It must not be supposed that the doctrines here at- tributed to Philo are clearly and unambiguously enun- ciated in his writings. Many passages might be quoted apparently indicating different views; and probably no consecutive summary of doctrines could be drawn up against which similar objections might not be urged. This difficulty is unavoidable in the case of a writer like Philo, who attempts to combine together two an- tagonistic systems, of whose antagonism he is himself but imperfectly, if at all, conscious. Philo's system has been called an eclecticism ; but it was not so much an eclecticism founded on definite principles of selection as an accumulation of speculations which he was unable to combine into a consistent whole, though persuaded of the existence of a common principle of truth concealed under them. There is a perpetual struggle between the
Jewish and the heathen, the religious and the philo- sophical elements of his system, if system it can be called, which cannot be set at rest by all the latitude of interpretation which he so freely indulges in. Hence his religious convictions perpetually manifest themselves in language inconsistent with his philosophical theories ; and the utmost that can be attempted in a short analysis of his teaching is to give an outline of the system as it probably would have been had it been logically carried out, not as it actually appears in his own very illogical attempt to carry it out.
In the language as well as in the doctrines of Philo we may trace the influence of Greek philosophy in con- junction wkh the literature of his own nation. The theory, indeed, which would trace the term Auyog to the few and unimportant passages in which it is em- ployed by Plato is too fanciful and far-fetched to be tenable; but the appearance in Philo of the Stoical dis- tinction between \6yog IvSiaStToc and Xoyoc -npotyopi- koc, as well as his general use of the term, seems to in- dicate that in the employment of this word he was in- fluenced by the language of the Greek philosophy, though perhaps in conjunction with that of the Sept. (On the Xoyoc of the Stoics and its relation to Philo, see Zeller, Philos. der Giiecken, iii, 630. Comp. Wyt- tenbach on Plutarch, ii, 44, A. The distinction between h'CiaSeTog and 7rpo<popiKog Xoyoc, though acknowl- edged by Philo, is not applied by him directly to the divine reason [see Gfrorer, i, 177]. On other affinities between Philo and the Stoics, see Valckenar, Diair. de A ristobulo, sec. xxxii.) In the use of the cognate term So^iw, as nearly, if not quite equivalent to Ad- yoc, he was probably more directly influenced by writers of his own nation, by the Sept. version of the Proverbs, and by the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wis- dom. (On the identity of Adyoc and So^i'a in Philo, see Gfrorer, i, 213 sq.) Thus his language, no less than his matter, indicates the compound character of his writings ; the twofold origin of his opinions being par- alleled by a similar twofold source of the terms in which they are expressed.
It is necessary to dwell to some extent upon the writings of Philo, because it is through them, if at all, that the influence of the Greek philosophy on the Chris- tian Scriptures is to be traced. Whether we admit the conjecture that St. John, during his residence at Eph- esus, might have become acquainted with Philo's writ- ings; or whether we regard these writings as the extant representatives of a widely diffused doctrine, which might have reached the apostle through other channels (see, for the one supposition, dean Milman, in a note on Gibbon, ch. xxi; and for the other, Gfrorer, i, 307; ii, 4), it is to the asserted coincidences between this evan- gelist and the Alexandrian philosopher that we must look for the chief evidence for or against the theory which asserts an influence of Greek speculations on Christian doctrine. The amount of that influence, however, has been very differently estimated by differ- ent critics ; one of whom, as has been before observed, ascribes to it nearly all the distinctive doctrines of the Christian Church ; while another considers that the whole resemblance between St. John and Philo may be accounted for by their common use of certain passages of the O. T., especially those concerning the angel of the Lord, and the distinction between the hidden and the revealed God (see Tholuck on the Gospel of St. John, p. 65, Engl, transl.). The truth may perhaps be found in an intermediate view, if we distinguish between the Christian doctrine itself and the language in which it is expressed. Notwithstanding the verbal parallels which may be adduced between the language of Philo and that of some portions of the N. T., the relation be- tween the Alexandrian and the Christian doctrine is one rather of contrast than of resemblance. The distin- guishing doctrine of the Christian revelation — that of the Word made flesh — not only does not appear in Philo, but could not possibly appear, consistently with the lead-
PHILOSOPHY
134
PHILOSOPHY
lag principles of his philosophy, according to which the Beab, and matter in general, is condemned as the source (if all evil. The development of Philo's doctrine, if ap- plied i" the person ofCbrist, will lead, as has been point- ed "nt. not to Christianity, but to docetiam (see Dorner on the Person of Christ, i. 17. Engl. transL) ; and in the distinction, which he constantly makes, between the ab- Bolute God and ilie secondary deity, who alone is capa- ble of relation to finite things, we may trace the germ of a theory which afterwards, in various forms, became conspicuous in the different developments of gnosti- cism.