(2) Philo. — Much has been written about the in- fluence exercised on the writer of the Epistle by the Alexandrian school of pre-Christian Judaism, whose chief representative is Philo, The evidence bearing on the question may be arranged as follows.
(a) Besemblances. — (i.) Both use the LXX in a recension closely resembling Cod. A (Bleek, op. cit. i. 369 ff.), (ii.) The custom in the Epistle of quoting the OT as the direct utterance of God, without mentioning the writer's name, finds an exact parallel in the works of Philo. (iii. ) Striking and unusual words and phrases used in the Epistle occur also in Philo's writings, e.g. iira&yaff/ia (He 1* ;
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE 541
de Mundi Op. 51), xo-P'^i^T'ip (He 1^ ; de Plant. ^ oe, 5), Bvfitan^piov in the seuse of ' altar ' (He 9^ ; Quis rer. div. hcBr. 46), TrapairXrifflus (He 2^* ; cf. rb vapair\-f]<Tiov, Quis rer. div. hcer. 30), iierpioiraBeiv ['E.eS^;deA brah. 44), rpaxT^Xtfeij' (He 4^^ ; de Vita Mos. i. 53), derjaeis re Kal CKerripias (He S' ; de Cherubim, 13), i/xadev dtp' &p iirad€v(ilQ 5^ ; cf. fl vaOdiv dfcpt/Swy ifiadev, de Somn. u. 15), iirpeirev used of God (He 2'"; de Leg. alleg. i. 15), l\a(TT7)piov applied to the lid of the Ark (He 9^ ; de Vita Mos. iii. 8). The Epistle describes Christ as TrpuT&TOKos and dpxiepeiis (He 1^ 2^'' 3^) ; PhUo applies the terms wpeff^vrepos vl6s, wpurSyovos {de Agricult. 12), dpxiepetjs {de Somn. i. 38) to the Divine Logos, (iv.) Both display the same habit of inter- weaving doctrinal and practical passages, the same uuusual transposition of words (cf. irdXt;', He 1^ ; de Leg. alleg. iii. 9), the same use of Stj irov (He 2^^ ; e.g. de Leg. alleg. i. 3) and ws ?7ros dirdv (He 7® ; e.g. de Plant. Noe, 38). (v.) Both argue from the silences as well as from the statements of Scripture, attach importance to the meaning of OT names, and emphasize the same particular aspects of the lives of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, (vi.) Philo speaks of an eternal universe (6 kIxthos vorjrds, de Mundi Op. 4-6), of which the visible universe (6 K6<r/ios aiadtjrdi, ib. ) is a transitory copy. The ^vriter of the Epistle mentions the ' heavenly ' Tabernacle, a copy of which Moses reproduced on earth (8^), and frequently alludes to earthly institutions as copies or shadows of heavenly realities (9-^^^).
{b) Divergences. — (i.) While the Epistle resembles Philo in its mode of citation of the OT, it presents a radical ditierence in its method of interpretation. Men and institutions remain what they are said to be in the OT. They do not become mere symbols of transcendental ideas, (ii.) In the Epistle stray expressions may be applied to the Son which PhUo a|iplies to the Logos, but the personal 'Son' of Hebrews is essentially diflerent from the abstract impersonal 'Logos' of Philo. (iii.) The writer of the Epistle uses language which recalls the Alexan- drian notion of the real invisible world which cor- responds with the unreal world of sense. But that idea is not the basis of his conception of Christianity.
' He does not identify Christian truth with an already exist- ing system of thought : his Christian tho'iu:ht merely possesses itself of the outlines of a mode of conception existing, which it fiils with its own contents' (Davidson, op. cit. p. 201).
It appears, then, that the Epistle does show some affinities with PhUo and the Alexandrian school. It is at least probable that the writer was acquainted with their ideas and their philosophical termino- logy. But his message is all his own ; he owes little to Alexandria beyond the outward expression. So far as he borrows thoughts, he borrows from the gospel tradition and the OT Scriptures (see G. Millican, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 203-211 ; Bruce in HDB ii. 335).
(3) The Synoptic tradition. — The author shows considerable acquaintance with the facts of our Lord's life on earth. He knows of His human birth (2''*), of His descent from the tribe of Judah (7"), of His human development (5^), of His tempta- tion (2^^ 41*), of His fidelity (3^), of His sinlessness (4'^), of His preaching (2^), of His gentle bearing towards sinners (2'''), of the contradiction He endured at the mouth of ignorant men (12^), of His circle of disciples (2^ ^), of His agony in the Garden (5"), of His Ascension {^^ 1^ 9'^*). Though the Resurrection occupies no large place in the ■wTiter's doctrinal teaching, it is not because he is ignorant of the fact (13^). These things are mentioned in the Epistle quite incidentally and because of their bearing on the general argument. It is not likely, therefore, that they represent the M'hole of the writer's information concerning tlie earthly ministry of Jesus. The additional fact that he takes it for granted that his readers need
no explanation of his allusions indicates that an evangelic tradition, not unlike that of the Synoptic Gospels, was already in circulation, but whether it had yet taken the form of a written record cannot be ascertained (see Westcott, op. cit. p. 465 ; Bruce, The Epistle to the Habreivs, p. 63 f.).
(4) St. Paul. — Allusion has already been made to the differences between the Epistle and the writ- ings of St. Paul. Attention must now be directed to their similarities. Definite reminiscences of the language of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and PhLlippians have been discovered in the follow- ing passages. He 1* || Ph 29'- ; 2- || Gal S^^ ; 2^ ||