, who knows and\ndirects its activity howsoever he pleases.\"\n\nThe noble pessimism of Philo's early days was replaced by a noble\noptimism in his maturity, in which he trusted implicitly in God's\ngrace, and believed that God vouchsafed to the good man the knowledge\nof Himself without its being necessary for him to inflict\nchastisements upon his body or uproot his inclinations. In this mood\nmoderation is represented as the way of salvation; the abandonment of\nfamily and social life is selfish, and betrays a lack of the humanity\nwhich the truly good man must possess.[65] Of Philo's own domestic\nlife we catch only a fleeting glimpse in his writings. He realized the\nplace of woman in the home; \"her absence is its destruction,\" he said;\nand of his wife it is told in another of the \"Fragments\" that when\nasked one day in an assembly of women why she alone did not wear any\ngolden ornament, she replied, \"The virtue of a husband is a sufficient\nornament for his wife.\"\n\nThough in his maturity Philo renounced the ascetic life, his ideal\nthroughout was a mystical union with the Divine Being. To a certain\nschool of Judaism, which loves to make everything rational and\nmoderate, mysticism is alien; it was alien indeed to the Sadducee\nrealist and the Karaite literalist; it was alien to the systematic\nAristotelianism of Maimonides, and it is alien alike to Western\northodox and Reform Judaism. But though often obscured and crushed by\nformal systems, mysticism is deeply seated in the religious feelings,\nand the race which has developed the Cabbalah and Hasidism cannot be\naccused of lack of it. Every great religion fosters man's aspiration\nto have direct communion with God in some super-rational way.\nParticularly should this be the case with a religion which recognizes\nno intermediary. The Talmudic conceptions of [Hebrew: nb'a], prophecy,\n[Hebrew: shkyna], the Divine Presence, and [Hebrew: rua hkdsh], the\nholy spirit, which was vouchsafed to the saint, certainly are mystic, and\nat Alexandria similar ideas inspired a striking development. Once again we\ncan trace the fertilizing influence of Greek ideas. Even when the old\nnaturalistic cults had flourished in Greece, and political life had\nprovided a worthy goal for man, mystical beliefs and ceremonies had a\npowerful attraction for the Hellene; and, when the belief in the old\ngods had been shattered, and with the national greatness the liberal\nlife of the State had passed away, he turned more and more to those\nrites which professed to provide healing and rest for the sickening\nsoul. Many of the Alexandrian Jews must have been initiated into these\nGreek mysteries, for Philo introduces into his exegesis of the law of\nMoses an ordinance forbidding the practice.[66] He himself advocates a\nmore spiritual mysticism, and it is a cardinal principle of his\nphilosophy to treat the human soul as a god within and its absorption\nin the universal Godhead as supreme bliss, the end of all endeavor. He\nclaimed to have attained, himself, to this union, and to have received\ndirect inspiration. Giving a Greek coloring to the Hebrew notion of\nprophecy, \"My soul,\" he says, \"is wont to be affected with a Divine\ntrance and to prophesy about things of which it has no knowledge\"[67]....\n\"Many a time have I come with the intention of writing, and knowing\nexactly what I ought to set down, but I have found my mind barren and\nfruitless, and I have gone away with nothing done, but at times I have\ncome empty, and suddenly been full, for ideas were invisibly rained\ndown upon me from above, so that I was seized by a Divine frenzy, and\nwas lost to everything, place, people, self, speech, and thought. I\nhad gotten a stream of interpretation, a gift of light, a clear survey\nof things, the clearest that eye can give.\"[68]\n\nIn his \"Guide of the Perplexed,\"[69] Maimonides describes the various\ndegrees of the [Hebrew: rua hkdsh], or what we call religious \"genius,\"\nwith which man may be blessed. He distinguishes between the man who\npossesses it only for his own exaltation, and the man who feels\nhimself compelled to impart it to others for their happiness. To this\nhigher order of genius Philo advanced in his maturity. He consciously\nregarded himself as a follower of Moses, who was the perfect\ninterpreter of God's thought. So he, though in a lesser degree, was an\ninspired interpreter, a hierophant (as he expressed it in the language\nof the Greek mystics) who expounded the Divine Word to his own\ngeneration by the gift of the Divine wisdom. When he had fled from\nAlexandria, to secure virtue by contemplation, he had as his final\ngoal the attainment of the true knowledge of God, and as he advanced\nin age, he advanced in decision and authority. He was conscious of his\nphilosophic grasp of the Torah, and the diffidence with which he\nallegorized in his early works gave place to a serene confidence that\nhe had a lesson for his own and for future generations. Hoping for the\ntime when Judaism should be a world-religion, he spoke his message for\nJew and Gentile. We can imagine him preaching on Sabbaths to the great\ncongregation which filled the synagogue at Alexandria, and on other\ndays of the week expounding his philosophical ideas to a smaller\ncircle which he collected around him.\n\nEssentially, then, he was a philosopher and a teacher, but he was\ncalled upon to play a part in the world of action. Following the\npassage already quoted, wherein Philo speaks of the blessings of the\nlife of contemplation that he had led in the past,[70] he goes on to\nrelate how that \"envy, the most grievous of all evils, attacked me,\nand threw me into the vast sea of public affairs, in which I am still\ntossed about without being able to make my way out.\" A French\nscholar[71] conjectures that this is only a metaphorical way of saying\nthat he was forced into some public office, probably, a seat in the\nAlexandrian Sanhedrin; and he ascribes the language to the bitter\ndisappointment of one who was devoted to philosophical pursuits and\nfound himself diverted from them. Philo's language points rather to\nduties which he was compelled to undertake less congenial than those\nof a member of the Sanhedrin would have been; and probably must refer\nto the polemical activity which he was called upon to exert in\ndefending his people against misrepresentation and persecution. During\nthe reign of Augustus and the early years of Tiberius (30 B.C.E.-20\nC.E.) the Roman provinces were firmly ruled, and the governors were as\nfirmly controlled by the emperor. To Rectus, who was the prefect of\nEgypt till 14 C.E., and who was removed for attempted extortion,\nTiberius addressed the rebuke, \"I want my sheep to be shorn, not\nstrangled.\" But when Tiberius fell under the influence of Sejanus, and\nleft to his hated minister the active control of the empire, harder\ntimes began for the provincials, and especially for the Jews. Sejanus\nwas an upstart, and like most upstarts a tyrant; and for some\nreason--it may be jealousy of the power of the Jews at Rome--he hated\nthe Jewish race and persecuted it. The great opponent of Sejanus was\nAntonia, the ward of Philo's brother, and a loyal friend to his\npeople; and this, too, may have incited Sejanus' ill-feeling. Whatever\nthe reason, the Alexandrian Jews felt the heavy hand, and when Philo\ncame to write the story of his people in his own times, he devoted one\nbook to the persecution by Sejanus. Unfortunately it has not survived,\nbut veiled hints of the period of stress through which the people\npassed are not wanting in the commentary on the law.\n\nThere were always anti-Semites spoiling for a fight at Alexandria, and\nthere was always inflammable material which they could stir up. The\nEgyptian populace were by nature, says Philo, \"jealous and envious,\nand were filled moreover with an ancient and inveterate enmity towards\nthe Jews,\"[72] and of the degenerate Greek population, many were\nanxious from motives of private gain as well as from religious enmity\nto incite an outbreak; since the Jews were wealthy and the booty would\nbe great. Among the cultured, too, there was one philosophical school\npowerful at Alexandria, which maintained a persistent attitude of\nhostility towards the Jews. The chief literary anti-Semites of whom we\nhave record at this period were Stoics, and it is probably their\n\"envy\" to which Philo refers when he complains of being drawn into the\nsea of politics. In writings and in speeches the Stoic leaders Apion\nand Ch\u00e6remon carried on a campaign of misrepresentation, and sought to\ngive their attacks a fine humanitarian justification by drawing fancy\npictures of the Jewish religion and Jewish laws. The Jews worshipped\nthe head of an ass,[73] they hated the Gentiles, and would have no\ncommunication with them, they killed Gentile children at the Passover,\nand their law allowed them to commit any offences against all but\ntheir own people, and inculcated a low morality. When it was not\nmorally bad, it was degraded and superstitious. Whereas the modern\nanti-Semite usually complains about Jewish success and dangerous\ncleverness, Apion accused them of having produced no original ideas\nand no great men, and no citizen as worthy of Alexandria as himself!\nAgainst these charges Philo, the most philosophical Jew of the time\nand the most distinguished member of the Alexandrian community, was\ncalled upon to defend his people, and that part of his works which\nEusebius calls [Greek: Hypotheticha]; _i.e._ apologetics, was probably\nwritten in reply to the Stoic attacks. The hatred of the Stoics was a\nreligious hatred, which is the bitterest of all; the Stoics were the\npropagators of a rival religious system, which had originally been\nfounded by Hellenized Semites and borrowed much from Semitic sources.\nThey had their missionaries everywhere and aspired to found a\nuniversal philosophical religion. In their proselytizing activity they\ntried to assimilate to their pantheism the mythological religion of\nthe masses, and thus they became the philosophical supporters of\nidolatry. Their greatest religious opponents were the Jews, who not\nonly refused to accept their teachings, but preached to the nations a\ntranscendental monotheism against their impersonal and accommodating\npantheism, and a divinely-revealed law of conduct against their vague\nnatural reason. In the Stoic pantheism the first stand of the pagan\nnational deities was made against the God of Israel, and at Alexandria\nduring the first century the fight waxed fierce. It was a fight of\nideas in which persons only were victims, but at the back of the\nintermittent persecutions of which we have record we may always\nsurmise the influence of the Stoic anti-Semites. The war of words\ntranslated itself from time to time into the breaking of heads.\n\nPhilo, indeed, never mentions Apion by name, but he refers covertly in\nmany places to his insolence and unscrupulousness.[74] Josephus wrote\na famous reply to his attacks, refuting \"his vulgar abuse, gross\nignorance and demagogic claptrap,\"[75] and the fact that a Palestinian\nJew thought this apology necessary, proves the wide dissemination of\nthe poison. The disgrace and death of Sejanus seem to have brought a\nrelief from actual persecution to the Alexandrian Jews; but the\nill-will between the two races in the city smouldered on, and it only\nrequired a weakening of the controlling hand at Rome to set the\npassions aflame again. Right through Philo's treatise \"On the\nConfusion of Tongues,\" we can trace the tension. As soon as Gaius,\nsurnamed Caligula, came to the imperial chair, the opportunity of the\nanti-Semites returned. Gaius, after reigning well a few months, fell\nill, was seized with madness, and proved how much evil can be done in\na short space by an imbecile autocrat. Flaccus, the governor of Egypt,\nwho had hitherto ruled fairly, hoping to ingratiate himself by\nmisrule, allowed himself to be led by worthless minions, who, from\nmotives of private greed, desired a riot at Alexandria; he was won\nover by the anti-Semites and gave the mob a free hand in their attacks\nupon the \"alien Jews.\"[76] The arrival of Agrippa, the grandson of\nHerod, who was on his way to his kingdom of Palestine, which the\ncapricious emperor had just conferred upon him, excited the ill-will\nof the Alexandrian mob. Flaccus looked on while the people attacked\nthe Jewish quarters, sacked the houses, and assailed everyone that\ncame within their reach. The most distinguished Jews were not spared,\nand thirty members of the Council of Elders were dragged to the\nmarketplace and scourged. Philo's account gives a picture strikingly\nsimilar to that of a modern pogrom. The brutal indifference of Flaccus\ndid not indeed avail to ingratiate him with the emperor, and he was\nrecalled to Italy, exiled, and afterwards executed.\n\nThe recall of Flaccus did not, however, put an end to the troubles;\nthe mob had got out of hand, the anti-Semitic demagogues were elated,\nand a fresh opportunity for outrage soon presented itself. The mad\nemperor, having exhausted ordinary human follies, went on to imagine\nhimself first a god and then the Supreme God, and finally ordered his\nimage to be set up in every temple throughout his dominion. The Jews\ncould not obey the order, and the mob rushed into fresh excesses upon\nthem, defiled the synagogues with images of the lunatic, and in the\ngreat synagogue itself set up a bronze statue of him, inscribed with\nthe name of Jupiter. With bitterness Philo points out that it was easy\nenough for the vile Egyptians, who worshipped reptiles and beasts, to\nerect a statue of the emperor in their temples; for the Jews, with\ntheir lofty idea of God, it was impossible. Against the attack upon\ntheir liberty of conscience they appealed directly to Gaius. An\nembassy was sent to lay their case before him, and Philo went to Italy\nat the head of the embassy. \"He who is learned, gentle, and modest,\nand who is beloved of men, he shall be leader in the city.\" So said\none of the rabbis of old, and the maxim is especially appropriate to\nPhilo, who in name and deed was \"beloved of men.\" Philo has left us a\nvery full account of his mission, so that this incident of his life is\na patch of bright light, which stands out almost glaringly from the\ngeneral shadow. The account is not merely, nor, indeed, entirely\nhistory. Looking always for a sermon or a subject for a philosophical\nlesson, Philo has tricked out the record of the facts with much\nmoralizing observation on the general lot of mankind, and elaborated\nthe part of Providence more in the spirit of religious romance than of\nscientific history. Yet the main facts are clear. Philo prepared a\nlong philosophical \"apologia\" for the Jews and set out with five\ncolleagues for Italy. Nor were the enemies of the Jews remiss; and\nApion, the Alexandrian anti-Semite, was sent at the head of a hostile\ndeputation. The emperor, Gaius, was in one of his most flippant moods\nand little inclined to listen to philosophical or literary\ndisquisitions. At first he received the Jewish deputation in a\nfriendly way, and led them to think that he was favorable; but when\nthey came to plead their cause, they had a rude awakening. Philo, who\nwas not likely to appreciate the bitter humor of the situation,\ntells[77] with gravity that he expected that the emperor would hear\nthe two contending parties in all proper judicial form, but that in\nfact he behaved like an insolent, overbearing tyrant. The audience--if\nit can be so called--took place in the gardens of the palace, and the\nemperor dragged the unfortunate deputation after him about the place,\nwhile he gave orders to his gardeners, builders, and workmen. Whenever\nthey tried to put forward their arguments, he would rush ahead,\nenjoying the fright and dismay of his helpless victims. At times he\nwould stop to make some ribald and jeering remark, as, \"Why don't you\neat pork, you fools?\" at which the Egyptians following loudly\napplauded. Philo and his comrades, half-dead with agony, could only\npray; and in response to the prayer, says our moralizing chronicler,\nthe emperor's heart was turned to pity, so that he dismissed them\nwithout giving any hostile answer. According to Josephus, he drove\nthem away in a passion, and Philo had to cheer his companions by\nassuring them of the Divine aid.[78]\n\nThe affair was a pathetic farce, and the Jewish actors in it had a\nsorry time. The people about the palace, taking their lead from the\nemperor, treated them as clowns, and hissed and mocked them, and even\nbeat them. The scene is somewhat revolting when one conjures up the\npicture of the aged Jewish philosopher being roughly handled by the\nset of ruffians and impudent slaves who surrounded a Roman emperor.\nHappily Gaius jeered once too often in his mad life. One Chaerea, a\nRoman of position, nursed an insult of the emperor, and stabbed him\nshortly after these events; and the world had the respite of a\ntolerably sane emperor before the crowning horror of Nero was let\nloose upon it.\n\nThe murder of the capricious tyrant released not only the Jews of\nAlexandria, but also the Jews of Palestine, from the burden of fear\nfor their religion. The order had been given to set up a bronze statue\nof the emperor in the temple; the Roman governor Petronius was averse\nto obeying the edict, but the emperor insisted. King Agrippa, who had\nbeen but lately advanced by him to the kingdom of Jud\u00e6a, interceded\nzealously on behalf of his people. Philo gives us an account of this\nappeal by the Jewish king,[79] which recalls at every turn the scenes\nof the book of Esther. We have again the fasting, the banquet, the\nemperor's request, the appeal of the royal favorite for his people.\nOne higher critic, indeed, has been found to suggest that the Biblical\nbook really relates Agrippa's intercession at Rome disguised in the\nsetting of a Persian story. Agrippa secured for a short time the\nrescission of the fateful decree, but the capricious madman soon\nreturned to his old frame of mind, and ordered his image to be set up\nimmediately. Had not his death intervened, there would certainly have\nbeen rebellion in Palestine. As it was, the great revolt was postponed\nfor thirty years. For a little the Jews prevailed over their\nadversaries; the anti-Semitic influences were put down in Jud\u00e6a and\nin Alexandria, and in both places \"there was light and joy and\ngladness for the Jews.\" Their political privileges were reaffirmed by\nimperial decree, and Philo's brother Alexander, who had been\nimprisoned, was restored to honor.[80] \"It is fitting,\" ran the\nrescript of Claudius, \"to permit the Jews everywhere under our sway to\nobserve their ancient customs without hindrance. And I charge them to\nuse my indulgence with moderation, and not to show contempt for the\nreligious rites of other peoples.\"\n\nThe note of triumph rings through the political references to be found\nin the last parts of Philo's allegorical commentary, and no doubt it\nwas accentuated in the lost book which he added as an epilogue, or\npalinode, to his history of the embassy. God had again preserved his\npeople, and discomfited their foes; recently-discovered papyri have\nrevealed that the arch anti-Semites, Isidorus and Lampon, were tried\nat Rome and executed. Claudius was well-disposed to the Jewish race,\nand before the final storm there was a calm. Howbeit, after the death\nof Agrippa, in 44 C.E., Jud\u00e6a became a Roman province, and under the\nrapacious governorship of Felix Florus and Cestius Gallus, the\nhostility of the people to the Romans grew more and more bitter. But\nin Alexandria there was tranquillity, or at least we know of no\ndisquieting events during the next decade.\n\n\"Old age,\" said Philo, \"is an unruffled harbor,\"[81] and the saying\nrefers possibly to his own experience. For he must have died full of\nyears and full of honors. Through his life he was the spiritual and\nphilosophical guide, and finally he had become the champion of his\npeople against their persecutors, giving dignity to their cause and\ninspiring respect even in their enemies. He was happy in the time of\nhis death, for he did not live to see the destruction of the national\nhome of his people and of that temple which he had loved to\ncontemplate as the future centre of a universal religion. The\ndisintegration of his own community at Alexandria followed full soon\non the greater disaster; the temple of Onias was dismantled and\ninterdicted against Jewish worship by Vespasian in the year 73 C.E.,\nand though, as has been noted, this was not in itself of great\nimportance, it is symbolic of the uprooting of national life in the\nDiaspora as well as in Palestine itself. On the downfall of Jerusalem\nin 70 C.E. many of the extreme anti-Roman party, known as the Zealots,\nfled to Alexandria and stirred up rebellion and dissension. Nothing\nbut disaster could have attended the outbreak, but it is a sad\nreflection that the governor who put it down and ruthlessly\nexterminated the rebels was none other than Tiberius Alexander, the\nnephew of Philo, who was in turn procurator of Jud\u00e6a and Egypt. By\nanother irony of history he had in the previous year been largely\ninstrumental in securing for Vespasian, who was besieging Jerusalem,\nthe imperial throne of Rome.[82] With him ends our knowledge of\nPhilo's family, and it ends significantly with one who has ceased to\nbe a Jew. The ruin of the Jewish-Alexandrian community was completed\nby a desperate revolt in the reign of Trajan, 114-117 C.E., after\nwhich they were deprived of their chief political privileges; and\nfinally, after incessant conflicts with the Christians, they were\nexpelled from the city by the all-powerful Bishop Cyril (415 C.E.).\n\nPhilo himself passed out of Jewish tradition within a short time, to\nbecome a Christian worthy. The destruction of the nation and the\ngradual severance of the Christian heresy from the main community\ncompelled the abandonment of missionary activity and distrust of the\nwork of its exponents. The dangerous aspect of the Alexandrian\ndevelopment was revealed. Its philosophical allegorizing might attract\nthe Gentile to the Jewish Scriptures, but it also led the Jew away\nfrom his special conduct of life. The Alexandrian Church, which\nclaimed to continue the tradition of Philo, departed further and\nfurther from the Jewish standpoint, and formulated a dogmatic creed\nthat was utterly opposed to Jewish monotheism. A philosophical Judaism\nfor the whole world was a splendid ideal, but unfortunately in Philo's\ntime it was incapable of accomplishment. The result of the attempt to\nfound it was the establishment of a religion in which, together with\nthe adoption of Hebraic teachings about God, certain ideas of\nAlexandrian mysticism became stereotyped as dogmas, and Jewish law was\nabrogated. When Babylon replaced Palestine as the centre of Jewish\nintellect, the works of Philo, like the rest of the Hellenistic-Jewish\nliterature, written as they were in a strange tongue, fell into\ndisuse, and before long were entirely forgotten. The Christians, on\nthe other hand, found in Philo a notable evidence for many of their\nbeliefs and a philosophical testimony for the dogmas of their creed.\nThey claimed him as their own, and the Church Fathers, to bind him\nmore closely to their tradition, invented fables of his meeting with\nPeter at Rome and Mark at Alexandria, They traced, in the treatise \"On\nthe Contemplative Life,\" a record of early Christian monastic\ncommunities, and on account of this book especially regarded Philo\nalmost with the reverence of an apostle. To the Christian theologians\nof Alexandria we owe it that the interpretation of Judaism to the\nHellenic world in the light of Hellenic philosophy has been preserved.\nOf the two Jewish philosophers who have made a great contribution to\nthe world's intellectual development, Spinoza was excommunicated in\nhis lifetime, and Philo suffered moral excommunication after his\ndeath. The writings of both exercised their chief influence outside\nthe community; but the emancipated Jewry of our own day can in either\ncase recognize the worth of the thinker, and point with pride to the\nsaintliness of the man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nPHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD\n\n\nThe first thing that strikes a reader of Philo is the great volume of\nhis work: he is the first Jewish writer to produce a large and\nsystematic body of writings, the first to develop anything in the\nnature of a complete Jewish philosophy. He had essentially the\nliterary gift, the capacity of giving lasting expression to his own\nthought and the thought of his generation. Treating him merely as a\nman of letters, he is one of the chief figures in Greek literature of\nthe first century. We have extant over forty books of his composition,\nand nearly as many again have disappeared. His works are one and all\nexpositions of Judaism, but they fall into six distinct classes of\nexegesis:\n\nI. The allegorical commentary, or \"Allegories of the Laws,\" which is a\nseries of philosophical treatises based upon continuous texts in\nGenesis, from the first to the eighteenth chapter. Together with this,\nthe best authorities place the two remaining books on the \"Dreams of\nthe Bible,\" which are a portion of a larger work, and deal\nallegorically with the dreams of Jacob and Joseph.\n\nII. The Midrashic commentary on the Five Books of Moses, for which we\nhave no single name, but which was clearly intended to be an ethical\nand philosophical treatise upon the whole law.\n\nIII. A commentary in the form of \"Questions and Answers to Genesis and\nExodus,\" which is incomplete now, and save for detached fragments\nexists only in a Latin translation. In its original form it provided a\nshort running exegesis, verse by verse, to the whole of the first\nthree books of the Pentateuch, and was contained in twelve parts.\n\nIV. A popular and missionizing presentation of the Jewish system in\nthe form of a \"Life of Moses,\" and three appended tractates on the\nvirtues \"Courage,\" \"Humanity,\" and \"Repentance.\" Scholars[83] are of\nopinion that there are gaps in the extant \"Life of Moses,\" but the\ngeneral plan of the work is clear. It is at once an abstract and an\ninterpretation of Jewish law for the Greek world, and also an ideal\nbiography of the Jewish lawgiver.\n\nV. Philosophical monographs, not so intimately connected with the\nBible as the preceding works; but in the nature of rhetorical\nexercises upon the stock subjects of the schools, which receive a\nJewish coloring by reason of Biblical illustrations.\n\nVI. Historical and apologetic works that set out the case of the\ncontemporary Jews against their persecutors and traducers. Of these\nwritings the larger part has disappeared, and of a portion of those\nwhich remain the genuineness has been doubted.\n\nLastly, there is a miscellaneous number of works ascribed to Philo,\nwhich all good scholars[84] now admit to be spurious: \"On the\nIncorruptibility of the World,\" \"On the Universe,\" \"On Samson,\" and\n\"On Jonah,\" etc.\n\nIt will be seen from this classification of Philo's works, that he has\ndealt in several ways with the Biblical material. The reason of this\nis partly that his mind developed, and the interpretation of his\nmaturer years differed widely from that of his earliest writings.\nPartly, however, it arises from the fact that the different treatments\nwere meant for different audiences, and Philo always took the measure\nof those whom he was addressing. His most representative works are \"a\ntriple cord\" with which he binds the Jewish Scripture to Greek\nculture. For the Greek-speaking populace he set out a broad statement\nof the Mosaic law; for the cultured community of Alexandria, Jew and\nGentile, a more elaborate exegesis, in which each character and each\nordinance of the Pentateuch received a particular ethical value; and,\nfinally, for the esoteric circle of Hellenic-Jewish philosophers, a\ntheological and psychological study of the allegories of the law.\nOrigen, the first great Christian exegete of the Bible and a close\nstudent of the Philonic writings, distinguished three forms of\ninterpreting: the historical, the moral, and the philosophical; he\nprobably took the distinction from Philo, who exemplifies it in his\ncommentaries upon the Books of Moses.\n\nVaried as is its scope, the religious idea dominates all his work, and\nendows it with one spirit. Whether he is writing philosophical,\nethical, or mystical commentary, whether history, apology, or essay,\nhis purpose is to assert the true notion of the one God, and the\nDivine excellence of God's revelation to His chosen people. Thus he\nregards history as a theodicy, vindicating the ways of God to man, and\nHis special providence for Israel; philosophy as the inner meaning of\nthe Scriptures, revealed by God in mystic communion with His holy\nprophets,[85] and, if comprehended aright, able to lead us on to a\ntrue conception of His Divine being. The greater part of the\nHellenistic-Jewish literature has disappeared, but Philo sums up for\nus the whole of the Alexandrian development of Judaism. He represents\nit worthily in both its main aspects: the infusion of Greek culture\ninto the Jewish pursuit of righteousness, and the recommendation of\nJewish monotheism and the Torah to the Greek world. Aristaeus,\nAristobulus, and Artapanus are hardly more than names, but their\nspirit is inherited and glorified in Philo-Jud\u00e6us. His work,\ntherefore, is more than the expression of one great mind; it is the\nrecord and expression of a great culture.\n\nThe chronology of Philo's writings is as uncertain as the chronology\nof his life. Yet it is possible to trace a deepening of outlook and an\nincreasing originality, if we work our way up from the sixth to the\nfirst division of the classification. It does not follow that the\nworks were written in this order--and it may well be that Philo was\nproducing at one and the same time books of several classes--but we\nmay use this order as an ideal scale by which to mark off the stages\nof his philosophical progress. In the first place come the [Greek:\nHypotheticha], or apologetic works, which have a practical purpose.\nWith these we may associate the moralizing history that dealt in five\nbooks respectively with the persecutions of Sejanus, Flaccus, and\nCaligula, the ill-starred embassy, and the final triumph of the Jews\nover their enemies. The [Greek: Hypotheticha] proper, as we gather\nfrom Eusebius, contained a general apology for Judaism, and an account\nof the Essenes--which have disappeared--and the suspected book on the\nTherapeutic sect known by the title \"On the Contemplative Life.\"\nWhether they received this generic name because they are suggestions\nfor the Jewish cause, or because they are written to answer the\ninsinuations ([Greek: kath' hypothesin]) of adversaries, is a moot\npoint. But their general purport is clear: they were an apologetic\npresentation of Jewish life, written to show the falsity of\nanti-Semitic calumnies. The Jews are good citizens and their manner of\nlife is humanitarian. The Essene sect is a living proof of Jewish\npractical socialism and practical philosophy, the Therapeutae show the\nJewish zeal for the contemplative life.\n\nNext we come to Philo's philosophical monographs, which are not, as\none might expect, the work of his mature thought, but rather the\nexercises of youth. Dissertations or declamations upon hackneyed\nsubjects were part of the regular course of the university student at\nAlexandria, and Philo prepared himself for his Jewish philosophy by\ncomposing in the approved style essays upon \"Providence,\" \"The Liberty\nof the Good,\" and \"The Slavery of the Wicked,\" etc. What chiefly\ndistinguishes them above other collections of commonplaces is the\nappeal to the Bible for types of goodness, and here again the Essenes\nfigure as the type of the philosophical life.[86] The writer, while\nstill engaged in the studies of the Greek university, is feeling his\nway towards his system of universal Mosaism.\n\nThis he expounds confidently and enthusiastically in his \"Life of\nMoses.\" Philo in this book is not any longer the apt pupil of Greek\nphilosophers, nor the eloquent defender of the Jewish-Alexandrian\ncommunity against lying detractors. He preaches a mission to the whole\nworld, and he lays before it his gospel of monotheism and humanity.\nEach Greek school has its ideal type, its Socrates, Diogenes, or\nPythagoras; but Philo places above them all \"the most perfect man that\never lived, Moses, the legislator of the Jews,[87] as some hold, but\naccording to others the interpreter of the sacred laws, and the\ngreatest of men in every way.\" And above all the ethical systems of\nthe day he sets the law of life that God revealed to His greatest\nprophet: \"The laws of the Greek legislators are continually subject to\nchange; the laws of Moses alone remain steady, unmoved, unshaken,\nstamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, from the day when\nthey were written to the present day, and will so remain for all time\nso long as the world endures. Not only the Jews but all other peoples\nwho care for righteousness adopt them.... Let all men follow this code\nand the age of universal peace will come about, the kingdom of God on\nearth will be established.\"[88] Nor is the Greek to fear the lot of a\nproselyte. \"God loves the man who turns from idolatry to the true\nfaith not less than the man who has been a believer all his life;\"[89]\nand in the little essays upon Repentance and Nobility, which are\nattached to the larger treatise, Philo appeals to his own people to\nwelcome the stranger within the community. \"The Life of Moses\" is the\ngreatest attempt to set monotheism before the world made before the\nChristian gospels. And it is truer to the Jewish spirit, because it\nbreathes on every page love for the Torah. Philo in very truth wished\nto fulfil the law.\n\nIf Judaism was to be the universal religion, it must be shown to\ncontain the ultimate truth both about real being, _i.e._ God, and\nabout ethics; for the philosophical world in that age--and the\nphilosophical world included all educated people--demanded of religion\nthat it should be philosophical, and of philosophy that it should be\nreligious. The desire to expound Judaism in this way is the motive of\nPhilo's three Biblical commentaries. The \"Questions and Answers to\nGenesis and Exodus\" constitute a preliminary study to the more\nelaborate works which followed. In them Philo is collecting his\nmaterial, formulating his ideas, and determining the main lines of his\nallegory. They are a type of Midrash in its elementary stage, the\nexplanation of the teacher to the pupil who has difficulties about the\nwords of the law: at once like and unlike the old Tannaitic Midrash;\nlike in that they deal with difficulties in the literal text of the\nBible; unlike in that the reply of Philo is Agadic more usually than\nHalakic, speculative rather than practical. In these books,[90] as has\nbeen pointed out, there are numerous interpretations which Philo\nshares with the Palestinian schools. A few specimens taken from the\nfirst book will illustrate Philo's plan, but it should be mentioned\nthat in every case he sets out the simple meaning of the text, the\n_Peshat_, as well as the inner meaning, or _Derash_.\n\n\"Why does it say: 'And God made every green herb of the field before\nit was upon the earth'? (Gen. ii. 4.)\n\n\"By these words he suggests symbolically the incorporeal Idea. The\nphrase, 'before it was upon the earth,' marks the original perfection\nof every plant and herb. The eternal types were first created in the\nnoetic world, and the physical objects on earth, perceptible by the\nsenses, were made in their likeness.\"\n\nIn this way Philo reads into the first chapter of the Bible the\nPlatonic idealism which we shall see was a fundamental part of his\nphilosophy.\n\n\"Why, when Enoch died, does it say, 'And he pleased God'? (Gen. v.\n24.)\n\n\"He says this to teach that the soul is immortal, inasmuch as after it\nis released from the body it continues to please.\"\n\n\"What is the meaning of the expression, 'And Noah opened the roof of\nthe ark'? (Gen. viii. 13.)\n\n\"The text appears to need no interpretation; but in its symbolical\nmeaning the ark is our body, and that which covers the body and for a\nlong time preserves its strength is spoken of as its roof. And this is\nappetite. Hence when the mind is attracted by a desire for heavenly\nthings, it springs upwards and makes away with all material desires.\nIt removes that which threw a shade over it so as to reach the eternal\nIdeas.\"\n\nThe \"Questions and Answers\" are essentially Hebraic in form, designed\nfor Jews who knew and studied their Bible; and we can feel in them the\ninfluences of a training in traditional Mishnah and Midrash; but Philo\npassed from them to a more artistic expression and a more thoroughly\nHellenized presentation of the philosophy of the Bible. This work is\nthe largest extant expression of his thought and mission; it embraces\nthe treatises which we know as \"On the Creation of the World,\" \"The\nLives of Abraham and Joseph,\" \"On the Decalogue,\" and finally those\n\"On the Specific Laws,\" which are partly thus entitled and partly have\nseparate ethical names, as \"On Honoring Parents,\" \"On Rewards and\nPunishments,\" \"On Justice,\" etc. Large portions of it have\ndisappeared, notably the \"Lives of Isaac and Jacob\"; and also the\n\"Life of Moses,\" which was introductory to his laws. For the book\nwhich we have under that name does not belong to the series, but is\nseparate. The purpose of the work broadly is to deepen the value of\nthe Bible for the Jews by revealing its constant spiritual message,\nand to assert its value for the whole of humanity by showing in it a\nphilosophical conception of the universe and its creation, the most\nlofty ethical and moral types, the most admirable laws, and, above\nall, the purest ideas of God and His relation to man. All that seems\ntribal and particularist is explained away, and the spiritual aspect\nof every chapter--of every word almost--of the Torah is emphasized.\nPhilo expounds the sacred book, not of one particular nation, but of\nmankind. The Roman and Greek peoples were waiting for a religious\nmessage which should at once harmonize with rational ideas and satisfy\ntheir longing for God. All the philosophical schools were converting\nthe scientific systems of the classical age into [Greek: Tropoi Biou],\n\"plans of life,\" and Philo challenges them all with a new faith which\nhas as its basis a God who not only was the sole Creator and Ruler of\nthe world, but who had revealed to man the way of happiness, and the\ngood life, social as well as individual. To-day, when the world about\nus has accepted--or has professed to accept--the ethical law of the\nBible, we are apt to regard the essentials of Judaism as the belief in\nOne God and the observance of ceremonies. But to Philo Judaism was\nsomething more comprehensive. It was the spiritual life, and the\nMosaic law is the complete code of the Divine Republic, of which all\nare or can be citizens. In the introduction to the \"Life of Abraham,\"\nPhilo explains the scheme of his work:[91]\n\n     \"'The Sacred Laws' [as he regularly calls the Bible] were\n     written in five books, of which the first is entitled\n     Genesis. It derives its title from the account of the\n     creation which it contains, though it deals also with\n     endless other subjects, peace and war, hunger and plenty,\n     great cataclysms, and the histories of good and evil men. We\n     have examined with great care the accounts of the creation\n     in our former treatise ['On the Making of the Universe'],\n     and we now go on naturally to inquire into the laws; and\n     postponing the particular laws, which are as it were copies,\n     we will first of all examine the more universal, which are\n     their models. Now men who have lived irreproachable lives\n     are these laws, and their virtues are recorded in the Holy\n     Scriptures not only by way of eulogy, but in order to lead\n     on those who read about them to emulate their life. They are\n     become living standards of right reason, whom the lawgiver\n     has glorified for two reasons: (1) To show that the laws\n     laid down are consistent with nature [the conception of a\n     natural law binding upon all peoples was one of the fixed\n     ideas of the age]. (2) To show that it is not a matter of\n     terrible labor to live according to our positive laws if a\n     man has the will to do so; seeing that the patriarchs\n     spontaneously followed the unwritten principles before any\n     of the particular laws were written. So that a man may\n     properly say that the code of law is only a memorial of the\n     lives of the patriarchs. For the patriarchs, of their own\n     accord and impulse, chose to follow nature, and, regarding\n     her course with truth as the most ancient ordinance, they\n     lived a life according to the law.\"\n\nPhilo dwells affectionately on the patriarchs, because, as he held,\nthey proved the Jewish life to be truest to man's nature and to the\nhighest ideal of humanity, and served therefore as examples to the\nGentile world of the universal truth of the religion. The rabbis also\ntook the patriarchs as the perfect type of our life, saying,\n\"Everything that happens to them is a sign to future generations,\"[92]\nand again: \"The patriarchs are the true [Hebrew: mrbba], manifestation of\nGod.\" But while he emphasized the broad moral teachings of Judaism\nexemplified by the patriarchs, Philo nevertheless upheld in its\nintegrity the Mosaic law, and found in every one of the six hundred\nand thirteen precepts a spiritual meaning. Even the details of the\ntabernacle offerings have their universal lesson when he expounds them\nas symbols. Voltaire speaks cynically of Judaism as a religion of\nsacrifices: Philo shows that the ritual of sacrifice suggests moral\nlessons. The command of the red heifer, a part of the law which was\nparticularly subject to attack, emphasizes the law of moral as well as\nof physical cleanliness. The prohibition to add honey or leaven to the\nsacrifice[93] (Lev. ii. 13) points the lesson that all superfluous\npleasure is unrighteous; and so on with each prescription.\n\nThe Mosaic code in his exposition is commensurate with life in all its\naspects. It deals not only with the duties of the individual but also\nwith the good government of the state. The life of Joseph is made the\ntext of a political treatise, and throughout the books \"On the\nSpecific Laws,\" the socialism of the Bible is emphasized,[94] and held\nup as the ideal order of the future. The Jewish State is enlarged in\nPhilo's vision from a national theocracy into a world-city inspired by\nthe two ideas of love of God and love of humanity. In this conception,\nno doubt, the influence of Greek philosophy is to be seen; the Jewish\ninterpreter keeps before him the \"Republic\" of Plato, and the \"Polity\"\nof Aristotle. With him, however, the ideal state is not a vision\n\"laid up in heaven\";[95] its foundation is already laid upon earth,\nits capital is Jerusalem, and it is the mission of his people to\nextend its borders till it embraces all nations[96]--an idea which\npermeates the Jewish litany.