Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/433

Rh that of (divine) "Reason." In Greek philosophy, again, Philo, as we have seen, chiefly follows the Platonic doctrines of Ideas and the Soul of the World, and the Stoic doctrine of God as the or Reason operative in the world. In its Stoic form the latter doctrine was pantheistic, but Philo could adapt it to his purpose simply by drawing a sharper distinction between the Logos and the world.

Like his doctrine of God, Philo's doctrine of the world and creation rests on the presupposition of an absolute metaphysical contrast between God and the world. The world can be ascribed to God only in so far as it is a cosmos or orderly world, its material substratum is not even indirectly referable to God. Matter (, or, as the Stoics said, ) is a second principle, but in itself an empty one, its essence being a mere negation of all true being. It is a lifeless, unmoved, shapeless mass, out of which God formed the actual world by means of the Logos and divine Forces. Strictly speaking, the world is only formed, not created, since matter did not originate with God.

Philo's doctrine of man is also strictly dualistic, and is mainly derived from Plato. Man is a twofold being, with a higher and a lower origin. Of the pure souls which fill airy space, those nearest the earth are attracted by the sensible and descend into sensible bodies, these souls are the Godward side of man. But on his other side man is a creature of sense, and so has in him a fountain of sin and all evil. The body, therefore, is a prison, a coffin, or a grave for the soul which seeks to rise again to God. From this anthropology the principles of Philo's ethics are derived, its highest maxim necessarily being deliverance from the world of sense and the mortification of all the impulses of sense. In carrying out this thought, as in many other details of his ethical teaching, Philo closely follows the Stoics. But he is separated from Stoical ethics by his strong religious interests, which carry him to very different views of the means and aim of ethical development. The Stoics cast man upon his own resources; Philo points him to the assistance of God, without from man, a captive to sense, could never raise himself to walk in the ways of true wisdom and virtue. And as moral effort can bear fruit only with God's help, so too God Himself is the goal of that effort. Even in this life the truly wise and virtuous is lifted above his sensible existence, and enjoys in ecstasy the son of God, his own consciousness sinking and disappearing in the divine right. Beyond this ecstasy there lies but one further step, viz. entire liberation from the body of sense and the return of the soul to its original condition; it came from God and must rise to Him again. But natural death brings this consummation only to those who, while they lived on earth, kept themselves free from attachment to the things of sense; all others must at death pass into another body; transmigration of souls is in fact the necessary consequence of Philo's premises, though he seldom speaks of it expressly.

Philo's literary labours have a twofold object, being directed either to expound the true sense of the Mosaic law, i e. the philosophy which we have just described, to his Jewish brethren, or to convince heathen readers of the excellence, the supreme purity and truth, of the Jewish religion, whose holy records contain the deepest and most perfect philosophy, the best and most humane legislation. Thus as a literary figure Philo, in conformity with his education and views of life, stands between the Greeks and the Jews, seeking to gain the Jews for Hellenism and the Greeks for Judaism, yet always taking it for granted that his standpoint really is Jewish, and just on that account truly philosophical and cosmopolitan.

The titles of the numerous extant writings of Philo present at first sight a most confusing multiplicity. More than three-fourths of them, however, are really mere sections of a small number of larger works. Three such great works on the Pentateuch can be distinguished.

I. The smallest of these is the (Quaestiones et solutiones), a short exposition of Genesis and Exodus, in the form of question and answer. The work is cited under this title by Eusebius (H. E ii. 18, 1, 5; Praep Ev vii 13), and by later writers, but the Greek text is now almost wholly lost, and only about one-half preserved in an Armenian translation. Genesis seems to have occupied six books Eusebius tells us that Exodus filled five books. In the Armenian translation, first published by the learned Mechitarist, J Bapt Aucher, in 1826, are preserved four books on Genesis and two on Exodus, but with lacunae. A Latin fragment, about half of the fourth books on Genesis (Phil Jud CII. quaestt. ... super Gen), was first printed at Paris in 1520. Of the Greek we have numerous but short fragments in various Florilegia The interpretations in this work are partly literal and partly allegorical.

