clopadia.) Mr.Grinfield. in his Hellenistic Greek Testa- rm hi. and the accompanying Scholia, has derived many of his notes from the works of Philo; in the applica- tion, however, of such illustrations, it must he home in mind that Philo's style was hardly a natural one; it is very elaborate, and avoids Alexandrian provincialisms, and on that account often fails to elucidate the simple diction of the New Test., even where there is similarity in tin aubject-matter (comp. Carpzovii Exer.Sacr.'w Ep.ad Hebr.p. 140). Put recent critics of the ration- alistic school are not content with finding in Philo such illustration of the New Test, as might he expected to occur in a contemporary, and in some respects kindred, Greek writer: they go so far as to assert that some of the prominent doctrines of the sacred writers are little else than accommodations from the opinions of I'hilo, mediate or immediate. Thus Crossmann i QlUBSt. Philon, sub init.) does not scruple to say that Christianity is the product of the allegories of the Jewish synagogue and of Philo. Other writers, more measured in their terms, trace isolated truths to a like source. For in- stance, the well-disposed Ernesti (Institutes), and after him Lilcke, who says, "It is impossible to mistake as to the immediate historical council ion of John's doc- trine of the Logos with the Alexandrian in its more perfect form, as it occurs in Philo." Similarly. Strauss, De Wette, and others; while others again apply the like criticism to St. Paul. Among tins,- we must es- pecially notice Gfrorer, whose work. Philo unddu jii- disch-alexandrinische Theologie, has been made acces- sible to English readers, in an abridged form, by Prof. Jowett, in his dissertation St. Paul and Philo, contained in his commentary on St. Paul's Epp. i, 363 117. No criticism, however, is to he tolerated by the believer in Revelation which does not start from the principle that the characteristic truths of Christianity are self-evolved, i.e. it., use Dorner's wonC) "have not emerged from without Christianity, hut wholly from within it " i/'./-- son of Christ [Clark], voL i, Introduction.].. 15). In- stead of making I'hilo. in any sense, a fountain-head of Christian doctrine, it would In- more correct to regard him as the unconscious source of antichrist ian opinion —unconscious, we say. for with all his knowledge and skill in style. Philo possessed not those energetic qual- ities which characterize founders of schools of opinion. To say nothing of Philo's influence upon the theoso- phizing fathers of the Church, (lenient of Alexandria and Origen, who borrowed largely from their Jewish predecessor and fellow-citizen, some ol the salient her- esies of the early centuries had almost their spring in the Philoiiian writings (for the affinity of the opposite opinions ,,f . \rius and Sahellius to certain opinions of I'hilo. see .Moslu im's Notes on (udvvorth cited In low ); while that paean philosophy, the Neo-Platonism of Alexandria, which derived much of its strength and ob- tained its ultimate defeat from the Christianity which it hot h aped and hated, is mainly traceable to our Philo. For a popular but sufficiently exact statement of (1) Philo's relation to Neo-Platonism, and (2) of the antag- onism of this Neo- plat on i sin to Christianity, the reader is referred to Lewis's Hist, of Philosophy, p. 260 278. Although we cannot therefore allow that the inspired volume of the Christian religion owes in its origin any- thing to Philo. we do not deny to his writings a certain utility in the interpretation of the New Test. See Phi- losophy, Greek. Besides the explanation of words and phrases above referred to (a service which is the more valuable because of Philo's profound acquaintam e with the Septuagiut version, in which the writers of the New- Test, show themselves to haw l.een well versed also), the works of Phil., sometimes contribute interesting elucidation of scriptural facts and statements. We may
PHILO
115
PHILO
instance his delineation of the character of Pontius Pilate (De Legat. ad Caium, xxxviii, Kichter, vi, 134; Bohn, iv, 164). This well-drawn sketch of such a man, from the masterly hand of a contemporary, throws con- siderable light on more than one point, such as the relations of Herod and Pilate, which are but lightly touched in the Gospels (comp. Hale's Analysis, iii, 216- 218). As a second instance, may we not regard the re- markable passage of St. Paul as receiving light from Philo's view of the twofold creation, first of the heavenly (oipdviog) or ideal man, and then of the earthly (yrfivog) man ? (Comp. 1 Cor. xv, 46, 47, with Philo, De Allegor. Legis, i, 12, 13 [Richter, i, 68 : Bohn, i. 60], and />, Mundi Opific. p. 46 [Kichter, i, 43; Bohn, i, 39] ; and see Stanley on Corintkians, i, 331.) But then such illustration is rather an example of how Philo is corrected by St. Paul, than of how St, Paul borrowed from Philo. Re- specting the allegorical method of interpreting the Old Test, of which the apostle is alleged to have derived the idea from our author, it should be remembered that St. Paul, guided by the Divine Spirit, who had indited the ancient Scriptures, was directed to apply Old-Test, facts to New-Test, doctrines, as correlative portions of one great scheme of providential dispensation; whereas Philo's adaptations of the same facts were only the prod- uct of an arbitrary and extremely fanciful imagination ; so that in the case of the former we have an authorita- tive and sure method of interpreting ancient events without ever impairing their historical and original truth, whereas the latter affords us nothing besides the conjectures of a mind of great vivacity indeed, but often capricious and inconsistent, which always postpones the truth of history to its allegorical sense, and oftentimes wholly reduces it to a simple myth. Readers of Philo are well aware of the extravagance and weakness of many of his allegories ; of these some are inoffensive, no doubt, and some others are even neat and interesting, but none carry with them the simple dignity and ex- pressiveness of the allegorical types of the New Test. St. Paul and Philo, it is well known, have both treated the history of Hagar and Sarah allegorically (comp. Gal. iv, 22-31 with Philo, De Congressu, p. 1-5 [Rich- ter, iii, 71-76 ; Bohn, ii, 157-162] ; and see Lightfoot, Epist. to Gal. p. 189-191; and Howson's Hagar and A rabia, p. 20, 36, 37) ; but although we have here one of the best specimens of Philo's favorite method, how infinitely does it fall short of St. Paul's! To say noth- ing of authority, it fails in terseness and point, and all the features of proper allegory. The reader will at once perceive this who examines both.