PHILO or PHILON, called by his own nation i&t (cPfXcop [6] 'Ionikaos, Pinup JuD,E55s. See Bartolocci, iv. 345), is the name of the cele brated Jewish writer who, with his contemporary Josephus, has the glory of forming that Hellenist literature which has in all subsequent ages engaged the attention of the most intelligent critics in his tory, philosophy, and theology. Philo was a native, and throughout life an inhabitant, of Alex andria. He was descended from a priestly family, which seems to have been distinguished ; as, accord ing to Josephus (Antig. xviii. 8. i), his brother Alexander Was alabareh, or governor of the numer ous Jews of his native city. According to Euse bius (Prop. E.vang. viii. 53), his father gave him an excellent education from the best teachers in all the doctrines, laws, and customs of his ancestors. Nor was his training confined to Jewish literature. His writings show him to have been an earnest stu dent of the Greek, especially the Platonic philo sophy, for the acquisition of which the most favour able opportunities would occur in Alexandria, at that time the very metropolis of the learned world, and the home of Greek philosophy. Philo (in his treatise de Congressu, xiv.) refers to his own attainments in grammar, philosophy, geometry, music, and poetry. His accomplished character was grace fully attested by his wife, who; when once asked why she alone of all her sex did not wear any golden ornaments, replied : Aerrcipcns K6op.os yupatict ii ecapbs dperh—The virtue of a husband is a sufficient ornament for his wife' (Fragments, ed. Richter, vi. 236). Although the bent of Philo's pursuits was contemplative, we find him engaged, on one memorable occasion at least, in public business of great importance, such as proves him to have been held in high esteem by his fellow countrymen. On the insane attempt of Caius Cali gula to extort from his subjects divine homage to his own statue, Philo was sent from Alexandria, at the head of an embassy of five (Joseph. Antig. xviii. 8. r ; comp. De Legal. ad Caium, xxviii.), to de precate the emperor's wrath, which threatened even the Jews with persecution for disobeying the imperial decree. The date of this embassy, the winter of A.D. 39-40, gives us a clue to the time of Philo's birth. He describes himself in his interest ing account of the legation as advanced in years. He was probably about 60 years old—if so, he was born about B. C. 20, and was contemporary with the events of the N. T. This circumstance, coupled with the man's high intelligence and in terest in sacred learning, as well as with the fact that he once visited Jerusalem `to offer up prayers and sacrifices in the temple' (although only one such visit is referred to by him [Fragments, Rich ter, vi. zoo], his piety and devotion probably led to occasional repetitions of this pilgrimage, which were less likely to be mentioned because of his modesty and reserve in personal matters), led an cient writers to connect Philo intimately with Christianity. Photius (Bibl. Cod. cv.) makes him a friend of St. Peter ; as do also Eusebius (Hist. Feel. ii. s7), St. Jerome (Catal, Script. Ecd.),.and Suidas. Photius goes so far as to say that Philo was admitted into the Christian church, from which he afterwards fell away. Such statements we have no means of testing. Philo's own extant writings give us no clue, and this fact tells against the probability of the story. Greater show of reason have those moderns who, seeing in Philo's writings a standard of Alexandrine Greek, adduce them as illustrations of the language of the N. 1'. Mr. Grinfield, in his Hellenistic Greek Testament, and the accompanying Scholia, has derived many of his notes from the works of Philo ; in the appli cation, however, of such illustrations, it must be borne in mind that Philo's style was hardly a natural one ; it is very elaborate, and avoids Alex andrine provincialisms, and on that account often fails to elucidate the simple diction of the N. T., even where there is similarity in the subject-matter (comp. Carpzovii 4xer. Sacr. in Ep. ad Heir., p. 540). But recent critics of the Rationalist school are not content with finding in Philo such illustra tion of the N. T. as might be 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 Philo, mediate or immediate. Thus Grossman (Qmost. 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 instance, the well-disposed Ernesti (Institutes), and after him Liicke, who says : It is impossible to mistake as to the imme diate historical connection of John's doctrine 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 these we must especially notice Gfrifirer, whose work, Philo and die 772disch-Alexandrinische Theologie, has been made accessible to English readers, in an abridged form, by Professor Jowett in his Disserta tion, St. Paul and Philo, contained in his com mentary on St. Paul's Epp., vol. i., p. 363-457. No criticism, however, is to be tolerated by the believer in Revelation which does not start from the principle that the characteristic truths of Chris tianity are self-evolved, i. e. (to use Domer's words), `have not emerged from without Christianity, but wholly from within it' (Person of Christ [Clark], Introduction, p. 45).* Although we cannot allow that the inspired volume of our religion owes in its origin anything to Philo, we do not deny to his writings a certain utility in the interpretation of the N. T. [PHILOSOPHY, GREEK.] Besides the ex planation of words and phrases above referred to (a service which is the more valuable because of Philo's profound acquaintance with the Septuagint version, in which the writers of the N. T. show themselves to have been well versed also), the works of Philo sometimes contribute interesting elucidation of Scriptural facts and statements. We may instance his delineation of the character of Pontius Pilate (de Leg-at. ad Caiuni, xxxviii., Richter, vi. 134 ; Bohn iv. 164). This well-drawn sketch of such a man, from the masterly hand of a contemporary, throws considerable 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). And, as a second instance, may we not regard the remarkable passage of St. Paul as receiving light from Philo's view of the twofold creation, first of the heavenly (apdvcos) or ideal man, and then of the earthly (-17)Fvos) man ? (Comp. r Cor. xv. 46, 47, with Philo, de Allegor. Legis, i. 12, 13 [Richter, i. 68 ; Bohn, i. 60], and de .111uncli Opific. 46 [Richter, i. 43 ; Bohn, i. 39] ; and see Stanley on Corinthians, i. 331.) But then such illustration is rather an example of how Philo is corrected by St. Paul, than of how St. Paul bor