II. Philo's most important work is the (Euseb H. E. ii. 18, 1, Phot. Bibl. Cod. 103), a vast and copious allegorical commentary on Genesis, dealing with chaps. ii.–iv., verse by verse, and with select passages in the later chapters. The readers in view are mainly Jews, for the form is modelled on the rabbinic Midrash. The main idea is that the characters which appear in Genesis are properly allegories of states of the soul. All persons and actions being interpreted in this sense, the work as a whole is a very extensive body of psychology and ethics. It begins with Gen. ii. 1, for the De mundis opificio, which treats of the creation according to Gen i, ii., does not belong to this series of allegorical commentaries, but deals with the actual history of creation, and that under a quite different literary form. With this exception, however, the includes all the treatises in the first volume of Mangey's edition, viz— (Legum allegoriarum, lib. i., M. i. 43–65), on Gen ii. 1–17. (2) (Leg. all. lib. ii., M. i. 66–86), on Gen ii 18–iii 1a. (3) (Leg. all. lib. iii, M. i. 87–137), on Gen iii 8b–19. The commentaries on Gen. iii. 1b–8a, 20–23 are lost. (4) (De cherubim et flammeo gladio, M. i. 138–162), on Gen iii 24 and iv. 1. (5) (De Sacrificis Abelis et Caini, M. i. 163–190), on Gen. iv. 2–4. The commentaries on Gen. iv. 5–7 are lost. (6) (Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, M. i 191–225), on Gen. iv. 8–15. (7) (De posteritate Caini, &c., M. i 226–261), on Gen. iv. 16–25; this book, which is wanting in editions prior to Mangey's, is incorrectly given by him, but much more correctly by Tischendorf, Philonea, pp. 84–143. None of the preceding is mentioned by its special title by Euseb. H E. ii. 18, while he cites all that follow by their titles. The reason must be that all up to this point, and no further, are included by him in the ; agreeing with this we find that these, and these only, are cited under that general title in the Florilegia, especially the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus (see Mangey's notes before each book). We may therefore conclude with confidence that Philo published the continuous commentaries on Gen il -iv. under the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws, and the following commentaries on select passages under special titles, though the identity of literary character entitles us to regard the latter as part of the same great literary plan with the former. (8) (De gigantibus, M. i. 262–272), on Gen. vi. 1–4. (9) (Quod Deus sit immutabilis, M. i. 272–299), on Gen. vi. 4–12. (10) (De agricultura, M. i 300–328), on Gen. ix. 20a. (11) (De plantatione Noe, M. i. 329–356), on Gen ix. 20b. (12) (De ebrietate, M. i. 357–391), on Gen. ix 21; the Introduction shows that this book was preceded by another which put together the views of the philosophers about drunkenness. (13) (De sobrietate, M. i. 392–403), on Gen. ix. 24. (14) (De confusione linguarum, M. i. 404–435), on Gen. xi. 1–9. (15) (De migratione Abrahami, M. i. 436–472), on Gen xii. 1–6. (16) (Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit, M. i. 473–518), on Gen. xv. 1–18. (17) (De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa, M. i. 519–545), on Gen. xvi. 1–6. (18) (De profugis, M. i. 546–577), on Gen. xvi. 6–14 (19) (De mutatione nominum, M. i 578–619), on Gen. xvii 1-22, in this work Philo mentions that he had written two books, now wholly lost,  (M. i 586). (20) (De somniis, lib. i., M. i. 620–658), on the two dreams of Jacob, Gen. xxviii. and xxxi. (21) Book ii of the same (M i 659–699), on the dreams of Joseph, the chief butler, the chief baker, and Pharaoh, Gen. xxxvii. and xl, xli Eusebius makes Philo the author of five books on dreams; three, therefore, are lost.

III. A work of a very different kind is the group of writings which we may call "An Exposition of the Mosaic law for Gentiles," which, in spite of their very various contents, present on nearer examination indubitable marks of close connexion. In them Philo seeks to give an orderly view of the chief points of the Mosaic legislation in the Pentateuch, and to recommend it as valuable to Gentile readers. The method of exposition is somewhat more popular than in the allegorical commentaries, for, though that method of interpretation is not wholly excluded, the main object is to give such a view of the legislation as Philo accepted as historical. This work has three main divisions (a) an Account of the creation which Moses put first to show that his