iv. PHILO’s INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIAN WRITERS. —The interest which is felt by Christian theologians in the writings of Philo is due not only to the light which they throw on Hellenistic thought in the time of Christ, but still more to the wide influence which they exerted on the development of Christian theology. The beginning of this influence is some- times traced in the doctrine and language of .the Fourth Gospel. The doctrine of the Logos set forth in the Prologue has several points of contact with Philo’s, and through the remainder of the Gospel many other parallels have been pointed out. Nevertheless there is no obvious quotation, and the style of the author is entirely different from that of Philo. His vocabulary too is strikingly different, as any one may see by looking through Siegfried’s ‘Glossarium Philoneum,’ which fills more than 83 pages of his Philo von Alexandria (pp. 47-181). A few examples of classes of words, taken at random, may be given. Philo is fond of compounds with éus-, having 28 words of this kind; the Gospel has none. Philo has 40 compounds with ev-; the Gospel has only 2 quite common words. Philo has 73 compounds with é«-, not one of which is in the Gospel, though the latter has 14 such compounds, nearly all very common words. Philo has 67 com- pounds with ém- which are not in the Gospel, the Gospel having 11 ordinary words. If the writer was versed in the writings of Philo, itis strange that he has not even inadvertently borrowed an appre- ciable quantity of his characteristic vocabulary. Even in the doctrine of the Logos the character- istic phraseology is wanting in the Gospel : rodvd- pvumos, & épunveds TOO Beod Novos, 6 Tomeds, mpeoBvraros vids, 6 dyyéhwv mpecBiTaros, apydyyeNos, eikwy, 0 KAT
208 PHILO
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
eikéva dvOpwiros, drekdvicpa, Tapdderypa, lida roy loeGv, apxérumos ldéa, 6 vontds Kbapmos, Témos TOO éK Tay ldeGy Kbopov, cpparyls, xapaxTiHp, cKLd Oe00, Sevrepos eds. We may further observe that the multitude of philosophical terms descriptive of God is entirely absent from the Gospel. In reading the valuable collection of parallels made by Professor Julius Grill (Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums, Erster Teil, 1902, pp. 106- 138), where the Greek text of Philo is fully pre- sented, one cannot fail to be impressed by the marked difference in the style and phraseology of the two writers. Amid many interesting resem- blances of thought, which indicate the presence of a similar religious and philosophical atmosphere, there are some striking contrasts; and, in the few cases where the same words are used, the identity may be explained without the hypothesis of direct literary dependence. These facts show that it is not unreasonable to suppose that the resemblances may be due to the common stock of ideas which belonged to thoughtful men at that time. There are two lines of evidence which strengthen the pro- bability that this may be the case. First, Philo himself had an extensive acquaintance with Pales- tinian interpretation. For particulars see Sieg- fried, Philo von Alewandria, p. 1465 ff., and Bernhard Ritter, Philo wnd die Halacha: Eine vergleichende Studie unter steter Beriicksichtigung des Josephus, 1879. Secondly, other books of the New Testament also contain a number of parallels to Philo’s exposi- tion; and, although we cannot prove that the writers of these books had not read Philo, it seems more probable that the coincidences are due to the general drift of thought. Even the Synoptic Gos- pels furnish some striking resemblances in phrase- ology and sentiment. The Epistles of St. Paul approach Philo more nearly, and even contain ex- amples of allegorical interpretation. It is perhaps more surprising to find that the Epistle of James has many words and figures, allusions and precepts, in common with Philo, and that the two writers agree in some of their doctrines, both in substance and in the mode of presenting them. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews betrays an obvious affinity with the Alexandrian school ; ‘and yet, even in his case, we cannot prove a direct dependence upon Philo. See particulars, and other works re- ferred to, in Siegfried, and in Anathon Aall, Geschichte der Logosidee in der christlichen Littera- tur,.1899, who assumes a more direct dependence upon Philo than seems securely established by the evidence. On the wide prevalence of a Logos- doctrine in the Ist cent., and its connexion, through the mediation of Stoicism, with the old Egyptian theology, see many interesting particulars in R. Reitzenstein’s Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen nach ungedruckten griechischen Texten der Strass- burger Bibliothek, 1901.
When we pass from the New Testament, the con- nexion with Philo gradually becomes more and more obvious, especially through the predominance of that vicious mode of interpretation of which he made such extensive use. This is seen in the Epistle of Barnabas, which follows some of the principal rules of allegory. It is still further ex- emplified in the writings of Justin Martyr, where the whole false system is fully established. The Apologist, moreover, in his doctrine of the Logos, has many points of agreement with Philo, which are wholly wanting in St. John; and it is certainly not improbable that a philosopher had studied the works of the Alexandrian sage. Similar appear- ances are presented by the works of other apologists, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus. When we come to the great Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, there is no longer any room for doubt; for they expressly refer to him. They inherit from