\n\nThis commentary of the law is allegorical in the sense that beneath\nthe particular law the interpreter constantly reveals a spiritual\nidea, but it is not allegorical in the sense that he makes an exchange\nof values. He is not for the most part reading into the text\nconceptions which are not suggested by it, but really and truly\nexpounding; and where he gives a philosophical piece of exegesis, as\nwhen he explains the visit of the three angels to Abraham as a theory\nof the human soul about God's being,[97] he does so with diffidence or\nwith reference to authorities that have founded a tradition. It is\nquite otherwise with the last class of Philo's work, the fruit of his\nmaturest thought, with which it remains to deal.\n\nThroughout the \"Allegories of the Laws\" he takes the verse of the\nBible not so much as a text to be amplified and interpreted, but as a\npretext for a philosophical disquisition. The allegories indeed are\nonly in form a commentary on the Bible; in one aspect they are a\nhistory of the human soul, which, if they had been completed, would\nhave traced the upward progress from Adam to Moses. It is not to be\nexpected, however, that Philo should adhere closely to any plan in the\nallegories. Theology, metaphysics, and ethics have as large a part in\nthe medley of philosophical ideas as the story of the soul. His\nHebraic mind, even when fortified by the mastery of philosophy, was\nunable to present its ideas systematically; it passed from subject to\nsubject, weaving the whole together only by the thread of a continuous\ncommentary upon Genesis. Parts of the work are missing, it is true,\nwhich adds to the seeming want of plan; and--greatest loss of all--the\nfirst part, which gave the philosophical account of the first chapter\nof Genesis, the first six days of creation, referred to as \"The\nHexameron\" [Greek: to Hex\u00eameron], has disappeared.[98] Here must\nhave been the general introduction to the allegories, wherein Philo\ndeclared his purpose and his method of exposition. The first treatise\nthat we possess starts abruptly with a comment on the first verse of\nthe second chapter, \"'And the heaven and earth and all their world\nwere completed.' Moses has previously related the creation of the mind\nand sense, and now he proceeds to describe their perfection. Their\nperfection is not the individual mind or sense, but their archetypal\n'ideas.' And symbolically he calls the mind heaven, because in heaven\nare the ideas of the mind, and the sense he calls earth, because it is\ncorporeal and material.\"[99]\n\nSo in a rambling, unsystematic way Philo embarks upon a discourse on\nidealism and psychology, making a fresh start continually from a verse\nor a phrase of the Bible. The Biblical narrative in the earliest\nchapters offered a congenial soil for his explorations, but no ground\nis too stubborn for his seed. The genealogy of Noah's sons is as\nfertile in suggestion as the story of Adam and Eve, for each name\nrepresents some hidden power or possesses some ethical import.\n\nThe allegorical commentary is clearly the work of Philo's maturity,\nwherein he exhibits full mastery of an original method of exegesis.\nHis allegories are no longer tentative, and he writes with the\nconfidence of the sage, who has received not only the admiration of\nhis people, but the inspiration of God. Another sign of their maturity\nis that asceticism seems no longer the true path to virtue, as it was\nto the author of \"The Lives of the Patriarchs\" and \"The Specific\nLaws,\" but, on the contrary, a moderate use of the world's goods and a\nshare in political life are marks of the perfect man. These\ncharacteristics bespeak the firmer hand and the profounder experience.\nYet the series of works which form together Philo's esoteric doctrine\nwere certainly put together over a long period of years, as the varied\npolitical references indicate. It has indeed been suggested by a\nmodern German scholar[100] that large parts were originally given in\nthe form of detached lectures and sermons, and that Philo later\ncomposed them together into a continuous commentary, working them up\nwith much literary elaboration. In support of this theory, it may be\nurged that several of the treatises contain political addresses to\npublic audiences, notably the _De Agricultura_ and _De Confusione\nLinguarum_, while in others there are invocations to prayer, or a\nsummons to read a passage in the Bible, addressed apparently by the\npreacher to the Hazan, who had before him the scroll of the law. From\nPhilo's own statements we know that the wisest men used to deliver\nphilosophical homilies upon the Bible on the Sabbath day; and it is\nnatural that the man who was appointed to head the Jewish embassy to\nGaius had made himself known in the past to his brethren for oratory\nand wisdom of speech. \"Sermons,\" said Jowett, \"though they deal with\neternal subjects, are the most evanescent form of literature.\" The\ndictum is true for the most part, but occasionally the sermon, by its\ndepth of thought, the universality of its message, and the beauty of\nits expression, has become part of the world's heritage from the ages.\nMoreover, at Alexandria philosophy was associated with preaching. And\nthe sermons of the Jewish-Hellenistic writer, in their style as well\nas in their thought, represent an epoch. Philo spoke in the language\nof the intellectual world of his day, and strove to associate the\nintellectual precepts of Hellenism with the Hebraic passion for\nrighteousness. In his great moments, however, the Hebraic spirit\ntowers supreme. \"He was,\" said Croiset, the historian of Greek\nliterature, \"the first Greek prose writer who could speak to God and\nof God to man with the ardent piety and reverence of the Jewish\nprophets.\"[101]\n\nIt is a serious misconception to imagine that Philo's philosophical\nallegories were meant for the general body of Alexandrian Jews. He\nfrequently[102] declares that he is speaking to a specially initiated\nsect, and warns his hearers not to divulge his teaching. The\nnotion of an esoteric doctrine for the aristocracy of intellect had\nbecome a fixed idea in the Greek schools for three centuries, ever\nsince the days of Aristotle; and whether through Greek influence or\notherwise it had been generally adopted by the Jewish teachers. The\nrabbis of the Talmud derived from the first chapters of Genesis the\ninner mystery of the law, which was cognizable only by the sage; and\nthe same idea is found in later Jewish tradition, which, expounding\nParadise ([Hebrew: prds]) as four stages of interpretation, each\nmarked by a letter of the word, Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod\n([Hebrew: sod]),[103] regarded the last as the final reward of the\ndevoted seeker after God, as it is said in the Psalms, \"The secret of\nthe Lord is for those who fear Him.\" Jewish religious philosophers\nhave in all ages designed their work for a select few. The Halakah, or\nway of life, is the fit study of the many. So Maimonides wrote his\nMoreh only for those who already were masters of the law. And Philo\nlikewise at Alexandria taught an esoteric doctrine to an esoteric\ncircle, which alone was fitted to receive the profoundest\ntheology.[104] The allegories of the law do not take the place of the\nlaw itself, nor of its ethical ordinances. They are additional to the\nother exegesis and distinct, destined only for the man of learning.\nAnd as we shall see, he asserts emphatically in the midst of his\nallegories[105] that the perception of the philosophical value does\nnot release man from the practice itself. The wise man even as the\nfool must obey the law.\n\nWhy, it may be asked, does Philo artificially attach his philosophy to\nthe Scriptures? He does so for two reasons: first, because he holds\nand wishes to prove that between faith and philosophy there is no\nconflict, and his generation worked out the agreement by this method;\nhe does so also because he wishes to establish the Torah and Judaism\nupon a sure foundation for the man of outside culture. The pursuit of\nphilosophy must have menaced the attachment to Judaism and challenged\nthe authority of the Bible at Alexandria. A superficial knowledge of\nthe materialistic or rationalistic theories, which were propagated\nrespectively by the Epicurean and Stoic schools, was made the excuse\nfor indifference to the law. Then as now the advanced Jew would mask\nhis self-indulgence under the guise of a banal philosophy, and jeer\neasily at archaic myths and tribal laws. The dominating motive of\nPhilo's work is to show that the Bible contains for those who will\nseek it the richest treasures of wisdom, that its ethical teaching is\nmore ideal and yet more real than that which hundreds of sophists\npoured forth daily in the lecture-theatres[106] to the gaping\ndilettanti of learning, and lastly that the cultured Jew may search\nout knowledge and truth to their depths, and find them expressed in\nhis holy books and in his religious beliefs and practices. Philo\nfrequently introduces into his philosophical interpretation a polemic\nagainst the disintegrating and demoralizing forces which were at work\nin the Alexandria of his day. His commentary therefore is a strange\nmedley, compounded of idealistic speculation, theology, homiletics,\nmoral denunciation, and polemical rhetoric. The idea, which is not\nuncommon, that Philo represents the extreme Hellenic development of\nJudaism, and that he gathered into his writings the opinions of all\nGreek schools to the ruin of his Jewish individuality, is utterly\nerroneous. In fact, he chooses out only the valuable parts of Greek\nthought, which could enter into a true harmony with the Hebraic\nspirit; and he not only rejects, but he attacks unsparingly those\nelements which were antagonistic to holiness and righteousness. With\nthe enthusiasm of a Maccabee, if with other weapons, he fought against\nthe bastard culture, which meant self-indulgence and the excessive\nattention to the body, the idol-worship, the degraded ideas of the\nDivine power, and the disregard of truth and justice, that were\ncurrent in the pagan society about him. The seeking after sensual\npleasure and luxury was the most glaring evil of his city--as the\nTalmud says,[107] of ten parts of lust nine were given to\nAlexandria--and with every variety of denunciation he returns again\nand again to the charge. Epicureanism is detestable not only for its\nlow idea of human life, but for its godless conception of the\nuniverse. Its theory that the world was a fortuitous concourse of\natoms, which was governed by blind chance, and that the gods lived\napart in complete indifference to men--this was to Philo utter\natheism, and as such the greatest of sins. He attacked paganism not\nonly in its crude form of idolatry,[108] but in its more seductive\ndisguise of a pretentious philosophy. Always and entirely he was the\nchampion of monotheism.\n\nNearly as godless, and therefore as vile in his eyes as the follower\nof Epicurus, is the follower of the Stoic doctrines. It has been shown\nthat the Jews and the Stoics were continually in conflict at\nAlexandria; and the \"Allegories of the Laws\" are filled with attacks,\novert and hidden, upon the Stoic doctrines. The Stoics, indeed,\nbelieved in one supreme Divine Power, not however in a transcendental\nand personal God, but a cosmic, impersonal, fatalistic world-force.[109]\nTo Philo this conception, with its denial of the Divine will and the\nDivine care for the individual, was as atheistic as the Epicurean\n\"chance.\" Equally repulsive to his religious standpoint was the Stoic\ndogma, that man is, or should be, independent of all help, and that\nthe human reason is all-powerful and can comprehend the universe by\nits own unaided power.[110] Repulsive also were their pride, their\nrejection of the emotions, their hard rationalism. The battle of Philo\nagainst the Stoics is the battle of personal monotheism against\nimpersonal pantheism, of religious faith and revelation against\narrogant rationalism, and of idealism against materialism. Hostile as\nhe is to the Stoic intellectual dogmatism, Philo is none the less\nopposed to its converse, intellectual skepticism and agnosticism. Man,\nhe is convinced, has a Divine revelation[111] which he may not deny\nwithout ruin. He holds with Pope that we have\n\n  \"Too much of knowledge for the Skeptic side,\n  Too much of weakness for the Stoic's pride,\"\n\nand he attacks the Skeptics of the day who devoted their minds to\ndestructive dialectical quibbling and sophistry[112] instead of\nseeking for God and the human good. They are the Ishmaels of\nphilosophy.\n\nPhilo's polemic is directed less against the Greek schools in\nthemselves than against the Jewish followers of the Greek schools. He\nsaw the danger to Judaism in the teachings of these anti-religious\nphilosophers, and deeply as he loved Greek culture, he loved more\ndeeply his religion. He wanted to reveal a philosophy in the Bible\nwhich should win back to Judaism the men who had been captivated by\nforeign thought. In one aspect, therefore, his master-work is a plea\nfor unity. The community at Alexandria was a very heterogeneous body;\nnot only were the sects which had appeared in Palestine, the Sadducees,\nSamaritans, Pharisees, and Essenes, represented there too, but in\naddition there were parties who attached themselves to one or other of\nthe Greek schools, the Pythagoreans, Skeptics, and the like, and\nlastly Gnostic groups, who cultivated an esoteric doctrine of the\nGodhead, and were lax in their observance of the law, which they held\nto be purely symbolical and of no account in its literal meaning. The\nmental activity which this growth of sects exemplified was in some\nrespects a healthy sign, but it contained seeds of religious chaos,\nwhich bore their fruit in the next century. Men started by thinking\nout a philosophical Judaism for themselves; they ended by ceasing to\nbe Jews and philosophers. Philo foresaw this danger, and he tried to\ncombat it by presenting his people with a commentary of the Bible\nwhich should satisfy their intellectual and speculative bent, but at\nthe same time preserve their loyalty to the Bible and the law. To the\nGreek world he offered a philosophical religion, to his own people a\nreligious philosophy. Thus the allegorical commentary is the crowning\npoint of his work, the offering of his deepest thought to the most\ncultured of the community; and though much of its detail had only\nrelevancy for its own time, and its method may repel our modern taste,\nyet the spirit which animates it is of value to all ages, and should\nbe an inspiration to every generation of emancipated Jews. That spirit\nis one of fearless acceptance of the finest culture of the age\ncombined with unswerving love of the law and loyalty to catholic\nJudaism.\n\nWe have already treated of the general characteristics of Philo's\nmethod of allegorical interpretation, but we must now consider rather\nmore closely the way in which he employs it. The general principle\nupon which he depends is, that besides and in addition to the literal\nmeaning which the Bible bears for the common man, it has a hidden and\ndeeper meaning for the philosopher. It is, as it were, a sort of\npalimpsest; the writing on the top all may read, the writing below the\nstudent alone can decipher. With the rabbis Philo holds that the Torah\nwas written \"in the language of the sons of man,\"[113] but he believes\nwith them again that it contains all wisdom. And if the ideas of\nreason do not appear in its literal meaning, then they must be\nsearched out in some inner interpretation. Commenting on the verse in\nGenesis (xi. 7), \"Let us confound their language, that they may not\nunderstand one another's speech,\" he says: \"Those who follow the\nliteral and obvious interpretation think that the origin of the Greek\nand barbarian languages is here described; [the contrast between\nGreek, on the one hand, and barbarian--in which Hebrew, it seems, is\nincluded--on the other, is remarkable]. I would not find fault with\nthem, because they also, perhaps, employ right reason, but I would\ncall on them not to remain content with this, but to follow me to the\nmetaphorical renderings, considering that the actual words of the holy\noracle are, as it were, shadows of the real bodies, and the powers\nwhich they reflect are the true underlying ideas.\"[114]\n\nElsewhere he tells a story of the condign punishment which befell a\ngodless and impious man, perchance a Samaritan Jew, who made mock of\nthe race of allegorical interpreters, jeering at the idea that the\nchange of names from Abram to Abraham and from Sarai to Sarah\ncontained some deep meaning. He soon paid a fitting penalty for his\nwicked wit, for on some very trivial pretext he went and hanged\nhimself. Which was just, says Philo; for such a rascal deserved a\nrascal's death.[115] It is noteworthy that the Talmud also lays stress\nupon the deep meaning of the patriarch's change of name.[116] \"He who\ncalls Abraham Abram,\" said Bar Kappara, \"transgresses a positive\ncommand\" [Hebrew: mtsva 'sha]. \"Nay,\" said Rabbi Levi, \"he transgresses\nboth a positive and a negative command (and commits a double sin).\" Clearly\nthis was a test-question and an article of faith, possibly because the\nletter [Hebrew: h], which was added to the name, was a letter of\nmystical import in the opinion of the age. Both the rejection of the\nliteral and the rejection of the allegorical value of the Bible, Philo\nregarded as impious, and he had to struggle against opposite factions\nthat were one-sided. The true son of the law believes in both [Greek:\nto hr\u00eaton] and [Greek: to en hyponoiais].[117] Seeing that the\nBible was the inspired revelation of God, who is the fountain of all\nwisdom and knowledge--this is Philo's cardinal dogma--it is not to be\nsupposed, on the one hand, that it was silent about the profoundest\nideas of the human mind, or, on the other, that it contained ideas\nopposed to right reason and truth. Yet at first sight it seemed to\nlack any definite philosophy and to offer anthropomorphic views of\nGod. Hence the true interpreter must use the actual words of the sage\nas metaphors, following the maxim, \"Turn it about and about, because\nall is in it, and contemplate it and wax grey over it, for thou canst\nhave no better rule than this.\"[118] The principle upon which Philo,\nSaadia, Maimonides, and in fact the whole line of Jewish philosophical\nexegetes have worked, is that the \"words of the law are fruitful and\nmultiply\"; or, as the Bible phrase runs, \"The Torah which Moses\ncommanded unto us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.\" It\nis the separate inheritance of each generation, which each must\ncultivate so as to gather therefrom its own fruit.\n\nThe Halakah is the outcome of this devotion in one aspect, the\nphilosophical exegesis in another. In the one case Jewish\njurisprudence and the body of legal tradition, in the other,\nphilosophical ideas inspired by outer civilization, are attached to\nthe text of the Bible by ingenious devices of association. The device\nis partly a pious fiction, partly a genuine belief; in other words,\nthe teachers honestly thought that there was respectively a hidden\nphilosophical meaning in the Bible and an oral tradition,\nsupplementary to the written law and arising out of it; but on the\nother hand they would not have urged that their particular\ninterpretation alone was portended by the Scriptures. This is shown in\nthe Talmud by the fact that different rabbis deduced the same lessons\nfrom different verses, and contrary laws from the same verse; in Philo\nby the fact that he often gives various interpretations of one text in\ndifferent parts of his work. All that was claimed was that knowledge\nand truth must be primarily referred to the Divine revelation, and all\nlaw and practice to the authority of the Mosaic code. Philo, then, in\nthe same way as the rabbis, deduces all his teaching from the Bible,\nnot because he holds that it was explicitly contained there, but\nbecause he desires to give to his philosophical notions Divine\nauthority. Like the rabbis, again, he suggests definite rules of\ninterpretation which may always be applied [Greek: kanones t\u00eas\nall\u00eagorias].[119] He declares that every name in the Torah has a deep\nsymbolical meaning, and symbolizes some power.[120] Thus the names of\nthe sons of Jacob typify each some moral quality, and these qualities\ntogether make the perfect man and the perfect nation. Reuben is \"the\nson of insight\" [Hebrew: ru'bn], Simeon is learning [Hebrew: shm'-on],\nJudah [Hebrew: yhuda] stands for the praise of God.[121] It may be noted,\nby the way, that all these values show traces of Hebrew etymology. Again,\nthe synonyms in the Bible are to be carefully studied, while even\nparticles and parts of words have their special value and importance.\nAnd the skilful exegete may for homiletical purposes make slight\nchanges in a word, following the rabbinical rule,[122] \"Read not so,\nbut so.\" Thus he plays upon the name Esau, and takes the Hebrew word\nas though it were written, not [Hebrew: 'eshaw] but [Hebrew: 'ashav], a\nthing made.[123] Whence he shows that Esau represents the sham\n(made-up) greatness, which is boastful and insolent and shameless.\nPhilo is referring perhaps to Apion, the vainglorious anti-Semite,\nwhom he often covertly attacks. Again, whenever there is repetition in\nthe text, a deeper meaning is portended. Dealing with the verse,\n\"Sarah the wife of Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian\" (Gen. xvi. 3),\nPhilo comments, that we already knew that Sarah was Abraham's wife:\nwhy, then, does the Bible mention it again? And following certain\nvalues which he has made, he draws the lesson that the study of\nphilosophy must always go together with the study of general\nculture.[124] These examples are not isolated; yet it is rather a\nbarren science to search for the canons of Philo's allegory, as\nSiegfried has done.\n\nFor his allegory is a very flexible instrument, which can be employed\nat pleasure to deduce anything from anything. And Philo regards these\n\"points of construction\" as the excuse, not as the motive, of his\nethical and philosophical teaching. He does not depend on such\ndevices, for he wanders into allegory more often than not without any\npretext of the kind.\n\nThe modern reader may consider the allegorical method artificial and\nunconvincing, even if he does not go so far as Spinoza, and say that\nit is \"useless, harmful, and absurd.\"[125] We prefer to-day to show\nthe inner agreement of philosophical with Biblical teaching, rather\nthan pretend that all philosophy is contained within the Bible; and we\naccept the Bible as it stands, as a book of supreme religious worth,\nwithout requiring more of it. But that is mainly a difference of taste\nor of method, and in Philo's day, and in fact down to the time of the\nsixteenth-century Renaissance, Jew and Gentile alike preferred the\nother way. For thought, ancient and medi\u00e6val, was pervaded with the\ncraving for authority or a plausible show of it. The Bible was not\nonly the great book of morality, but the standard of truth, that from\nwhich knowledge in all its branches started, and that by which it was\nto be judged. As all knowledge came from God, so all knowledge was in\nGod's Book; and allegory was the method by which the intellectual\nconceptions of succeeding ages were attached to it.\n\nThe two main heads of Biblical interpretation which the Jewish\nreligious genius developed, Peshat and Derash,--these represent two\npermanent attitudes of mind. In the first the commentator tries to get\nat the exact meaning of the text before him, to make its lesson clear\nand discuss the circumstances of the composition, the exact relations\nof its parts. He is satisfied to take the writer of the Biblical book\nfor what he says in his own form of utterance. In the second the\ncommentator is more anxious to inculcate ideas and lessons which do\nnot arise obviously from the text, and to widen the significance of\nwhat he finds in the Bible. The interpretation ceases to be a mere\nexposition; it becomes creative or conciliating thought, and the\ninterpreter becomes a religious reformer, a philosopher, a prophet. To\nthis school Philo belongs, and the framework of his teaching or the\ningenuity by which he develops it from his text is of small account.\nIt is what he teaches and what he considers to be the vital things in\nreligion and life to which we must pay attention. Judged on this\nground Philo is a supreme master of Derash, and must take a place\namong the most creative of the interpreters of the Bible.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nPHILO AND THE TORAH\n\n\nOver and over again Philo declares that his function is to expound the\nlaw of Moses. Moses was the interpreter of God's word to Israel; and\nPhilo aspired to be the interpreter of the revelation of Moses to the\nHellenistic world, \"the living voice of the holy law.\" He believed\nthat Israel was a chosen people in the sense that it had received the\nDivine message on behalf of the whole human race,[126] a Kingdom of\nPriests, in that it occupied to other nations the position which the\npriest--using the word in the fullest sense--occupied to the common\npeople.[127] The Torah is God's covenant, not only with one small\nnation, but with all His children, and its teachings are true for all\ntimes and for all places. \"The Bible,\" as Professor Butcher says,[128]\n\"is the one book which appears to have the capacity of eternal\nself-adjustment, of uninterrupted correspondence with an ever-shifting\nand ever-widening environment.\" Nowadays this appears a truism, but\nthe truth first presented itself to the Jewish-Alexandrian community\nwhen they came in contact with external culture. The Palestinian and\nBabylonian Jews, free for the most part from outside influences,\ndeveloped the Torah for the Jewish people, amplified the tradition,\nand determined the Halakah, the practical law. But the Alexandrian\nJews in the first place found their own attitude to the Torah affected\nby their acquaintance with Greek ethics and metaphysics, and also\nfound it necessary to interpret the Bible in a new fashion in order to\nmake its value known to their environment. The Greek world required to\nbe shown the general principle, the broad ethical idea in each\nordinance. And thus it came about that the Alexandrian interpreters\nalways emphasized the universal beneath the particular, the moral\nspirit beneath the forms.\n\nIt had been one of the chief functions of the prophets to demonstrate\nthe moral import of the law. In their vision the God of Israel became\nthe God of the universe, and His law of conduct was spread over all\nmankind. \"For the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the\nLord from Jerusalem\" (Micah iv. 2). Philo in effect expounds Judaism\nin their spirit, though he speaks their message in the voice of Plato\nand to a people whose minds were trained in Greek culture. Yet it is\nsignificant that he wrote all his commentaries round the Five Books of\nMoses, and used the prophets and other Biblical books only to\nillustrate and support the Mosaic teaching, which contains the whole\nway of life and the whole religious philosophy. According to the\nrabbis also the Prophets formed only a complement to the Torah, \"a\nspecies of Agadah\";[129] and the prophetic vision of Moses was much\nclearer than that of his successors. Philo, too, clearly realized that\nJudaism was the religion of the law. His view of the Torah is what the\nmodern world would call uncritical: that is to say, he accepts the\nidea that the whole of the Five Books was an objective revelation to\nMoses at Sinai. But though--or because--he is innocent of the higher\ncriticism, and believes in the literal inspiration of the Torah, his\nconception is none the less enlightened and spiritual. The law--the\nDivine Logos--is not the enactment of an outside power, arbitrarily\nimposed, and to be obeyed because of its miraculous origin; it is the\nexpression of the human soul within, when raised to its highest power\nby the Divine inspiration. Every man may fit himself to receive the\nDivine word, which is, in modern language, revelation.[130] Moses,\nthen, is distinguished above all other legislators, not because he\nalone received it, but because he received it in its purest form, and\nbecause he was the most noble interpreter of it. It is for this reason\nthat the law of Moses is of universal validity for conduct. The Divine\nspirit possessed him so fully that his Logos, or revelation, is\neternally true, and by following it all men become fit to be blessed\nwith the Divine gift themselves. This is true of the other prophets of\nthe Bible to a smaller degree, and in a still minor degree Philo hoped\nthat it was true of himself.\n\nIt should be premised that the \"law of nature\" was at the time of\nPhilo an idea as widely accepted as \"evolution\" is to-day. Men\nbelieved that by a study of the processes of the universe the\nindividual might discover the law of conduct that should bring his\naction into harmony with the whole. What the Greek philosophers\ndeclared to be the privilege of the few, Philo declared to have been\nimparted by God to His people as their law of life. Hence the Mosaic\nlegislation is the code of nature and reason, and the righteous man\ndirects his conduct in accordance with those rules of nature by which\nthe cosmos is ordered.[131] Obedience to the law should not be\nobedience to an outward prescription, but rather the following out of\nour own highest nature. The ideal which the Stoic sage continually\naspired for and never attained to--the life according to nature and\nright reason--this Philo claimed had been accomplished in the Mosaic\nrevelation, handed down by God to Israel and through them to the\nworld.\n\nBefore we deal with Philo's treatment of the law in its narrower\nsense, it will be as well to consider briefly his interpretation of\nthe historical parts of the Torah. Here likewise he finds ideas of\nnatural reason and eternal truths embodied. To Philo, as we have seen,\nthe Torah is a unity, and every part of it has equal validity and\nvalue. He had to contend against certain higher critics of his day,\nwho declared that Genesis was a collection of myths ([Greek:\nmyth\u00f4n plasmata]).[132] Moreover, the long catalogues of\ngenealogies in Genesis and the longer recitals of sacrifices in\nLeviticus and Numbers seemed to refute those who declared that every\npart of the Pentateuch was a Divine revelation. In the third book of\nthe \"Questions to Genesis\" Philo directly grapples with this\nobjection. Commenting on the verse (Gen. xv. 9), \"Take for me a heifer\nof three years old and a goat of three years old,\" etc., he says that\nin interpreting any part or any verse of Scripture we must look to the\npurpose of the whole and explain it from this outlook, \"without\ndissecting or disturbing its harmony or disintegrating its\nunity.\"[133] Why should God, asked the scoffer, reveal these trivial\nor prolix details? Philo's answer is in fact to spiritualize\neverything that is material, and universalize everything that is\nparticular. While he believes in the literal inspiration of the Bible,\nhe does not insist upon the literal truth of every word of it, and in\nthe opening chapters of Genesis in particular, he treats the tales as\nsymbolical or allegorical myths. His philosophical commentary on the\ncreation, corresponding to the [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] of the\nrabbis, is found in the book _De Mundi Opificio_, which stands in\nmodern editions at the head of his writings. Its main theme is to\ntrace in the text the Platonic idealism, _i.e._, the theory that God\nfirst created transcendental, incorporeal archetypes of all\nphysical and material things. Philo uses the double account of the\ncreation of man in the first and second chapters of Genesis as clear\nevidence that the Bible describes--for those who have the mind to\nsee--the creation of an ideal before the terrestrial man.\n\nIn the \"Allegories of the Laws,\" which is the profounder philosophical\ndoctrine, the account of Adam and Eve is deliberately chosen by Philo\nas the text of a psychological treatise, in which he analyzes[134] the\nrelations of the mind, the senses, and the pleasures, represented\nrespectively by Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. The necessity of\nexplaining the story symbolically is professedly based on the fact\nthat otherwise we are driven to the idea that the Bible spoke\ninaccurately about God. \"It is silly,\" he says, \"to suppose that Adam\nand Eve can have hidden themselves in the Garden of Eden, for God\nfilled the whole.\" We are driven then to suggest another meaning; and\nPhilo passes into a homily about the false opinion of the man who\nfollows the bidding of the senses (Eve) at the instigation of pleasure\n(the Serpent).[135]\n\nThe story of Cain and Abel is another piece of moral philosophy\nembodied in a concrete form. Abel symbolizes pious humility, Cain the\ndeadly sin of atheism and intellectual pride, which denies the\nabsolute and ever-present power of the Deity. Philo asks himself the\nquestion that other commentators have frequently raised, some in\nreverence, some in ridicule, \"Who was Cain's wife?\"[136] And he\nanswers that the Bible expression about the children of Cain cannot be\ntaken literally, but suggests the union of the ill-ruled mind with\nimpious opinions, which have as their issue false pride and sin.\n\nPhilo here treats the stories in the opening of Genesis as pure\nallegories, in which the men and women represent symbolically\ncharacters and qualities. It should be remembered, however, that these\ninterpretations occur in the commentary where our author is not so\nmuch expounding the Torah as deducing secret doctrines from it. His\nproper exposition of the law proceeds from the book on the Creation to\nthe lives of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then to the\nlives of Joseph and Moses. And in this commentary the Bible narrative\nis taken as historical truth: only in addition to the historical fact\nthere is a moral and universal value in every figure and every\nepisode. The patriarchs' lives represent the unwritten law which the\nGreek world held in high honor, for it was considered to contain the\nbroad principles of individual and social conduct, and to be prior\nlogically and chronologically to the written codes. Moses, therefore,\nthe perfect legislator, according to Philo, has presented in the three\nfounders of the Hebrew race embodiments of the unwritten law of good\nconduct for all mankind. Each of them is a moral type of eternal\nvalidity and represents one of the ways in which blessedness may be\nattained.[137] Abraham represents the goodness which comes from\ninstruction; Isaac, the spontaneous goodness that is innate, and the\njoy (or laughter) of the soul that is God's gift to his favored sons;\nJacob, the goodness that comes after long effort, through the life of\npractice and severe discipline. Before this triad, the Bible presents\nanother group of three, who represent the virtues preparatory to the\nacquisition of perfect goodness: Enosh, Enoch, and Noah.[138] They\ntypify respectively, as their names indicate, hope, repentance, and\njustice. It is a pretty thought, helped by an error in the Septuagint\ntranslation,[139] which sees in the name of the first (_i.e._, man,\n[Hebrew: 'nosh]) the symbol of hope. Hope, the commentator suggests, is the\ndistinguishing characteristic of man[140] as compared with other\nanimals, and hope therefore is our first step towards the Divine\nnature, the seed of which faith is the fruit. Next in order come\nrepentance and natural justice, and from these stepping-stones we can\nrise to the higher self. Philo's interpretation of these Bible figures\nwould appear to have behind it an old Midrashic tradition. As far back\nas the book of Ben Sira, in the passage on \"the Praises of Famous Men\"\n(xliv), they are taken as typical of the different virtues, and Enoch\nnotably is the type of repentance. In the first century the world was\nbecoming incapable of understanding abstract ideas, and required\nethics to be concretely embodied in examples of life. Philo found\nwithin the Jewish Scriptures what the Christian apostles later\ntransferred to other events.\n\nJoseph, whose life followed that of the patriarchs, is the type of the\npolitical life, the model of the man of action and ambition. Taken\nalone, this is inferior to the life of the saint and philosopher, but\nmixed with the other it produces the perfect man, for the truly good\nman must take his part in public life. The story of Joseph, then,\nillustrates the full humanity of Moses' scheme, and it marks also,\naccording to Philo, the great moral lesson, that if there be one spark\nof nobility in a man's soul, God will find it and cause it to shine\nforth.[141] For Joseph, until he comes down to Egypt, is not a\nvirtuous man, but full of conceit and unworthy aspiration for\nsupremacy; he shows his true worth when he is sold into slavery; and\nthen by the Divine inspiration he becomes the ideal statesman. Very\nsuggestive is Philo's homily, by which he develops the Bible\nnarrative, that the function of the statesman is to expound\ndreams;[142] because his task is to interpret the life of man, which\nis one long dream of changing scenes, wherein we forget what has gone\nbefore, as the fleeting shadow leads us from childhood to youth, from\nyouth to manhood, from manhood to old age. Lastly, from the story of\nJoseph he draws the lesson that when the Hebrew has attained to a high\nposition in a foreign land, as in Egypt, where there is utter\nblindness about the true God, he can and should retain his national\nlaws,[143] and not assimilate the practices of his environment.\n\nEusebius[144] mentions, among the works of Philo which he had before\nhim, a book on \"The Statesman,\" in which doubtless the principles of\ngovernment and social life were more fully treated. The book has\ndisappeared, but the life of Joseph suffices to show that Philo\nrecognized the place of public service in the human ideal.\n\nMoses is not only the divinely inspired legislator, but he typifies\nalso the perfection of the human soul, the highest example of the man\nat one with God, supreme as king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet. He is\nthe link between God and man, the perfect interpreter of the Divine\nWord; and though Philo avoids the suggestion of any Divine power\nincarnate in man, he speaks imaginatively of the Logos of Moses,[145]\n_i.e._, his reason, as identical with the Logos of God, the Divine law\nof the universe. It is significant of his attitude to religion that he\nlays no stress upon the miracles of the Bible narrative. Not that he\nrationalizes them away; he rejects all rationalizing whatsoever; but\nhe interprets them as great spiritual signs, rather than as diversions\nfrom the laws of nature. His allegory of the burning bush, which Moses\nsaw at Horeb is typical, and presents a truth to which the whole\nhistory of Israel bears witness. The weak thorn-bush, which was not\nconsumed by the fire, is the image of the idea of Israel, which almost\ncries to the people in their misfortune: \"Do not despair! Your\nweakness is your strength, and by it you shall wound race after race.\nYou will be preserved by those who wish to destroy you, and you shall\nnot perish. In evil days you shall not suffer, and when a tyrant\nthinks to uproot you, you shall shine forth the more in brighter\nglory.\"[146] The passage is typical also of the rhetorical artifice\nwith which Philo, following the taste of the time, recommended the\nBible to the Greeks.\n\nWe turn now to Philo's treatment of the Mosaic legislation, the Torah\nin its narrower sense, which is to modern Jewry perhaps the most\nstriking part of his commentary. His problem was the same as ours--to\nbring the ancient law into harmony with the ideas of a non-Jewish\nenvironment, and to show its essential value when tried by an external\ncultural standard. Briefly his solution is that he sees everything in\nthe Torah _sub specie \u00e6ternitatis_, in the light of eternity; and by\nhis faithfulness to the law, combined with his spiritual\ninterpretation of it, he stands forth as the greatest Jewish\nmissionary of his age. Unfortunately for Judaism, depth of thought and\nphilosophical judgment are not the qualities which mark the successful\nreligious missionary. Philo's philosophical treatment of the Torah was\nunderstood only of the few; the fanatical Pauline rejection of the law\nappealed to the masses. The spirit of the age demanded, indeed, the\nethical interpretation of the Bible, and it was carried out in many\nways, some true, some untrue to Judaism. Philo and Josephus tell us\nhow Judaism was spreading over the world.[147] \"There is not any city\nof the Greeks,\" says the historian, \"nor of the barbarians, nor of any\nnation whatsoever, to which our custom of resting on the seventh day\nhas not been introduced, and where our fasts and our dietary laws are\nnot observed.... As God Himself pervadeth all the universe, so hath\nour law passed through the world.\" And their testimony is supported by\nthe frequent gibes against Judaizing Romans in the Roman poets,[148]\nand by the explicit statements of Strabo,[149] the famous geographer,\nand, more remarkable still, of Seneca, the Stoic\nphilosopher-statesman. The bitter foe of the Jews, he confessed that\nthis superstitious pest was infecting the whole world, and that the\nconquered people (Jud\u00e6a had lately been made a Roman province) were\ntaking their conquerors captive.[150] Philo, with his ardent hope,\nlooked for the near coming of the time when the worship of the Jewish\nGod would prevail over the world, and sought to show that the Jewish\nlaw, which is the expression of Jewish belief, and which differs from\nall others, not only in the extent of its sway, but in its\nunchangeableness, could be universalized to fit its new service. To\nthis end he interpreted the Mosaic code, which \"no war, tyrant,\npersecution, or visitation, human or Divine, can destroy: for it is\neternal.\"[151] In the arrangement of the Torah, Philo finds a proof of\nits universality. It begins with the account of the creation, to teach\nus that the same Being that is the Creator and Father of the universe\nis also its Legislator, and, again, that he who follows the law will\nchoose to live in harmony with nature, and will exhibit consistency of\naction with words and of words with action. Other philosophers,\nnotably the Stoics, claimed to lay down a plan of life that followed\nthe law of nature; but their practice notoriously fell below their\nunrealizable professions. In Judaism alone spirit and practice were at\none, so that each inspired the other and secured human excellence.\n\"Not theory but practice is the root of the matter\" ([Hebrew: l' hmdrsh\n'kr 'l' hm'sha]), according to the rabbis:[152] and Philo, who,\ncontemplative philosopher as he was, yet recognized the all-importance of\nconduct, writes in the same spirit:[153] \"We must first study and then act,\nfor we learn, not for learning's sake, but in order to action.