Qvis rer. div. hcer. 42, p. 501. Tip de apxayyeXui Kai 7rpeo- fiurdru) Xoyto 6u>peac t^aiperov edwuev o ru o\a yewi]<ra? waTi'/p, I'l/a pe5opio9 oris to ■yei'Ofievoi/ diaKpivr] tou 7rt7ro<nKo-
T09, K. T. X.
De Cherub. 35, p. 102. a'trtov piv aurov tov eeov . . . opya- vov 6c' X070C (Jeov, 6c' oi' KaTea-Kei'ciu^ri.
De Mundi Opif. 51, p. 35. ttu9 ui<Spto7ro9 koto. fxiv t)v Bu'tvoiav wKEcWac Sec'eg \uyw, r:s panapias (comp. .Sap. Sol. vii, 20). De Plant. Noe, 5, p. 332. ^.(Tew9 Unayeiov n ini-
<r7ruirpa h uTTaoyaapa ytyoviios <r<ppu.yldi Beov is 6 xapaKTi;p taitv uiotor X0709. De Sown, i, 38, p. 654. 6 piv 6); piyat upxiepti"? t!}S ofioXo-
7.'a9,K.T.\.
De Cherub. 35, p. 102. oim'ajiai wo\c9 Traera Vca KcnaaKev- aa~i], Tcca ffi'veccreA^ctc 6ei; tip' ov dtiptovpyvv, K. t. X. . . . MeTeXSrov oiv uttu twv iv pt'pec KaTacrKei/uJi/, i6e ti;k i-ityiarriv o'iKiav rj ttoXiv, Toc6e tov K6ap.ov' ei'p/;crei9 7<ip a'tTiov ntv avTov tov Seoc, k. t. X.
Qim rer. div. hcer. 2G, p. 401. Tip Tope: twv avinrcivTan avrov Xoyw, 69 e.9 t'/jv ufvT«Tt|V oKoi'ti^reit uKpijv diaipwv ou6t-'- 7TOT6 Xf|7tc Ta a oStiTti TrtivTa. 27, p. 402. OyT<09 6 6eo9 uKoct]iTiipev'09 toc Tope'a twv ovfnrch'Twv aurov Xoyov, dtatpet t>\v Te iipop<pov Kai a7rococ tcoii oXwi/ ovaiav.
De Prof. 20, p. 562. Aiyopiev yap tov upxcept'a ouk ai-5pco- ttov uXXi'c Xo7ov SeTov eivai, ttuvtuv oi>x f-Kovaiav /xovov, liXXcl Kai aKovaiuiv a6iK>ipaTWw uptTOXOc. De VictAO, p. 246. otc 6 wpo9 aXi]^eiav upxi€p£i'9 Kai pt/ <|/ei/6«jn'po9 aptToxo9 apapTn-
Legis Alleg.m, 72, p. 127. 'Opu9 7tip otc ov naSr1 irfpov opciiec Geo9, ovoiv yap aurov Kpcnrov, uXXti Ka*' tavTOv, C9 eiTTc naiTuyv apto-ros.
Qui.s rer. div. hcer. 42, p. 501. 6 6' aiT09 iKeTFK p.iv ta-Tc tov
S-HlTot K»pacl'OC'T09 ait 7rpU9 to ci^S-apToc
Quod deter, -potiori insid. 14, p. 200. MapTi/p>';<7ei &£ to
XprioSiv Xoytov, ev u> tjttovg xp»''Pf co9 Kai (3ouiv a iriirov^tv into KaKou avvStTov TiiXavyw1,- evptOKtTal. Hit)? yap 6 p»)KtT' u>v diaXiyeaSai &vvo.t6s ;
Christian Church, and had modified to some extent the language of its theology (see Burton, Bampton Lectures, p. 218). If so, the adoption of that language, as a ve- hicle of Christian doctrine, would furnish the natural means both of correcting the errors which had actually crept into the Church, and of counteracting the influ- ence of the source from which they sprang. If the phil- osophical Jews of Alexandria, striving, as speculative minds in every age have striven, to lay the foundations of their philosophy in an apprehension of the one and the absolute, were driven by the natural current of such speculations to think of the supreme God as a being remote and solitary, having no relation to finite things, and no attributes out of which such a relation can arise, it is natural that the inspired Christian teacher should have been directed to provide, by means of their own language, the antidote to their error; to point, in the revelation of God and man united in one Christ, to the truth, and to the manner of attaining the truth; to turn the mind of the wandering seeker from theory to fact, from speculation to belief; to bid him look, with the eye of faith, to that great mystery of godliness in which the union of the infinite and the finite is realized in fact, though remaining still incomprehensible in theory. If the same philosophers, again, seeking to bridge over the chasm which their speculations had interposed be- tween God and man, distorted the partial revelation of the Angel of the Covenant, which their Scriptures sup- plied, into the likeness of the ideal universe of the Pla- tonist, or of the half- personified world -reason of the Stoic, it was surely no unworthy object of the apostolic teaching to lead them, by means of the same language, to the true import of that revelation, as made known, in its later and fuller manifestation, by the advent of the Word made flesh. If the Platonizing expositor of the Jewish Scriptures, eager to find the foreign philosophy which he adopted in the oracles of God committed to his own people, explained away their literal import by a system of allegory and metaphor, it was natural that
PHILOSOPHY
136
PHILOSOPHY
the inspired writers of the New Covenant should poinl out the true meaning of those marks which the Jewish history and religion bo clearly bear of a spiritual signifi- cance beyond themselves, by showing how the institu- tions of the I. aw ami the record of God's dealings wiih his chosen people arc not an allegory contrived lor the teaching of a present philosophy, but an anticipation, d by the divine Author of the whole :h a prep- aration, directly and indirectly, by teaching and train- ing, by ritual and prophecy, by type and symbol, t>> make ready the way for him that was t me.
The attempts made by Grossmann. Gfrorer, and oth- ers, to explain the origin of Christianity as an offshoot of the Jewish philosophy of Alexandria rest mainly on these occasional coincidences of language, while over- looking fundamental differences of doctrine. The ideal Logos, the distinguishing feature of the Alexandrian philosophy, has no place in the teaching of the X.T. The belief in one Christ, very God and very man, has not onl\ no place in. hut is diametrically opposed to the philosophical speculations of l'liilo. For his personal relations to Christianity, see l'mi.o. Christianity came into the world at a time when the ( Ineco-.lew [sh modes of thought, of which Philo is the representative, were prevalent ; and the earliest Christian teachers, so far as they had to deal with those to whom that philosophy was familiar, could do so most effectually by means of its language and associations. These considerations seem naturally to explain the resemblance and the dif- ference between the two systems resemblance as re- gards the language employed: difference as regards the doctrine which that language conveys.