him the rules of allegorical interpretation, and are dependent on him in some of their important doc- trinal statements. Eusebius frequently quotes him, and borrows his doctrines and interpretations; and he was read even in the West, for Ambrose makes ample use of him, and sometimes transfers his very words, in a Latin translation, to his own pages. Jerome, too, is familiar with his writings, and avails himself especially of his interpretations of scriptural names, though sometimes correcting him. It was probably, for the most part, through Jerome that these explanations passed on to other Latin Fathers. See the whole subject treated by Siegfried, p. 303 ff., where other works are referred to. This widely spread knowledge of his writings shows the high estimation in which Philo was all 3 but, nevertheless, we cannot place him among the world’s great original thinkers. To class him, as ancient writers did, with Plato, must seem to us an absurd exaggeration of his powers. His system of mio De a borrowed indeed but extended and popularized by him, may have helped for a time to save the reverence due to the Scriptures, but was in its ultimate effect purely mischievous, hiding the real beauties of the ancient records, and re- ducing Revelation to a fantastic puzzle. But he gave eloquent expression to a great movement of thought, and prepared a sort of philosophical mould in which the fluid doctrines of Christianity could acquire consistency and shape; and amid his tedious interpretations there are splendid flashes of spiritual thought, while his ethical teaching reaches an exalted purity, without transgressing the bounds of sober sense, and is always flushed with the hues of religious faith, and reverence for the Will and Spirit of God.
LITERATURE. —In the foregoing article only the most im- portant references have been given; for the opinions of Philo are collected from such a number of passages that the com- plete references would occupy an undue amount of space. They will be found in the present author’s work, Philo Judeus: or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion, 2 vols., London, 1888, where also there is a much fuller discussion of controverted points. In addition to works already referred to, it may be sufficient to mention the follow- ing: August Gfrorer, Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, 1831; August Ferdinand Dahne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der jiidisch-alecandrinischen Religions-Philosophie, 1834 ; Friedrich Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von den penieien Mittelwesen, 1846 ; Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, iii. Thl. 2 Abth. 1881; Henry Soulier, Za Doctrine du Logos chez Philon d’Alexandrie, 1876; Anathon Aall, Ges- chichte der Logosidee in der griechischen Philosophie, 1896. A fuller bibliography may be consulted in Schiirer, GJV 3 iii. 542 ff. An interesting Florilegiwm Philonis has been collected and published by Mr. C. G. Montefiore in the JQR [April 1895
vii. pp. 481-545. JAMES DRUMMOND,
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT).—
. The Object of Textual Criticism.
. Materials for Textual Criticism, and Oritical Editions.
. Methods and Principles.
. Two rival schools, ‘ Traditional’ and ‘ Critical.’
. The ‘Traditional’ School as represented by Mr. Miller.
9, Their claim to take account of the whole evidence. [Note on the difference between ‘the date of a document’ and ‘the date of the text contained in it’).
10. Suggested causes for the corruptions of the text. {Note on the attitude of Westcott and Hort to the ‘Synoptic Problem’),
11. The rise of the ‘ Critical’ School.
- Mr. Miller’s account of the triumph of the ‘ Tradi- tional’ Text tested by reference to the period 881-450 A.D,
. Dr. Hort’s challenge with regard to the ante-Nicene evidence for ‘distinctively Syrian’ readings,
18. Prima facie evidence for the existence of the read-
ings in 1 Timothy. ‘
Examination of these readings in the light of
‘Intrinsic’ evidence and of the evidence of Ver- sions and ante-Nicene Fathers.
23, The Traditional Text of Mk 11-28 printed so as to
indicate its relation to other types of text
current in early times, with a detailed examina-
19-22.
Susur seseeerceeee er ce
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
tion of all the variants in the light of the
$$ ‘Internal Evidence of Readings.’ 24, The groups of Authorities’ brought to light by this examination.
25-28, Are the names ‘Syrian,’ ‘ Western,’ ‘ Alexandrian,’ ‘Neutral,’ applied by Dr. Hort to these groups, * question-begging’?
29. The fundamental importance of the ‘subjective’ element in Textual Criticism illustrated by the examination of Mk 11-28, leading to a description of the checks on personal idiosyncrasy provided by ‘Intrinsic’ and ‘ Transcriptional’ Probability, and by the ‘Internal Evidence of Documents.’
30. The principle of Genealogy.
. The consequences of this principle.
35-59. Grounds for the ‘Critical’ rejection of the Tradi- tional Text illustrated by reference to ‘dis- tinctively Syrian’ readings in Mk 11-28,
. The argument from ‘ Conflation.’
4), Ante-Nicene evidence,
- Detailed examination of the evidence for roi Tpo- onrois in Mk 12,
49. And for gurpoctéy ov.
- Conclusion with regard to ante-Nicene evidence.
52. Summary of the evidence against ‘Syrian’ read-
ings,
the Traditional Text. 56-58. The argument @ priori. 69. The argument from ecclesiastical use. \. ee oc vistiee of the ‘Western’ readings in 11-28,
63. The acceptance of these readings not precluded by
‘Genealogy.’ 64-66. ‘ Alexandrian’ readings in Mk 11-28, 37 f. ‘ Neutral’ readings in Mk 11-28,
69. The value of B as determined by the ‘Internal