\"\n\nPhilo seeks to arrange the law under general moral heads, and he finds\nin the Decalogue the holy text upon which the rest of the code is but\na commentary. He may be following a tradition common among all the\nJews, for in the Midrash to Numbers (xiii) it is said that the six\nhundred and thirteen precepts are all contained in the Ten\nCommandments: [Hebrew: shtrig mtsvt klilit bhn]. We do not know, however,\nin what way the early rabbis carried out this idea, whereas we possess\nPhilo's arrangement; and some of its features are very suggestive.[154]\nTo the first two commandments he attaches the ritual laws relating to\npriests and sacrifices, to the fourth the laws of all the festivals, to\nthe seventh the criminal and civil law, to the tenth the dietary laws.\nThe Decalogue he conceives as falling into two divisions, between which\nthe fifth commandment is a link. For the first four commandments are\nordinances that determine man's relation to God, and the last five\nthose which determine his relation to his fellows. Honor of the\nparents is the link between the Divine and the human virtues, even as\nparents themselves are a link between immortal God and mortal man.\nCorresponding to the two divisions of the Decalogue are the two\ngeneric virtues which the Mosaic legislation has set as its goal,\npiety, and humanity, or what the rabbis called charity ([Hebrew: tsdka]).\n\"He who loves God, but does not show love towards his own kind,\nhas but the half of virtue.\"[155] Thus in one and the same age Hillel,\nincited by a single scoffer, and Philo, moved by the taunts of a tribe\nof anti-Semites, looked for the most vital lesson of the Torah, and\nthey found it alike in \"the love of our neighbor.\" That was Judaism on\nits practical side.\n\nIn order to show the humanitarian spirit of the Torah, Philo\nemphasizes its socialistic institutions, the law of the seventh year's\nrest to the land ([Hebrew: shnt hshmita]), of the emancipation of the\nslaves, and of the Jubilee. These to him are not tribal laws, but the\nideal institutions for the whole world, which shall one day be set up\nwhen the theocracy has been established over all mankind. And in an age\nwhen slavery was as accepted a condition as factory-labor is to-day,\nhe ventured to assert the principle of the equality of man. \"If,\"\nsaith the law, \"one of thy brethren be sold to thee, let him serve\nthee for six years, and in the seventh year let him go free without\npayment.\" And Philo thereon comments:[156] \"A second time Moses calls\nour fellow-creature brother, to impress upon the master that he has a\ntie with his servant, so that he may not neglect him as a stranger.\nNay, but if he follows the direction of the law, he will feel sympathy\nwith him, and will not be vexed when he is about to liberate him. For\nthough we call our servants slaves, yet in verity they are only\ndependents who serve us in order to have the means of life.\" This\ncorresponds with the Talmud dictum, \"Whoever buys a Jewish slave buys\na master for himself.\"[157] Commenting again upon the verse in Exodus\nxxi. 6, which says with seeming harshness that a servant who wishes to\nstay with his master after the year of emancipation has arrived, shall\nbe nailed by the ear to a door, he explains that no man should consent\nof his own will to be a slave, for we should only be servants of God;\nand if a man deliberately rejects freedom for comfort, he should wear\na mark of degradation. The so-called Christian principle of the\ndignity of human life and the equality of man, Philo shows to be the\nspirit of the Mosaic law, not limited within the confines of one\nnation, but valid for the world. Nor is it contained therein as a mere\nsentimental aspiration, but it is realized in the institutions of the\nJewish polity.\n\nPhilo looked for the same broad principles in his treatment of the\nceremonial law. The Sabbath day is the central observance, one might\nsay, the lodestar of the Jewish life, round which the other ceremonies\nrevolve. The Sabbath is the call to man's higher nature, for it is the\nday on which we are bidden to devote ourselves to the Divine power\nwithin us and to seek to know God. \"The six days in which the Creator\nmade the universe are an example to us to work, but the seventh day,\non which He rested, is an example to us to meditate. As on that day\nGod is said to have looked upon His work, so we, too, should\ncontemplate the universe thereon, and consider our highest welfare.\nLet us never neglect the example of the best life, the combination of\naction and thought, but keeping a clear vision of it before our minds,\nso far as our human nature will permit, let us liken ourselves to\nimmortal God by word and deed.\"[158] High-flown this language may be,\nbut what Philo wishes to mark is the spiritual value of the Sabbath.\nIt is not merely a day of rest from workaday toil, but it is a day\nupon which we devote all our thoughts to God, and enter into closer\ncommunion with Him, [Hebrew: mnoht 'hba vndba], a repose of love and\ndevotion. Heine said that on one day of the week the lowliest Jew became\na prince, Philo that he became a philosopher. As in all of Philo's\ninterpretations of Jewish custom, there is something mystic in his\nconception of the Sabbath. For he regards all Divine service and all\nprayer as a mystic rite which leads the human soul unto God. In the\nspecial ordinances of the day he finds a spiritual motive. We may not\ntouch fire, because fire is the seed and beginning of industry.[159]\nThe servant of the house may not work,[160] because on this day he\nshall have a taste of freedom and humanity, and he will work the more\ncheerfully during the remaining six days. Some rabbis later, when\nnumbers of Gentiles had adopted this without the other institutions of\nJudaism, claimed the Sabbath as the special heritage of Israel; and in\nthe book of Jubilees[161] it is said that Israel alone has the right\nto observe the Sabbath. Not so Philo, who, desiring to give the day a\nvalue for all, regards it as God's covenant with the whole of\nhumanity.[162]\n\nThe Sabbath idea is reflected in all the festivals, which have as\ntheir dominating idea man's joyful gratitude to God. Influenced\nprobably by a mystic fondness for certain numbers, Philo enumerates\nten festivals, as follows:[163] (1) Each day in the year, if we use it\naright--a truly Philonic conception; (2) The Sabbath; (3) The new\nmoon--then in Alexandria, as in Palestine, a solemn day; (4) The\nPassover; (5) The bringing of the first barley ('Omer); (6) The Feast\nof Unleavened Bread. These last three are separate aspects of one\ncelebration, which is divided up so as to produce the holy decad. (7)\nPentecost; (8) New Year; (9) Atonement (to the mystic the Feast of\nfeasts); (10) Tabernacles. Following his design of revealing in\nJudaism a religion of universal validity, Philo points out in all\nthese festivals a double meaning. On the one hand, they mark God's\nprovidence to His chosen people, shown in some great event of their\nhistory--this is the special meaning for the Israelite--and, on the\nother, they indicate God's goodness as revealed in the march of\nnature, and thus help to bind man to the universal process. So\nPassover is the festival of the spring and a memorial of the creation\n([Hebrew: zbr lm'sha br'shit]) as well as the memorial of the great Exodus,\nand of our gratitude for the deliverance from the inhospitable land of\nEgypt. And those who look for a deeper moral meaning may find in it a\nsymbol of the passing over from the life of the senses to the life with\nGod. Similarly, Philo deals with the other festivals,[164] and in their\nparticular ceremonies he finds symbols which stamp eternal lessons of\nhistory and of morality upon our hearts. The unleavened bread is the\nmark of the simple life, the New Year Shofar of the Divine rule of\npeace, the Sukkot booth of the equality of all men, and, as he puts it\nelsewhere, of man's duty in prosperity to remember the troubles of his\npast, so that he may worthily recognize God's goodness. Much of this\nmay appear trite to us; and the association of the festivals with the\nseasons of nature may to some appear a false development of historical\nJudaism; nevertheless Philo's treatment of this part of the Torah is\nnotable. It shows remarkable feeling for the ethical import of the\nlaw, and it establishes the harmony between the Greek and Hebrew\nconceptions of the Deity by combining the God of history with the God\nof nature in the same festival. The ideas were not unknown to\nPalestinian rabbis; Philo, by giving them a Greek dress, opened them\nto the world.\n\nEqually remarkable and equally suggestive is Philo's treatment of the\ndietary laws. We have seen that he placed them under the governing\nprinciple of the tenth commandment, \"Thou shalt not covet,\" or, more\nbroadly, \"Thou shalt not have base desires.\" The dietary laws are at\nonce a symbol and a discipline of temperance and self-control. We know\nthat the Greeks, as soon as they had a superficial knowledge of Jewish\nobservance, jeered at the barbarous and stupid superstition of\nrefusing to eat pork. Again we are told in the letter of the false\nAristeas that when Ptolemy's ambassadors went to Jerusalem, to summon\nlearned men to translate the Torah into Greek, Eleazar, the high\npriest, instructed them in the deeper moral meaning of the dietary\nlaws. Further, in the fourth book of the Maccabees--an Alexandrian\nsermon upon the Empire of Right Reason--we find an eloquent defence of\nthese same laws as the precepts of reason which fortify our minds.\nPhilo, then, is following a tradition, but he improves upon it.\nAccepting the Platonic psychology, which divided the soul into reason,\ntemper (_i.e._, will), and desire, he shows how the aim of the Mosaic\nlaw about food is to control desire and will, so as to make them\nsubservient to reason. By practicing self-restraint in the two\ncommonest actions of life--eating and drinking--the Israelite acquires\nit in all things. The hard ascetic who would root out bodily desires\nerrs against human nature, but the wise legislator controls them and\ncurbs them by precepts, so that they are bent to the higher reason.\n\nModern apologists for Judaism have been found who, trying to force\nscience to support their tottering faith, allege that the dietary law\nis hygienic. Philo relies on no such treacherous reed. We may not eat,\nhe says,[165] the flesh of the pig or shell-fish, not because they are\nunhealthy, but because they are the sweetest and most delightful of\nall food, and for that very reason they are marks of the sensual life.\nThis and this alone is the true religious justification of the dietary\nlaw.\n\nIn this way, by showing how the letter represents the spirit, Philo\nfulfils the law; his religion is liberal in thought, conservative in\npractice. He sees clearly that to throw off the law and reject\ntradition involves in the end chaos and the overthrow of\nrighteousness. And certain Christian--and other--theologians, if one\nmay make bold to say so, fail to realize the spirit of Philo, when\nthey speak of him as a man who approached the light, but was too tied\ndown by the old traditions to receive the full illumination. Rather is\nit true that the Jewish aspiration of \"freedom under the law,\" or\nspirit through the letter, is absolutely fundamental in Philo, and\nloyalty to the Torah is a guiding principle in his religious outlook.\nHe asserts it clearly and strikingly, not only in his ethical\ncommentary on the law, but in his philosophical allegories. Both\npassages deserve quotation, since they mark the fundamental contrast\nbetween Philo and non-Jewish allegorists of the law. In the first\nPhilo is commenting upon the command \"Thou shalt not add to or take\naway from the law\" (Deut. xix. 14).[166] He shows first how each of\nthe virtues is marred by excess in either direction; virtue in fact,\naccording to the Aristotelian formula, is \"a mean.\"\n\n     \"And in the same way, if we add anything great or small to\n     piety, the queen of virtues, or take anything away, we mar\n     it and change its form. Addition will engender superstition,\n     and diminution impiety, and true piety will disappear, which\n     above all things we should pray for to enlighten our souls:\n     for it is the cause of the greatest of goods, inducing in us\n     a knowledge of our conduct towards God, which is a thing\n     more royal and kingly than any public office or distinction.\n     Further, Moses lays down another general command, 'Do not\n     remove the boundary stone of thy neighbor, which thy\n     ancestors have set up.' This, methinks, does not refer\n     merely to inheritances and the boundary of land, but it is\n     ordained with a view to the preservation of ancient customs.\n     For customs are unwritten laws, the decrees of men of old,\n     not carved indeed upon pillars and inscribed upon parchment,\n     but engraved upon the souls of the generations who through\n     the ages maintain the chosen community. Children should take\n     over the paternal customs from their parents as part of\n     their inheritance, for they were reared on them, and lived\n     on them from their swaddling days, and they should not\n     neglect them merely because the tradition is not written.\n     The man who obeys the written laws is not, indeed, worthy of\n     praise, for he may be constrained thereto by fear of\n     punishment. But he who holds fast to the unwritten laws\n     gives proof of a voluntary goodness and is worthy of our\n     eulogy.\"\n\nClearly he is arguing here for the observance of the oral law, which\nlater was standardized in the Halakah.\n\nIn the other passage, which occurs in the philosophical book \"On the\nMigration of Abraham,\"[167] he sets forth the reason of the authority\nof the law with more argument, and controverts those who would\nallegorize away the ordinances.\n\n     \"To whom, then, God has granted both to be and to seem good,\n     he is truly happy and truly renowned. And we must have a\n     great care for reputation, as a matter of great importance\n     and of much value, for our social and bodily life. [By\n     reputation Philo means reputation of being loyal Jews. He is\n     addressing here an esoteric circle who, if they were lax,\n     would bring philosophy into disrepute.] And almost all can\n     secure it, who are well content not to disturb established\n     customs, but diligently preserve the constitution of their\n     nation. But there are some who, looking upon the written\n     laws as symbols of intellectual things, lay great stress on\n     these, but neglect the former. Such men I would blame for\n     their shallowness of mind [Greek: euchereia]. For they\n     ought to give good heed to both--to the accurate\n     investigation of the unseen meaning, but also to the\n     blameless observance of the visible letter. But now, as if\n     they were living by themselves in a desert, and were souls\n     without bodies, and knew nothing of city or village or house\n     or intercourse with men, they despise all that seems\n     valuable to the many, and search for bare and naked truth as\n     it is in itself. Such people the sacred Scripture teaches to\n     give good heed to a good reputation, and to abolish none of\n     those customs which greater and more inspired men than we\n     instituted in the past. For, because the seventh day teaches\n     us symbolically concerning the power of the uncreated God,\n     and the inactivity of the creature, we must not therefore\n     abolish its ordinances, so as to light a fire, or till the\n     ground, or bear a burden, or prosecute a lawsuit, or demand\n     the restoration of a deposit, or exact the repayment of a\n     loan, or do any other thing, which on week-days is allowed.\n     Because the festivals are symbols of spiritual joy and of\n     our gratitude to God, we must not therefore give up the\n     fixed assemblies at the proper seasons of the year. Nor,\n     because circumcision symbolizes the excision of all lusts\n     and passions, and the destruction of the impious opinion\n     according to which the mind imagines that it is itself\n     capable of production, must we therefore abolish the law of\n     fleshly circumcision. We should have to neglect the service\n     of the temple, and a thousand other things, if we were to\n     restrict ourselves only to the allegorical or symbolic\n     sense. That sense resembles the soul, the other sense the\n     body. Just as we must be careful of the body, as the house\n     of the soul, so must we give heed to the letter of the\n     written laws. For only when these are faithfully observed,\n     will the inner meaning, of which they are the symbols,\n     become more clearly realized, and, at the same time, the\n     blame and accusation of the multitude will be avoided.\"[168]\n\nPhilo's position is, then, that man on the one hand owes loyalty to\nhis nation, and on the other is not only a creature of spirit, but has\na body and bodily passions. He cannot, therefore, have a religion\nwhich is individual or merely spiritual, but he requires common forms\nand ceremonies that can bind him with the rest of the community, and\ntrain his body by good habit to obey his reason. We do not reach the\nspirit by denying but by obeying the letter. To the mere formal\nobservance of the law and the unreasoning custom which blindly follows\nthe practice of our fathers [Greek: syn\u00eatheia] Philo is equally\nopposed, and he protests, with the earnestness of an Isaiah, against\nsuperstitious sacrifice and against the lip-service of the\nmaterialist.[169]\n\n     \"If a man practices ablutions and purifications, but defiles\n     his mind while he cleanses his body; or if, through his\n     wealth, he founds a temple at a large outlay and expense; or\n     if he offers hecatombs and sacrifices oxen without number,\n     or adorns the shrine with rich ornaments, or gives endless\n     timber and cunningly wrought work, more precious than silver\n     or gold--let him none the more be called religious ([Greek:\n     euseb\u00eas]). For he has wandered far from the path of\n     religion, mistaking ritual for holiness, and attempting to\n     bribe the Incorruptible, and to flatter Him whom none can\n     flatter. God welcomes genuine service, and that is the\n     service of a soul that offers the bare and simple sacrifice\n     of truth, but from false service, the mere display of\n     material wealth, he turns away.\"\n\nLot's daughter, born of a pillar of stone, symbolizes this unthinking,\nhypertrophied religion; and custom, its mother, which always lags\nbehind and has no seed of life, is the enemy of truth. The religious\nman pursueth righteousness righteously, the superstitious\nunrighteously.\n\nThus Philo holds the balance between a formless spirituality and an\nunspiritual formalism. The end of religious observance is the love of\nGod, but the love of God requires more than feeling; it must\nimpregnate life. Dubnow, in his summary of Jewish history, formulates\nan epigram, which, like most of its kind, becomes in its conciseness\nand pointed antithesis a half-truth. \"At Jerusalem,\" he says, \"Judaism\nappeared as a system of practical ceremonies; at Alexandria as a\ncomplex of abstract symbols.\" No doubt it is true that at Jerusalem\nthe practical side of the law was most prominent, but the spiritual\nexaltation to which it should lead was appraised as the true end by\nthe great rabbis. Witness Hillel, and indeed all the writers of the\ngnomic wisdom in the \"Ethics of the Fathers.\" At Alexandria, again,\nwhile the philosophical principle underlying the outward practice was\nespecially emphasized, the practice itself was loyally observed, and\nits value perceived, by those who most thoroughly understood Judaism.\nWitness the writings of Philo, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the fourth\nbook of the Maccabees. The antithesis between letter and spirit, faith\nand works, is in truth a false one; and wherever the significance of\nJudaism has been fully comprehended, the two aspects of the law have\nbeen inextricably intertwined. As Philo understood the Jewish mission,\nit was not merely to diffuse the Jewish God-idea, but quite as much to\ndiffuse the Jewish attitude to God, the way of life. Abstract ideas,\nhowever lofty, can never be the bond of a religious community, nor can\nthey be a safeguard for moral conduct. Sooner or later congregations\nmust submit themselves to some law, be it a law of dogma, or be it a\nlaw of conduct. Antinomianism, the opposition to the law, to which\nPaul later gave powerful, even fanatical, expression, was a strong\nmovement at Alexandria in Philo's day. Preparatory to the spread of\nChristianity, numerous sects sprang up there which purported to follow\na spiritual Judaism wherein the law was abrogated because, forsooth,\nits symbolism was understood! In the extreme allegorists, whom Philo\nattacks for their shallowness, one may discern the prototypes of the\nCainites, Ophites, Melchizedecians, and the rest of the heretical\nparties that produced the religious chaos of the next centuries. From\nthat welter of opinions there at last emerged dogmatic Christianity.\nThe Christian reformers came to free man from the yoke of the law; but\ntheir successors imposed on the mind the fetters of dogma, and, in\norder to check the passions of the body, advocated renunciation and\nasceticism. So that not only Judaism as a system of belief, but\nJudaism as a system of life was lost in their handiwork. Spirituality\nlacking knowledge and allegorism in excess led to this result. In\nPhilo they are controlled by affection for the Torah, and by a\nconviction of the need for national cohesion.\n\nPhilo is loyal to the Jewish tradition not only because he had a deep\nfeeling for what a modern teacher has called the catholic conscience\nand the historical continuity of Judaism, but because his philosophy\nwas based on a conviction that the Jewish religion was the truest\nguide to conduct and righteousness and to the love of God. To him, as\nto Plato and Aristotle, the law was the outward register of the moral\nideal; the \"word-and-deed symbols\" of ceremonial and prayer were\nemblems indeed of moral principles, but at the same time they had an\nintrinsic value, in that they impressed these principles upon the\nmind, and brought belief and action into harmony. \"Religion is law,\nnot philosophy,\" said Hobbes. With Philo, religion is law _and_\nphilosophy. Thus the love of the Torah is of the essence of his\nreligious thought. As he puts it in the exhortation to his\nfellow-ambassadors before Gaius,[170] \"to die in defence of it is a\nkind of life.\" In his philosophical Judaism he sought always for the\nuniversal and the spiritual, but so as always to increase the honor of\nthe law, and not only of the law but of the customs of his ancestors,\nthinking with the Psalmist that \"the Torah is a tree of life to those\nwho keep fast hold of her, and those who support her are blessed.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nPHILO'S THEOLOGY\n\n\n\"The most remarkable feature about Judaism,\" says Darmesteter, \"is\nthat without a philosophical system it had reached a philosophical\nconclusion about the government of the world and the nature of\nGod.\"[171] The same idea underlies the statement of the Peripatetic\nwriter Theophrastus (who lived in the latter part of the fourth\ncentury B.C.E.) that the Jews are a people of philosophers,[172] and\nthe epigram of Heine, that they pray in metaphysics. Intuitively, the\nlawgiver and prophets of the Hebrew race had attained a conception of\nmonotheism to which the greatest of the Greek philosophers had hardly\nstruggled by reason. The Greeks had started with separate\nnature-powers, which they had finally resolved into a supreme\nnature-force; the Hebrews had started with the historical God of their\nfathers, whom they had universalized into the Creator of the world and\nFather of all the human race. Wellhausen has suggested that the\nintellectual development of Judaism with its tendency to become a\npurified monotheism moved in the same direction towards which Greek\nthought tended in its philosophical speculation of the universe. The\ndifference between the two conceptions of God, however, remained even\nin their universalized aspect; the one was an impersonal world-force,\nthe other a personal God in direct relation with individual man.\nElsewhere than in Jud\u00e6a, it has been well said, religious development\nreaches unity only by sacrificing personality. But the prophets, whose\nconception of God was imaginative rather than rational, preserved His\nnearness while expanding His sway. Israel, to use Philo's etymology,\nis the man who sees God,[173] and his religious genius gave to the\nworld a personal incorporeal Deity, who is both transcendent and\nimmanent, personal and yet above human conception. It is unnecessary\nto quote evidence of this view of the Godhead in the Bible, and it\nwould be superfluous to adduce passages from the rabbis, did they not\nbear a striking similarity to the words of Philo. God to them is not\nonly the Creator of the world, but also the Father of the world, the\nGovernor of the world, the Only One of the world, the Space of the\nworld, filling it as the soul fills the body.[174] Now, this Jewish\nconception of God is dominant in Philo. To him also God is not only\nthe Creator but the Father of the universe.[175] He is the One and the\nAll.[176] He is ever at rest, yet he outstrippeth everything, nearest\nto everyone, yet far removed, everywhere and nowhere, above and\noutside the universe, yet filling creation with Himself.[177] Philo\nloves to attach to the Deity these opposite predicates, for in this\nway alone can we form for ourselves some conception, however\ninadequate, of His Being. Strictly, God is unconditioned, and cannot\nbe the subject of predication, for all determination involves\nnegation, and hence in one aspect He is not conceivable nor\ndescribable, nor nameable.[178] Siegfried and Zeller press this\nnegative attitude to the Deity, and find that there is an inherent\ncontradiction in Philo's system, which ruins it, in that his God, upon\nwhom all depends and who is the object of all knowledge, is absolutely\nunknowable and unapproachable. But this is to take Philo according to\nthe strict letter to the neglect of the spirit, and to do that with\none so eloquent and so careless of verbal accuracy is utterly to\nmisunderstand him.\n\nThe Greek philosophers in their attempt to formulate an exact notion\nof the First Being by abstract metaphysics had, indeed, conceived it\nin this fashion; and Philo, harmonizing Greek metaphysics and Hebrew\nintuition, is drawn at times into a presentation of God which appears\nto deny His personality and make of Him an abstraction. What has been\nsaid of Spinoza is true no less of Philo.[179] \"The tendency to unity,\nto the infinite, to religion, overbalanced itself till, by its mere\nexcess, it seemed to be changed into its opposite. But this is not his\nspirit, only the dead ultimate result of an imperfect logic that\nconfuses an abstract with a concrete unity.\" In truth, the moment man\ntries to define his conception of God's essence in words, he either\nimpairs and perverts his idea, or he must use words that do not really\nmake the idea any clearer than it was unexpressed. Thus in the Hymn of\n[Hebrew: ygdl] the writer, versifying the creeds of Maimonides, seeks to\ndefine God: \"He is a Unity, but there is no Unity like His; He is\nhidden and there is no end to His oneness.\" But nobody can claim that\nthis gives any adequate conception of what he means; so, too, Philo,\nwhen he tries to analyze God's being metaphysically, only obscures the\nGod of his soul, who was the historical God of Israel.\n\nThe Hebraic God, like the Greek First Being, has no qualities, but\nunlike the other He has ethical attributes, and it is by these that we\nknow Him and by these that He is related to the universe and to man.\n\"Failing to comprehend Him in His essence we must aim at the next best\nthing, to comprehend Him as He is manifested to the world.\"[180] So in\nthe \"Hymn of Unity\" it is written, \"In images they told of Thee, but\nnot according to Thy essence! They but likened Thee in accordance with\nThy works.\"[181] And this is the manner in which Philo conceives Him:\n\"God's grace and goodness it is which are the causes of creation.\"[182]\n\"The just man, seeking the nature of all things, makes this most\nexcellent discovery, that all things are due to the grace of God.\" \"To\nthose who ask the origin of creation, one could most easily reply that\nit is the goodness and grace of God which He bestowed on the race that\nis after His image.\"[183] \"For all that is in the universe and the\nuniverse itself are the gift and bounty and grace of God.\"[184] Again,\n\"God is omnipotent; He could make all evil, but He wills only what is\nbest.\"[185] \"All is due to God's grace, though nothing is worthy of\nit;[186] but God looked to His own eternal goodness, and considered\nthat to do good befitted His own blessed and happy nature.\"\n\nPhilo's life-aim, as we have seen,[187] was to see God in all things\nand all things in God. He is the sole principle of being, exercising\ncontinuous causality; and yet He is always at rest, for His energy is\nthe expression of His being. \"He never ceases to create, for creation\nis as proper to Him as it is proper to fire to burn and to snow to\ncause cold.\"[188] Further, to Him all human activity and excellence\nare directly due. He fertilizes virtue by sending down the seed from\nHeaven,[189] and He brings forth wisdom from the human mind by His own\nDivine effluence. \"It is the distinctive feature of Jewish thought,\"\nsaid Spinoza, \"never to make account of particular and secondary\ncauses, but in a spirit of devotion, piety, and godliness to refer all\nthings directly to the Deity.\" No Jewish thinker ever applied this\nprinciple more thoroughly than Philo; and it gives an unique color to\nhis work in the history of ancient philosophy. All our lives are one\nunceasing miracle, due to the constant manifestation of God's power;\nand the miracles of the Bible are examples of the universal working of\nDivine care rather than exceptions from it.\n\nThe dominant feeling behind Greek thought is that man is the measure\nof all things: Plato, attacking the standpoint of his nation, had\ndeclared that God is the measure, and Philo repeats his maxim with a\nnew intensity. It means for him that man's mind is a fragment or\nparticle of the Divine universal mind, which, however, is impotent\ntill called into activity by the further Divine gift of inspiration.\nKnowledge and happiness, therefore, come not through God, but from\nGod.[190] \"The Divine Word streams down from the fount of wisdom, and\nwaters the plants of virtuous souls.\"[191] \"To God alone is it fitting\nto use the word 'my,'\"[192] or, put in another way, man has only the\nusufruct and God the ownership of his powers. Pride of intellect is\ntherefore a deadly sin, because it involves a false, incomplete idea\nof God, and true knowledge involves reverence. The ideal of the Greek\nsage, the independent reason, is a godless thing, and those in whom a\nknowledge of Greek philosophy produces intellectual pride are not\ndisciples of Divine Wisdom. In a fine passage Philo charges with\nhypocrisy those who talk in high-sounding language about the\nall-powerful Deity, and yet declare that by their own intellect they\ncan comprehend the world.[193] This was the attitude not only of the\nproud Stoic, but of certain kindred Jewish sects, which were subject\nto Greek influences, such as the Gnostics and the Cainites. And upon\nthem Philo appears to be pouring his wrath when he exclaims: \"How have\nyou the effrontery to go on making and listening to fine professions\nabout piety and the honor of God, when you have within you, forsooth,\nthe mind equal to God that comprehends all human things, and can\ncombine good and evil portions, giving to some a mixed, to others an\nunmixed lot? And when anybody accuses you of impiety, you brazenly\ndeclare that you belong to the school of that noble guide and teacher\nCain (_i.e._ insolent reason), who bade you pay honor to the secondary\nrather than the primary cause.\"\n\nPhilo has often been reproached with intellectualism, and excessive\nregard to acquired wisdom, and it may be urged that by his allegorical\nmethod he tried to find in the Bible the sanction of two degrees of\nreligious faith, the higher for the philosopher and the lower for the\nordinary man. At the same time, however, before his God he retains the\nchildlike simplicity of the most un-Hellenic rabbi, and the perfect\nhumility of the Hasid. His conviction of the dependence of all upon\nGod's grace is the perfect corrective of his intellectual\nexclusiveness. The idea of God as the unity which comprehends\neverything and causes everything is the great Jewish contribution to\nthought, and binds our literature together in all its manifestations.\nIt characterizes and unites the poetical utterance of the Bible\nprophets, the pious wisdom of the rabbis, the philosophical systems of\nPhilo and Maimonides.\n\nThe more sublime and exalted the conception of God, the more\nimperative became the need for the thinking Jew to explain how the\nperfect infinite Being came into relation with the imperfect finite\nworld of man and matter. How can the incorporeal God be the founder of\nthe material universe? How can the infinite mind be present in the\nfinite thought of man? How can the all-good Power be the creator of\nthe evil which we see in the material world and of the wickedness that\nflourisheth among men? These questions presented themselves to the\nIsraelite after he had consummated his marvellous religious intuition,\nand became the starting-point of a theology which is nascent in the\nWisdom literature of the Bible. Theology is the reasoning about God\nwhich follows always in the footsteps of religious certitude. First,\nman by his intuitive reason rises to some idea of the Godhead\nsatisfying to his emotion; next, by his discursive reason, he\nendeavors to justify that idea to his experience in analyzing God's\noperations. Renan, disposing sweepingly of a great question, declares\nthat the Jewish monotheism excluded any true theology. But, in fact,\nin Palestine, and still more in Alexandria from the third century\nB.C.E., Jewish thought had as one of its constant aims to develop a\ntheory of the operations of the one God in the world of material\nplurality. When the Jews came in contact with the cosmological\nmythology of Babylon, their God seemed to soar beyond the reach of\nmen, and they looked to powers nearer them to bridge the widening\ngulf. To some extent this aim engendered a modification in the\nreligious monotheism, and led to the interposition of intermediate\nconceptions between the Inconceivable and man. \"The whole angelology,\"\nsays Deutsch,[194] \"so strikingly simple before the Captivity and so\nwonderfully complex after it, owes its quick development in Babylonian\nsoil to some awe-stricken desire which grows with growing culture,\nremoving the inconceivable Being further and further from human touch\nor knowledge.\" Speaking generally, it may be said that reflection\nabout God's relations produced in Palestine the doctrine of angels, in\nAlexandria the doctrine of Wisdom and the Logos. At the same time the\nWisdom and the Word were not unknown to the Palestinian Midrash, and\nthe hierarchies of angels to the Alexandrian, for the suggestion of\nthe different subordinate powers had been evolved before the two\ntraditions had become independent. The doctrine of angels never indeed\nwon recognition from the rabbis, but it was for centuries an element\nof popular belief.\n\nMore philosophical than the doctrine of angels was the conception of\ndifferent attributes of God [Hebrew: mdot], which were different\nmanifestations of His activity, to the human mind separable and\ndistinguishable from each other, though absolutely they were\ninseparable aspects of the Godhead. Chief among these were the\nattribute of mercy and the attribute of justice, [Hebrew: mdt hrhmim]\nand [Hebrew: mdt hdin],[195] by which, according to a Midrash, Adam\nwas driven from Eden. And these conceptions, though distrusted by the\nSynagogue, entered into later parts of the Prayer Book. \"Attribute of\nMercy, reveal thyself for us; make our supplication to fall at the feet of\nThy Creator; and on behalf of Thy people beseech for mercy\"; thus runs\na fine prayer in the Ne'ilah service of the Day of Atonement, and many\nof the other Selihot prove the persistence of this development of\nJewish belief. The theory of Divine attributes was common to Palestine\nand Alexandria, and plays, as we shall see, an important part in\nPhilo's[196] thought; but the distinctive Hellenistic theology is the\nhypostasis of the Wisdom and the Word of God. In the Bible itself, and\nnotably in Proverbs, we find Wisdom personified--the first vague,\npoetical suggestion of a Jewish theology. As the Jews came into\ncontact with Hellenic influence, the tendency to develop the\npersonification into a power increased, and may be traced through the\nfirst flower of Gr\u00e6co-Jewish culture, the Wisdom literature. The Greek\nphilosophers had conceived the First Cause as a ruling Mind, or\nuniversal Reason, and influenced by this conception, yet loyal to\ntheir monotheistic faith, the Jewish writers of the Hellenistic age\nspoke of the Wisdom as the minister of God, the power by which He\nruled creation. The apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom\nof Solomon exhibit Wisdom passing from the poetical personification of\nthe Bible to the separate hypostasis of theology. In the verse of the\nBible sage, \"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her\nseven pillars\" (Prov. ix. 1), she is the creation of the purely\npoetical fancy, but in the Wisdom of Solomon she has become a link\nbetween Heaven and earth, the creation of the theologian's reflection.\n\"She reacheth from one end of the world to the other with strength,\nand ordereth all things graciously. She is settled by God on His\nthrone, and by her He made the world, by her the righteous were saved.\nShe watched over the father of the human race, and she delivered\nIsrael from Egypt.\" In Ecclesiasticus it is written, \"All Wisdom is\nfrom the Lord and is with Him forever. She cometh forth from the mouth\nof the Most High, and was created before all things. God having\nfashioned her from the beginning placed her over all His works. Then\nshe covered the earth as a mist, she pitched her tent in high places\nand her palace was in a pillar of cloud. She ministered in the\ntabernacle, and was established in Zion, in Jerusalem, the beloved\ncity.\" In similar strain, in the apocalyptic book of Enoch (xxx), God\nsays, \"On the sixth day I ordered My Wisdom to make man\"; and in the\nSibylline Oracles and Aristobulus she appears as the assessor of God\nwho ruleth over men.\n\nParallel with Wisdom, the Word of God was developed into something\nbetween a poetical image and a separate power. Again the development\nstarts from a Biblical metaphor. \"By the word of the Lord were the\nheavens created, and all their host by the breath of His mouth\" (Ps.\nxxxiii). \"God of our Fathers and Lord of Mercy, who didst make all\nthings by Thy word,\" says the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon.\nInspired again by the phrase of the Psalmist, \"He sent His word, and\nhealed them\" (Ps. cvi. 20), he hymns the Divine Logos as the\nall-powerful emissary doing God's bidding among men. \"It was neither\nherb nor emollient that cured Israel in the wilderness (when bitten by\nthe fiery scorpions), but Thy Logos, O Lord, which heals all things.\"\nLater, when he describes the destruction of the first-born in Egypt,\nhe rises in a p\u00e6an to a finer poetical flight: \"When tranquil silence\nfolded all things, and night in her own swiftness was in the midst of\nher course, Thy all-powerful Logos leaped from heaven, from his royal\nthrone, a stern warrior into the midst of the doomed land, bearing as\na sharp sword Thy Divine commandment, and having taken his stand\nfilled all things with death: and he touched heaven and walked upon\nearth.\" The Jewish poet, rejecting the idea that the perfect God could\ndescend to earth and slay men, brushes away the anthropomorphism of\nthe Bible, and summons from his mind this creation mixed of Hebrew\nimagination and Greek reason. So, too, Onkelos, wherever activity upon\nearth was ascribed to God, wrote, in his translation (Targum) of\nScripture, \"the word of the Lord,\" and for the material hand he\nsubstituted the more abstract might. The same development,[197] under\nthe names of Memra and (less frequently) of [Hebrew: dbor], shows that\nthe word-agent of God appealed to certain of the rabbis in their\ndesire to explain away, on the one hand, expressions in the Bible\nwhich seemed to invest the Deity with corporeal qualities, and, on the\nother, so to divide His infinite perfection as to make His presence\nimmanent upon earth.\n\nThe teachers at Alexandria were above all others induced to develop\nthe Word into the active power, since they seemed thereby to find in\nthe Bible a remarkable anticipation of Greek philosophy. The Greek\nLogos, by which \"the Word\" was translated in the Septuagint, meant\nalso thought and reason, and during the Hellenistic age was the\nregular term by which the philosophical schools expressed the\nimpersonal world-force which governed all things. The Logos idea among\nthe Jews was a modification of intuitive and na\u00efve monotheism; among\nthe Greeks it was a step upwards, demanded by reason, from polytheism\nto a monistic view of the universe. By the first century its\nrecognition as the ruling power in both the physical and moral\nuniverse had become a point of union in all philosophical schools--the\ncommon stamp of philosophical theology. Between the Semitic\nministerial word uttered by a personal Being and the Greek pantheistic\ngoverning reason, there was probably an early connection, due to\nEastern influences which operated upon the founders of Greek\nphilosophy, which later schools lost sight of. When the Hebrew\nScriptures were translated, the two coalesced more fruitfully in the\nGreek term Logos, and a point of union was provided between the\nphilosophical and the Jewish theology. Moreover the local Egyptian\ninfluence aided the union, for the god Thoth was also identified with\nthe Logos, which thus appeared as a religious conception common to all\nraces, the basis of a universal creed. And besides the world-reason of\nthe philosophers, another Greek influence no doubt tended to further\nthe development of the Logos in Jewish thought. One of the most marked\ncharacteristics of the Hellenistic age is the renascence of wonder at\nthe institutions of human life, and more especially at numbers and\nspeech.