Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/798

 762 P H I L O and &quot; word &quot;). Here again, we see, the philosopher is unable to escape from the difficulty that the Logos is at once the immanent Reason of God, and yet also an hypo- stasis standing between God and the world. The whole doctrine of this mediatorial hypostasis is a strange inter twining of very dissimilar threads ; on one side the way was prepared for it by the older Jewish distinction between the Wisdom of God and God Himself, of which we find the beginnings even in the Old Testament (Job xxviii. 12 sq. ; Prov. viii., ix.), and the fuller development in the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, the latter of which comes very near to Philo s ideas if we substitute for the term &quot; wisdom &quot; that of (divine) &quot; Reason.&quot; 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 Aoyos or Reason opera tive 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 (v^-tj, or, as the Stoics said, ovcria) 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 whom 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 vision of God, his own consciousness sinking and disappearing in the divine light. 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 Zrjrri/j.ara /cat X; &amp;lt;rets (Qnfestioncs ct 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. ., ii. 18, 1, 5; Prtvp. 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. 1 Eusebius tells us that Exodus filled five books. In the Armenian translation, first published by the learned Mechitarist Aucher in 1826, are preserved four books on Genesis and two on Exodus, but with lacunaj. A Latin frag ment, about half of the fourth book on Genesis (Phil. Jud. CII. qiisestt. . . . super Gen.), was first printed at Paris in 1520. Of the Greek we have numerous but short fragments in various Flori- legia. a The interpretations in this work are partly literal and partly allegorical. (II.) Philo s most important work is the ^b^v iepwv d-rryoplai (Euseb., //. 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 (rpoTrot TTJS ^t x^s)- All persons and actions being interpreted in this sense, the work as a whole is a very extensive body of psycho logy and ethics. It begins with Gen. ii. 1, for the De nmndi 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 Sb/muv dXXTryopt at includes all the treatises in the first volume of Mangey s edition, viz. : ^6/j.uv lepCiv dXXij-yopt at TrpcDrcu rdiiv u.era, rrjv f^ar^J-epov (Legum alle- goriarum, lib. i., M. i. 43-65), on Gen. ii. 1-17. (2) X6yU. ifp. dXX. Sfi Tfpai (Leg. all, lib. ii., M. i. 66-86), on Gen. ii. IS-iii. la. (3) N6,u. up. d. rplrai (Leg. all, lib. iii., M. i. 87-137), on Gen. iii. Sb-19. The commentaries on Gen. iii. Ib-Sa, 20-23 are lost. (4) Tlepl rCjv xepovfiifj. /cat T?}J &amp;lt;poyii&amp;gt;-r)s pofj.&amp;lt;pa.ia. i Kal rov Kriadevros irpuirov e dvdpuTrov KdiV (De cherubim et Jkimmeo gladio, M. i. 138-162), on Gen. iii. 24 and iv. 1. (5) Ilepi &v Itpovp- youcrtv &quot;A/3e re /cat Kd iv (Desacrificiis Abeliset Caini, M. i. 163-190), on Gen. iv. 2-4. The commentaries on Gen. iv. 5-7 are lost. (6) Ilept rov TO -^elpov rf Kpeirrovi 0iXetV eiriTiOeadai (Quod dcterius potiori insidiari soleat, M. i. 191- 225), on Gen. iv. 8-15. (7) llfpl rQiv rov doK^ffiao^ov aJiv eyy6vwi&amp;gt; Kal u&amp;gt;s fjifTavaffTTj^ yiverai (De poster itate Caini, &c., M. i. 226-201), 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 farther, are included by him in the No/xwj lepwv dXXr/yoptat ; 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. ii.-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. (S) Ilepi yiydvrui (De glgantibus, M. i. 262-272), on Gen. vi. 1-4. (9) &quot;On arpeir- TOV ro deiov (Quod Deus sit immutabilis, M. i. 272-299), on Gen. vi. 4-12. (10) llfpl yeupyias (De agricultura, M. i. 300-328), on Gen. ix. 20a. (11) Ilepi (pvrovpyias NcDe TO Sevrepov (De plantatione Noe, M. i. 329-356), on Gen. ix. 20b. (12) Hepi fdt)r)$ (De ebrietate, M. i. 357-391), on Gen. ix. 21 ; the introduc tion shows that this book was preceded by another which put together the views of the philosophers about drunkenness. (13) ITepi rov e ^T/^e NcDe (De sobrietate, M. i. 392-403), on Gen. ix. 24. (14) Ilepi avyxvfffws oiaeKrwv (De confusione linguarum, M. i. 404-435), on Gen. xi. 1-9. (15) Ilepi aTrot/a as (De migratione Abraham!, M. i. 436-472), on Gen. xii. 1-0. (Hi) llfpl rov ris o ruts Oeiuv Trpay/J-druv xr]poi 6/J.os (Quis rerum dh inarum lucres sit, M. i. 473-518), on Gen. xv. 1-18. (17) Ilepi T?}S et s TO. Trpoira.iSevfj.ar a ffwodov (De congre.isu queerendie enulitionis causa, M. i. 519-545), on Gen. xvi. 1-6. (18) Ilepi &amp;lt;f)vyd5wi (De profugis, M. i. 546-577), on Gen. xvi. 6-14. (19) Ilepi r&v fj.erovofj.af ofj.fvwi /cat div eW/ca /u.eroi o/udfoj Tai (De miitatione nomimim, M. i. 578-619), on Gen. xvii. 1-22 ; in this work Philo mentions that he had 1 See, especially Mai, Scriptt. vett. nov. coll., vol. vii. pt. i. pp. 100, 106, 108. 2 See Opp., ed. Mangey, ii. 648-680 ; Mai, op. cit., vol. vii. pt. i. 96 ,917. ; Euseb., Prcep. Ev., vii. 13. A fragment on the cherubim, Exod. xxv. 18, has been published by Mai, Class. Auctt., iv. 430 sq., by Grossmann (1856), and by Tischendorf (p. 144 sq.).