\n\nNumbers were held to contain the essence of things, and the marvellous\npowers of four, seven, and ten received honor from all sects and\nschools. Words, too, were regarded almost as a mystic power, distinct\nfrom thought, incorporeal things which made thought real and gave it\nexpression. The mystical susceptibility of Philo to the power of\nnumbers has been noticed by every critic and exaggerated by not a few;\nhis mystical valuation of words and speech, though far more important\nin his thought, has been commonly passed over. The analysis which\nGreek writers made of the relation between the mental thought, the\nsound which utters it, and the mind which thinks it, was invested with\nspecial importance for the Jewish thinker, who transferred it from the\nhuman to the Divine sphere. He applied it to interpret the constant\nBiblical phrases \"and God said\" or \"and God spoke,\" according to\nnotions in which philosophy and theology are mixed; and propounded a\nmystic idealism and a mystic cosmology, in which God's thought or\ncomprehensive Word becomes the archetype of the visible universe, His\nsingle words the substantive universe and the laws of nature. A\ncentury before Philo, Aristobulus--assuming the genuineness of his\nFragments--wrote:[198] \"We must understand the Word of God, not as a\nspoken word, but as the establishment of actual things, seeing that we\nfind throughout the Torah that Moses has declared the whole creation\nto be words of God.\" Philo, following his predecessor, says, \"God\nspeaks not words but things,\"[199] and, again, commenting on the first\nchapter of Genesis, \"God, even as He spake, at the same moment\ncreated.\"[200] And of human speech he has this pretty conceit a little\nbefore: \"Into the mouth there enter food and drink, the perishable\nfood of a perishable body; out of it issue words, immortal laws of an\nimmortal soul, by which rational life is guided.\"[201] If human speech\nis \"immortal law,\" much more is the speech of God. His words are ideas\nseen by the eye of the soul, not heard by the ear.[202] The ten\ncommandments given at Sinai were \"ideas\" of this incorporeal nature,\nand the voice that Israel heard was no voice such as men possess, but\nthe [Hebrew: shkina], the Divine Presence itself, which exalted the\nmultitude.[203] Philo is here expanding and developing Jewish\ntradition. In the \"Ethics of the Fathers\" (v) we read: \"By ten words\nwas the world created\"; and in the pages of the Midrash the [Hebrew:\nbt-kol], i.e._, the mystic emanation of the Deity, which revealed itself\nafter the spirit of prophecy had ceased to be vouchsafed, is credited\nwith wondrous and varied powers, now revealing the Decalogue, now\nperforming some miracle, now appearing in a vision to the blessed, now\nprophesying the future fate of the race to a pious rabbi. The\nfertilizing stream of Greek philosophical idealism nourished the\ngrowth of the Jewish pious imagination, and in the Logos of Philo the\nfruit matured. It is idle to try to formulate a single definite notion\nof Philo's Logos. For it is the expression of God in all His multiple\nand manifold activity, the instrument of creation, the seat of ideas,\nthe world of thought which God first established as the model of the\nvisible universe, the guiding providence, the sower of virtue, the\nfount of wisdom, described sometimes in religious ecstasy, sometimes\nin philosophical metaphysics, sometimes in the spirit of the mystical\npoet. Of his last manner let us take a specimen singled out by a\nChristian and a Jewish theologian as of surprising beauty. Commenting\non the verse of the Psalmist, \"The river of God is filled with water,\"\nPhilo declares that it is absurd to call any earthly stream the river\nof God.\n\n     \"The poet clearly refers to the Divine Logos that is full of\n     the fountain of wisdom, and is in no part itself empty. Nay,\n     it is diffused through the universe, and is raised up on\n     high. In another verse the Psalmist says, 'The course of the\n     river gladdens the city of God.' And in truth the continuous\n     rush of the Divine Logos is borne along with eager but\n     regular onset, and overflows and gladdens all things. In one\n     sense he calls the world the city of God, for it has\n     received the 'full cup' of the Divine draught, and has\n     quaffed a perpetual, eternal joy. But in another sense he\n     gave this name to the soul of the wise, wherein God is said\n     to walk as in a city. And who can pour out the sacred\n     measures of their joy to the blissful soul which holds out\n     the holy cup, that is its own reason, save the Logos, the\n     cupbearer of God, the master of the feast? Nor is the Logos\n     cupbearer only, but it is itself the pure draught, itself\n     the joy and exultation, itself the pouring forth and the\n     delight, itself the ambrosial philtre and potion of\n     bliss.\"[204]\n\nThrough the luxury of metaphor and imagination one may discern the\nunderlying thought of the mystic writer, that the Logos is the\neffluence of God, either in the whole universe or the individual man,\nfilling the one as the other with the Divine Shekinah. It is the link\nwhich joins God and man, the ladder of Jacob's dream, which stretches\nfrom Heaven to earth.[205] That man can attain the Divine state by the\nhelp of God's effluence was a cardinal thought of Philo's; this,\nindeed, is the form in which he conceives the Messianic hope. God does\nnot come down to earth incarnate in man's form, but God's active\ninfluence possesses the soul of man, and makes it live with God, and\nif man be peculiarly blessed, carries it up to the ineffable Spirit.\nSimilarly his idea of the Messiah is more spiritual than that of the\npopular belief. The ascent of man to God's height, not the descent of\nGod to man's level, will produce the age of universal peace.\n\nThere are various degrees of the Divine influence, stretching from\ncomplete possession by the Deity Himself to the advent of single\nDivine thoughts. These Philo regards as [Greek: logoi], words or\nthoughts--for he does not clearly distinguish between the two--and he\nresolves the realistic angels of the Bible into this spiritual\nconception.[206] Thus he says, \"the place\" where Jacob alighted and\nhad the vision (Gen. xxvii. 11) is the symbol of the perfect\ncontemplation of God; the angels which he saw ascending and descending\nare the inferior light of Divine precepts. These thoughts are\ncontinually vouchsafed to all of us, prompting us to noble actions,\ncomforting us in times of sadness, inspiring lofty ideas.\n\n     \"Up and down through the whole soul the Logoi of God move\n     without end; when they ascend, drawing it up with them, and\n     severing it from the mortal part, and showing only the\n     vision of ideal things; but when they descend, not casting\n     it down, but descending with it from humanity or compassion\n     towards our race, so as to give assistance and help, in\n     order that, inspiring what is noble, they may revive the\n     soul which is borne along on the stream of the body.\"[207]\n\nConversely, the rabbis taught that from each word that proceeded from\nthe mouth of God an angel was created, as it is said: \"By the word of\nthe Lord the Heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath\nof His mouth.\"[208]\n\nApart from these sudden and occasional emanations of the Divine\nSpirit, the individual man has within him a permanent Divine Logos by\nwhich he may direct his conduct aright. Viewed in this aspect, the\nLogos, _i.e._, the activity of God, is conscience, the Judge in the\nsoul, which is the true man dwelling within,[209] ruler and king,\njudge and arbiter, witness and accuser, correcting and restraining.\nRising to bolder personification, Philo, who loves to present a\nspiritual thought in a concrete image, calls it the undefiled high\npriest in us.[210] In this power he finds a sure refutation of\nskepticism; for in virtue of the Divine voice man may secure moral\ncertitude: and he finds also a philosophical value for popular\nsuperstition. It was a common notion of the pagans as well as\nthe Jews of the time that an intermediate order of beings passed\nbetween heaven and earth and brought supernatural aid to men; and also\nthat a familiar spirit, or D\u00e6mon, dwelt within the soul of each man.\nThe finer spirit of Philo resolves the attendant D\u00e6mon and the\nmessenger-d\u00e6mons or angels into the spiritual effluences of the one\nDeity; save for a few places where he makes a pose of agreement with\npopular notions and speaks of winged denizens of Heaven[211] who\ndescend to earth, he habitually expounds angels as inward revelations\nof God.\n\nAs the revelation of God to the individual is a Logos, so, too, is his\nrevelation to the whole of mankind. It was pointed out in the last\nchapter that Philo identified the Torah with the law of nature, and he\ndid this by regarding it as the Divine Logos. The more perfect\nemanation of God is in one view the power by which He directs the\nphysical creation, in another the perfect law which He set up as the\nmodel of conduct for His highest creatures. The rabbis, indeed, were\nprone to glorify the law as the primal creation of God, and the\ninstrument of all the later creations, [Hebrew: kli hmra shbu gbrao\nshmim].[212] They speak of it as the light, the pillar, and the bond\nof the universe, the model whereon the architect looked;[213] and Philo\namplifies this simple poetical concept and develops it afresh in the\nlight of Greek idealistic and cosmical notions,[214] so that the Torah,\nas the Logos of God, is equated with the source of all being, wisdom, and\nknowledge, with the ideal world which is the archetype of the\nmaterial, and with all the law and order of nature. And as the Torah\nis the Logos, so also its particular precepts are Logoi.\n\nIt seems difficult to trace the unity among all these different\naspects of the \"Word,\" but in fact they are only different expressions\nof the Divine activity in the universe. All these are comprehended in\nthe Logos, and then again divided out of it, so that it is, as it\nwere, a crystal prism reflecting the light of the Godhead in a myriad\ndifferent ways. One curious illustration of the universal sense in\nwhich Philo understood the Logos is his interpretation of the manna;\nit is typical also of his manner of exegesis and his habit of\nspiritualizing the material. It is related in Exodus (xvi. 15) that\nwhen the Israelites saw the heavenly food they exclaimed [Hebrew: mn\nhu'], \"What is it?\" and hence the food obtained its name of manna. Now the\nGreek Septuagint word for [Hebrew: mn] is [Greek: ti], which means not\nonly \"what\" but \"anything.\" Philo sees in the gift of the heavenly\nfood a symbol of the inspiration of the chosen people by the Divine\nLogos, and says that the Logos is rightly called manna, _i.e._,\nanything, because it is the \"most generic of all things, and that by\nwhich man may be nourished.\"[215]\n\nThe central thought of Philo's system is that God is immanent in all\nHis work; but it would seem to him sacrilegious to apply to the\nGodhead itself this universal, unceasing activity, and so he develops\nthe Logos as the most ideal attribute of the Deity, and the sum of all\nHis immanence and effluence. He preferred the Logos to the older\nWisdom, probably because he could by this conception bring his idea of\nGod into closer relation with Greek philosophical notions, for already\nthe Hellenistic world had come spontaneously to revere the cosmical\nLogos. Only Philo gave to the expression of their physical and\nmetaphysical speculation a religious warmth new to it, when he\nassociated it with the word uttered by the personal God. Philosophy,\ntheology, and religion were all joined and harmonized in his\nconception.\n\nIf we have followed thus far the spirit of Philo aright, the Logos is\nonly the immanent manifestation of the One God, who is both\ntranscendental and immanent, metaphorically, not metaphysically,\nseparate. In other words, it is the complete aspect of God as He\nreveals Himself to the world. Above it and including it is the being\nor essence of God, seen in Himself, and not in relation to His outward\nactivity. But it is often suggested that the Logos appears to Philo as\na second God, subordinate, indeed, to the Supreme Being, but yet a\nseparate personality. It is said, with truth, that he speaks of it as\na person, now calling it king, priest, primal man, the first-born son\nof God, even the second God, and identifying it at other times with\nsome personal being, Melchizedek or Moses, and apostrophizing it as\nman's helper, guide, and advocate.[216] Now we have reason to think\nthat Gnostic sects of Jews, both in Alexandria and in Palestine, were\nat this time tending towards the division of the Godhead into separate\npowers. The heresy of \"Minut,\" frequently mentioned in the Talmud,\nconsisted originally, in the opinion of modern scholars, of a Gnostic\nditheism;[217] and during the latter part of the first century and\nthereafter we hear of sects in Egypt and Syria which supported similar\ntheories. Theology here produced its fantastic offspring theosophy,\nand the followers of the esoteric wisdom let their speculations carry\nthem away from the cardinal principle of Judaism. Influenced by\nEgyptian speculation, they imagined an incarnation of the Divine\nSpirit, and in the mystical thought of the day they adumbrated\ntheories of virgin birth.\n\nNow these prototypes of Christian belief had undoubtedly manifested\nthemselves at Alexandria in Philo's day. His treatises show traces of\nthem,[218] and the question is whether he countenanced them or tried\nto summon the theosophists of his generation back to the true Jewish\nconception of God. Certain Christian and philosophical critics of\nPhilo, for whom the wish was perhaps father to the thought, have found\nin Philo's Logos a conception which is at times impersonal, at times\npersonal, at times an aspect of the One God, and at times a second\nindependent God. If we take Philo literally, this certainly is the\ncase. But let it be clearly understood, this interpretation not only\ninvolves Philo in inconsistency, but it utterly ruins and destroys his\nreligious and philosophical system. It means that the champion of\nJewish monotheism wanders into a vague ditheism. And in view of this,\nthe modern commentators of Philo, notably Professor Drummond,[219]\nhave examined his words more carefully and studied them in relation to\ntheir context; and they have shown how, judged in this critical\nfashion, the personality of the Logos is only figurative. It is,\nindeed, probable that certain extreme passages, where the Logos is\npresented most explicitly as a separate Deity, are due to\nChristological interpolation. The Church Fathers found in the popular\nbelief in the Divine Word a remarkable support of the Trinity, and\nregarding, as they did, Philo's writings as valuable testimony to the\ntruth of Christianity, they had every temptation to bring his passages\nabout the Logos still closer to their ideas. And between the first and\nthe fifth century, when we first hear from Eusebius of manuscripts of\nPhilo at the Christian monastery of C\u00e6sarea--from which we can trace\nour texts in direct line--there was no high standard in dealing with\nancient authorities. It is the Christian teachers who preserved Philo,\nand they preserved him not as scholars but as missioners. The best\neditors have recognized that our text has been interfered with by\nevidenced-making scribes, as where a passage about the new Jerusalem\nappears, agreeing almost word for word with the picture of\nRevelations. Similarly, not a few passages about the Logos are\nprobably spurious.[220]\n\nYet, even when we have expurgated our text of Philo, there remain, it\nwill be said, numerous passages where the Logos is spoken of and\napostrophized as a person. This is so, but the conclusion which is\ndrawn, that the Logos is regarded as a second deity, is unjustifiable.\nThe Jewish mind from the time of the prophets unto this day has\nthought in images and metaphors, and the personification of the Logos\nis only the most striking instance of Philo's regular habit of\npersonifying all abstract ideas. The allegorical habit particularly\nconduces to this, for as persons are constantly resolved into ideas,\nso ideas come to be naturally represented as persons. There are thus\ntwo steps in Philo's theology, which seem to some extent to counteract\neach other; in the first place, he resolves the concrete physical\nexpressions of the Bible into spiritual ideas, in the second he\nportrays those ideas in pictorial language and clothes them in\npersonifications. The allegorizer requires an allegorist to interpret\nhim aright.\n\nNor must it be forgotten that Philo was preaching spiritual monotheism\nnot only to Jews, but also to the Hellenic world, for whom it was a\nvast bound from their naturalistic polytheism. Zealous as he was for\nthe pure faith, he realized that mankind could not attain it directly,\nbut must approach it by conceptions of the One God gradually\nincreasing in profundity and truth. The Greek thinkers had\napproximated closest to the Hebraic God-idea when they conceived one\nsupreme, immanent reason in the universe; and Philo, in carrying his\naudiences beyond this to the transcendent-immanent Being, transformed\nthe Greek cosmical concept into a Divine power of the One Being. For\nthe true believer this is the stepping-stone to the perfect idea. \"The\nLogos,\" he says, \"is the God of us imperfect people, but the true\nsages worship the One Being.\"[221] And, again, \"The imperfect have as\ntheir law the holy Logos.\"[222] And in this sense, it is \"intermediate\n([Greek: methorios]) between God and man.\"[223] What such passages\nmean is that the separation of the Logos is a stage in man's progress\nup to the true idea of God. It is a second-best Deity, so to say,\nrather than a second Deity; for those who regard the Logos as God have\nno conception at all of the perfect Being of which it is only the\nprincipal attribute.\n\nThe theology of Philo is characterized throughout by a tolerant and\nphilosophical grasp of the difficulty of pure monotheism, and of the\nnecessity of a long intellectual searching before the goal can be\nattained. To declare the Unity of God is simple enough; to have a real\nconception of it is a very different and a very difficult thing. And\nPhilo's theology has a two-fold aim, in which either part complements\nthe other. It explains, on the one hand, how God is revealed to the\nworld through His powers or attributes or modes of activity, and, on\nthe other, how man can ascend to an ecstatic union with the Real Being\nthrough comprehension of those powers. By the ideal ladder which\nbrings down God to earth, man can climb again to Heaven. The three\nchief rungs of the ladder are the attributes of creation, and of\nruling power, and the Logos. The perfect unity of the Godhead is not,\nof course, properly the subject of attributes, but the limited mind of\nman so conceives it for its own understanding, and speaks of God's\njustice, God's goodness, God's wisdom. These are, to use philosophical\nterminology, categories of the religious understanding, which are\nfinally resolved by the perfect sage in \"the synthetic apperception of\nUnity.\"\n\nPhilo follows what may have been a Hebrew tradition in explaining the\ntwo names of God, \"Elohim\" and \"Jehovah,\" as connoting His two chief\nattributes: (1) the creative or beneficent, (2) the ruling or\njudicial, or, as it is sometimes called, the law-giving power.[224]\nNames, as we know, were always regarded by Philo as profound symbols,\nand naturally the names of God are of vital import; and the twofold\nexpression for the Hebrew Deity, of which the higher critics have made\nmuch destructive use, was noticed by the earliest commentators, but\nmade the basis by them of a constructive theology. The ruling and the\ncreative attributes of God are outlined and contained in the highest\nmode of all, the Logos, \"the reason of God in every phase and form of\nit that is discoverable and realizable by man.\" For by the Logos, God\nis both ruler and good.[225] This is the profound interpretation of\nthe story in Genesis, that \"God placed at the east of the garden of\nEden the two Cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to\nkeep the way of the tree of life\" (Gen. iv. 24). The Cherubim are the\nsymbols of the powers of majesty and goodness; the flaming sword is\nthe Logos; \"because,\" says our author quaintly, \"all thought and\nspeech are the most mobile and the most ardent (_i.e._, the most\nintensive) of things, and especially the thought and speech of the\nonly Principle.\"[226]\n\nTo correspond with the descending attributes of God we have the\nascending dispositions of man towards Him, fear, love, and thirdly\ntheir synthesis in loving knowledge. When we are in the first stage of\nreligion we obey the law in hope of reward or fear of punishment; when\nwe have progressed higher in thought, we worship God as the good\nCreator; when we have ascended one further stage, we surpass both fear\nand love in an emotion which combines them, realizing, as Browning\nputs it, that \"God is law and God is love.\" In illustration of this\nscheme of Philo's we may examine two passages out of his philosophical\ncommentary. In the first he is commenting upon the appearance of the\nthree angels to Abraham as he sat outside his tent (Gen. xviii).[227]\nAnd, by the way, it may be remarked that the Midrash commenting on\nthis passage notes that it begins, \"And the Lord appeared unto\nAbraham,\" and then continues, \"And he lifted up his eyes and looked,\nand, lo, three men stood before him.\" Hence we may learn that it was\nreally the one God who appeared to the Patriarch, and that the three\nangels were but a vision of his mind. This is the dominant note of\nPhilo's interpretation, but he as usual elaborates the old Midrash\nphilosophically.\n\n     \"The words,\" he says, \"are symbols of things apprehended by\n     intelligence alone--the soul receives a triple expression of\n     one being, of which one is the representative of the actual\n     existent, and the other two are shadows, as it were, cast\n     from this. So it happens also in the physical world, for\n     there often occur two shadows of bodies at rest or in\n     motion. Let no one suppose, however, that shadow is properly\n     used in relation to God. It is only a popular use of words\n     for the clearer understanding of our subject. The reality is\n     not so, but, as one standing nearest to the truth might say,\n     the middle one is the Father of the universe, who is called\n     in Scripture the 'Self-existent'; and those on either side\n     of Him are the two oldest and chief powers, the Creative and\n     the Regal. The middle one, then, being attended by the\n     others as by a bodyguard, presents to the contemplative mind\n     a mental image or representation now of one and now of\n     three; of one whenever the soul, being properly purified and\n     perfectly initiated, rises to the idea which is unmingled\n     and free from limitation, and requires nothing to complete\n     it; but of three whenever it has not yet been initiated into\n     the great mysteries, and still celebrates the lesser rites,\n     unable to apprehend the Being in itself without\n     modification, but apprehending it through its modes as\n     either creating or ruling. This is, as the proverb says, a\n     second-best course, but yet it partakes of godlike opinion.\n     But the former does not partake of--for it _is_ itself--the\n     Godlike opinion, or rather it is truth, which is more\n     precious than all opinion.\n\n     \"Further, there are three classes of human character, to\n     each of which one of the three conceptions of God has been\n     assigned. The best class goes with the first, the conception\n     of the absolute Being; the next goes with the conception of\n     Him as a Benefactor, in virtue of which He is called God;\n     the third with the conception of Him as a Ruler, in virtue\n     of which He is called Lord. The noblest character serves Him\n     who is in all the purity of His absolute Being; it is\n     attracted by no other thing or aspect, but is solely and\n     intently devoted to the honor of the one and only Being; the\n     second is brought to the knowledge of the Father through His\n     beneficent power; the third through His regal power.\"\n\nIn the second passage, which occurs in the treatise on flight from the\nworld,[228] Philo is allegorizing the law about founding six cities of\nrefuge (Exodus xxxii). These are but material symbols for the six\nstages of the ascent of the mind to the pure God-idea. The chief city,\nthe metropolis, is the Divine Logos, next come the two powers already\nconsidered, and then three secondary powers, the retributive, the\nlaw-giving, and the prohibitive. \"Very beautiful and well-fenced\ncities they are, worthy refuges of souls that merit salvation.\" Each\nof these cities is an aspect of the religious mind; when it settles in\nthe first it obeys the law from fear of punishment and thinks of God\nas the Judge; in the second it observes the precepts in hope of reward\nand conceives God as the legislator of a fixed code; in the next it is\nrepentant and throws itself on God's grace, marking the first step of\nthe spiritual life. Then it ascends in order to the idea of God as the\ngovernor of the universe, and the emotion which the rabbis called\n[Hebrew: yrat shmim], the fear of Heaven; and to the idea of God as the\nCreator and the universal Providence, which has as its emotional\nreflex the love of Heaven, [Hebrew: 'hbt shmim].\n\nBut even this, which is the highest stage for many men, is not an\nadequate conception. Above it is the contemplation of God, apart from\nall manifestations in the perceptible world, in His ideal nature, the\nLogos, which at once transcends and comprehends the universe. And the\nattitude of this man can be best expressed perhaps by Spinoza's\nphrase, \"the intellectual love of God,\" _amor intellectualis Dei_. The\nworshipper of the Logos has grasped and has harmonized all the\nmanifestations of the Deity; he sees and honors all things in God; he\ncomprehends the universe as the perfect manifestation of one good\nBeing.\n\nIs this the highest point which man can reach? Many religious\nphilosophers have held that it is, but Philo, the mystic, yearning to\ntrack out God \"beyond the utmost bound of human thought,\" imagines one\nhigher condition. The Logos is only the image or the shadow of the\nGodhead.[229] Above it is the one perfect reality, the transcendent\nEssence. Now, man cannot by any intellectual effort attain knowledge\nof the Infinite as He truly is, for this is above thought. But to a\nfew blessed mortals God of His grace vouchsafes a mystic vision of His\nnature. Thus Moses, the perfect hierophant, had this perfect\napprehension, and passed from intellectual love to holy adoration. And\nthe true philosopher has as the goal of his aspirations the\nheaven-sent ecstasy, in which he sees God no longer through His\neffects, or in the modes of His activity, but through Himself in His\nown essence. The philosopher, when he receives this vision ([Greek:\nepopteia]) is possessed by the Shekinah,[230] and, losing\nconsciousness of his individuality, becomes at one with God.\n\nSo much for Philo's theory of man's upward progress. We may add a word\nabout his treatment of the problem which troubled thinkers in that\nage, and which has harassed theologians ever since, viz., to show how\npunishment and evil could be derived from a God who was all-powerful\nand all-good. The Gnostics were driven by the difficulty to imagine an\nevil world-power, which was in incessant conflict with the Good God:\nand popular belief had conjured up a legion of subordinate powers, who\ntook part in the work of creation and the government of the world.\nWhen Philo is speaking popularly, he accepts this current theology and\nspeaks also of a punitive power of God[231] ([Greek: dunamis\nkolastik\u00ea]); but not when he is the philosopher. For then, in\nperfect faith, he denies the absolute existence of evil. \"It is\nneither in Paradise nor indeed anywhere whatsoever.\"[232] Man,\nhowever, by his free will causes evil in the human sphere; and when\nGod formed in man a rational nature capable of choosing for itself,\nmoral evil became the necessary contrary of good.[233] Moreover, the\npunitive activity of God, though it seems to cause suffering and\nmisery, is in truth a good, simulating evil, and if men judged the\nuniversal process as a whole, they would find it all good. The\nexistence of evil involves no derogation from the perfect unity of\nGod.\n\nIf we have understood correctly Philo's theology, neither Logos, nor\nsubordinate powers, nor angels, nor demons have an objective\nexistence; they are mere imaginings of varying incompleteness which\nthe limited minds of men, \"moving in worlds not realized,\" make for\nthemselves of the one and only true God. Philo's theology is the\nphilosophical treatment of Jewish tradition, just as Philo's legal\nexegesis is the philosophical treatment of the Torah. While\nmaintaining and striving to deepen the conception of God's unity, he\naims at expounding to the reason how, on the one hand, that unity is\nrevealed in the world about us, and how, on the other, we may advance\nto its true comprehension. It was, however, unfortunate that Philo\nexpressed his theology in the current language, which was vague and\ninexact, and adapted certain foreign theosophical ideas to Judaism;\nhence succeeding generations, paying regard to the pictorial\nrepresentation rather than to the principles of his thought, sought\nand found in him evidence of theories of Divine government to which\nJudaism was pre-eminently opposed. The first chapter of the Fourth\nGospel shows that gradual process of thought which finally made the\nLogos doctrine the antithesis of Judaism. In the first verse we have a\nthought which might well have been written by Philo himself: \"In the\nbeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was\nGod.\" But in the fourteenth verse there is manifest the sharp\ncleavage: \"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we\nbeheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,\nfull of grace and truth.\" There may be a fine spiritual thought\nbeneath the letter here, but the notion of the Incarnation is not\nJewish, nor philosophical, nor Philonic. Philo's work was made to\nserve as the guide of that Christian Gnosticism which, within the next\nhundred years, proclaimed that Judaism was the work of an evil God,\nand that the essential mission of Jesus--the good Logos--was to\ndethrone Jehovah! But though the Logos conception was turned to\nnon-Jewish and anti-Jewish purposes, it was in Philo the offspring of\na pure and philosophical monotheism. Whatever the later abuse of his\nteaching, Philo constructed a theology which, though affected by\nforeign influences, was essentially true to Judaism; and more than\nthat, he was the first to weave the Jewish idea of God into the\nworld's philosophy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nPHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER\n\n\nSave for a few monographs of no great importance, because of the\nabsence of original thought, Philo's works form avowedly an exegesis\nof the Bible and not a series of philosophical writings. Nor must the\nreader expect to find an ordered system of philosophy in his separate\nworks, much more than in the writings of the rabbis. As Professor\nCaird says,[234] \"The Hebrew mind is intuitive, imaginative, incapable\nof analysis or systematic connection of ideas.\" Philo's philosophical\nconceptions lie scattered up and down his writings, \"strung on the\nthread of the Bible narrative which determines the sequence of his\nthoughts.\" Nevertheless, though he has not given us explicit treatises\non cosmology, metaphysics, ethics, psychology, etc., and though he was\nincapable of close logical thinking, he has treated all these subjects\nsuggestively and originally in the course of his commentary, and his\nreaders may gather together what he has dispersed, and find a\nco-ordinated body of religious philosophy. However loosely they are\nset forth in his treatises, his ideas are closely connected in his\nmind. Herein he differs from his Jewish predecessors, for the notion\nof the old historians of the Alexandrian movement, that there was a\nsystematic Jewish philosophy before Philo, does not appear to have\nbeen well-founded. All that Aristeas and Aristobulus and the\nApocryphal authors had done was to assimilate certain philosophemes to\ntheir religious ideas; they had not re-interpreted the whole system of\nphilosophy from a Jewish point of view or traced an independent\nsystem, or an eclectic doctrine in the Holy Scriptures. This was the\nachievement of Philo. His thought is not original in the sense of\npresenting a new scheme of philosophy, but it is original in the sense\nof giving a fresh interpretation to the philosophical ideas of his age\nand environment. He ranges them under a new principle, puts them in a\nnew light, and combines them in a new synthesis. This again is\ncharacteristic of the Jewish mind. Intent on God, it does not endeavor\nto make its own analysis of the universe by independent reasoning, but\nit utilizes the systems of other nations and endeavors to harmonize\nthem with its religious convictions. Hence it is that nearly all\nJewish philosophy appears to be eclectic; its writers have ranged\nthrough the fields of thought of many schools and culled flowers from\neach, which they bind together into a crown for their religion. They\ndo not, with few exceptions, pursue philosophy with the purpose of\nwidening the borders of secular knowledge; but rather in order to\nbring the light of reason to illuminate and clarify faith, to\nharmonize Judaism with the general culture of its environment, and to\nrevivify belief and ceremony with a new interpretation. All this\napplies to our worthy, but at the same time he was a philosopher at\nheart, because he believed that the knowledge of God came by\ncontemplation as well as by practice, and, further, because he had a\nfirm faith in the universalism of Judaism; and he believed that this\nuniversal religion must comprehend all that is highest and truest in\nhuman thought. Like most Jewish philosophers he is synthetic rather\nthan analytic, believing in intuition and distrusting the discursive\nreason, careless of physical science and soaring into religious\nmetaphysics. Again, like most Jewish philosophers, he is deductive,\nstarting with a synthesis of all in the Divine Unity, and making no\nfresh inductions from phenomena. It has been said that, though Philo\nwas a philosopher and a Jew, yet Saadia was the first Jewish\nphilosopher. But Philo's philosophical ideas are in complete harmony\nwith his Judaism; and if by the criticism it is meant that most of the\ncontent of his works is based upon Greek models, it is true on the\nother hand that the spirit which pervades them is essentially Jewish,\nand that by the new force which he breathed into it he reformed and\ngave a new direction to the Greek philosophy of his age.\n\nPhilo's philosophy is certainly eclectic in some degree, and we find\nin it ideas taken from the schools of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras,\nand the Stoics. Its fixed point was his theology, and wherever he\nfinds anything to support this he adapts it to his purpose. He\napproached philosophy from a position opposed to that of the Greeks:\nthey brought a questioning and free mind to the problems of the\nuniverse; he comes full of religious preconceptions. Yet in this lies\nhis strength as well as his limitation, for he gains thus a point of\ncertainty and a clear end, which other eclectic systems of the day did\nnot possess. He welds together all the different elements of his\nthought in the heat of his passion for God. His cosmology and his\nontology are a philosophical exposition of the Jewish conception of\nGod's relation to the universe, his ethics and his psychology of the\nJewish conception of man's relation to God.\n\nThe religious preconceptions of Philo drew him to Plato above all\nother philosophers, so that his thought is essentially a religious\ndevelopment of Platonism. It is not too much to say that Philo's work\nhas a double function, to interpret the Bible according to Platonic\nphilosophy and to interpret Plato in the spirit of the Bible. The\nagreement was not the artificial production of the commentator, for in\ntruth Plato was in sympathy with the religious conscience as a whole.\nThe contrast between Hellenism and Hebraism is true, if we restrict it\nto the average mind of the two races. The one is intent on things\nsecular, the other on God. But the greatest genius of the Hellenic\nrace, influenced perhaps by contact with Oriental peoples, possessed,\nin a remarkable degree, the Hebraic spirit, which is zealous for God\nand makes for righteousness. Plato was not only a great philosopher,\nbut also a great theologian, a great religious reformer, and a great\nprophet, the most perfectly developed mind which the world, ancient or\nmodern, has known. His \"Ideas,\" which are the archetypes of sensible\nthings, were not only logical concepts but also a kingdom of Heaven\nconnected with the human individual by the Divine soul. And as he grew\nolder so his religious feeling intensified, and he translated his\nphilosophy into theology and positive religion. Platonism, it has been\nwell said, is a temper as much as a doctrine; it is the spirit that\nturns from the earth to Heaven, from creation to God. In his last\nwork, \"The Laws,\" wherein he designs a theocratic state, which has\nstriking points of resemblance with the Jewish polity, he says: \"The\nconclusion of the matter is this, which is the fairest and truest of\nall sayings, that for the good man to sacrifice and hold converse with\nthe Deity by means of prayers and service of every kind is the noblest\nthing of all and the most conducive to a happy life, and above all\nthings fitting.\"[235]\n\nThis is typical of Plato's attitude towards life in his old age; and\nfurther, his metaphysical system of monistic idealism is the most\nremarkable approach to Hebrew monotheism which the Greek world made.\nThe Patristic writers in the first centuries of the Christian era were\nso struck by this Hebraism in the Greek thinker, that they attributed\nit to direct borrowing. Aristobulus had written of a translation of\nthe Pentateuch older than the Septuagint, which Plato was supposed to\nhave studied. Clement called him the Hebrew philosopher, Origen and\nAugustine comment on his agreement with Genesis, and think that when\nhe was in Egypt he listened to Jeremiah.[236] Eusebius worked out in\ndetail his correspondences with the Bible. Some early neo-Platonist,\nperhaps Numenius, declared that Plato was only the Attic Moses; and in\nmore modern times the Cambridge Platonists of the sixteenth century\nharbored similar ideas, and Nietzsche spoke bitterly of the day when\n\"Plato went to school with the Jews in Egypt.\"\n\nOf Philo, then, we may say, as Montaigne said of himself, that he was\na Platonist before he knew who Plato was. Yet he was the first\nHellenistic Jew who perceived the fundamental harmony between the\nphilosopher's idealism and Jewish monotheism, and he was the first\nimportant commentator of Plato who developed the religious teaching of\nhis master into a powerful spiritual force.\n\nIt is true that the seeds of neo-Platonism, _i.e._, the religious\nre-interpretation of Platonism under the influence of Eastern thought,\nhad been sown already; and Philo must have received from his\nenvironment to some extent the mystical version of the master's\nsystem, with its goal of ecstatic union with God, and its tendency to\nasceticism as a means thereto. But the earlier products of the\nmovement had been crude, and had lacked a powerful moving spirit. This\nwas provided by Philo when he introduced his overmastering conception\nof God. The popular saying, \"Either Plato Philonizes or Philo\nPlatonizes\"[237] contains a deep truth in its first as well as in its\nsecond part. It not only marks the likeness in style of the two\nwriters, but it suggests that Philo, on the one hand, made fruitful\nthe religious germ in Plato's teaching by his Hebraism, and, on the\nother, nourished the philosophical seed in Judaism by his Platonism.\nPlato's teaching falls into two main classes, the dialectical and the\nmythical, and it is with the latter that Philo is in specially close\nconnection. For in his myths Plato tries to achieve a synthesis by\nimaginative flight where he had failed by discursive reason. He\nunifies experience by striking intuitions, something in the spirit of\na Hebrew prophet. Moreover his style, as well as his thought, has here\naffinity with Jewish modes of thought. As Zeller says, speaking of the\nmyths: \"From the first, in the act of producing his work he thinks in\nimages. They mark the point where it becomes evident that he cannot be\nwholly a philosopher because he is still too much of a poet.\" And this\nis true of all Philo's writings, and to generalize somewhat widely, of\nmost Jewish philosophy. In \"The Tim\u00e6us,\" particularly, Plato,\nthroughout, is the poet-philosopher, writing imaginative myths, which\npresent pictorially an idealistic scheme of the universe; and \"The\nTim\u00e6us\" is for Philo, after the Bible, the most authoritative of\nbooks, the source of his chief philosophical ideas.\n\nThe dominant philosophical principle of Plato is what is known as the\nTheory of Ideas. He imagined a world of real existences, invisible,\nincorporeal, eternal, grasped only by thought, prior to the objects of\nthe physical universe, and the models or archetypes of them. In \"The\nTim\u00e6us,\" which is a system of cosmology at once religious and\nmetaphysical, the \"Ideas\" are represented as the thoughts of the one\nSupreme Mind, the intermediate powers by which the Supreme Unity,\nknown as the \"Idea of the Good,\" or \"the Creator,\" evolves the\nmaterial universe. Thus the universe is seen as the manifestation of\none Beneficent Spirit, who brings it into existence and rules over it\nthrough His \"ideal\" thoughts. Philo adopts completely and uncritically\nthis theory of transcendental ideas in his philosophical exegesis of\nthe cosmogony in Genesis. \"Without an incorporeal archetype God brings\nno simple thing to fulfilment.\"[238] There is an idea of stars, of\ngrass, of man, of virtue, of music. And the Platonic conception\nreceives a religious sanction. The ideas are a necessary step between\nGod and the material universe, and those who deny them throw all\nthings into confusion.[239] \"God would not touch matter Himself, but\nHe did not grudge a share of His nature to it through His powers, of\nwhich the true name is ideas.\" We have already noticed[240] how\ningeniously Philo deduces the Theory of Ideas from the Biblical\naccount of the creation, and associates it with the Hebraic conception\nof the ministerial Wisdom and Word. He, however, gives a new direction\nto the Platonic theory, owing to his Hebraic conception of God. The\nideas with him are not the thoughts of an impersonal mind, but the\nemanations of a personal, volitional Deity. Keeping close to Jewish\ntradition, he says that they are the words of the Deity speaking. As\nhuman speech consists of incorporeal ideas, which produce an effect\nupon the minds of others, so the Divine speech is a pattern of\nincorporeal ideas which impress themselves upon a formless void, and\nso create the material world.[241] In this way Philo associates his\ncosmology with his theology. The creative \"Ideas\" are equated\ncollectively with the Supreme Logos,[242] individually with the Logoi\nwhich represent God's particular activities. Thus the Logos represents\nthe whole ideal or noetic world, \"the kingdom of Heaven\"; and it is in\nthis metaphysical sense that the Logos is the first creation, \"the\nfirst-born son of God,\" prior to the physical universe, which is His\ngrandson. The whole universe is thus seen as the orderly manifestation\nof one principle. Philo, expanding a favorite image of the Haggadah,\nillustrates God's creation by the simile of a king founding a city.\n\"He gets to him an architect, who first designs in his mind the parts\nof the perfect city, and then, looking continually to his model,\nbegins to construct the city of stones and wood. So when God resolved\nto found the world-city, He first brought its form into mind, and\nusing this as a model he completed the visible world.\"[243]\n\nThe theory of religious idealism is the centre of Philo's philosophy,\nand provides the basis of his explanation of the material universe.\nPhysics, indeed, he considered of small account, because he believed\nthere could be no certainty in such speculations.[244] His mind was\nutterly unscientific; but as a religious philosopher he found it\nnecessary to give a theory of the creation. Jewish dogma held that the\nworld had been called into being out of nothing; the Greek\nphilosophers repudiated such an idea, and held that creation must be\nthe result of a reasonable process; Aristotle had imagined that matter\nwas a separately existent principle with mind, and that the world was\neternal; and the Stoics held that matter was the substance of all\nthings, including the pantheistic power itself:\n\n  \"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,\n  Whose body nature is, and God the soul.\"\n\nPhilo impugns both these theories,[245] the one because it denies the\ncreative power of God, the other because it confuses the Creator with\nHis creation. He looked for a system which should satisfy at once the\nJewish notion that the world was brought out of nothing by the will of\nGod, and the philosophical concept that God is all reality; and he\nfound in Plato's idealism a view of the creation which he could\nharmonize with the religious view. Plato declared that the material\nworld had been created out of the _Non-Ens_ ([Greek: m\u00ea on]) _i.e._,\nthat which has no real existence. He conceived space and matter as the\nmere passive receptacle of form, which is nothing till the form has\ngiven it quality. Though Philo's language is vague, this seems to be\nhis view when he is speaking philosophically. It is, perhaps, a slight\ndeviation from the earlier religious standpoint of the Jews, which\nlooks to a direct and deliberate creation of the world-stuff, rather\nthan to the informing of space by spirit, and regards the world as\nseparate from God, and not as a manifestation of His being. But the\nmore philosophical conception appears likewise in the Wisdom of\nSolomon. \"For Thine all-powerful hand that created the world out of\nformless matter,\" says the author (xi. 17), establishing before Philo\nthe compromise between two competing influences in his mind. More\nemphatically Philo rejects the notion of creation in time.[246] Time,\nhe says, came into being after God had made the universe, and has no\nmeaning for the Divine Ruler, whose life is in the eternal present.\n\nSumming up, we may say that Philo regards the universe as the image of\nthe Divine manifestation or evolution in thought produced by His\nbeneficent will; and this view is true to the religious standpoint of\ntraditional Judaism in spirit if not in letter.\n\nIn his conception of the human soul, Philo again harmonizes the simple\nJewish notion with the developed Greek psychology by means of the\nPlatonic idealism. The soul in the Bible is the breath of God; in\nPlato it is an Idea incarnate, represented in \"The Tim\u00e6us\" as a\nparticle of the Supreme Mind. Philo, following the psychology of his\nage, divides the soul into a higher and a lower part: (1) the Nous;\n(2) the vital functions, which include the senses. He lays all the\nstress upon the former, which gives man his kinship with God and the\nideal world, while the other part is the necessary result of its\nincarnation in the body. He variously describes the Nous as an\ninseparable fragment of the Divine soul, a Divine breath which God\ninspires into each body, a reflection, an impression, or an image of\nthe blessed Logos, sealed with its stamp.[247] Following the Platonic\nconception, Philo occasionally speaks of the Divine soul as having a\nprenatal existence,[248] holding, as the English poet put it, that\n\n  \"The soul that rises with us, our life's star,\n    Hath had elsewhere its setting\n  And cometh from afar.\"\n\nHere, too, he follows an older Jewish-Hellenistic tradition, which\nappears in the Wisdom of Solomon (viii. 19 and 20), where it is\nwritten: \"A good soul fell to my lot. Nay rather, being good, I came\ninto a body undefiled.\" The Nous is in fact the god within, and it\nbears to the microcosm Man the relation which the infinite God bears\nto the macrocosm.[249] Indeed, it is the Logos descended from above,\nbut yearning to return to its true abode. Thus Philo sings its Divine\nnature:\n\n     \"It is unseen, but sees all things: its essence is unknown,\n     but it comprehends the essence of all things. And by arts\n     and sciences it makes for itself many roads and ways, and\n     traverses sea and land, searching out all things within\n     them. And it soars aloft on wings, and when it has\n     investigated the sky and its changes it is borne upwards\n     towards the \u00e6ther and the revolutions of the heavens. It\n     follows the stars in their orbits, and passing the sensible\n     it yearns for the intelligible world.\"\n\nThe Nous is the king of the whole organism, the governing and unifying\npower, and hence is often called the man himself. The senses,\nresembling the powers of God, are only the bodyguard, subordinate\ninstruments, and inferior modes of the Divine part.[250] So Philo\nexplains that all our faculties are derived from the Divine principle,\nand he draws the moral lesson that our true function is to bend them\nall to the Divine service, so as to foster our noblest part. The aim\nof the good man is to bring the god within him into union with the God\nwithout, and to this end he must avoid the life of the senses,[251]\nwhich mars the Divine Nous, and may entirely crush it. The Divine\nsoul, as it had a life before birth, so also has a life after death;\nfor what is Divine cannot perish. Immortality is man's most splendid\nhope. If the Divine Presence fills him with a mystic ecstasy, he has,\nindeed, attained it upon this earth, but this bliss is only for the\nvery blessed sage; and he, too, looks forward to the more lasting union\nwith the Godhead after this terrestrial life is over.[252] True at\nonce to the principles of Platonism and Judaism, Philo admits no\nanthropomorphic conception of Heaven or of Hell. He is convinced that\nthere is a life hereafter, and finds in the story of Enoch the\nBiblical symbol thereof,[253] but he does not speculate about the\nnature of the Divine reward. The pious are taken up to God, he says, and\nlive forever,[254] communing alone with the Alone.[255] The unrighteous\nsouls, Philo sometimes suggests, in accordance with current Pythagorean\nideas, are reincarnated according to a system of transmigration within\nthe human species ([Greek: palengenesia]).[256] Yet the sinner\nsuffers his full doom on earth. The true Hades is the life of the\nwicked man who has not repented, exposed to vengeance, with uncleansed\nguilt, obnoxious to every curse.[257] And the Divine punishment is to\nlive always dying, to endure death deathless and unending, the death\nof the soul.[258]\n\nThe Divine Nous constitutes the true nature of man; Philo, however,\ninsists with almost wearisome repetition, that the god within us has\nno power in itself, and depends entirely on the grace and inspiration\nof God without for knowledge, virtue, and happiness.[259] The Stoic\ndogma, that the wise man is perfectly independent and self-contained\n([Greek: autarch\u00eas]) appears to him as a wicked blasphemy. \"Those\nwho make God the indirect, and the mind the direct cause are guilty of\nimpiety, for we are the instruments through which particular\nactivities are developed, but He who gives the impulse to the powers\nof the body and the soul is the Creator by whom all things are\nmoved.\"[260] All thought-functions, memory, reasoning, intuition, are\nreferred directly to Divine inspiration, which is in Platonic\nterminology the illumination of the mind by the ideas. Thus, finally,\nall human activity is referred back to God.\n\nThis guiding principle determines Philo's attitude to knowledge,\ninvolving, as it does, that we only know by Divine inspiration, or, as\nhe says, by the immanence of the Logoi.[261] The possibility of\nknowledge was one of the burning questions of the age, and it was the\nfailure of the old dogmatic schools to answer it which led to a great\nreligious movement in Greek philosophy. How can man attain to true\nknowledge, it was asked, about the universe, seeing that perceptions\nvary with each individual, and of conceptions we have no certain\nstandard? The old Hebrew attitude to this question is expressed by the\nverse of the Psalmist: \"The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but\nthe earth hath He given to the sons of men\" (Psalm cxv), which implies\nthat man must not try to penetrate the secrets of the universe. Philo\nis sufficiently a philosopher to desire knowledge about things Divine\nand human, but at the same time he has a complete distrust in the\npowers of human sense and human reason. About the physical universe he\nis frankly a skeptic,[262] but his religious faith leads him to hold\nthat God vouchsafes to man some knowledge of Himself and of the proper\nway of life, _i.e._, ethics. \"Man knows all things in God.\"[363] Plato\nsimilarly had despaired of knowledge of the physical world, and had\nturned to the heavenly ideas as the true object of thought. Moreover,\nin his early period, while his theory was still poetical and mystical,\nhe had conceived that knowledge was made possible in the subject, by\nthe entrance of \"forms,\" or emanations, from the ideas. This theory\nPhilo adapts to his Jewish outlook. Like Plato, he turns away from the\nphysical to the ideal world,[264] and he regards the ideas of wisdom,\nvirtue, bravery, etc., which are theologically powers of God, as\ncontinually sending forth Logoi, forms or forces (the angels of\npopular belief), to inform and enlighten our minds. Throughout, God is\nthe cause of all knowledge as well as of being, for these effluences\nare but an expression of God's activity. In Philo's theory, object and\nsubject are really one. What can be known are the modes or attributes\nof God, which philosophically are \"Ideas\"; what knows is the emanation\nof the Idea, which God sends into the human soul that is prepared to\nreceive it by pious contemplation. \"Through the heavenly Wisdom,\nwisdom is seen, for wisdom sees itself.\" \"Through God, God is known,\nfor He is His own light.\"[265]\n\nThus all knowledge is intuition, and man's function is not so much to\nreason as to lead a life of piety and contemplate the Divine work in\nthe hope of being blessed with inspiration. It would be a mistake,\nhowever, to take Philo's words quite literally. He does not deny the\nneed of human effort and striving for knowledge; for the Divine\ninfluence is not vouchsafed till we have prepared for it and\nconsecrated all our faculties to God. But, devout mystic as he is,\nhe ascribes every consummation to the direct help of the Deity. \"The\nmind is the cause of nothing, but rather the Deity, who is prior to\nmind, generates thought.\"[266] The Greek philosopher had ascribed the\nfinal synthesis of knowledge to a superhuman force. Philo ascribes to\nGod all the intermediate steps from sense-perception. It may be\nadmitted that his passive notion of philosophy involves the\nabandonment of the Greek ideal, the eager searching of Plato after\ntruth. He lived in an age in which, through loss of intellectual\npower, man had come to despair of the attainment of knowledge by human\neffort, and to rely entirely upon supernatural means, Divine\nrevelations, visions, and the like. It is consistent with his whole\nposition that the crown of life is represented, not as an intellectual\nstate, but as a superhuman ecstasy of the Nous, wherein it is freed\nnot only from the body but from the rest of the soul, and is, so to\nsay, led out of itself.[267] He comments on the verse, \"And the sun\nwent down and a deep sleep fell on Abraham\" (Gen. xv. 12). \"When the\nDivine light,\" he says, \"shines upon the mortal soul, the mortal light\nsinks, and our reason is driven out at the approach of the Divine\nspirit.\"[268] This is the Alexandrian interpretation of [Hebrew: shkina]\nand [Hebrew: nboah], and though it is much affected by Greek mystical\nideas, yet at the same time it is broadly true to the spirit of Jewish\nmysticism, as we see it presented in writers of all ages, and as the\nPsalmist expressed it, \"to abide under the shadow of the Almighty.\"\n\nPhilo's ethics, like the rest of his philosophy, exhibits the\ntransfusion of Greek ideas with his Hebrew spirit. The Greek\nphilosophers had evolved a rational plan of life, while the Jewish\nteachers were impregnated with burning ardor for the living God; and\nPhilo brings the two things together, making ethics dependent on\nreligion. The Stoics, who were the most powerful school of his day,\nregarded as the ideal of goodness life according to unbending reason\nand in complete independence of God or man. Philo understands God as a\npersonal power making for righteousness, and man's excellence,\naccordingly, which is likeness to God, is piety and charity.[269]\nAbove all he insists upon Faith ([Greek: pistis]) and he defines\nvirtue as a condition of soul which fixes its hopes upon the truly\nExistent God. The Stoics also professed to honor faith or confidence\nabove all things, but the virtue which they meant was reliance upon\nman's own powers. Philo's virtue is almost the converse of this. Man\nmust feel completely dependent upon God, and his proper attitude is\nhumility and resignation. So only can he receive within his soul the\nseed of goodness, and finally the Divine Logos.[270] Yet at the same\ntime Philo remains loyal to the Jewish ideal of conduct: faith without\nworks is empty, and, as he puts it, \"The true-born goods are faith and\nconsistency of word and action.\"[271]\n\nThe attainment of the highest excellence demands severe discipline,\nsave for those few blessed souls whom God perfects without any effort\non their part. The rest can only secure self-realization by\nself-renunciation; they must avoid the bodily passions and bodily\nlusts.[272] At times the Divine enthusiasm causes Philo, like many a\nJewish saint and like his master Plato, to scorn all bodily\nlimitations and recommend \"insensibility\" ([Greek: apatheia])[273]\nby which he means that man should crush his physical desires and\nrepress his feelings. Not that the good life seems to him to imply\nabsence of pleasure. On the contrary, it is filled with the purest of\njoy, for when man rises to the love of God \"in calm of mind, all\npassion spent,\" then and then alone has he tasted true joyousness. The\nsymbol of this bliss is Isaac ([Hebrew: ytshk]), the laughter of the\nsoul.\n\nIt was noticed in the second chapter that Philo modified his ethical\nideas during his life. In the earlier period he insists more strongly\non the need of ascetic self-denial, and has almost a horror of the\nworld. Maturer experience, however, taught him that man is made for\nthis world, and that a wise use of its goods was a surer path to\nhappiness and to God than flight from all temptations. In his later\nwritings, therefore, he exhibits a striking moderation. He reproaches\nthe ascetics for their \"savage enthusiasm,\"[274] probably hinting at\nthe extreme sects of the Essenes and the Therapeut\u00e6. \"Those who follow\na gentler wisdom seek after God, but at the same time do not despise\nhuman things.\"\n\n     \"Truth will properly blame those who without discrimination\n     shun all concern with the life of the State, and say that\n     they despise the acquisition of good repute and pleasure.\n     They are only making grand pretensions, and they do not\n     really despise these things. They go about in torn raiment\n     and with solemn visage, and live the life of penury and\n     hardship as a bait, to make people believe that they are\n     lovers of good conduct, temperance, and self-control.\"[275]\n\nPhilo's aphorism, which follows, \"Be drunk in a sober manner,\" is\ncharacteristic. The Stoic extreme of passionlessness is almost as\nfalse as the Epicurean hedonism, and the mean between them is the\nideal Jewish life, in which godliness and humanity are blended.\n\nWe have now examined the main divisions of Philo's philosophy, and we\nsee that his metaphysics, cosmology, theory of knowledge, and ethics\nare all religious in tone, and all determined in their main lines by\nhis Jewish outlook. His Hebraism is a seal which stamps all that\nenters his mind from Greek sources, and the Bible, spiritually\ninterpreted, is the canon of all his wisdom.\n\nThere remains one minor aspect of his work which must be briefly\nexamined, because it has become closely associated with his name. This\nis his number-symbolism, by which he ascribes important powers to\ncertain numbers, so that they are regarded as holy themselves and\nsanctifying that to which they are attached. This feature of his\nthought is commonly ascribed to Pythagorean influence, which was\nstrong at Alexandria, and, indeed, throughout the world, at this era.\nThe exact details of the holiness of four, seven, ten, fifty, etc.,\nPhilo may have borrowed from neo-Pythagorean sources, but the general\ntendency was the natural result of his environment and his stage of\nthought. It was a feature of the recurring childishness of ideas and\nthe renascence of wonder at common things which is apparent on many\nhands. To have denied the powers of numbers would have seemed as\nabsurd and eccentric then as to deny the powers of electricity to-day.\nAnd in all ages people have been found to regard numbers mystically as\na link between God and earth, and a means of solving all physical and\nmetaphysical problems. The Hebrew intellect, primitive as it was,\ntended particularly to the reverence of the numerical powers. Witness\nthe Bible itself, which emphasizes certain numbers; and witness also\nthe fifth chapter of the Pirke Abot, with its lists ranged under four,\nseven, and ten, which is only typical of the rabbinical attitude.\nPhilo is not original in his views concerning numbers, not above nor\nbelow the loose thinking of his age. He accepts unquestioningly the\npotency of seven, because of its marvellous mathematical properties,\nratios, etc., its geometrical efficacy, and because of the seven\nperiods of life from infancy to old age, of the seven parts of the\nbody, the seven motions, the seven strings of the lyre, the seven\nvowels, and the very name, which is connected with worship ([Greek:\nsebasmos]). All this is trifling and trite, but what is of\nimportance is the use which Philo makes of the sentiment. He converts\nit throughout to the support and glorification of Jewish institutions.\nThus, if a man honors seven, he says, he will devote the Sabbath to\nmeditation and philosophy.[276] Further, as seven is the symbol of\nrest and tranquillity, the Sabbath must be a day of perfect rest. Ten\nis magnified so as to honor the Decalogue,[277] fifty so as to honor\nthe Feast of Pentecost. So, too, the Pythagoreans' mathematical\nconceptions of God as \"the beginning and limit of all things,\" or,\nagain, as the principle of equality, are approved by Philo, \"because\nthey breed in the soul the fairest and most nourishing fruit--piety.\"\nIn short, Philo's Pythagoreanism only emphasizes his commanding\npurpose--to deepen and recommend the Jewish God-idea and the Jewish\nmethod of life.\n\nJewish influences throughout are the determining element of Philo's\nteaching; they are the dynamic forces working upon the Greek matter\nand producing the new Platonism, which constitutes Philo's\ncontribution to Greek philosophy. It may, indeed, be said that his\nHebraism makes Philo anti-philosophical, because he has no desire or\nhope of adding to positive knowledge, but aims only at the calm of the\nindividual soul in union with its God. The Platonic Theory of Ideas,\nmetaphysical in origin, plays a very important part in his works, but\nit is adapted mystically, and turned from an ideal of the human\nintellect to a support of monotheism and piety. Here Philo is at once\nthe leader and the child of his generation; men were no longer\nsatisfied with rational systems, but wanted a religious philosophy,\nbased upon a transcendental principle and a Divine revelation which\ncould give them some certainty and some positive hope in life.\nDoubtless, the strong mystical tendency in Philo destroyed the balance\nbetween the intuitive and the discursive reason which makes the\nperfect philosopher. In his overpowering passion for God, he distrusts\novermuch the analytical efforts of the human mind. Nevertheless, his\nacquired Hellenism gives his Jewish conceptions a philosophical\nimpress, and this has made him the model of the school of religious\nphilosophers. The ministerial \"Word\" became the \"ideal\" expression of\nGod's mind, the governing reason, the world-soul; the angels were\nspiritualized as a kingdom of Ideas. Piety received an intellectual as\nwell as a religious value, and the Mosaic law was raised to a higher\ndignity as an ethical code of universal validity.\n\nA complete harmony between the Hellenic and the Hebraic outlook upon\nlife was impossible, but Philo at least accomplished a harmony between\nHebraic monotheism and Greek metaphysics. He desired to show that\nfaith and philosophy were in agreement, and that the imaginative and\nreflective conceptions of God and the Divine government were in\nunison. And he may be considered to have realized his desire in his\nsynthesis of Jewish theology and Platonic idealism. He is through and\nthrough a great interpreter, elucidating points of unity between\ndistinct systems of thought. In him the fusion of cultures, which\nbegan with the Septuagint translation, reached its culmination. It\nreached its zenith and straightway the severance began.\n\nIn the next chapter we shall trace Philo's place in Jewish thought;\nhere we may glance at his place in the development of Greek\nphilosophy. The fusion between Eastern and Western thought, which he\nhimself so strikingly illustrates, continued to dominate philosophy\nfor the next four hundred years; and Plato, who, with his deep\nreligious spirit, had a broad affinity with the Oriental conception of\nthe universe, was the supreme philosophical master. All the chief\nteachers looked to him for the intellectual basis of their ideas and\nread into his works their particular religious beliefs; but they\nfailed to maintain a true harmony between the two. The cultures of all\ncountries and races mingled, even as their peoples mingled under the\nRoman Empire, but they were so combined as to lose the purity and\nindividuality of each element. The Eastern Platonists who followed\nPhilo brought to their interpretation less noble conceptions of the\nGodhead, the Gnosticism of Syria, the dualism of Persia, the\nimpersonal pantheism of India, and the theurgies of Egypt, and\nproduced strange hybrids of the human mind. The one point of agreement\nbetween them is that they conceive the Supreme God as impersonal and\nentirely inactive, \"a deified Zero,\" and endeavor by a system of\nemanation to trace the descent of this baffling principle into man and\nthe universe. Philo was as unfortunate in his philosophical as in his\nreligious following, who both transformed his poetical metaphors into\nfixed and rigid dogmas. His doctrine of the Logos was, on the one\nhand, the forerunner of the Trinity of the Church, on the other of the\nTrinity of the Alexandrian neo-Platonists. It is difficult, indeed, to\ntrace with certainty the connection between Philo and the later school\nof Alexandrian Platonists, but there appears to be at least one clear\nlink in the teaching of the Syrian Numenius, who flourished in the\nmiddle of the second century. To him are attributed the two sayings:\n\"Either Plato Philonizes or Philo Platonizes,\" and \"What is Plato but\nthe Attic Moses?\" Modern scholars have questioned the correctness of\nthe reference, but be this as it may, it is certain that Numenius used\nthe Bible as evidence of Platonic doctrines. \"We should go back,\" he\nsays, in a fragment, \"to the actual writings of Plato and call in as\ntestimony the ideas of the most cultured races; comparing their holy\nbooks and laws we should bring in support the harmonious ideas which\nare to be found among the Brahmans and the Jews.\"[278] Origen tells\nus,[279] moreover, that he often introduced excerpts from the books of\nMoses and the Prophets, and allegorized them with ingenuity. In one of\nthe few remains of his writings which have come down to us, we find\nhim praising the verse in the first chapter of Genesis, \"The spirit of\nGod was upon the waters\"; because, as Philo had interpreted\nit--following perhaps a rabbinical tradition--water represents the\nprimal world-stuff. And elsewhere he mentions the efforts of the\nEgyptian magicians to frustrate the miracles of Moses, following\nPhilo's account in his life of the Jewish hero.\n\nThe work of Philo helped to spread a knowledge of the Hebrew\nScriptures far and wide and to give them general authority as a\nphilosophical book; but it did not succeed in spreading the pure\nHebrew monotheism. The exalted Hebrew idea of God was still too\nsublime for the pagan nations, even for their philosophers. The world\nin truth was decaying morally and intellectually, and most of all in\npowers of imagination; and its hunger for God found expression in\ncrude and stunted conceptions of His nature. Unable any longer to soar\nto Heaven, it sullied the majesty of the Deity, and divided the\nGodhead in order to bridge the gap. Numenius represents in philosophy\nthe Gnostic ideas about God which were widely held by the heretics,\nJewish and Christian, of the second century. He divides the Godhead\ninto two separate powers: (1) the impersonal Being behind all reality,\nfree from all activity whatsoever; (2) the Demiurge or active governor\nof the universe, who again is subdivided into a transcendent and an\nimmanent power.\n\nThe teaching of Plotinus, the most famous of the later Alexandrian\nneo-Platonists, shows a further step in the development of religious\nPlatonism. Viewed from its higher side it is an attempt to explain\neverything as the emanation of the One. But philosophy in the third\ncentury debased itself in order to support the tottering polytheistic\nreligion of the pagan world against the modified Hebraic creed,\nChristianity, which was fast demolishing its power. Against the\nTrinity of the Church the philosophers set up a heavenly Trinity of\nso-called reason: the Ineffable One, the Demiurgic Mind, and the World\nSoul; and between this Trinity and man they placed intermediate\nhierarchies of gods, angels, and demons--in fact, the whole fugitive\narmy of Greek polytheism thinly disguised. All the vulgar fancies and\nsuperstitions which Philo had intellectualized, these later Eastern\nPlatonists sought to revive and justify by conceptions of physical\nemanation blended of false science and mysticism. They hoped to found\na universal religion by finding room in one system for the deities of\nall nations!\n\nFrom Plotinus down to Proclus, neo-Platonism became more\nunintellectual, more insane, more pagan, and, finally, with its vapid\ndreams, it brought the history of Greek philosophy to an inglorious\nclose. Its finer teachings, however, deeply affected mediaeval\nphilosophy, and not least the Arab-Jewish school. The theory of\nemanations and spiritual hierarchies pervades the writings of Ibn\nEzra, Ibn Gabirol, and Ibn Daud, and thus indirectly provides a\nconnection between the culture of Alexandrian Judaism and the culture\nof Spanish Judaism. The praise of God known as the [Hebrew: ktr mlkot] by\nIbn Gabirol is a splendid example of the Hebraizing of neo-Platonic\ndoctrines, which, though probably quite independent of his teaching,\nrecalls constantly the ideas of Philo.\n\nBy his place at the head of the neo-Platonic school Philo enters the\nbroad stream of the world's philosophical development, but his more\nlasting influence was exercised over the religious philosophy of\nChristianity. He was the direct master of what is known as the\nPatristic school, which sought to combine the intellectual conceptions\nof Plato with the religious ideas of the Gospels. Its most celebrated\nteachers were Clement and Origen, both of Alexandria, who flourished\nin the second century. They resorted largely to allegorical\ninterpretation, learning from Philo to trace in the Bible principles\nof universal thought and profound philosophy; but they used his method\nand his lessons to support notions of God and the Logos which were\nalien to his spirit. He had possessed pre-eminently the soaring\nimagination of poetry, which is the crown of the intellectual and of\nthe religious mind, and unites them in their highest excellence; but\nthey bounded their philosophy within the narrow limits of dogma, and\nthereby destroyed the harmony between Hebraism and Hellenism which he\nhad contrived to effect. The controversy of Origen and Celsus began\nagain the battle between reason and faith, \"which was to destroy for\ncenturies the independence of philosophy and to break the continuity\nof civilization.\" Had Philo really been ploughing the sand, and was an\nagreement between faith and reason, between religion and philosophy,\nimpossible? Can the two finest creations of the mind only be combined\non the terms that one is subordinate, or rather servile, to the other?\nIn Judaism, if anywhere, the combination should be possible, for\nJudaism has as its basis an intuitional conception of God, which is in\nharmony with the philosophical conception of the universe, and it has\nlittle dogma besides. The neo-Platonists and the Church Fathers failed\nto carry on the ideal of Philo, but it was to be expected that among\nhis own people, the nation of philosophers, as he had called them, he\nwould have found true successors. Yet the use made of his work by the\nChristians compelled his people to regard him as a betrayer of the law\nand to avoid his goal as a treacherous snare. For centuries Greek\nphilosophy was banned from Jewish thought, and Philo's works are not\nmentioned by any Jewish writer. Strangers possessed his inheritance,\nand his name alone, \"Philo-Jud\u00e6us,\" bore witness to his nationality.\nIt is an interesting speculation to consider how different might have\nbeen the history, not only of the Jews, but of the world, if the\nHellenistic Judaism of Philo had prevailed in the Roman-Greek world\ninstead of \"the impurer Hellenism of Christianity.\" When, in the tenth\ncentury, the leaders of Jewish thought broke the bonds of seclusion,\nand brought anew to the interpretation of their religion the culture\nof the outer world, Greek philosophy became again a powerful\ninfluence, though it was Aristotle rather than Plato whom they\nstudied. The harmonizing spirit of Philo, which may be accounted part\nof the genius of the race, lives on in Saadia, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra,\nIbn Gabirol, and Judah Halevi. But the difference between him and the\nArabic school is marked. They do not inherit his whole object, for\nthey aimed not at a philosophical Judaism which should be a\nworld-religion, but at a philosophical Judaism for the more\nenlightened Jews alone. Philo's work was the culminating point,\nindeed, of a great development in Judaism, produced by the mingling of\nthe finest products of human reason and human imagination, but it was\nparticularly the expression of his own commanding genius. He lacked a\ntrue successor, for those who shared his aim did not inherit his\nJewish outlook, and those who shared his Jewish outlook did not\ninherit his aim. What is characteristic of and peculiar to Philo is\nthe combination of the missionary and the philosopher. Living at a\ntime when the Jewish genius expanded most brilliantly, and when\nJudaism exercised its greatest influence, he hoped to make his\nreligion universal by showing it to be philosophical, and to bring\nabout by the aid of Plato the ideal of the prophets.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nPHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION\n\n\nWe have seen from time to time how Philo's interpretation of the Bible\ncorresponds with Palestinian Jewish tradition; and we must now\nconsider more in detail the relations of the two schools of Jewish\nlearning. Until the last century it was commonly supposed that no\nclose relation existed, and that the Alexandrian and Palestinian\nschools were independent and opposed; Scaliger, the greatest scholar\nof the seventeenth century, wrote[280] that \"Philo was more ignorant\nof Hebraic and Aramaic lore than any Gaul or Scythian,\" and this was\nthe opinion generally held. The researches of Freudenthal and\nSiegfried[281] have shown the falsity of these views; and, most\nimportant of all, Philo refutes them out of his own mouth. He refers\nin many different parts of his works[282] to the tradition and the\nwisdom of his ancestors, he tells us how on the Sabbath the Jews\nstudied in their synagogues their special philosophy,[283] and he\ncommences his \"Life of Moses\" by declaring that against the false\ncalumnies of Greek writers he will set forth the true account which he\nhas learnt from the sacred writings and \"from certain elders of his\nrace.\" In support of his statement we have the remark of Eusebius, the\nChristian historian, and our chief ancient authority for Philo's\nwork,[284] that he set forth and expounded not only the laws of the\nBible, but many institutions and opinions of his fathers. Apart from\nthese direct references, the numerous points of correspondence between\nPhilo's interpretations and those of the Talmud and later Midrash\nwould compel us to admit a connection between Alexandria and\nJerusalem.\n\nThe break between the two schools did not show itself till after the\ntime of Philo. Up to the first century of the Christian era the rabbis\nencouraged the union of Shem and Japheth--the two good sons of one\nparent--and the stream of ideas flowed quite freely between the\nteachers in Palestine and the Hellenized colony in Egypt.[285] Hence\nthe Palestinian Jews, on the one hand, received the first fruits of\nthis mingling of cultures, and the Alexandrian Jews, on the other,\nmust have inherited the early tradition of the rabbinical interpreters\nembodied in ancient Halakah and Haggadah. By this common heritage,\nrather than by any direct borrowing, it seems more reasonable to\naccount for the correspondence in the two Midrashim. It should be\nremembered that until the second century of the common era the mass of\nJewish tradition was a floating and developing body of opinion not\nconsigned to writing or formalized, but handed down by word of mouth\nfrom teacher to pupil, and preacher to congregation: in this way it\nwas diffused throughout the mind of the race, indefinitely and, to\nsome extent, unconsciously shaping its thought. The detailed points of\nagreement between Philo and the Talmud and Midrash are not of great\nmoment in themselves, but they are the signs of a unity of development\nand the catholicity of Judaism in the East and West. Doubtless the\ndevelopment was more national and at the same time more legal in\nJud\u00e6a, in Alexandria more Hellenistic and philosophical, but there is\na common spiritual bond between the two expressions, pious images,\nfancies, similes, interpretations which they share. They are, as it\nwere, children of one family, and despite the varying influences of\nenvironment they maintain a family resemblance. With the Sibylline\noracles we may compare Daniel and the Psalms of Solomon; with Aristeas\nand his fellow-Apologists, Josephus; with the allegorical commentaries\nof Philo, the Midrashim. Modern scholars have gone far to prove that\nPhilo was the expounder of an Hellenic Midrash upon the Bible, in\nwhich were gathered the thoughts and ideas that had been brought to\nEgypt by the Jewish settlers, modified, no doubt, by Greek influences,\nbut still bearing the stamp of their origin. Philo, then, appears in\nthe direct line of the tradition which from the time of the Great\nSynagogue was disseminated through two channels, the schools of\nPalestine and the writers of Alexandria. He developed the national\nJewish theology in a literary form, which made it available for the\nworld, but with him the tradition as a Jewish tradition ends; in its\nfurther Hellenistic development it departed entirely from its original\nprinciples.\n\nIt is natural that the larger number of parallels between Philo and\nthe rabbis is to be found in the Haggadic portions of Talmudic\nteaching, for the Haggadah represents the same spirit as underlies\nPhilo's work, though in a more peculiarly Jewish form; it is an\nallegory, a play of fancy, a tale that points a moral, or illustrates\na question. It had, too, largely the same origin, for it gathered\ntogether the popular discourses given in the synagogue on the\nSabbaths. Yet the relation of Philo to the other domain of the Talmud,\nthe code of life, or the Halakah, is of great interest; for, as we\nhave seen,[286] the Alexandrian community had a Sanhedrin of their\nown, of which Philo's brother was the president, and he himself\nprobably a member; and in his exposition of the \"Specific Laws\" he has\npreserved for us the record of certain interpretations of the Jewish\ncode, which are illuminating as much by their difference from, as by\ntheir agreement with, the practices of Palestine. The general aim of\nPhilo's exegesis of the law was to show its broad principles of\njustice and humanity rather than to formulate its exact detail. It is\ntrue, he makes it an offence[287]--unknown to the rabbis--for\na Jew to be initiated into the Greek mysteries, but usually he is\nconcerned to recommend the Halakah to the world rather than expand it\nfor his own community. This is shown in his treatment of the civil as\nmuch as the moral law. The great system of jurisprudence in his day,\nwith which every code claiming to have universal value had necessarily\nto challenge comparison, was Roman Law. That part of it which was\napplied throughout the Empire, the _jus gentium_, was regarded as\n\"written reason.\" It is probable that contact with Roman jurisprudence\nhad affected the practical interpretations which the Alexandrian\nSanhedrin put upon the Biblical legislation, and was the cause of some\nof their differences from the Palestinian Halakah. In treating the\nethical law, Philo's object was to show its agreement with the\nloftiest conceptions of Greek philosophers, and, indeed, its\nprofounder truth; in treating the civil law of the Bible, his object\nlikewise was to show its agreement with the highest principles of\njurisprudence and its superiority to pagan codes. If at times he\nsupports a greater severity than the Palestinian rabbis eventually\nallowed, that is where greater severity implies a closer relation to\nRoman Law. Thus he has not the horror of capital punishment which the\nJerusalem Sanhedrin exhibited; he would condemn to death the man who\ncommits wilful homicide, whether by his own hand or by poison;[288]\nwhereas the other Halakah allows it only in the former case. He who\ncommits perjury also is to suffer capital punishment.[289] He adds a\nlaw which finds no place in the Palestinian tradition, making the\nexposure of children a capital crime.[290] Again, following the text\nof the Biblical law literally (see Deut. xxi. 18), he gives power of\nlife and death to parents over their rebellious children, whereas the\nJewish law demands a trial before a court to make the death sentence\nlegal. He approves of the _lex talionis_, \"an eye for an eye, a tooth\nfor a tooth,\" agreeing here, indeed, with the opinion of earlier\nrabbis like R. Eliezer (see Baba Kama 84, [Hebrew: 'yn tht 'yn mmsh],\n\"the law of eye for eye is to be taken literally\"), and disagreeing with\nthe later Halakic interpretation, which says that the law of Moses means\nthe award of the value of an eye for an eye, etc.\n\nThis is one instance among many of Philo's adoption of the older\ntradition, established probably under the Sadduc\u00e6an predominance,\nwhich was modified in the rabbinical schools of the first and the\nsecond century. Paradoxically, in his exposition of the law, Philo\nfollows the letter more closely as the expression of justice, while\nthe later rabbis often allegorize it in order to support their humaner\ninterpretation. Thus, commenting on the passage in Exodus xxii. 3\nabout the law of theft, \"If the sun be risen upon him, blood shall be\nshed for blood,\" he, like R. Eliezer, interprets [Hebrew: dbrim kktbm][291]\n_i.e._, literally. \"If,\" he says, \"the owner catches the thief before\nsunrise, he may kill him, but after the sun has risen he must bring him\nbefore the court.\"[292] This also was the Roman law, but the Halakah\ninterprets more artificially: \"If it were as clear as sunlight that\nthe thief would not have killed the owner, then the owner may not kill\nhim.\" Philo would justify the old law; the rabbis explain it away. On\nthe other hand, in his treatment of the law relating to slaves, Philo\nextends the liberality both of the Bible and the Halakah. He declares\nthat the slave is to be set free when by his master's violence he loses\nan eye or even a tooth.[293] The Bible and the Talmud direct emancipation\nonly where the slave loses a limb; but Philo writes eloquently of the\nhumanity of which man is deprived by the loss of sight; and he would\napparently condemn the master who injured his slave more seriously to the\nfull penalties of the ordinary law.[294] Maimonides, in his exposition of\nthe law, approves the milder practice,[295] and this suggests that it\nhad an old tradition behind it. Beautiful is Philo's stray maxim,\n\"Behave to your servants as you pray that God may behave to you. For\nas we hear them, so shall we be heard, and as we regard them, so shall\nwe be regarded.\"[296] In his whole treatment of slavery, Philo shows\nremarkable enlightenment for his age. He objects, indeed, to the\ninstitution altogether, and he tempers it continually with ideas of\nequality. Thus, following the Halakah, he directs the redemption of a\nslave seven years after his purchase, and he treats the laws of the\nseventh-year rest to the land and of the jubilee as of universal\nvalidity.\n\nComing to the more specifically religious laws we find that Philo,\nmissionary as he is, prohibits altogether marriage with Gentiles,[297]\nand that though, in the opinion of certain rabbinic teachers, the\nBiblical prohibition extended only to marriage with the Canaanite\ntribes, and unions with other Gentiles were permitted.[298] Philo\nrecognizes how dangerous such unions are for the cause which he had so\ndearly at heart, the spreading of Judaism. \"Even,\" says he, \"if you\nyourself remain true to your religion through the influence of the\nexcellent instruction of your parents, yet there is no small danger\nthat your children by such a marriage may be beguiled away by bad\ncustoms to unlearn the true religion of the one only God.\"[299]\nThroughout, Philo is true to the mission of Israel in its highest\nsense. That mission is not assimilation, and it is to be brought about\nby no easy method of mixing with the surrounding people. It can be\neffected only by holding up the Torah in its purity as a light to the\nnations, and by offering them examples of life according to the law.\n\nOf the special ordinances for Sabbaths and festivals Philo mentions\nonly those consecrated by the Biblical law or ancient tradition, which\nprobably were the only ones settled in his day. He lays down the\nprohibition to kindle fire,[300] to make or return deposits, or to\nplead in the law courts on the Sabbath; he speaks of the reading of\nthe Haggadah and Hallel on the night of Passover, of the bringing of a\nbarley cake during the 'Omer and of the first fruits to the Temple on\nthe Feast of Weeks, of the Shofar at New Year, and of the Sukkah, but\nnot of the Lulab at Tabernacles. It should be remembered that the\nHalakah was not consolidated till the second or third century, and in\nPhilo's time it was in the process of formation by different schools\nof rabbis. But the passage quoted in an earlier chapter, about adding\nto the law, proves his reverence for the oral law.[301]\n\nThough his statement of the civil and religious law is of great\ninterest to the student of Halakic development, Philo's work presents\ngreater correspondence, on the whole, with the Haggadah, which in a\nprimitive way draws philosophical and ethical lessons from the Bible\nnarrative. It is a free interpretation of the Scriptures, the\nexpression of the individual moralist; it loves to point a moral and\nadorn a tale, and in many cases it is in agreement with the\nHellenistic school. To take a few typical examples: An early\ninterpretation explains the story of the Brazen Serpent, as Philo\ndoes,[302] to mean that as long as Israel are looking upward to the\nFather in Heaven they will live, but when they cease to do so they\nwill die. Another, like him again, finds the motive of the command to\nbore the ear of the slave who will not leave his master at the seventh\nyear of redemption, in the principle that men are God's servants, and\nshould not voluntarily throw away their precious freedom. So, too, the\nHaggadah agrees in numerous points with Philo's stories about the\npatriarchs.[303] If one were to go through the Midrashic\ninterpretations of the Five Books of Moses, he would find in nearly\nevery section interpretations reminiscent of Philo. In some cases,\nhowever, there are striking contrasts in the two commentaries. Thus\nthe Midrash[304] tells that the four rivers of Eden symbolize the four\ngreat nations of the old world; to Philo, they represent the four\ncardinal virtues established by Greek philosophers. The Palestinian\ncommentators were prone to see an historical where Philo saw a\nphilosophical image.\n\nThe question may be asked, Who is the originator and who the borrower\nof the common tradition? And it is a question to which chronology can\ngive no certain answer, and for which dates or records have no\nmeaning. For the Haggadah was not committed to writing till many\ngenerations had known its influences, and it was not finally compiled\ntill many generations more had handed it down with continuous\naccretions. The Haggadah in fact is part of the permanent spirit of\nthe race going back to a hoary past, and stretching down \"the echoing\ngrooves of time\" to the tradition of Judaism in our own day. The\nHebrew Word means, and the thing is, \"what is said\": the utterances of\nthe inspired teacher, some tale, some happy play of fancy, some moral\naphorism, some charming allegory which captivated the hearers, and was\nhanded down the generations as a precious thought. It is significant\nin this regard that the Haggadah is remarkable for the number of\nforeign words which it contains, Greek, Persian, and Roman terms\njostling with Hebrew and Aramaic. For while the Halakah was the\nproduction of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools alone, the\nHaggadah brought together the harvest of all lands; and scraps of\nGreek philosophy found their way to Palestine before the Alexandrian\nschool developed its systematic allegory. In the Mishnah, the earliest\nbody of Jewish lore which was definitely formulated and written down,\none section is Haggadic, the passages we know as the \"Ethics of the\nFathers.\" Now, we cannot place the date of this compilation before the\nfirst century,[305] and thus it would seem to be contemporary with\nPhilo's work, to which it affords numerous parallels. But the great\nmass of the Haggadah, the Pesikta, the Mekilta, and the other\nMidrashim, were all later compilations, some of them as late as the\nfifth and the sixth century. Are we to say, then, that where they\ncorrespond to Philo they show his influence? At first this would\nappear the natural conclusion.\n\nThere is a better test of priority, however, than the date of\ncompilation, the test of the thought itself and its expression. And\njudged by this test we see that the Haggadah is the more ancient, the\nprimal development of the Hebrew mind. The \"Sayings of the Fathers\"\nare typical of the finest and most concentrated wisdom of the\nHaggadah, and exhibit thought in its impulsive, unsystematic, gnomic\nexpression, neither logical nor illogical, because it knows not logic.\nBeautiful ethical intuitions and profound guesses at theological truth\nabound; anything like a definite system of ethics and theology is not\nto be found, whence it is said, \"Do not argue with the Haggadah.\" Even\nmore so is this the case with the bulk of the Midrash. There, pious\nfancy will weave itself around the history and ideals of the people,\nand suddenly one comes across a sage reflection or a philosophical\nutterance. With Philo it is otherwise. Compared with the Greeks he is\nunsystematic, inaccurate, wanting in logic, exuberant in imagination.\nCompared with the rabbis he is a formal and accurate philosopher, an\nexact and scholarly theologian. The floating poetical ideas of the\nHaggadah are woven by him into the fabric of a Jewish philosophy and a\nJewish theology, and knit together with the rational conceptions of\nAristotle's \"Metaphysics\" and Plato's \"Tim\u00e6us.\" We may say, then,\nalmost with certainty, that Philo derives from the early Jewish\ntradition, though at the same time he introduced into that tradition\nmany an idea taken from the Greek thinkers, which found its way to the\nlater Palestinian schools of Jamnia and Tiberias, and was recast by\nthe Hebraic imagination.\n\nOver and over again we find that he adopts some fancy of his ancestors\nand develops it rhetorically and philosophically in his commentary. To\ngive many examples or references to examples of this feature of\nPhilo's work is not within the scope of this book, but of his\ndevelopment of an old Palestinian tradition the following passage may\nserve as a typical instance:\n\n     \"There is an old story,\" he writes, \"composed by the sages\n     and handed down by memory from age to age.... They say that,\n     when God had finished the world, he asked one of the angels\n     if aught were wanting on land or in sea, in air or in\n     heaven. The angel answered that all was perfect and\n     complete. One thing only he desired, speech, to praise God's\n     works, or to recount, rather than praise, the exceeding\n     wonderfulness of all things made, even of the smallest and\n     the least. For the due recital of God's works would be their\n     most adequate praise, seeing that they needed no addition of\n     ornament, but possessed in the sincerity of truth the most\n     perfect eulogy. And the Father approved the angel's words,\n     and afterwards appeared the race gifted with the muses and\n     with song. This is the ancient story; and in accord with it,\n     I say that it is God's peculiar work to do good, and the\n     creature's work to give Him thanks.\"[306]\n\nNow this legend and moral appear in another form in the collection of\nMidrash, the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, which apparently had ancient sources\nthat have disappeared. There it is told: \"When the Holy One, blessed\nbe He, consulted the Torah as to the completeness of the work of\ncreation, she answered him: 'Master of the future world, if there be\nno host, over whom will the King reign, and if there be no creatures\nto praise him, where is the glory of the King?' And the Lord of the\nworld was pleased with her answer and forthwith He created man.\"[307]\n\nThe Haggadah is rich also in allegorical speculation, of which there are\ntraces in the Biblical books themselves. In the book of Micah, for\nexample, we find that the patriarchs are taken as types of certain\nvirtues, Abraham of Kindness, [Hebrew: hsd], and Jacob of Truth,\n[Hebrew: 'mt] (vii. 20). And when the ideas of the people expanded\nphilosophically in Palestine and in Alexandria, the profounder\nconceptions were attached to Scripture by the device of allegorical\ninterpretation, and certain rabbis attributed a higher value to the\ninner than to the literal meaning. Thus Akiba, who wrote an elaborate\nallegorical work upon the Song of Songs,[308] held that the book was the\nmost profound in the Bible, and Rabbi Judah similarly regarded the book\nof Job.[309] The Palestinian allegorists took to themselves a wider\nfield than the Alexandrian, and looked for the deeper meanings rather in\nthe Wisdom Literature than in the Pentateuch, which was to them\nessentially the Book of the Law, and, therefore, not a fit subject for\nMashal, _i.e._, inner meanings.[310] Hence, their allegorism was more\nnatural, more real, and truer to the spirit of that which they\ninterpreted. They allegorized when an allegory was invited, whereas\nPhilo and his school often forced their philosophical meanings in face\nof the clear purport of the text, and without regard to the Hebrew. In\nthe one case allegory was a genuine development, and might have been\nadopted by the original prophet: in the other, it was reconstruction;\nand the artificial un-Hebraic character of the Hellenistic commentary\nwas one of the causes of its disappearance from Jewish tradition. While\nthe Palestinian allegorists based their continuous philosophical\ninterpretation upon the Wisdom Books, they, at the same time, looked for\nsecondary meanings wherever opportunity offered, and found lessons in\nletters and teachings in names. An early school of commentators was\nactually known as [Hebrew: dorsh rshomot][311] or interpreters of signs,\nand their method was by examination of the letters of a word, or by\ncomparison of different verses, to explore homilies. For instance, the\nverse, \"And God showed Moses a tree\" (Exod. xvi. 26), by which he\nsweetened the waters at Marah, symbolized, by a play on the word\n[Hebrew: vyvrhu],[312] that God taught Moses the Torah, of which it is\nsaid, \"She is a tree of life\" (Prov. iii. 18). Another happy example of\nthis method occurs in the sixth section of the Pirke Abot, where the\nnames in the itinerary, [Hebrew: mmtna nhlial, vmnhlial bmot] (Numb.\nxxi. 19), are invested with a spiritual meaning. Whoever believes in the\nTorah, it is written, shall be exalted, as it is said, \"From the gift of\nthe law man attains the heritage of God, and by that heritage he reaches\nHeaven.\"\n\nIn this passage of Palestinian allegorism, it may be noticed that the\nTorah is regarded as a spiritual bond between man and God, and as a\nsort of intermediary power between them. This feature is almost as\nfrequent in the Midrash as the Logos-idea in Philo, so that it may be\nsaid that rabbinic theology finds an idealism in the Torah which\ncorresponds to the idealism of the Philonic Word. It is expressed, no\ndoubt, na\u00efvely and fancifully, even playfully, without attempt at\nphilosophical deductions. It is informed by the same spirit as the\nAlexandrian allegory, but it is essentially poetical and impulsive,\nand set forth in mythical personification, not in deliberate\nmetaphysics. The Torah to the rabbis was the embodiment of the Wisdom\nwhich the writer of Proverbs had glorified, and it takes its\nprerogatives. God gazes upon the Torah before He creates the\nworld.[313] The Torah, though the chief, is not, however, the only\nobject of rabbinic idealism. God and His name, it is said, alone\nexisted before the world was created,[314] and in a Talmud legend\nrelating the birth of man, the ideal power is identified with Truth,\nwhich, like the Logos, is pictured as God's own seal.\n\n  \"From Heaven to Earth, from Earth once more to Heaven\n  Shall Truth, with constant interchange, alight\n  And soar again, an everlasting link\n  Between the world and Sky.\"\n\n  (Translation of Emma Lazarus.)[315]\n\nCorrespondingly, Philo identifies the Logos with the name of God and\nwith Truth.\n\nOf another piece of Talmudic idealism we catch a trace in Maimonides'\n\"Guide of the Perplexed,\"[316] where he says that the rabbis explained\nthe designation of God, [Hebrew: lrubb b'rbot] [rendered in the authorized\nversion, \"He who rideth on the heavens\" (Ps. lxviii. 4)], to mean that\nHe dwelt in the highest sphere of heaven amid the eternal ideas of\nJustice and Virtue, as it is said: \"Justice and Righteousness are the\nbase of Thy throne\" (Ps. lxxxix. 15). These fancies and\ninterpretations indicate that in Palestine as well as in Alexandria an\nidealistic theology and a religious metaphysics were developing at\nthis period, though in the East it was more imaginative, more Hebraic,\nmore in the spirit of the old prophets.\n\nThe more serious metaphysical and theological speculation of the\nrabbis was embodied in the doctrine of the \"Creation,\" and the\n\"Chariot,\" [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] and [Hebrew: m'sha mrkba], which in\nform were commentaries on the early chapters of Genesis and the visions\nof Ezekiel. They were reserved for the wisest and most learned, for the\nrabbis had always a fear of introducing the student to philosophy until\nhis knowledge of the law was well established. They held, with Plato, that\nmetaphysical speculation must be the crown of knowledge, and if treated as\nits foundation, before the necessary discipline had been obtained, it\nwould produce all sorts of wild ideas. Judaism for them was primarily\nnot a philosophical doctrine but a system of life. The Hellenistic\nschool was so far false to their standpoint that it laid stress for\nthe ordinary believer upon the philosophical meaning as well as upon\nthe law. And as events proved, this led to the neglect of the law and\nthe dogmatic establishment of speculative theories as the basis of a\nnew religion. Doubtless the consciousness that the philosophical\ndevelopment led away from Judaism increased the distrust of the later\nrabbis for such speculation, and made them regard esoteric as a milder\nterm for heretical; but the warning is already given in Ben Sira: \"It\nis not needful for thee to see the secret things.\"[317] The Talmud,\nindeed, records certain ideas about the powers of God and His relation\nto the universe in the names of the great masters; and in these ideas\nthere are striking resemblances to Philo's conceptions. The Word is\nspoken of as an intermediate agency;[318] the finger of God is really\nthe Word; the angels are sprung from the Words of God: Ben Zoma\ndeclared that the whole work of creation was carried out by the Word,\nas it is written, \"And God said.\"[319] But on the other hand there are\npassages in which the rabbis oppose the Alexandrian attitude, and\npoint out in its excessive philosophizing a danger to Judaism, so that\nin the end they exclude it. Rabbi Ishmael, we are told, warned his\npupils of the danger of Greek wisdom.[320] Akiba, living at a time\nwhen the Jews were fighting for spiritual as well as for physical life\nagainst the combined forces of the Greeks and Romans, proposed to ban\nall the [Hebrew: sfrim hitsonim],[321] and the Gemara argues that among\nthese were included the Apocryphal works which showed Greek influence.\nAgain, Elisha ben Abuya, the arch-heretic, is held up to reproach because\nhe read [Hebrew: sfri minim],[322] under which title Greek Gnostic books\nare probably implied.\n\nAt the time when this spirit shows itself, the appearance of heretical\noffshoots from Judaism was already pronounced. Heresy was the\naftermath of the combination of Judaism and Hellenism, and if further\ndisintegration was to be avoided, the seductive Greek influence had to\nbe discouraged. There is always the danger in a mingling of two\ncultures, that each will lose its particular excellence in a compound\nwhich has certain qualities, but not the virtues, of either element.\nCompromises may be desirable in political affairs; in affairs of\nthought they are perilous. Down to the time of Philo, the fusion of\nthought at Alexandria had been beneficial, and had broadened the\nJewish outlook without impairing its strength, but the dissolving\nforces of civilization never operated more powerfully than in the\nearly centuries of the common era, when the intellect of the world was\njaded and weary, and the great movement in culture was a jumbling\ntogether of the ideas of East and West. More especially in the\ncosmopolitan towns, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, national life,\nnational culture, and national religion were undermined; and even the\nJew, despite the stronghold of his law and tradition, was caught in\nthe general vortex of mingling creeds and theologies. Out of this\nconfusion (which was in one aspect a continuation of the work of\nPhilo) emerged, first, fantastic Gnostic religious and philosophical\nsects, and, finally, the Christian Church, which proved the system\nbest fitted to survive in the circumstances, but was in essence as\nwell as in origin a blending of different outlooks, and true to the\ncardinal points of neither Hebraism nor Hellenism. The rabbis, with\nremarkable intuition, saw that the Hellenistic development of Judaism,\nwhich had vainly striven to make Judaism universal, had ended in\nviolating its monotheism and abrogating its law; and in that era of\ndisintegration, denationalization, and decomposition they determined\nto keep their heritage pure and inviolate. Judaism by their efforts\nwas the only national culture which survived, and some sacrifice had\nto be made to secure this end. The literary monuments of the\nAlexandrian community from the Septuagint translation to the\nphilosophy of the Christian scholarchs were cut out of Jewish\ntradition, and the Babylonian school was ignorant altogether of the\n[Hebrew: hkma yonit] (Greek wisdom). When Ben Zoma desired to study the\n[Hebrew: sfrim hitsonim], and asked of his teacher at what hour of the\nday it was lawful to do so, he received the reply that it was permissible\nat an hour which was neither day nor night; for the precept was to study\nthe Torah by day and night, as it is said, [Hebrew: ] (Josh. i. 8). Bar\nKappara, indeed, a rabbi of the third century, explained Genesis ix. 27,\n\"God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem,\" to\nmean that the words of the Torah shall be recited in the speech of\nJapheth (_i.e._, Greek) in the synagogues and schools,[323] but by\nmost other teachers the union between Shem and Japheth was no longer\nencouraged, because Japheth had become degraded and was allied with\nthe cruel children of Edom (Rome).\n\nBesides the Talmud and the Midrash we have, in the work of Josephus,\nanother indication that there was in Philo's own day communication\nbetween Alexandria and Palestine. The Jewish historian marks the\ninfluence of Hellenic ideas in Palestine in fullest measure, and like\nPhilo he seeks by embellishment to recommend the histories and\nScriptures of his people to the non-Jew and to bring home their\nthought to the cultured Roman-Greek world. Thus, in the preface to his\n\"Antiquities,\" he notes, as Philo noted in his commentary, that Moses\nbegins his laws with a philosophical cosmology; he says also that\nMoses spoke some things under a fitting allegory, hiding beneath it a\nvery remarkable philosophical theory. The allegorical commentary which\nJosephus declared that he intended to write has not--if it was\nwritten--come down to us, but we have in his writings certain\nallegorical valuations of names that agree directly with Philo. Abel\nhe explains as signifying mourning, Cain, [Hebrew: kin], as selfish\npossession. In the priestly garments of Aaron he sees with Philo a\nsymbol of the universe, which the high priest supported when he\nentered the Holy of Holies. And the ritual vessels of the tabernacle\nhave also their universal significance.\n\n     \"If,\" says the Palestinian Hellenist, \"any man do but\n     consider the fabric of the tabernacle and regard the\n     vestments of the high priest, he will find that our\n     legislator was a Divine man, and that we are unjustly\n     reproached by those who attack us for tribal narrowness. For\n     if he look upon these things without prejudice, he will find\n     that each one was made by way of imitation and\n     representation of the universe. When Moses ordered twelve\n     loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the years as\n     distinguished into so many months. By branching out the\n     candlestick into seven parts, he intimated the seven\n     divisions of the planets.... The vestments of the high\n     priest, being made of linen, signified the earth, the blue\n     color thereof denoted the sky, the pomegranates symbolized\n     lightning, and the noise of the bells resembled thunder. And\n     the fashion of the ephod showed that God had made the world\n     of four elements.\"[324]\n\nLet us now listen now to Philo: \"The raiment of the priest is\naltogether a representation and imitation of the universe, and its\nparts are the parts of the other. His tunic is all of blue linen, the\nsymbol of the sky. [The rabbis had a similar fancy of the Tsitsith\n(fringes).] And the flowers embroidered thereon mark the earth, from\nwhich all things flower. And the pomegranates are a symbol of the\nwater, being skilfully called thus ([Greek: rhoischoi], _i.e._,\nflowing fruit) because of their juice, and the bells are the symbols\nof the harmony of all the elements.\"[325]\n\nIt is true that the symbolism of two allegorists is varied, but a\ncommon spirit and aim underlie their interpretations. This is true\nalike of their account of the ritualistic and civil law of Moses.\nEither, then, there was a common source of Jewish apologetic\nliterature, or Josephus must have borrowed from Philo. It is\nsignificant that he is the only contemporary of Philo that mentions\nhim. He speaks of him as a distinguished philosopher, the brother of\nthe alabarch, and the leader of the embassy to Gaius.[326] He knows\nalso of the anti-Semitic diatribes of Philo's great enemy Apion, and\ntwo of his extant books are masterly reply to their outpourings. Hence\nit is not rash to assume that he knew at least that part of Philo's\nwork which had a missionary and apologetic purpose--the \"Life of\nMoses\" and the \"Hypothetica.\" He makes no acknowledgment to them, it\nis true, but expressions of obligation were not in the fashion of the\ntime. Plagiarism was held to be no crime, and citation of authorities\nin notes or elsewhere was almost unknown in literature--save in the\nTalmud,[327] where to tell something in the name of somebody else is a\nvirtue. But one can hardly doubt that the man who devoted himself to\nrefuting the lying calumnies of Apion first made himself master of the\nclassical work of Apion's opponent, which claimed to give to the Greek\nworld the authoritative account of the Jewish lawgiver and his\nlegislation.\n\nWhat Josephus knew must have been known to other cultured Jews of\nPalestine. Yet Philo, save in one doubtful case which will be noticed,\nis not mentioned by any Jewish writer between Josephus in the first\nand Azariah dei Rossi in the sixteenth century. The compilers of the\nMidrashim and the Yalkut, the philosophers of the Dark and Middle\nAges, finally the Cabbalists, are continually reminiscent of his\ndoctrines, but they do not mention his works or his existence. The\nMidrash Tadsh\u00e9,[328] a tenth century compilation of allegorical\nexegesis, contains definite parallels to Philonic passages, especially\nin its quotations from an Essene Tannaite, Pin[h.]as ben Ja\u00efr; but\nagain the trace of influence is indirect. On the other hand, the\nChristian writers from the time of Clement in the second century quote\nhim freely, make anthologies of his beautiful sayings, and in their\nmore imaginative moments acclaim him the comrade of Mark and the\nfriend of Peter. The rise of the Christian Church, which coincided\nwith the downfall of the nation, caused the rabbis to emphasize the\nnational character of Judaism in order to preserve the old faith of\ntheir fathers in the critical condition in which exile, persecution,\nand assimilation placed it. The first century was a time of feverish\ndreams and wild hopes that were not realizable: men had looked for the\ncoming of the days of universal peace and good-will, and the\nAlexandrian Jews in particular hoped for the spreading of Judaism over\nthe world. The rabbis recognized that this consummation was far away,\nand that Judaism must remain particularist for centuries in the hope\nof a final universalism. Meantime it must hold fast to the law and, in\ndefault of a national home, strengthen the national religious life in\neach Jewish household. They regarded Greek as not only a strange but a\nhostile tongue, and the allegorical exegesis of the Bible, which had\nled to the whittling away of the law, as a godless wisdom. The\nSeptuagint translation, which had offered a starting point for\nphilosophical speculation, was replaced by a new Greek version of the\nOld Testament made by Aquila, a proselyte, in the first century. It\ngave a baldly literal translation of the Hebrew text, sacrificing form\nand even lucidity to a faithful transcript. With unconscious irony the\nrabbis, who rejoiced in its truth to the Hebrew, said of Aquila, \"Thou\nart fairer than the children of men, grace is poured into thy\nlips\"[329] (Ps. xlv). In truth the work was utterly innocent of\nliterary grace. A translation of the Bible marked the end, as it had\nmarked the beginning, of Jewish-Hellenistic literature, but if the\nfirst had suggested the admission, so the other suggested the\nrejection of Greek philosophy from the interpretation of Judaism and a\nreturn to the exclusive national standpoint. The rabbinical\nappreciation of Aquila's work shows that, while the Jews were in\nPalestine, many still required a Greek translation of the Bible; but\nwhen in the third century C.E. the centre of the religion was moved to\nBabylon, Greek was forgotten, and the rabbis for a period lost sight\nof Greek culture. It is another irony of history that our manuscripts\nof Philo go back to an archetype in the library of C\u00e6sarea in\nPalestine, which Eusebius studied in the fourth century. Philo came to\nthe land of his fathers in the possession of his people's enemies, and\nat a time when he could no longer be understood by his people.\n\nPhilo's works were not translated into Hebrew, and as Greek ceased to\nbe the language of the cultured, they could not, in their original\nform, have influenced later Jewish philosophers. But the Christians,\nin their proselytizing activity, had translated them into Latin and\nArmenian before the fifth century, and through one of these means they\nmay possibly have exercised an influence upon the new school of Jewish\nphilosophy, which, opening with Saadia in the tenth century, blossomed\nforth in the Arabic-Spanish epoch. The light of historical research is\nbeginning to illumine the obscurity of the Dark Ages, and has revealed\ntraces of an Alexandrian allegorist in the writings of the Persian Jew\nBenjamin al-Nehawendi, himself a distinguished allegorizer of the\nBible, who wrote in the ninth century and taught that God created the\nworld by means of one ministerial angel.[330] Benjamin relates that\nthe doctrine was held by a Jewish sect known as the Maghariya, which\nprobably sprang up in the fourth or the fifth century, when sects grew\nlike mushrooms. The Karaite al-Kirkisani, who wrote fifty years later,\nsays that the Maghariya sect used in support of their doctrine the\n\"prolegomena of an Alexandrian sage\" who gave certain remarkable\ninterpretations of the Bible; and in one of Dr. Schechter's Genizah\nfragments, which is probably to be ascribed to Kirkisani, there are\ncontained examples of the Alexandrian's explanations of the Decalogue,\nwhich occur, and occur only, in Philo's treatise on the \"Ten\nCommandments.\"\n\nThis connection between Philo and an obscure Jewish sect, or an\nobscurer Persian-Jewish writer, may appear far-fetched and not worth\nthe making. In itself doubtless it is unimportant, but it serves to\nkeep Philo, however barely, within Jewish tradition. For it shows that\nAlexandrian literature, though probably through the medium of a\nMohammedan source, was known to some Jews in the centuries of\ntransition. It may be that further examination of the great Genizah\ncollection, which has opened to Jewish scholarship a new world, will\nreveal further and stronger ties to unite Philo with his philosophical\nsuccessors, of whom the first is Saadia Gaon (892-942 C.E.). Indeed\nthe main interest of this newly-discovered connection, if it can be\nseriously so regarded, is that it suggests the possibility of Saadia's\nacquaintance with Philo by means of a translation. That Saadia read\nthe works upon which Christian theologians relied, is certain; and a\nfragment in which he refers to the teaching of Judah the\nAlexandrian[331]--also unearthed from the Cairo Genizah--goes some way\nto support the suggestion. The passage refers to the connection of the\nnumber \"fifty\" with the different seasons of the year, and though it\ndoes not tally exactly with any piece of the extant Philo, it is in\nthe Philonic manner. And Philo, who was surnamed Jud\u00e6us by the Church,\nwould have been re-named by his own people, translating from the\nChurch writers, [Hebrew: yhuda]. One would the more willingly catch on to\nthis floating straw, because Saadia was at once a compatriot of Philo,\nborn in the Fayyum of Egypt, and the first Jew who strove to carry on\nhis work. He aimed at showing the philosophy of the Torah, and its\nharmony with Greek wisdom in particular. Aristotle, who had been\ntranslated into Arabic, had meantime supplanted Plato as the master of\nphilosophy for theologians, and Saadia's _magnum opus_, [Hebrew: amonot\ntsd'ot], is colored throughout by Aristotelian ideas. But the difference\nof masters does not obscure the likeness of aim, and, albeit\nunconsciously, Saadia renews the task of the Hellenic-Jewish school.\n\nSaadia's work was carried on and expanded in a great outburst of the\nJewish genius, which showed itself most brilliantly in the\nMoorish-Spanish kingdom. The general cultural conditions of Alexandria\nin the first century B.C.E. were reproduced in Spain in the tenth\ncentury. Once again the Jews found themselves politically emancipated\namid a sympathetic environment, and again they illumined their\nreligious tradition with all the culture which their environment could\nafford. The mingling of thought gave birth to a great literature, both\ncreative and critical; to a striking body of lyric poetry; to a\nsystematic theology, and a religious philosophy.\n\nWhile the study of the old Talmudic lore was maintained, the greatest\nteachers developed tradition afresh by a philosophical restatement\ndesigned to make it appeal to the mental attitude of the enlightened.\nThe sermon flourished again, collections of Haggadah (Yalkut) were\nmade as storehouses of homilies, and metaphysical treatises modelled\nupon the works of the schoolmen set forth a philosophical Judaism for\nthe learned world. It is notable also that these last were not written\nin Hebrew or in the Talmudic dialect, but in Arabic, the language of\ntheir cultured environment; for though the missionary spirit was dead,\nthe controversial activity of the period impelled the Jewish\nphilosophers to present their ideas in the form used by the\nphilosophers of the general community.\n\nIt is not only the general conditions of the Arab-Jewish period, but\nalso the special development of Jewish ideas, which recalls the work\nof the Alexandrian school. This was, indeed, to be expected, seeing\nthat in both cases there was a mingling of Hebraism and Hellenism. In\nSpain, however, the Jews acquired Hellenism at second hand, and\nthrough the somewhat distorted medium of Arabic translations or\nscholastic misunderstanding, and hence the harmony is neither complete\nnor pure. They endeavored to show that the teachings of Aristotle are\nimplicit in the written and the oral law, but the interpretation is\nhardly convincing even in \"The Guide of the Perplexed,\" of Maimonides,\nthe monumental work which marks the culmination of medi\u00e6val Jewish\nphilosophy.\n\nIf there is one figure in Jewish tradition with whom Philo challenges\nat once comparison and contrast, it is Maimonides, the brightest star\nof the Arabic, as he was of the Hellenic, development of the Jewish\nreligion. Though there is nothing on which to found any direct\ninfluence of the one on the other, the aim, the method, the scope of\ntheir philosophical work are the same, the relation which they hold to\nexist between faith and philosophy wellnigh identical. The metaphysics\nof the Bible, according to both, is hidden beneath an allegory, and\nis meant only for the more learned of the people. To Maimonides the\nBible is not only the standard of all wisdom, but it is \"the Divine\nanticipation of human discovery.\" In the words of Hosea, God has\ntherein \"multiplied visions and spoken in similitudes\" (xii. 11). The\nduty of the Jewish philosopher is to expound these metaphors and\nsimiles; and Maimonides, endeavoring to knit Greek metaphysics closely\nwith Jewish tradition, propounds a science of allegorical values,\nwhich by exact philological study traces the inner as well as the\nouter meaning of the Hebrew words. But differentiated as it is by\ngreater mastery of the tradition and closer adherence to the Hebrew\ntext, his method is nearly as artificial and his thought as extraneous\nto the text as the method and thought of Philo. The content of their\nphilosophies is, indeed, strikingly alike, save that the one is a\nPlatonist, the other an Aristotelian. This involves not so much a\ndifference of philosophical views as a difference of temper and of\nobjective. The followers of Plato are mystics, yearning for the love\nof God; the followers of Aristotle are rationalists, seeking for the\nabstract knowledge of God. Hence in Maimonides there is less soaring\nand more argument than in Philo. Everything is deduced, so far as may\nbe, with exactitude and logical sequence--according to the logic of\nthe schoolmen--and everything is formalized according to scholastic\nprinciples. But the subjects treated are the same--the nature of God\nand His attributes, His relation to the universe and man, the manner\nof the creation, and the way of righteousness.\n\nMaimonides, who is in form more loyal to Jewish tradition, is to a\nlarger degree than Philo dependent on authority for the philosophical\nideas which he applies to religion. To a great extent this is due to\nthe spirit of his age, for in the Middle Ages not only was the matter\nof thought, but also its form, accepted on authority, and Aristotle\nruled the one as imperiously as the Bible ruled the other. The\ndifferences of form and substance do not, however, obscure the\nessential likeness with Philo's interpretation of Judaism. With him\nMaimonides holds that the essential nature of God is incognizable.[332]\nNo positive predication can properly be applied to Him, but we know\nHim by His activities in relation to man and the world, _i.e._, by His\nattributes or by what Philo called His powers. Maimonides does not\npreserve the absolute monarchy of the Divine government, but places\nbetween God and man intermediate beings with subordinate creative\npowers--the separate intelligences of the stars, which are identified\nwith the angels of the Bible.[333] But he maintains inviolate the sole\ncausality of God and His immanence in the human soul. Maimonides, like\nPhilo, gives in addition to a metaphysical theology a philosophical\nexposition of the law of Moses, which has the same guiding principle\nas the books on the \"Specific Laws.\" Moses was the perfect\nlegislator,[334] whose ordinances are [Hebrew: tsdikim], _i.e._, perfectly\nequitable, attaining \"the mean\"--the Aristotelian conception of\nexcellence--and identical with the eternal laws of nature.[335]\nNumerous details of Maimonides' interpretations agree with those given\nin the books on the \"Specific Laws.\" Whether correspondence of thought\nis merely an indication of the similar workings of Jewish genius in\nsimilar conditions, or whether it is the effect of an early tradition\ncommon to both, or whether, finally, there was connection, however\nindirect, between the two minds, it is now impossible to say. But at\nleast the philosophy of Maimonides confirms the inner Jewishness of\nthe philosophy of Philo, and its essential loyalty to Jewish\ntradition.\n\nNot less striking than his correspondence with later Jewish religious\nphilosophy, though not less indefinite, is the relation of Philo to\nthe later Jewish mystical and theosophical literature, purporting also\nto be a development of hoary tradition, and indeed calling itself\nsimply the tradition, [Hebrew: kbla]. Between Philo and the Cabbalah it is\nas difficult to establish any direct connection as between Philo and\nrabbinic Midrash, but the likeness in spirit and the signs of a common\nsource are equally remarkable. To trace God in all things through\nvarious attributes and emanations, to bring God and man into direct\nunion, to prove that there is an immanent God within the soul of the\nindividual, and to show how this may be inspired with the\ntranscendental Deity--this is common to both. In the earliest times\nthe mystic doctrine appears to have been a form of Jewish Gnosticism,\nspeculation about the nature of God and His connection with the world.\nIt probably embraced the [Hebrew: m'sha br'shit] and the [Hebrew: m'sha\nmrkba], though we know not what these exactly contained.[336] But it was\nnot till the Middle Ages that Jewish mysticism received definite and\nseparate literary expression, and by that time it was mixed up with a\nnumber of neo-Platonic and magical fancies and foreign theosophies. The\nlater compilations of this character form what is more regularly known\nas the Cabbalah; but, apart from the professions of the later writers,\na continuous train of tradition affirms the existence of secret\nteachings in Judaism from the time of the Babylonian captivity. Jewish\nmysticism is as much a continuous expression of the spirit of the race\nas the Jewish law. We may then without rashness conclude that the\nlater Cabbalah is a coarser development, for a less enlightened and\nless philosophical age, of the Gnostic material which Philo\nrefashioned in the light of Platonism for the Hellenized community at\nAlexandria. Modern scholars have favored the idea that the Essenes\nwere the first systematizers of and the first practitioners in the\nCabbalah, and have interpreted their name[337] to mean those engaged\nin secret things, but the mystic tradition itself is earlier than the\nfoundation of a special mystic sect. It is part of the heritage from\nthe Jewish prophets and psalmists and the Babylonian interaction with\nHebraism.\n\nPhilo had large sympathies with the Essenic development of Judaism, and\nhe speaks at times as though he had joined one of their communities, and\ntherein had been initiated into the great mysteries and secret\nphilosophies of the sages. We have noted that he offers his most\nprecious wisdom to the worthy few alone, \"who in all humility practice\ngenuine piety, free from all false pretence.\" They, in turn, are to\ndiscourse on these doctrines only to other members of the brotherhood.\n\"I bid ye, initiated brethren, who listen with chastened ears, receive\nthese truly sacred mysteries in your inmost souls, and reveal them not\nto one of the uninitiated, but laying them up in your hearts, guard them\nas a most excellent treasure in which the noblest of possessions is\nstored, the knowledge, namely, of the First Cause and of virtue, and\nmoreover of what they generate.\"[338] These mysteries, it is not\nunlikely, represent according to some scholars the [Hebrew: sod] of the\nTalmudical rabbis, which was elaborately developed in the Zohar and\nkindred writings. Be this as it may, Philo's religious intensity\nexpresses the spirit of the Cabbalists, his mystic soaring is the\nprototype of their theosophical ecstasies; his persistent declaration\nthat God encloses the universe, but is Himself not enclosed by anything,\ncontains the root of their conception of the En Sof ([Hebrew: 'yn\nsof]),[339] his Logos-idealism, with its Divine effluences, which are\nthe true causes of all changes, physical and mental, is companion to\ntheir system of [Hebrew: 'olmim] and [Hebrew: sfirot], emanations and\nspheres. His fancies about sex and the struggle between a male and\nfemale principle in all things[340] are a constant theme of their\nteachers, and form a special section of their wisdom, [Hebrew: sof\nhtsrog], the mystery of generation. His conception of the Logos as the\nheavenly archetype of the human race, the \"Man-himself,\" is the Platonic\ncounterpart of their [Hebrew: adm kdmon], or \"primal man,\" who is known\nin the ancient allegorizing of the Song of Songs. His number-mysticism\nand his speech-idealism reappear more crudely, but not obscurely, in\ntheir ideas of creative letters, of which the cosmogony by the\ntwenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in the Sefer Yezirah is\ntypical. Finally, his teachings of ecstasy and Divine possession are\nrepeated in divers ways in their descriptions of the pious life\n([Hebrew: hnanot]).\n\nPhilo, indeed, viewed from the Jewish standpoint, is the Hellenizer\nnot only of the law but also of the Cabbalah, the philosophical\nadapter of the secret traditional wisdom of his ancestors. He brings\nit into close relation with Platonism and purifies it; he clears away\nits anthropomorphisms and superstitious fantasies, or rather he raises\nthem into idealistic conceptions and sublime exaltations of the soul.\nBy his deep knowledge of the intellectual ideas of Greece he refined\nthe strange compound of lofty imagination and popular fancy, and\nraised it to a higher value. Plato and the Cabbalah represent the same\nmystic spirit in different degrees of intellectual sublimity and\nreligious aspiration; Philo endeavored to unite the two\nmanifestations. He lived in a markedly non-rational age given over to\nmystical speculation; and Alexandria especially, by her cosmopolitan\ncharacter, \"furnished the soil and seed which formed the mystic\nphilosophy that knew how to blend the wisdom and folly of the\nages.\"[341] Through the mass of apocalyptic literature that was poured\nforth in the first centuries of the common era, through the later\nbooks of the Apocrypha, through the Sefer Yezirah of the ninth and the\nZohar of the thirteenth century, and through the vast literature\ninspired by these books, run the ideas that composed Philo's mystic\ntheology. Philo himself was unknown, but his religious interpretation\nof Platonism had entered into the world's thought, and inspired the\nmystics of his own race as well as of the Christian world.\n\nAfter a thousand years of Latin domination the Renaissance revived the\nstudy of Greek in Western Europe, and to the most cultured of his race\nPhilo was no longer a sealed book. The first Jewish writer to show an\nintimate acquaintance with him and a clear idea of his relation to\nJewish tradition was Azariah dei Rossi, who lived in the sixteenth\ncentury. His \"Meor Einayim\" dealt largely with the Hellenistic epoch\nof Judaism, and its attitude towards it is summed up in the remark\nthat \"all that is good in Philo agrees with our law.\"[342] He pointed\nout many instances of agreement, and some of disagreement, but he\nobjected in general to the allegorizing of the historical parts of the\nTorah and to the absence of the traditional interpretations in Philo's\ncommentaries. He shared largely the rabbinical attitude and could not\ngive an independent historical appreciation of Philo's work. That was\nnot to come for two hundred years more. To Dei Rossi we owe the Jewish\ntranslation of Philo's name, [Hebrew: ydydim 'lksndri].[343] To the outer\nworld Philo was \"the Jew\"; to his own people, \"the Alexandrian.\"\n\nAs soon as Greek was reintroduced into the scholarly world, Philo\nbegan to reassert an important influence on theology. One remarkable\nschool of English mystics and religious philosophers, the Cambridge\nPlatonists, who wrote during the seventeenth century, founded upon him\ntheir method and also their general attitude to philosophy.[344] They\nwere Christian neo-Platonists, who looked for spiritual allegories in\nthe Old and New Testaments, and combined the teachings of Jesus with\nthe emotional idealism of the Alexandrian interpreters of Plato. They\naffirmed enthusiastically God's revelation to the universe and to\nindividual man through the Logos. Their imitation of Philo's\nallegorism serves to mark the important place that he occupied in the\nlearned world during the seventeenth century; and supports, however\nslightly, the suggestion that he influenced, directly or indirectly,\nthe supreme Jewish philosopher of the age, Baruch de Spinoza. That he\nwas well known in Holland at the time is shown in divers ways. He is\nquoted by the famous jurist Grotius in his book which founded the\nscience of international law; he is quoted and criticised, as we have\nseen, by Scaliger; and curiously enough, his name, \"Philo-Jud\u00e6us,\" is\napplied by Rembrandt to the portrait of his own father, now in the\nFerdinandeum at Innsbruck. It is tempting to conjecture that there was\na direct connection between the Jewish philosophers of the ancient and\nthe modern world. Whether it existed or not, there is certainly\nkinship in their ideas. Spinoza does actually refer in one place, in\nhis \"Theologico-Political Tractate\" (ch. x), to the opinion of\nPhilo-Jud\u00e6us upon the date of Psalm lxxxviii, and there are other\nplaces in the same book, where he almost echoes the words of the\nJewish Platonist; as where he speaks of God's eternal Word being\ndivinely inscribed in the human mind: \"And this is the true original\nof God's covenant, stamped with His own seal, namely, the idea of\nHimself, as it were, with the image of His Godhead\" (iv); or, again,\n\"The supreme reward for keeping God's Word is that Word itself.\"\nSpinoza knew no Greek, but, master as he was of Christian theology, he\nmay have studied Philo in a Latin translation, and caught some of his\nphrases. With or without influence, he developed, as Philo had done, a\nsystem of philosophy, starting from the Hebrew conception of God and\nblending Jewish tradition with scientific metaphysics. The Unity of\nGod and His sole reality were the fundamental principles of his\nthought, as they had been of Philo's. He rejected, indeed, with scorn\nthe notion that all philosophy must be deduced from the Bible, which\nwas to him a book of moral and religious worth, but free from all\nphilosophical doctrine. Theology, the subject of the Bible, according\nto him, demands perfect obedience, philosophy perfect knowledge.[345]\nBoth alike are saving, but the spheres of the two are distinct: and\nMoses and the prophets excel in law and imagination, not in reason and\nreflection. Hence Spinoza approached the Bible from the critical\nstandpoint; and, on the other hand, he approached philosophy with a\nfree mind searching for truth, independent of religious dogmatism, and\nhe was, therefore, the founder of modern philosophy. None the less his\nview of the universe is an intellectual expression of the Hebraic\nmonotheism, which unites a religious with a scientific monism. He\nregards God as the only reality, sees and knows all things in Him, and\ndeduces all things from His attributes, which are the incomplete\nrepresentations that man makes of His true nature; he explains all\nthought, all movement, and all that seems material as the working of\nHis modes; and, finally, he places as the end of man's intellectual\nprogress and the culmination of his moral life the love of God. In\ntruth, Jewish philosophy has its unity and its special stamp, no less\nthan Jewish religion and tradition, from which it receives its\nnurture. Thrice it has towered up in a great system: through Philo in\nthe classical, through Maimonides in the medi\u00e6val, through Spinoza in\nthe modern world. In the Renaissance of Jewish learning during the\nnineteenth century, Philo was at last studied and interpreted by scholars\nof his own people. The first modern writer to reveal the philosophy of\nJewish history was Nachman Krochmal (1785-1840), and his posthumous Hebrew\nbook, \"The Guide of the Perplexed of the Time,\" edited by Zunz,\ncontained the first critical appreciation of the Hellenistic Jewish\nculture by a rabbinic scholar. He knew no Greek, but he studied the\nworks of German writers, and in his account of Philo gives a summary\nof the remarks of the theologian Neander, himself a baptized Jew. In\nhis own criticism he discerns the weakness and strength of Philo from\nthe Jewish aspect. \"There are,\" he says, \"many strange things in\nPhilo's exegesis, not only because he draws far-fetched allegories\nfrom the text, but also because he interprets single words without a\nsure foundation in Hebrew philology. He uses Scripture as a sort of\nclay which he moulds to convey his philosophical ideas. Yet we must be\ngrateful to him because many of his interpretations are beautiful\nornaments to the text; and we may apply to them what Ibn Ezra said of\nthe teachings of the Haggadah, 'Some of them are fine silks, others as\nheavy as sack-cloth.'\"\n\nKrochmal translated into Hebrew examples of Philo's allegories and\ngave parallels and contrasts from the Talmud. The relation between the\nPalestinian and the Alexandrian exegesis was more elaborately\nconsidered by a greater master of Hellenistic literature, Zacharias\nFrankel (1801-1875), who has been followed by a band of Jewish scholars.\nYearly our understanding of the Alexandrian culture becomes fuller.\nPhilo, too, has in part been translated into Hebrew. Indirect in the\npast, his influence on Jewish thought in the future bids fair to be\ndirect and increasing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF PHILO\n\n\nThe hope which Philo had cherished and worked for was the spreading of\nthe knowledge of God and the diffusion of the true religion over the\nwhole world.[346] The end of Jewish national life was approaching, but\nrabbis in Palestine and philosophers at Alexandria, unconscious of the\nimminent doom, thought that the promise of the prophet was soon to be\nfulfilled, and all peoples would go up to worship the one God at the\ntemple upon Mount Zion, which should be the religious centre of the\nworld. In Philo's day a universal Judaism seemed possible, a Judaism\ntrue to the Torah as well as to the Unity of God,[347] spread over the\nMegalopolis of all peoples; and in the light of this hope Philo\nwelcomed proselytism. The Jews had a clear mission; they were to be\nthe light of the world, because they alone of all peoples had\nperceived God. Israel ([Hebrew: 'shr'l]), to repeat Philo's etymology, is\nthe man who beholds God, and through him the other nations were to be\nled to the light. The mission of Israel was not a passive service, but\nan active preaching of God's word, and an active propagation of God's\nlaw to the Gentile. He must welcome the stranger that came within the\ngates.[348] Philo struggled against the separative and exclusive\ntendency which characterized a section of his race. He laid stress\nupon the valuelessness of birth, and the saving power of God's grace\nto the pagan who has come to recognize Him, in language which\nChristian commentators call incredible in a Jew, but which was in fact\ntypical of the common feeling at Alexandria. Appealing to the\nGentiles, Philo declared that \"God has special regard for the\nproselyte, who is in the class of the weak and humble together with\nthe widow and orphan[349]; for he may be alienated from his kindred\nwhen he is converted to the honor of the one true God, and abandons\nidolatrous, polytheistic worship, but God is all the more his advocate\nand helper.\" And speaking to the Jews he says:[350] \"Kinship is not\nmeasured by blood alone when truth is the judge, but by likeness of\nconduct and by the pursuit of the same objects.\" Similarly, in the\nMidrash, it is said that proselytes are as dear to God as those who\nwere born Jews;[351] and, again, that the Torah was given to Israel\nfor the benefit of all peoples;[352] or[353] that the purpose of\nIsrael's dispersion was that they might make proselytes. Philo's short\ntreatise on \"Nobility\" is an eloquent plea for the equal treatment of\nthe stranger who joins the true faith; and the author finds in the\nBible narratives support for his thesis, that not good birth but the\nvirtue of the individual is the true test of merit. Of the\nvaluelessness of the one, Cain, Ham, and Esau are types; of the\nsupreme worth of the other, Abraham, who is set up as the model of the\nexcellent man brought up among idolaters, but led by the Divine\noracle, revealed to his mind, to embrace the true idea of God. If the\nfounder of the Hebrew nation was himself a convert, then surely there\nwas a place within the religion for other converts. Remarkable is the\nclosing note of the book:\n\n     \"We should, therefore, blame those who spuriously\n     appropriate as their own merit what they derive from others,\n     good birth; and they should justly be regarded as enemies\n     not only of the Jewish race, but of all mankind; of the\n     Jewish race, because they engender indifference in their\n     brethren, so that they despise the righteous life in their\n     reliance upon their ancestors' virtue; and of the Gentiles,\n     because they would not allow them their meed of reward even\n     though they attain to the highest excellence of conduct,\n     simply because they have not commendable ancestors. I know\n     not if there could be a more pernicious doctrine than this:\n     that there is no punishment for the wicked offspring of good\n     parents, and no reward for the good offspring of evil\n     parents. The law judges each man upon his own merit, and\n     does not assign praise or blame according to the virtues of\n     the forefathers.\"\n\nAnd, again, he writes: \"God judges by the fruit of the tree, not by\nthe root; and in the Divine judgment the proselyte will be raised on\nhigh, and he will have a double distinction, because on earth he\n'deserted' to God, and later he receives as his reward a place in\nHeaven.\"[354]\n\nUnfortunately, the development of missionizing activity, which\nfollowed Philo's epoch, threatening, as it did, the fundamental\nprinciples of Judaism, necessitated the reassertion of its national\ncharacter and antagonism to an attitude which sought expansion by\ncompromise. It is the tragedy of Philo's work that his mission to the\nnations was of necessity distrusted by his own race, and that his\nappeal for tolerance within the community was turned to a mockery by\nthe hostility which the converts of the next century showed to the\nnational ideas. Christian apologists early learned to imitate Philo's\nallegorical method, and appropriated it to explain away the laws of\nMoses. Within a hundred years of Philo's death, his ideal, at least in\nthe form in which he had conceived it, had been shattered for ages.\nWhile he was preaching a philosophical Judaism for the world at\nAlexandria, Peter and Paul were preaching through the Diaspora an\nheretical Judaism for the half-converted Gentiles. The disciples of\nJesus spread his teaching far and wide; but they continually widened\nthe breach which their Master had himself initiated, and so their work\nbecame, not so much a development of Judaism, as an attack upon it. In\nsome of its principles, indeed, the message of Jesus was the message\nof Philo, emphasizing, as it did, the broad principles of morality and\nthe need of an inner godliness. But it was fundamentally\ndifferentiated by a doctrine of God and the Messiah which was neither\nJewish nor philosophical, and by the breaking away from the law of\nMoses, which cut at the roots of national life. Whatever the moral\nworth of the preaching of Jesus, it involved and involves the\noverthrow of the Jewish attitude to life and religion, which may be\nexpressed as the sanctification of ordinary conduct, and as morality\nunder the national law. To this ideal Philo throughout was true, and\nthe Christian teachers were essentially opposed, and however much they\napproximated to his method and utilized his thought, they were always\nstrangers to his spirit. Philo's philosophy was in great part a\nphilosophy of the law; the Patristic school borrowed his allegorizing\nmethod and produced a philosophy of religious dogma! Those who spread\nthe Christian doctrine among the Hellenized peoples and the\nsophisticated communities that dwelt round the Mediterranean found it\nnecessary to explain and justify it by the metaphysical and ethical\ncatchwords of the day, and in so doing they took Philo as their model.\nThey followed both in general and in detail his allegorical\ninterpretations in their recommendation of the Old Testament to the\nmore cultured pagans, as the apology of Justin, the commentaries of\nOrigen, and the philosophical miscellany ([Greek: Str\u00f4mateis]) of\nClement abundantly show.\n\nCertain parts of the New Testament itself exhibit the combination of\nHebraism and Hellenism which characterizes the work of Philo. In the\nsayings of Jesus we have the Hebraic strain, but in Luke and John and\nthe Epistles the mingling of cultures. Thus the Apostles seem to some\nthe successors of Philo, and the Epistles the lineal descendants of\nthe \"Allegories of the Laws.\" In the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews especially the correspondence is striking. But there is,\nin fact, despite much that is common, a great gulf between them. The\nlater missionaries oppose the national religion and the Torah: Philo\nwas pre-eminently their champion.\n\nThe most commanding of the Apostles, Paul of Tarsus, when he took the\nnew statement of Judaism out of the region of spirit and tried to\nshape it into a definite religion for the world, \"forgot the rock from\nwhich he was hewn.\" As a modern Jewish theologian says,[355] \"His\nbreak with the past is violent; Jesus seemed to expand and\nspiritualize Judaism; Paul in some senses turns it upside down.\" His\nwork may have been necessary to bring home the Word to the heathen,\nbut it utterly breaks the continuity of development. Paul himself was\nlittle of a philosopher, and those to whom he preached were not\nusually philosophical communities such as Philo addressed at\nAlexandria, but congregations of half converted, superstitious pagans.\nThe philosophical exposition of the law was too difficult for them,\nwhile the observance of the law in its strictness demanded too great a\nsacrifice. The spiritual teaching of Jesus was dissociated by his\nApostle from its source, and the break with Judaism was deliberate and\ncomplete. The fanatical zest of the missionary dominated him, and he\nproclaimed distinctly where the new Hebraism which was offered to the\nGentile should depart from the historic religion of the Jews: \"For Christ\nis the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth,\"[356]\nhe says to the Romans; and to the Galatians: \"As many as are of the works\nof the law are under the curse.\"[357] \"Christ hath redeemed us from the\ncurse of the law.... But before faith came, we were kept under the law,\nshut up with the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore\nthe law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be\njustified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer\nunder a schoolmaster.\" Paul's position then--and he is the forerunner\nof dogmatic Christianity--involved a rejection of the Torah; and it is\nthis which above all else constituted his cleavage from both Judaism\nand the Philonic presentation of it.\n\nPhilo is commonly regarded as the forerunner of Christian teaching,\nand it is doubtless true that he suggested to the Church Fathers parts\nof their theology, and represented also the missionary spirit which\ninspired the teaching of some Apostles. But it must be clearly\nunderstood that he shared still more the spirit of Hillel, whose maxim\nwas \"to love thy fellow-creatures and draw them near to the Torah,\"\nand that he would have been fundamentally opposed to the new\nmissionary attitude of Paul. The doctrines of the Epistle to the\nRomans, or the Epistle to the Ephesians, are absolutely antipathetic\nto the ideal of the \"Allegories of the Laws.\" Paul is allied in\nspirit--though his expression is that of the fanatic rather than of\nthe philosopher--to the extreme allegorist section of philosophical\nJews at Alexandria, attacked by Philo for their shallowness in the\nfamous passage, quoted from _De Migratione Abrahami_ (ch. 16[358]),\nwho, because they recognized the spiritual meaning of the law,\nrejected its literal commands; because they saw that circumcision\nsymbolized the abandonment of the sensual life, no longer observed the\nceremony. The same antinomian spirit is shown in the Epistle to the\nGalatians by the allegory of the children whom Abraham had by Hagar\nthe bondwoman and Sarah the free wife: \"For there are the two\ncovenants, the one from the mount of Sinai which gendereth to bondage,\nwhich is Hagar.... But we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of\npromise.\" To Philo the law and the observance of the letter were the\nhigh-road to freedom and the Divine spirit, and, remaining loyal to\nthe Jewish conception of religion, for all his philosophical outlook,\nhe said: \"The rejection of the [Greek: Nomos] will produce chaos in\nour lives.\" To Paul the law was an obstacle to the spread of religious\ntruth and a fetter to the spiritual life of the individual.\n\nIt is possible that an extremist section of the Jews pressed the\nletter of the law to excess, so as to lose its spirit, but the\nopposite excess, into which Paul plunged the new faith, was as narrow.\nIt involved a glorification of belief, which did not imply any\nrelation to conduct. Philo had pleaded no less earnestly than the\nApostle for the reliance upon grace and the saving virtue of faith,\nbut he did not therefore absolve men from the law which made for\nrighteousness.[359] And lest it be thought that the stress laid upon\nfaith was peculiar to Hellenizing Judaism, we have only to note such\npassages as Dr. Schechter has adduced from the early Midrash on the\nrabbinic conception.[360] \"Great was the merit of faith which Israel\nput in God; for it was by the merit of this faith that the Holy Spirit\ncame over them, and they said the [Hebrew: shira], (_i.e._, the Song of\nMoses) to God, as it is said, 'And they believed in the Lord and His\nservant Moses. Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song\nunto the Lord.'\" Or again[361]--and the passage reminds us still more\nstrongly of both Philo and Christian Gospel--\"Our Father Abraham came\ninto the possession of this world and the world hereafter only by the\nmerit of his faith.\"\n\nWhat is new in the Christian position is not the magnifying of faith;\nit is the severance of faith from the law and the particular faith\nwhich is magnified. Philo, and the rabbis, too, believed that faith\nwas the goal of virtue, and the culmination of the moral life; but\nfaith to them implied the sanctification of the whole of life, the\nlove of God \"shown in obedience to a law of conduct.\" Paul, however,\nhating the law, set up a new faith in the saving power of Jesus and in\ncertain beliefs about him, which afterwards were crystallized, or\npetrified, into merciless dogmas, contrary alike to the Jewish ideas\nof God and of life. The new religion, when it was denationalized,\ninevitably became ecclesiastical: for as the national regulation of\nlife was rejected, in order to ensure some kind of uniformity, it had\nto bind its members together by definite articles of belief imposed by\na central authority. The true alternative was not between a legal and\na spiritual religion--for every religion must have some external\nrule--but between a law of conduct and a law of belief. Philo and the\nrabbis chose the former way; Paul and the Church, the latter.\nChristian theology, no less than the Christian conception of religion,\nexhibits also a complete breach with the Jewish spirit of Philo. In\nthe Epistles there are, indeed, in many places doctrines of the Logos\nin the same images and the same Hebraic metaphors as Philo had worked\ninto his system; but their purport is entirely changed by association\nwith new un-Jewish dogmas. Philo, allegorizing,[362] had seen the holy\nWord typified in the high priest, and in Melchizedek, the priest of\nthe Most High; he had called it the son of God and His first-born.\nPaul, dogmatizing, exalts Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, above\nMelchizedek and the high priest, and calls on the Hebrews to gain\nsalvation by faith in the son of God, who died on behalf of the sinful\nhuman race. Philo, in his poetic fancy, speaks of God associating with\nthe virgin soul and generating therein the Divine offspring of holy\nwisdom;[363] the Christian creed-makers enunciated the irrational\ndogma of the immaculate conception of Jesus. So, too, the earliest\nphilosophical exponents of Christianity, Clement of Alexandria, and\nOrigen, may have derived many of their detailed ideas from Philo, but\nthey converted--one might rather say perverted--his monotheistic\ntheology into a dogmatic trinitarianism. They exalted the Logos, to\nPhilo the \"God of the imperfect,\" and a second-best Deity, to an equal\nplace with the perfect God. For man, indeed, he was nearer and the\ntrue object of human adoration. And this not only meant a departure\nfrom Judaism; it meant a departure from philosophy. The supreme unity\nof the pure reason was sacrificed no less than the unity of the\nsoaring religious imagination. The one transcendental God became\nagain, as He had been to the Greek theologians, an inscrutable\nimpersonal power, who was unknown to man and ruled over the universe\nby His begotten son, the Logos. The sublimity of the Hebrew\nconception, which combines personality with unity, was lost, and the\nharmony of the intellectual and emotional aspirations achieved by\nPhilo was broken straightway by those who professed to follow him. The\nskeleton of his thought was clothed with a body wherein his spirit\ncould never have dwelt. It was the penalty which Philo paid for\nvagueness of expression and luxuriance of words that his works became\nthe support of doctrines which he had combated, the guide of those who\nwere opposed to his life's ideal.\n\nThe experience of the Church showed how right was Philo's judgment\nwhen he declared that the rejection of the Torah would produce chaos.\nThe fourth and fifth centuries exhibit an era of unparalleled disorder\nand confusion in the religious world,[364] sect struggling with sect,\ncreed with creed, churches rising and falling, dogmas set up by\ncouncils and forced upon men's souls at the point of the Roman sword!\nAnd out of this struggling mass of beliefs and fancies, theologies and\nsuperstitions, sects and political forces, there arose a tyrannical,\ndogmatic Church which laid far heavier burthens on men's minds than\never the most ruthless Pharisee of the theologian's imagination had\nlaid upon their body and spirit. The yoke of the law of Moses,\nsanctifying the life, had been broken; the fiat of popes and the\ndecrees of synods were the saving beliefs which ensured the Kingdom of\nHeaven! Was it to this that the allegorizing of the law, the search\nfor the spirit beneath the letter, the reinterpretation of the holy\nlaw of Moses in the light of philosophical reason, had brought\nJudaism? And was the association of Jewish religion with Greek\nphilosophy one long error? That would be a hard conclusion, if we had\nto admit that Judaism cannot stand the test of contact with foreign\nculture. But in truth the Hellenistic interpretation of the Bible, so\nlong as it was genuinely philosophical, remained loyal to Judaism.\nOnly when it became hardened into dogma, fixed not only as good\ndoctrine, but as the only saving doctrine, as the tree of life opposed\nto the Torah, the tree of death--only then did it become anti-Jewish,\nand appear as a bastard offspring of the Hebraic God-idea and Greek\nculture. Nor should it be forgotten that the Christian theology and\nthe Christian conception of religion are a falling away also from the\nhighest Hellenic ideas; for to Plato as well God was a purely\nspiritual unity, and religion \"a system of morality based upon a law\nof conduct and touched with emotion.\" In Philo, as we have seen, the\nHebraic and Hellenic conceptions of God touch at their summits in\ntheir noblest expressions; the conceptions of Plato are interfused\nwith the imagination of the prophets. The Christian theology was a\ndescent to a commoner Hellenism--or one should rather call it a\ncommoner syncretism--as well as to an easier, impurer Hebraism.\n\nIt must not be put down to the fault of the Septuagint or the\nallegorists or Philo that the Alexandrian development of Judaism led\non to Roman Christianity. It is to be ascribed rather to the infirmity\nof human nature, which requires the ideas of its inspired teachers and\npeoples to be brought down to the common understanding, and causes the\nprogress towards universal religion to be a slow growth. The masses of\nthe Alexandrian Jews in his own day cannot have grasped his teaching;\nfor Philo, to some degree, lived in a narrow world of philosophical\nidealism, and he did not calculate the forces which opposed and made\nimpossible the spread of his faith in its integrity. He was aiming at\nwhat was and must for long remain unattainable--the establishment\namong the peoples of philosophical monotheism.\n\nNo man is a prophet in his own land--or in his own time--and because\nPhilo has in him much of the prophet, he seems to have failed. But it\nis the burden of our mission to sow in tears that we may reap in joy.\nAnd the work of the Alexandrian-Jewish school may be sad from one\naspect of Jewish history, but it is nevertheless one of the dominating\nincidents of our religious annals. It did not succeed in bringing over\nthe world to the pure idea of God, but it did help in undermining\ncruder paganism. It brought the nations nearer to God, and it\nintroduced Hebraism into the thought of the Western peoples. It\nmarked, therefore, a great step in the religious work of Israel; yet\nby the schools of rabbis who felt the hard hand of its offspring upon\ntheir people it was regarded as a long misfortune, to be blotted from\nmemory. What seemed so ominous to them was that the annihilation of\nthe nation came at the same time as the cleavage in the religion.\nJudaism seemed attacked no less by internal foes than by external\ncalamity; and was likely to perish altogether or to drift into a lower\nconception of God, unless it could find some stalwart defence. Hence\nthey insisted on the extension of the fence of the law, and abandoned\nfor centuries the mission of the Jews to the outer world. This was the\ntrue Galut, or exile; not so much the political exclusion from the\nland of their fathers, but the enforced exclusion from the mission of\nthe prophets. Philo is one of the brightest figures of a golden age of\nJewish expansion, which passed away of a sudden, and has never since\nreturned. In the silver and bronze ages which followed, his place in\nJudaism was obscured. But this age of ours, which boasts of its\nhistorical sense, looking back over the centuries and freed from the\nbitter dismay of the rabbis, can appraise his true worth and see in\nhim one who realized for himself all that Judaism and Jewish culture\ncould and still can be.\n\nSome Jewish teachers have thought that Philo's work was a failure,\nothers that it provides a warning rather than an example for later\ngenerations of Jews, proving the mischief of expanding Judaism for the\nworld. As well one might say that Isaiah's prophecy was a calamity,\nbecause the Christian synoptics used his words as evidences of\nChristianity. What is universal in Jewish literature is in the fullest\nsense Jewish, and we should beware of renouncing our inheritance because\nothers have abused and perverted it. Other critics, again, say that\nPhilo is wearisome and prolix, artificial and sophisticated. There is\ncertainly some truth in this judgment; but Philo has many beautiful\npassages which compensate. Part of his message was for his own\ngeneration and the Alexandrian community, and with the passing away of\nthe Hellenistic culture, it has lost its attraction. But part of it is\nof universal import, and is very pertinent and significant for every\ngeneration of Jews which, enjoying social and intellectual emancipation,\nlives amid a foreign culture. Doubtless the position of Philo and the\nAlexandrian community was to some extent different from that of the Jews\nat any time since the greater Diaspora that followed the destruction of\nthe temple. They had behind them a national culture and a centre of\nJewish life, religious and social, which was a powerful influence in\ncivilization and united the Jews in every land. And this gave a\ncatholicity to their development and a standard for their teaching which\nthe scattered communities of Jews to-day do not possess. None the less\nPhilo's ideal of Judaism as religion and life is an ideal for our time\nand for all time. Its keynote is that Israel is a holy people, a kingdom\nof priests, which has a special function for humanity. And the\nperformance of this function demands the religious-philosophical\nordering of life. From the negative side Philo stands for the struggle\nagainst Epicureanism, which in other words is the devotion to material\npleasures and sensual enjoyments. In adversity, as he notes, the race is\ntruest to its ideals, but as soon as the breeze of prosperity has caught\nits sails, then it throws overboard all that ennobles life. The hedonist\nwhom he attacks, like the Epicuros ([Hebrew: 'fikuros]) of the rabbis,\nis not the banal thinker of one particular age, but a permanent type in\nthe history of our people. We seem to spend nearly all our moral\nstrength in the resistance of persecution, and with tranquillity from\nwithout comes degradation within. Emancipation, which should be but a\nmeans to the realization of the higher life, is taken as an end, and\nbecomes the grave of idealism. With a reiteration that becomes almost\nwearisome, but which is the measure of the need for the warning, Philo\nprotests against this desecration of life, of liberty, and of Judaism.\nHis position is, that a free and cultured Jewry must pursue the mission\nof Israel alike by the example of the righteous life devoted to the\nservice of God, and by the preaching of God's revealed word. This is his\n\"burden of the word of the Lord\" to the worldly-wise and the\nmaterialists of civilized Alexandria--and to Jews of other lands.\n\nFrom the positive side Philo stands for the spiritual significance of\nthe religion. Judaism, which lays stress upon the law, the ceremonial,\nand the customs of our forefathers, is threatened at times with the\nneglect of the inward religion and the hardness of legalism. Not that\nthe law, when it is understood, kills the spirit or fetters the\nfeelings, but a formal observance and an unenlightened insistence upon\nthe letter may crush the soul which good habits should nurture.\nReligion at its highest must be the expression of the individual soul\nwithin, not the acceptance of a law from without. Although Philo's\nestimate of the Torah is from the historical and philological\nstandpoint uncritical, in the religious sense it is finely critical\ninasmuch as it searches out true values. Philo looks in every\nordinance of the Bible for the spiritual light and conceives the law\nas an inspiration of spiritual truth and the guide to God, or, as he\nputs it sometimes, \"the mystagogue to divine ecstasy.\" For the crown\nof life to him is the saint's union with God. In mysticism religion\nand philosophy blend, for mysticism is the philosophical form of\nfaith. Just as the Torah to Philo has an outward and an inward\nmeaning, so, too, has the religion of the Torah; and the outward\nJudaism is the symbol, the necessary bodily expression of the inward,\neven as the words of Moses are the symbol, the suggestive expression\nof the deeper truth behind them. Yet mystic and spiritual as he is,\nPhilo never allows religion to sink into mere spirituality, because he\nhas a true appreciation and a real love for the law. The Torah is the\nfoundation of Judaism, and one of the three pillars of the universe,\nas the rabbis said; and neither the philosopher nor the mystic in\nPhilo ever causes him to forget that Judaism is a religion of conduct\nas well as of belief, and that the law of righteousness is a law which\nmust be practiced and show itself in active life. He holds fast,\nmoreover, to the catholicity of Judaism, which restrains the\nindividual from abrogating observance till the united conscience of\nthe race calls for it; unless progress comes in this ordered way, the\nreformer will produce chaos.\n\nPhilo is conservative then in practice, but he is pre-eminently\nliberal in thought. The perfect example himself of the assimilation of\noutside culture, he demands that Judaism shall always seek out the\nfullest knowledge, and in the light of the broadest culture of the age\nconstantly reinterpret its religious ideas and its holy books. Above\nall it must be philosophical, for philosophy is \"the breath and finer\nspirit of all knowledge,\" and it vivifies the knowledge of God as well\nas the knowledge of human things. Without it religion becomes bigoted,\nfaith obscurantist, and ceremony superstitious. But the Jew does not\nmerely borrow ideas or accept his philosophy ready-made from his\nenvironment; he interprets it afresh according to his peculiar\nGod-idea and his conception of God's relation to man, and thereby\nmakes it a genuine Jewish philosophy, forming in each age a special\nJewish culture. And as religion without philosophy is narrow, so, to\nPhilo, philosophy without religion is barren; remote from the true\nlife, and failing in the true purpose of the search for wisdom, which\nis to raise man to his highest function. Philosophy, then, is not the\nenemy of the Torah: it is its true complement, endowing it with a\ndeeper meaning and a profounder influence. Thus the saying runs in the\n\"Ethics of the Fathers,\"\n\n[Hebrew: 'm 'yn tora 'yn hkma; 'm 'yn hkma 'yn tora]\n\n\"If there is no Torah, there is no wisdom; if there is no wisdom,\nthere is no Torah.\" The thought that study of the law is essential to\nJudaism Philo shares with the rabbis, and the Torah is in his eyes\nIsrael's great heritage, not only her literature but her life. As\nSaadia said later,[365] \"This nation is only a nation by reason of its\nTorah.\" It is because Philo starts from this conviction that his\nmission is so striking, and its results so tragical. The Judaism which\nhe preached to the pagan world was no food for the soul with the\nstrength taken out to render it more easily assimilated. He emphasizes\nits spiritual import, he shows its harmony, as the age demanded, with\nthe philosophical and ethical conceptions of the time, but he\nsteadfastly holds aloft, as the standard of humanity, the law of\nMoses. The reign of \"one God and one law\" seemed to him not a far-off\nDivine event, but something near, which every good Jew could bring\nnearer. He was oppressed by no craven fear of Jewish distinctiveness;\nand the Biblical saying that Israel was a chosen people was real to\nhim and moved him to action. It meant that Israel was essentially a\nreligious nation, nearer God, and possessed of the Divine law of life,\nand that it had received the Divine bidding to spread the truth about\nGod to all the world. It was a creed, and more, it was an inspiration\nwhich constantly impelled to effort. It would be difficult to sum up\nPhilo's message to his people better than by the verses in Deuteronomy\nwhich he, the interpreter of God's Word and the successor of Moses, as\nhe loved to consider himself, proclaims afresh to his own age, and\nbeyond it to the congregation of Jacob in all ages, \"Keep therefore my\ncommandments and do them; for this is your wisdom and your\nunderstanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these\nstatutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and\nunderstanding people.\n\n\"For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as\nthe Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for?\n\n\"And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments so\nrighteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?\" (Deut.\niv. 5-7).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\n  The following are the chief works which have been\n  consulted and are recommended to the student of Philo:\n\n  The standard edition of Philo is still that of Thomas\n  Mangey, _Philonis Jud\u00e6i opera qu\u00e6 reperiri potuerunt\n  omnia._ 1742. Londini.\n\n  A far more accurate and critical edition, which is\n  provided with introductory essays and notes upon the\n  sources of Philo, is in course of publication for the\n  Berlin Academy, by Dr. Leopold Cohn and Dr. Paul Wendland.\n  The first five volumes have already appeared, and\n  the remainder may be expected before long. The only\n  complete edition which contains the Latin text of the\n  _Quaestiones_ as well as the Greek works is that published\n  by Tauchnitz in eight volumes; but the text is not reliable.\n\n  There is an English translation of Philo's works in\n  the Bohn Library (G. Bell & Sons) by C.D. Yonge (4 vols.),\n  but it is neither accurate nor neat. The same may\n  he said of the German translation of Jost, but an\n  admirable German version edited by Dr. L. Cohn is now\n  appearing, which contains notes of the parallel passages\n  in rabbinic and patristic literature.\n\n  Works bearing on Philo and his period generally:\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, \"History of the Jewish People at the Time\n  of Jesus Christ\" (English translation).\n\n  Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandrien als Ausleger der\n  heiligen Schrift_.\n\n  Zeller, _Geschiehte der Philosophie der Griechen_,\n  vol. III, sec. 2.\n\n  Drummond, \"Philo-Jud\u00e6us and the Jewish Alexandrian\n  School.\" 2 vols. (London.)\n\n  Herriot, _Philon le Juif_.\n\n  Vacherot, _\u00c9cole d'Alexandrie_, vol. I.\n\n  Eusebius, _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_, ed. Gifford.\n\n  Freudenthal, J., _Hellenistische Studien_.\n\n  Harnack, \"History of Dogma,\" vol. I.\n\n  Josephus, \"Wars of the Jews\"; \"Antiquities of the Jews.\"\n\n  Mommsen, Th., \"The Roman Provinces.\"\n\n  Works bearing on the special subjects of the different\n  chapters:\n\n  I. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AT ALEXANDRIA\n    Graetz, \"History of the Jews\" (Eng. trans.), vol. II.\n    Swete, \"introduction to the Septuagint.\"\n    Hirsch, S.A., \"The Temple of Onias,\" in the\n  Jews' College Jubilee Volume.\n    Friedl\u00e4nder, M. (Vienna), _Geschichte der j\u00fcdischen\n  Apologetitc_ and _Religi\u00f6se Bewegungen\n  der Juden irn Zeitalter von Jesus._\n\n  II. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PHILO\n    Conybeare, edition of _De Vita Contemplativa_. (Oxford.)\n    Hils, _Les juifs en Rome. Revue des Etudes\n  Juives_, vols. 8 and 11.\n    Reinach, Th\u00e9odor, _Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains\n  r\u00e9latifs au Judaisme_.\n    Br\u00e9hier et Massebieau, _Essai sur la chronologie\n  de Philon. Revue de l'Histoire des Religions,_ 1906.\n\n  III. PHILO'S WORKS AND METHOD\n    Hart, J.H.A., \"Philo of Alexandria,\" Jewish\n  Quarterly Review, vols. XVII and XVIII.\n    Massebieau, _Du classement des oeuvres de Philon_.\n    Cohn, Leopold, _Einteilung und Chronologie der\n  Schriften Philon_.\n\n  IV. PHILO AND THE TORAH\n    Treitel, L., _Der Nomos in Philon. Monatsschrift\n  f\u00fcr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, 1905.\n\n  V. PHILO'S THEOLOGY\n    Montefiore, C., _Florilegium Philonis_, Jewish\n  Quarterly Review, vol. VIII.\n    Caird, Ed., \"Evolution of Theology in the\n  Greek Philosophers.\"\n    Heinze, _Die Lefire vom Logos_,\n    Bucher, _Philonische Studien_.\n    Von Arnim, _Philonische Studien._\n\n  VI. PHILO AS A PHILOSOPHER\n    Freudenthal, Max, _Die Erkenntnisstheorie von Philo._\n    Bigg, \"The Christian neo-Platonists of Alexandria.\"\n    Bussell, \"The School of Plato.\"\n    Stewart, J.A., \"The Myths of Plato.\"\n    Cuyot, H., _Les reminiscences de Philon chez Plotin_. 1906.\n    Neumark, _Geschichte der jildischen Philosophie\n  des Mittelalters_.\n\n  VII. PHILO AND JEWISH TRADITION\n    Schechter, \"Aspects of Rabbinic Theology.\"\n    Taylor, \"Ethics of the Fathers.\"\n    Ritter, Bernhard, _Philo und die Halacha_. Breslau, 1879.\n    Dei Rossi, \"Meor Einayim,\" ed. Cassel.\n    Krochmal, \"Moreh Nebuchei Hazeman,\" ed. Zunz.\n    Frankel, Z., _Ueber den Einfluss der pal\u00e4stinensischen\n  Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik_.\n    Epstein, _Le livre des Jubilis, Philon et le Midrasch\n  Tadsch\u00e9_, Revue des Etudes Juives, XXI.\n    Ginzberg, L., \"Allegorical Interpretation,\" in\n  Jewish Encyclopedia.\n    Joel, M., _Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte_.\n    Treitel, L., _Agadah bei Philo. Monatsschrift\n    f\u00fcr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, 1909.\n\n\n\n\nABBREVIATIONS USED FOR THE REFERENCES\n\n\nThe references to Philo's works are made according to the chapters in\nConn and Wendland's edition, so far as it has appeared. In referring\nto the works which they have not edited, I have used the pages of\nMangey'a edition; but I have frequently mentioned the name of the\ntreatise in which the passage occurs, as well as the page-number.\n\nI have employed the following abbreviations in the references:\n\n  L.A. I-III Legum Allegoriae.\n  De Mundi Op. De Mundi Opificio.\n  De Sacrif. De Sacrifices Abelis.\n  Quod Det. Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur.\n  De Post. C. De Posteritate Caini.\n  De Gigant. De Gigantibus.\n  Quod Deus. Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis.\n  De Agric. De Agricultura.\n  De Plant. De Plantatione.\n  De Ebr. De Ebrietate.\n  De Confus. De Confusione Linguarum.\n  De Migr. De Migratione Abrahami.\n  Quis Rer. Div. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres.\n  De Cong. De Congressu Eruditorum Causa.\n  De Fuga. De Fuga et Inventione.\n  De Mut. Nom. De Mutatione Nominum.\n  De Somn. De Somniis.\n  De Abr. De Vita Abrahami.\n  De Jos. De Vita Josephi.\n  De V. Mos. De Vita Mosis.\n  De Mon. De Monarchia.\n  De Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus.\n  De Sac. De Sacerdotum Honoribus et de Victimis.\n  De Leg. De Legatione ad Gaium.\n  In Flacc. In Flaccum.\n  De Decal. De Decalogo.\n  De Septen. De Septenario.\n  De Concupisc. De Concupiscentia.\n  De Just. De Justitia.\n  De Exsecr. De Exsecrationibus.\n  Ant. Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews,\n                            tr. by Whiston.\n  Bell. Jud. Wars of the Jews.\n  C. Apion. Contra Apionem.\n  Hist. Ecclesiast. Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica.\n  Praep. Evang. Eusebius: Praeparatio Evangelica.\n  Photius, Cod. Photius: Codex.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abraham (_see_ Lives of Abraham and Joseph), 83;\n    model of the excellent man, 244.\n\n  Agrippa (King), Philo's life covers reign of, 45;\n    Philo in Jerusalem during reign of, 50;\n    arrives at Alexandria, 65;\n    advanced to Kingdom of Judea, 69;\n    intercedes at Rome for his people, 69;\n    death of, 70.\n\n  Alexander (the Great), a notable figure in Talmud, 13;\n    settles Jews in Greek colonies, 14;\n    result of his work, 23.\n\n  Alexander Lysimachus, Alabarch of Delta region, 46;\n    guardian of Antony's daughter, 46;\n    restored to honor after imprisonment, 70.\n\n  Alexandria, Jewish community at (_see_ Jewish), 13 ff., 41, 42 f.;\n    Jewish population of, under Ptolemy I, 15;\n    meeting-place of civilizations, 14, 48, 95;\n    centre of Jewish life, 15, 129;\n    two sections occupied by Jews, 16;\n    prosperity of Jews in, 21, 22, 32;\n    anti-Semitic literature and influences in, 22, 62, 67, 74;\n    Jewish tradition at, 27;\n    synagogues at, 37;\n    deputation to Jerusalem from, 41;\n    rabbis flee to, 42;\n    Agrippa finds a refuge at, 51, 65;\n    mystical and ascetic ideas of people at, 55, 59;\n    philosophical schools at, 63, 90, 92, 94, 140;\n    development of Judaism in, 77, 255;\n    Egyptian caste-system adopted at, 16;\n    Jews of, popularize teachings of Bible, 34;\n    Jews of, referred to, in Talmud, 42;\n    Philo forced into Sanhedrin of, 61, 202, 203 f.;\n    Philo member of, 61;\n    disintegration of community at, 71;\n    Zealots flee to, on fall of Jerusalem, 71;\n    replaced by Babylon as centre of Jewish intellect, 73;\n    Samaritans in, 106;\n    antinomian movement in, 130;\n    prototypes of Christian belief at, 155;\n    Pythagorean influence at, 188;\n    national life and culture undermined at (_see_ National), 218.\n\n  Alexandrian, exegesis, characteristic of, 36;\n    church, departs from Jewish standpoint, 72;\n    Platonists, connection between Philo and later school of, 192;\n    schools, relation of, to Palestinian, 199 f., 213;\n    literature in the Dark and Middle Ages, 225 f.\n\n  _Allegories of the Laws_, an allegorical commentary, 74, 87 f.;\n    attacks Stoic doctrines, 94;\n    the _Epistles_, lineal descendants of, 247.\n\n  Angels, doctrine of, in Palestine, 140;\n    Philo's treatment of, 150-1.\n\n  Antiochus Epiphanes, Palestine passes to, 17.\n\n  Anti-Semitic, party, Flaccus won over by, 65;\n    literature and influences in Alexandria, 22, 62, 67, 74;\n    party, punishment of, at Rome, 70.\n\n  Apion, a Stoic leader, 63;\n    accuses Jews, 63, 67;\n    Philo's references to, 63, 101;\n    Josephus' reply to, 65.\n\n  Aquila, new Greek version of Old Testament made by, 224;\n    rabbis' views of, 224.\n\n  Aristeas, spirit of, glorified in Philo, 77.\n\n  Aristobulus, first allegorist of Alexandria, 38;\n    his spirit inherited by Philo, 77;\n    on wisdom, 143;\n    on the Word of God, 146;\n    difference between Philo and, 168.\n\n  Artapanus, Jewish apologist, 77.\n\n  Assouan, Aramaic papyri at, 15.\n\n\n  Babylon, replaces Alexandria as centre of Jewish intellect, 73;\n    Greek culture forgotten in, 224.\n\n  Bible, the, Philo's interpretation\n    and views on, 49, 102, 108 ff.;\n    Philo reveals spiritual message of, 83;\n    authority of, challenged at Alexandria, 92;\n    wisdom personified in, 141, 142.\n\n\n  Cabbalah, the, Essenes practitioners in, 233;\n    Philo as the Hellenizer of, 235.\n\n  Caligula. _See_ Gaius.\n\n  Chaldean, thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48.\n\n  Christian, monastic communities, 73;\n    heresy, a severance from main community, 72;\n    theologians, fail to realize spirit of Philo, 124;\n    reformers, and the yoke of the law, 130;\n    teachers preserve Philo's works, 156, 248;\n    writers quote Philo, 223;\n    apologists imitate allegorical method, 245.\n\n  Christianity, the movement towards, 28;\n    rise of, 42;\n    conflict with Judaism at Alexandria, 72;\n    Philo's writings regarded as testimony to, 156;\n    Philo's influence over religious philosophy of, 195.\n\n  Conversion to Judaism, in Egypt and Rome, 32.\n\n  _Courage_, tractate appended to _Life of Moses_, 75.\n\n  _Creation of the World_, description of, 83.\n\n  Croiset, criticism of Philo by, 90.\n\n\n  _Decalogue, The_, contents of, 83.\n\n  Derash, Philo a master of, 103.\n\n  _Dreams of the Bible_, classed with Allegories of the Laws, 74.\n\n  Dubnow, on Alexandrian Judaism, 129.\n\n\n  Egypt, Alexander's march to, 14;\n    settlement of Jews in, 14;\n    connection between Israel and, 14;\n    visited by Plato, 15, 172;\n    Diaspora in, after Jeremiah, 15;\n    a favored home of the Jews, 21;\n    conversion widespread in (_see_ Rome), 32;\n    Flaccus, governor of, 65;\n    Jews of, under same rule as Palestine Jews, 15.\n\n  Egyptian, populace, Philo on, 62;\n    thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48.\n\n  _Epistles_, the Pauline, lineal descendants of Allegories of the\n    Laws, 247;\n    doctrines of the Logos in, 250.\n\n  Essenes, rise of, 34, 54;\n    account of, in Philo's works, 78;\n    type of the philosophical life, 79;\n    practitioners in the Cabbalah, 233.\n\n\n  Flaccus, won over by Anti-Semites, 65;\n    indifference of, to attacks of Jews, 66;\n    recall of, 66;\n    Philo on the persecutions of, 78.\n\n  Frankel Z., writes on Alexandrian-Jewish culture, 241.\n\n\n  Gaius (Roman Emperor), comes to the imperial chair, 65;\n    Jews appeal directly to, 66;\n    receives Jewish deputation, 67;\n    death of, 69.\n\n  Greek philosophers, Philo's relation to, 48, 52;\n    philosophy, Philo's influence on, 49, 191 f.;\n    colonies, Alexander settles Jews in, 14.\n\n  Greek culture, various branches of, 47;\n    the chief schools of, 48, 54;\n    fertilizing influence of ideas of, 58;\n    and Jewish Scripture, 76;\n    neglected in Babylon, 224.\n\n\n  Haggadah, the, in Philo's works, 202, 207 f.;\n    antiquity of, 209 f.;\n    allegorical speculation in, 212.\n\n  Halakah, outcome of devotion to Torah, 99;\n    Palestinian Jews determine, 105;\n    observance of oral law standardized in, 126;\n    relation of Philo to, 202 f.;\n    differences between Alexandrian Sanhedrin and Palestinian, 203 f.;\n    codification of, 207.\n\n  Hebrew, language, evidence of Philo's knowledge of, 49;\n    included in barbarian languages, 97;\n    Philo's derivations from, 50, 101;\n    race, the three founders of, 110 f.;\n    tradition, Philo follows, 159;\n    mind, Professor Caird on, 167.\n\n  Hellenism, of Palestine, 24, 25;\n    of Alexandria (_see_ Greek culture), 25;\n    influence of, in Palestine, 51;\n    and the interpretation of the Bible, 254;\n    New Testament, a combination of Hebraism and, 247;\n    Christian theology a descent to a commoner, 254.\n\n  Hillel, Philo contemporary with, 45;\n    shows expansion of Hebrew mind, 45;\n    on chief lesson of Torah, 117, 118;\n    spirit of, shared by Philo, 249.\n\n  _Humanity_, tractate appended to a _Life of Moses_, 75.\n\n\n  Incarnation, notion of, not Jewish, 166.\n\n  Indian, thought, Philo's acquaintance with, 48.\n\n  Isaac, _See Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, 83.\n\n  Israel, Philo's derivation of the name, 50, 138;\n    God's special providence for, 77;\n    the mission of, 206, 242.\n\n  Italy, Philo visits, 66.\n\n\n  Jacob, _See Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, 83.\n\n  Jeremiah, prophesies in Egypt, 14;\n    heard by Plato, 15.\n\n  Jerusalem, Alexander's visit to, 14;\n    Philo, on national centre at, 20, 41, 86;\n    spiritual headship of, 41;\n    special synagogues for Alexandrians in, 41;\n    derivation of name of, 50;\n    Philo's sojourn at, 50;\n    downfall of, 71;\n    Judaism at, 129.\n\n  Jesus, spread of his teaching, 245;\n    his message compared with that of Philo, 245;\n    preaching of, effect on Jewish attitude to life, 246;\n    Paul sets up a new faith in, 251.\n\n  Jewish, community at Alexandria (_see_ Alexandria), 13 ff., 72;\n    temple at Elephantine, 15;\n    kingdom reaches its height, 45;\n    mind, religous conception of, 49, 137, 166;\n    law and ceremony, elucidation of, 49;\n    race, symbol of the unity of, 51;\n    aspiration toward \"freedom under the law,\" 124;\n    influences, dominant in Philo, 133, 189;\n    philosophy, eclectic, 168;\n    philosophy, new school of in Middle Ages, 225 f.\n\n  Joseph (_see Lives of Abraham and Joseph_), 83;\n    as Egyptian statesman, 23.\n\n  Josephus, on Onias and Dositheus, 18;\n    inconsistent accounts of Onias temple, 19;\n    on Egyptian Jews, 20;\n    account of Herod's temple by, 41;\n    writes a reply to Apion, 65;\n    description of Gaius' conduct to Jewish deputation, 68;\n    on the spreading of Judaism, 115;\n    indicates communication between schools of Alexandria and Palestine,\n    220;\n    relation to Philo and his works, 222.\n\n  Jowett, on sermons, 90.\n\n  Judaism, genius of, 46, 196;\n    Philo's exposition of, 52, 74, 78, 81, 84, 105;\n    Philo protests against desecration of, 258;\n    mysticism in, 58;\n    philosophical, 72, 230;\n    Alexandrian development of, 77, 92;\n    moral teachings of, 85;\n    religion of the law, 106, 116, 260;\n    Josephus on the spreading of, 115;\n    a religion of universal validity, 121, 169;\n    at Jerusalem and Alexandria, 129;\n    catholic conscience of, 130, 131;\n    Darmesteter on, 132;\n    Logos doctrine and, 165;\n    danger of union with Gentiles to, 206;\n    a national culture, 219;\n    influences of Jesus and Paul on, 247;\n    Hellenistic interpretation of the Bible and, 254.\n\n  Judas Maccab\u00e6us, struggles against Hellenizing party, 18.\n\n  Krochmal, Nachman, criticism of Philo, 240.\n\n\n  _Life of Moses_, contents of, 75, 79 f.;\n    an attempt to set monotheism before the world, 80;\n    tractates appended to, 75.\n\n  _Lives of Abraham and Joseph_, description of, 83.\n\n  _Lives of Isaac and Jacob_, contents of, 83.\n\n  Logos, 143 ff.;\n    its relation to God's Providence, 143;\n    meaning of, 144-164, 148;\n    Aristobulus on, 146;\n    regarded as the effluence of God, 149;\n    spoken of as a person, 156;\n    the soul, an image of, 178;\n    development of Philo's doctrine of, 192.\n\n\n  Maimonides, object of his Moreh, 91;\n    principles of, 99, 229;\n    comparison of Philo with, 229 f.\n\n  Mark Antony, Alexander Lysimachus in the confidence of, 46.\n\n  Monastic communities, supposed record of Christian, in Philo, 73.\n\n  Moses, Philo a follower of, 60, 113 f.;\n    Philo's ideal type, 79 f.;\n    Philo, as interpreter of his revelation, 104, 106 f.\n    _See Life of Moses_.\n\n\n  National, centre at Jerusalem, Philo on, 20, 41, 86;\n    life undermined at Rome and Alexandria, 218.\n\n\n  Old Testament, Septuagint translation of, 25-30;\n    Aquila's new Greek version of, 224.\n\n  Onias, leader of army of Egyptian monarch, 18;\n    successor to high priesthood, 18;\n    builds temple, 18, 19 f.;\n    temple of, dismantled, 71;\n    Jewish writers silent about work of, 19.\n\n  Oral law, observance of, standardized in the Halakah, 126.\n\n  Origen, distinguishes three methods of interpretation, 76;\n    teacher of Patristic school, 195; imitates Philo, 186.\n\n\n  Palestine, struggle for, between Ptolemies and Seleucids, 17;\n    Hellenism of, compared with that of Athens, 24, 25;\n    rabbis of, 28;\n    Philo visits, 50;\n    effect of Hellenic influence in, 54;\n    New Moon a solemn day in, 121;\n    aims of Jewish thought in, 140;\n    doctrine of angels in, 140.\n\n  Palestinian Jews, under same rule as Egyptian Jews, 15;\n    rabbis, oral tradition, 34;\n    development of Jewish culture, 42 f., 200;\n    Midrash, Philo's acquaintance with, 52;\n    schools, relation existing between Alexandrian and, 199 f., 203 f.,\n    213.\n\n  Paul, the most commanding of the apostles, 247;\n    influence of, compared with that of Jesus, 247;\n    rejection of the Torah by, 248;\n    sets up a new faith in Jesus, 251.\n\n Pentateuch, Samaritan doctrines with reference to, 106.\n\n  Peshat, as a form of interpretation, 103.\n\n  Philo, contemporary with Herod, 45, 50;\n    family of, 46;\n    works of 74 ff.;\n    philosophical training of, 49;\n    flees from Alexandria, 60;\n    meeting of Peter and Mark with, 73;\n    forced into Sanhedrin of Alexandria, 61;\n    writings of, regarded as testimony to Christianity, 73, 156;\n    influence of, over Christian religious philosophy, 195, 242 ff.;\n    relation of, to Greek philosophers, 48, 52;\n    acquaintance of, with Chaldean and Indian thought, 48;\n    his interpretation and views of the Bible, 49, 102, 108 ff.;\n    evidence of his knowledge of Hebrew language, 49;\n    follows Hebrew tradition, 159, 199 ff.;\n    compared with Spinoza, 73, 134, 163;\n    on persecutions of Sejanus and Flaccus, 62, 78;\n    replies to attacks of stoics, 64, 95;\n    stoics' view of God compared with that of, 185;\n    goes to Italy, 66;\n    refers to Apion, 63, 101;\n    Josephus' knowledge of the works of, 222;\n    Christian teachers preserve works of, 156, 247;\n    relation of, to the Halakah, 202 f.;\n    comparison of Maimonides with, 229 f.;\n    doctrine of the Logos (_see_ Logos), 144 ff.;\n    connection between Saadia and, 226 f.;\n    the Hellenizer of the Cabbalah, 235;\n    opposed to missionary attitude of Paul, 249.\n\n  Plato, hears Jeremiah, 15;\n    Philo's style reminiscent of, 48;\n    conception of the Law in, 131;\n    Philo's philosophy compared with that of, 170 ff.;\n    dominant philosophical principle of, 174;\n    a mystic, 230;\n    conception of God in, 254.\n\n  Ptolemies, the: Ptolemy I, increases number of Jewish inhabitants in\n    Alexandria, 15;\n    IV, gives Heliopolis to Onias, 16;\n    admirers of Scriptures, 23.\n\n\n  _Questions and Answers to Genesis and Exodus_, now incomplete, 75, 81 f.;\n    a preliminary study to more elaborate works, 81;\n    Hebraic in form, 82.\n\n\n  _Repentance_, tractate appended to _Life of Moses_, 75.\n\n  Rome, Alexandria second to, 14;\n    conversion widespread in (_see_ Egypt), 32;\n    Agrippa an exile from, 51;\n    power of Jews at, 62;\n    Jewish struggle with, 220;\n    Philo's apocryphal meeting with Peter at, 73;\n    national life and culture undermined at (_see_ National), 218.\n\n\n  Saadia, founds new school of Jewish philosophy, 225 f.;\n    connection between Philo and, 226 f.\n\n  Samaritan, doctrines with reference to Pentateuch, 106;\n    Jew, story of, 98.\n\n  Sanhedrin, Hillel, president of, 45;\n    Philo forced into Alexandrian, 61;\n    duties of members of, 61;\n    of Alexandrian community, 202;\n    of Jerusalem and capital punishment, 203;\n    differences between Palestinian Halakah and Alexandrian, 203 f.\n\n  Sejanus, Tiberius falls under influence of, 62;\n    Antonia opponent of, 62;\n    Philo's book on persecution of, 62, 78;\n    disgrace and death of, 65.\n\n  Septuagint, Hellenistic development marked by, 25;\n    Philo's version of origin of, 26;\n    celebrations in honor of, 27;\n    infusion of Greek philosophic ideas into, 28;\n    Christianizing influence of, 29;\n    value of, to the cultured Gentile, 33;\n    replaced by new Greek version of Old Testament, 224.\n\n  Solomon, Wisdom of, written at Alexandria, 31.\n\n  _Specific Laws, The_, description of, 83;\n    socialism of Bible emphasized in, 86.\n\n  Spinoza, his ideal of life, 53;\n    compared with Philo's, 73, 134, 163, 239;\n    on Jewish thought, 137;\n    influenced by Philo, 237 ff.;\n    approaches Bible from critical standpoint, 239.\n\n  Stoics, the chief Anti-Semites, 63;\n    Philo replies to attacks of, 64, 95;\n    in conflict with Jews at Alexandria, 94;\n    beliefs of, 64, 94, 116, 176;\n    view of God compared with that of Philo, 185.\n\n  Synagogues,\n    at Alexandria, 16, 37.\n\n\n  Tiberius Alexander,\n    nephew of Philo, 71.\n\n  Tradition, Jewish,\n    at Alexandria, 27;\n    Philo and Jewish, 199 ff.\n\n\n  Zealots, flight of,\n    to Alexandria, 71.\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Comp. Leviticus Rabba 13.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Comp. Josephus, Ant. IX. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Sukkah 51^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Quoted by Josephus, Ant. XIV. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Ant. XII. 5, 9, XX. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ VII. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Comp. the passages in the \"Antiquities\" above and the\n_Bell. Jud._ V. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Menahot 109, Abodah Zarah 52^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _De Leg._ II. 578.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Comp. _De Mon._ I. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Dr. Hirseh, in The Jews' College Jubilee Volume, p.39.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Menahot 119.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Comp. Ant. XIV. 14-16.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Ant. XVI. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Philo, _In Flacc._ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _C. Apion._ II. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 17: I have used the word anti-Semite because, though the\nhatred at Alexandria was not racial, but national, it has now become\nsynonymous with Jew-hater generally.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Quoted in _C. Apion_. I. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _De V. Mos_. II. 6, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 20: See p. 22, above.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Preface to Ecclesiasticus.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Tract. Soferim I. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Tanhuma [Hebrew: ki tsha]]\n\n[Footnote 24: See p. 23, above.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Orac. Sib_., ed. Alexandre, III. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Ibid._, III. 195.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Comp. Strabo, Frag. 6, Didot.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _De Post.C._ 24.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _De V. Mos_. II. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Comp. _De Decal_. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Comp. Yer. Berakot 24c.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Praep. Evang_. VIII. 10, XIII. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Comp. _De Abr_. 15 and 37, _De Jos_. II. 63, _De Spec.\nLeg._ III. 32, _De Migr_. 89.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _Quod Deus_ 11, _De Abr._ 36.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Comp. Acts of the Apostles VI. 9, and Tosef. Meg. III.\n6.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Yoma 83^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 37: _Bell. Jud._ V. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Comp. Niddah 69^{b}, Sotah 47^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \"Heroes and Hero-Worship,\" ch. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Ant. XIX. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Photius, _Cod._ 108.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Comp. _De Confus._ 15.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Comp. _De Mon._ I. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Comp. Maimonides, Moreh II, ch. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 45: _L.A._ I. 135.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Comp. _De Cong._ 6 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Comp. Croiset, _Histoire de la litt\u00e9rature grecque_, V,\npp. 425 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Comp. Mills, \"Zoroaster, Philo, and Israel.\"]\n\n[Footnote 49: Comp. _Quis Rer. Div._ 43, _De Judice_ II, _De V. Mos._\nII. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Ritter, _Philon und die Halacha_.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Comp. _De V. Mos._ I. 1, _In Flacc._ 23 and 33, _De Mut.\nNom._ 39.]\n\n[Footnote 52: _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._ VIII. v.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _De Mon._ II. 1-3.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Comp. _Bell. Jud._ VI. 9. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Comp. _De V. Mos._ II. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 56: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Comp. _De Migr._ 4, _L.A._ III. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Comp. Graetz, \"History of the Jews\" III. 91 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Comp. _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_ 11 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 60: The authenticity of this book is elaborately discussed\nby Conybeare in his edition of it.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \"Ethics of the Fathers\" VI. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 62: _De Mundi Op._ I. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Comp. _De Migr._ 6 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 64: _L.A._ II. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 65: _De Fuga_ 7 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Comp. _De Spec. Leg._ II. 260.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Comp. _De Cherubim_ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 68: _De Migr._ 7-9.]\n\n[Footnote 69: II, ch. 36 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Comp. _De Spec. Leg._ III. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Massebieau, _Du classement des oeuvres de Philon_.]\n\n[Footnote 72: _In Flacc._ 5.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Comp. Th. Reinach, _Textes d'auteurs romains et grecs\nrelatifs au Judaisme_, pp. 120 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Comp. _De Confus._, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Josephus, _C. Apion._, Introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 76: _In Flacc._ 10.]\n\n[Footnote 77: _De Leg_. 27 and 28.]\n\n[Footnote 78: Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 79: _De Leg., ad fin_.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Ant. XIX. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Frag, preserved by John of Damascus, p. 404.]\n\n[Footnote 82: Comp. Ant. XX. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Comp. Massebieau, _op. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 84: Comp. Bernays, _Ueber die unter Philos Werken stehenden\nSchriften [Greek: peri t\u00eas aphtharsias Kosmou]_, and Siegfried, art.\n\"Philo\" in the Jewish Encyclopedia.]\n\n[Footnote 85: _Quod Deus_ 86.]\n\n[Footnote 86: _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_ 12 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 87: _De V. Mos._ I. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 88: _De V. Mos_. II. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 89: \"On Repentance,\" II.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Comp. Treitel, _Agadah bei Philo. Monatsschrift_, 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 91: _De Abr._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 47.]\n\n[Footnote 93: _De Sac. et Victimis_ 5 and 6.]\n\n[Footnote 94: _De Mon._ II. 3 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Comp. Plato, _Rep_. V, _ad fin_.]\n\n[Footnote 96: _De Exsecr_. II. 587.]\n\n[Footnote 97: _De Abr._ 3.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Comp. _L.A._ II. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 99: _L.A._ I. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 100: Comp. Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Croiset, _op. cit._ V, p. 427.]\n\n[Footnote 102: Comp. _De Cherubim_, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 103: Comp. Zohar III.]\n\n[Footnote 104: _De Cherubim_, 9 and 14, _De Somn._ 8.]\n\n[Footnote 105: _De Migr._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 106: _De Post. C._ 22.]\n\n[Footnote 107: Midrash Esther I.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Comp. _De Sac._ II. 245.]\n\n[Footnote 109: Comp. _De Migr._ 32.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Comp. _De Post C_, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 111: _Quaestiones in Gen._ III. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 112: _De Cong._ 10.]\n\n[Footnote 113: Comp. Berakot 51^{b}, _De Agric._ 12, _De Somn._ II. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 114: _De Confus._ 38.]\n\n[Footnote 115: _De Mut. Nom._ 8.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 64.]\n\n[Footnote 117: _De Somn._ I. 16 and 17.]\n\n[Footnote 118: Comp. \"Ethics of the Fathers\" V. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 119: Comp. _De Somn._ I. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 120: _De Mut. Nom._ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 121: _De Somn._ I. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Berakot 10^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 123: _De Cong._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 124: _De Cong._ 14.]\n\n[Footnote 125: \"Theologico-Political Tractate\" VII.]\n\n[Footnote 126: _De Abr._ 19.]\n\n[Footnote 127: _De Mon._ II. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 128: Harvard Studies, \"Hellenism and Hebraism.\"]\n\n[Footnote 129: Comp. Schechter, \"Aspects of Rabbinic Theology,\" p.\n119.]\n\n[Footnote 130: Comp. _De V. Mos._ II. 9 and 10, III. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 131: _L.A._ I. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 132: Comp. _De Mundi Op._ 2.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Comp. p. 85, above.]\n\n[Footnote 134: Comp. _L.A._ I, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 135: _L.A._ III. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 136: _De Post. C._ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 137: _De Abr._ 3 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 138: _Ibid._ 6-10.]\n\n[Footnote 139: The LXX renders the verse Gen. iv. 26, which is\ntranslated in the Authorized Version: \"Then began men to call upon the\nname of the Lord,\" [Greek: outos \u00ealpisen epi ton t\u00f4n ol\u00f4n patera]\n_i.e._, \"He hoped in the Father of all.\"]\n\n[Footnote 140: _Quod Det._ 38.]\n\n[Footnote 141: _De Jos._ 21.]\n\n[Footnote 142: _De Jos._ 22.]\n\n[Footnote 143: _De Jos._ 42.]\n\n[Footnote 144: _Hist. Ecclesiast._ II. 18, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 145: _De V. Mos._ III. 4 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 146: _De V. Mos._ II. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 147: _De V. Mos._ II. 5, Josephus, _C. Apion._ II. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 148: Comp. Horace, Satires I. 4, 138; I. 9, 60.]\n\n[Footnote 149: Frag. preserved in Josephus, Ant. XIV. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 150: Comp. Reinach, _op. cit._, p. 262.]\n\n[Footnote 151: _De V. Mos._ II. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 152: \"Ethics of the Fathers\" I. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 153: _De Fuga_ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 154: _De Decal._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 155: _De Decal._ 23.]\n\n[Footnote 156: _De Septen._ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Kiddushin 20^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 158: _De Decal._ 20.]\n\n[Footnote 159: _De Septen._ 7.]\n\n[Footnote 160: _De Septen._ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 161: Ch. 2. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Comp. _De Migr._ 23.]\n\n[Footnote 163: _De Septen._ 1. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 164: _De Septen._ 18 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 165: _De Concupisc._ 1-3.]\n\n[Footnote 166: Comp. _De Just._ II. 360.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Ch. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 168: I have taken this translation and that on the next page\nfrom Mr. Claude Montefiore's _Florilegium Philonis_. Jewish Quarterly\nReview, vol. VII.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Comp. _De Ebr._ 40, and _De Spec. Leg._ II. 414.]\n\n[Footnote 170: _De Leg._ II. 574.]\n\n[Footnote 171: _Essais, Les Proph\u00e8tes d'Isra\u00ebl_.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Frag. cited by Porphyry, _De Abstinentia_ II. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 173: _De Cong._ 10.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Comp. Schechter, \"Aspects of Rabbinic Theology,\" pp. 21\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 175: _L.A._ I. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 176: _L.A._ I. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 177: _De Confus._ 2, _De Post. C._ 5.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Comp. _De Somn._ I. 11, _De Mut. Nom._ 4.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Caird, \"Life of Spinoza\" II.]\n\n[Footnote 180: _De Mon._ I. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 181: Comp. \"The Authorised Prayer Book.\" p. 78.]\n\n[Footnote 182: _Quod Deus_ 23.]\n\n[Footnote 183: _De Mundi Op._ 5.]\n\n[Footnote 184: _L.A._ III. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 185: _De Somn._ II. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 186: _L.A._ III. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 187: See p. 77, above.]\n\n[Footnote 188: _L.A._ I. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 189: _De Plant._ 7, _Quod Det._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 190: _De Cherubim_ 35.]\n\n[Footnote 191: _L.A._ II. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 192: _De Cherubim_ 32, _De Somn._ II, 56.]\n\n[Footnote 193: _De Post. C._ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 194: Essay on the Talmud.]\n\n[Footnote 195: Bereshit Rabba 21, and Yalkut 26.]\n\n[Footnote 196: Comp. _De Plant._ 30.]\n\n[Footnote 197: Comp. [H.]agigah 14.]\n\n[Footnote 198: Quoted by Euseb., _op. cit._ XIII. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 199: _De Decal._ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 200: _De Mundi Op._ 24.]\n\n[Footnote 201: _Ibid._ 20.]\n\n[Footnote 202: _De Migr._ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 203: _De Decal._ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 204: _De Somn._ II. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 205: _De Somn._ I. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 206: Comp. _De Somn._ II. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 207: _De Somn._ I. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 208: Comp. [H.]agigah 14^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 209: _Quod Deus_ 26 and 32.]\n\n[Footnote 210: _De Confus._ 14.]\n\n[Footnote 211: _De Gigant._ 2.]\n\n[Footnote 212: \"Ethics of the Fathers\" III.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Comp. Schechter, _op. cit._, \"The Law as Personified in\nLiterature.\"]\n\n[Footnote 214: Comp. _L.A._ III. 73, _De Somn._ II. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 215: _De Cong._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 216: _De Confus._ 14, Fragments I, _L.A._ III. 23, _Quis\nRer. Div._ 42, _De Gigant._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 217: Comp. Graetz, \"Gnosticism and Judaism,\" pp. 15 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 218: Comp. _De Cherubim_ 14 and 17, _De Gigant._ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Drummond, \"Philo-Jud\u00e6us and the Jewish Hellenistic\nSchool,\" vol. II.]\n\n[Footnote 220: _De Somn._ I. 32, _De Confus._ 14, _L.A._ III. 25, _De\nV. Mos._ III. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 221: _L.A._ III. 73.]\n\n[Footnote 222: _De Sacrif._ 38.]\n\n[Footnote 223: _Quis Rer. Div._ 42.]\n\n[Footnote 224: _De Plant._ 21.]\n\n[Footnote 225: _L.A._ III.]\n\n[Footnote 226: _De Cherubim_ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 227: _De Abr._ 24 and 25.]\n\n[Footnote 228: _De Fuga_ 18.]\n\n[Footnote 229: _L.A._ II.]\n\n[Footnote 230: _L.A._ I. 13, II. 15, _Quis Rer. Div._ 53.]\n\n[Footnote 231: Comp. _De Decal._, _ad fin_.]\n\n[Footnote 232: _L.A._ I. 20, _De Fuga_ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 233: _De Mundi Op._ 54, _De Fuga_ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 234: \"The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers\"\nVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 235: Plato, \"Laws\" 718.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Comp. Bk. 12 of the _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._]\n\n[Footnote 237: Quoted by Suidas, _s.v._ Philo.]\n\n[Footnote 238: _De Mundi Op._ 43.]\n\n[Footnote 239: _De Victimis_ II. 260-262.]\n\n[Footnote 240: Comp. p. 81, above.]\n\n[Footnote 241: _De Sacrif._ 24, _Quod Det._ 24.]\n\n[Footnote 242: _De Mundi Op._ 24.]\n\n[Footnote 243: _De Mundi Op._ 4.]\n\n[Footnote 244: _De Somn._ I. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 245: _De Victimis_ II. 260.]\n\n[Footnote 246: _Quod Deus_ 6, _De Post. C._ 5.]\n\n[Footnote 247: _Quod Det._ 24, _De Mundi Op._ 45 and 51.]\n\n[Footnote 248: _L.A._ I. 32, _De Confus._ 27.]\n\n[Footnote 249: _De Mon_. II. 214, _De Mundi Op_. I. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 250: _De Mundi Op_. 22 and 48, _L.A._ I. 13 and II. 12 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 251: _De Sacrif._ 32.]\n\n[Footnote 252: _De Plant._ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 253: _Quaestiones in Gen._ II. 59.]\n\n[Footnote 254: _De Fuga_ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 255: _Quaestiones in Gen._ IV. 140.]\n\n[Footnote 256: _De Cherubim_ 32.]\n\n[Footnote 257: _L.A._ I. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 258: _L.A._ II. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 259: _L.A._ I. 11 ff., II. 12-14.]\n\n[Footnote 260: _De Cherubim_ 35.]\n\n[Footnote 261: _De Somn._ I. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 262: _De Somn._ I. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 263: _De Plant._ 7.]\n\n[Footnote 264: _Quod Det._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 265: _De Migr._ 8, _De Spec. Leg._ I. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 266: _L.A._ I. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 267: _L.A._ III. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 268: _Quis Rer. Div._ 53.]\n\n[Footnote 269: _De Mundi Op._ 54.]\n\n[Footnote 270: _De Abr._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 271: _De Fuga_ 27.]\n\n[Footnote 272: _L.A._ I. 32, II. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 273: Comp. _L.A._ III. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 274: _Quod Det._ 7.]\n\n[Footnote 275: _De Fuga_ 5 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 276: _De Mundi Op._ 15, _L.A._ I. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 277: _De Decal._ 6-8.]\n\n[Footnote 278: Comp. Euseb., _Praep. Evang._ IX 411A.]\n\n[Footnote 279: _C. Celsum_ IV. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 280: _De Sectis Judaicis_ XVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 281: Comp. Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_, and\nSiegfried, _Philo als Ausleger der hieligen Schrift_.]\n\n[Footnote 282: Comp. _Quis Rer. Div._ XLIII, and Chapter II above.]\n\n[Footnote 283: _De Mon_. II. 212.]\n\n[Footnote 284: _Hist. Ecclesiast._ II. iv. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 285: Comp. Graetz, \"History\" II. xviii.]\n\n[Footnote 286: Comp. Chapter I, p. 17, above.]\n\n[Footnote 287: _De Spec. Leg_. II. 260.]\n\n[Footnote 288: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 289: _Ibid._ II. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 290: _De Parentibus Colendis_ 56.]\n\n[Footnote 291: Comp. Sifre Debarim 237.]\n\n[Footnote 292: _De Spec. Leg._ IV.]\n\n[Footnote 293: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 294: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 33 and 34.]\n\n[Footnote 295: Moreh Nebukim III, ch. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 296: _Fragmenta ex Antonio_ II. 672.]\n\n[Footnote 297: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 5, II. 304, 305.]\n\n[Footnote 298: Deut. vii. 3, and Abodah Zarah 36^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 299: _De Spec. Leg._ III. 5, II. 304.]\n\n[Footnote 300: _De Septen._ 5 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 301: See Chapter IV, p. 125, above.]\n\n[Footnote 302: Mishnah Rosh Hashanah III. 8, and Philo, _De Somn._ II.\n11.]\n\n[Footnote 303: Comp. _Agadah bei Philo_, by Treitel, _Monatsschrift_,\n1909.]\n\n[Footnote 304: Comp. Bereshit Rabba 16, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 305: Comp. Taylor's edition.]\n\n[Footnote 306: _De Plant._ 30.]\n\n[Footnote 307: It is impossible for me to make an adequate\nacknowledgment of my debt to Dr. Schechter, President of the Jewish\nTheological Seminary of America. But I should say that I have borrowed\nfreely from his articles on rabbinic theology in the Jewish Quarterly\nReview, vols. VI and VII, now included in his \"Aspects of Rabbinic\nTheology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 308: Mishnah Yodayim III. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 309: Bereshit Rabba 26. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Comp. Schechter, _op. cit._, Introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 311: Berakot 24^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 312: Mekilta [Hebrew: kshla] I. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 313: Bereshit Rabba I. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 314: Pirke R. Eliezer III.]\n\n[Footnote 315: Comp. Poems, II, p. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 316: Moreh II, ch. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 317: Eccles. III. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 318: [H.]agigah 14 ff., Sanhedrin 37^{a}.]\n\n[Footnote 319: Bereshit Rabba 4.]\n\n[Footnote 320: Mena[h.]ot 99.]\n\n[Footnote 321: Mishnah Sanhedrin II. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 322: [H.]agigah 15^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 323: Bereshit Rabba 36. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 324: Ant. III. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 325: _De V. Mos._ II. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 326: Comp. Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 327: Comp. \"Ethics of the Fathers\" VI. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 328: See Epstein, _Philon et le Midrasch Tadsch\u00e9_, Revue des\nEtudes Juives, XXI, p. 80.]\n\n[Footnote 329: Yer. Meg. I. 71^{c}.]\n\n[Footnote 330: Comp. an article by Dr. Pozn\u00e0nski in the _Revue des\n\u00c9tudes Juives_, 1905, _Philo dans l'ancienne litt\u00e9rature jud\u00e9o-arabe_,\npp. 10 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 331: Comp. Pozn\u00e0nski, _op. cit._, p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 332: Moreh II. ch. 1 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 333: _Ibid._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 334: _Ibid._ 31.]\n\n[Footnote 335: Moreh III. 43 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 336: Comp. Ginzberg, art. \"Cabbalah,\" Jewish Encyclopedia.]\n\n[Footnote 337: Comp. Taylor's \"Ethics of the Fathers,\" ch. 5, notes.]\n\n[Footnote 338: _De Cherubim_ 12 and 14. Comp. _De Somn._ I. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 339: Comp. _De Somn._ I. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 340: Comp. _De Fuga_ 9.]\n\n[Footnote 341: Comp. Hort, Introduction to Clement's [Greek:\nEtr\u00f4mateis].]\n\n[Footnote 342: Ed. Cassel, pp. 4 and 15^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 343: Comp. Imre Binah. Meor Einayim, ch. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 344: Comp. J.A. Stewart, \"Myths of Plato,\" _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 345: Comp. \"Theologico-Political Tractate\" XV.]\n\n[Footnote 346: Comp. _De Humanitate_ II. 395.]\n\n[Footnote 347: _De V. Mos._ II. 1-5.]\n\n[Footnote 348: Comp. _De Mon._ II. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 349: _De Just._ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 350: Comp. _De Nobilitate_ 6.]\n\n[Footnote 351: Bamidbar Rabba 8.]\n\n[Footnote 352: Tan[h.]uma to Debarim.]\n\n[Footnote 353: Comp. Pesa[h.]im 87^{b}.]\n\n[Footnote 354: _De Exsecr._ 6. II. 433.]\n\n[Footnote 355: Comp. Montefiore, Jewish Quarterly Review, VI, p. 428.]\n\n[Footnote 356: Epistle to the Romans V.]\n\n[Footnote 357: Epistle to the Galatians III. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 358: Comp. Chapter IV, above, p. 126.]\n\n[Footnote 359: _De Abr._ 46.]\n\n[Footnote 360: Comp. Schechter, _op. cit._, Introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 361: Comp. Mekilta 33^{a}, ed. Friedmann.]\n\n[Footnote 362: Comp. _L.A._ III. 26, and Chapter V, above, p. 154.]\n\n[Footnote 363: _De Cherubim_ 12.]\n\n[Footnote 364: Comp. Gibbon, \"Decline of the Roman Empire,\" ch. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 365: [Hebrew: 'monot vd'ot] III.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"Philo-Jud\u00e6us of Alexandria","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":67471}