rowed from Philo. Respecting the allegorical method of interpreting the O. T., 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 O. T. facts to N. T. doctrines, as correlative portions of one great scheme of providential dispensation ; whereas Philo's adaptations °film same facts were only the product of an arbitrary and extremely fanciful imagination ; so that in the case of the former we have an authoritative and sure method of interpreting ancient events without ever impair ing their historical and original truth, whereas the latter affords us nothing besides the conjectures of a mind of great vivacity indeed, but often capri cious and inconsistent, which always postpones the truth of history to its allegorical sense, and often times 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 others are inoffensive, no doubt, and some are even neat and interesting, but none carry with them the simple dignity and expressiveness of the allegorical types of the N. T. St. Paul and Philo, it is well known, have both treated the history of Hagar and Sarah allegorically (comp. Galatians iv. 22-31 with Philo de Congressu, 1-5 [Richter, iii. ; Bohn, ii. 157-162] ; and see Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, Epist. to Gal., pp. 189491 ; and Dr. Howson's Hagar and Arabia, pp. 2o, 36, 37); but although we have here one of the best specimens of Philo's favourite method, how infinitely does it fall short of St. Paul's I To say nothing 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. In this article we are limited to a brief notice of the Biblical relations of our author, to the necessary exclusion of his philosophy and theology, or rather theosophical speculations. For an account of his philosophical and theological system in general, which was an effort to reconcile Moses and Plato, varied with a sprinkling of the Pythagorean (Clement of Alexandria expressly calls him o Ilv9wybpcos, Stromata, i. 15, p. 131) and Stoic doctrines, the reader is referred to Mosheim's notes on Cudworth, pp. 640-649 [Trans. by Har rison, vol. ii., pp. 320-333], where Philo's influ ence on Patristic divinity and early heresy, especi ally the Sabellian, is clearly traced ; to Ritter, Hist. of Phil. [Trans. by Morrison], vol. iv., pp. 407-478 ; and to Dollinger's The Gentile and the lam [Trans. by Darnell], vol. ii., pp. 398-408. Philo's opinions about the divine Logos have been warmly discussed. The ancients, as we have seen, were fond of identifying them with Christian doe trine ; Mangey, in the middle of the last century, accompanied his splendid edition of Philo's works (2 vols. folio) with a dissertation, in which he made our author attribute, in the Christian sense, a dis tinct personality to the Logos ; Bishop Bull had stated a similar opinion (Def. bid. Nic. [Trans. by the writer of this article for the Anglo. Cath. Lib.], vol. i,, pp. 31-33) ; and, more recently, Bryant (Sentiments of Philo yud. concerning the X6-yos) ; and, very lately, Dr. Pye Smith (Messiah, vol. i., pp. 573-60o). But the conclusions of these writers, however learnedly asserted, have been abundantly refuted in many works ; the chief of which are Carpzovii Dispel'. de Xlryy Philonis, non 7ohannis, adversus Mangey, ; Csar Mo• gan's Investigation of the Trinity of Plato and of Philo 7bd. ; Dr. Burton's Banzpon lectures, note 93, pp. 550-56o ; and Dorner's Person of Christ [Clarke], vol. i., pp. 22.41. (See also the able articles of Professors H. B. Smith and Moses Stuart, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. vi., pp. 156 '85, and vol. vii., pp. 696-732.) An interesting review of Philo's writings and their relation to Judaism, from the Jewish point of view, occurs in Jost's Geschichte des 7ndenthums, i. 379-393 (the chapter is designated Die Gnosis inn yudenthunze). But for the completest, and withal succinctest, examination of the entire field of Philo's opinions, we refer the student to J. G. Midler's art. Philo,' in Herzog's R. Encycl. xi. 578-603. Shorter and more accessible, but inevitably imperfect notices occur in Schaff's Apostolic Church [Clarke], pp. 211-214 ; Home's ham/. [by Eyre], pp. [by Davidson], pp. 363-365 ; Davidson's Herme neutics [Clarke, 1843], pp. 63-65 ; Fairbairn's Hemeneut. Man, p. 47. A temperate review of Jowett's Dissertation on Philo and St. Paul may be found, written by Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, in 7ouruol of Philology, vol. iii., pp. 119-12t ; and for sound views respecting Philo's doctrine of the X6-yos, as bearing upon the writings of the N. T. (see Nean der's Planting of Christian Church [Bohn], ii. 13 15 ; Westcott's Introduction, pp. 138-143, and Tholuck's St. 7ohn [Clarke], pp. 62-67. The interest of Jews in the writings of their philosophic countryman is curiously exhibited in the Hebrew version of certain of them. These are enumerated by Fuerst, Bibl. Yudaica, ii. go. As. de' Rossi, one of the translators, has revived Philo's synonym yedidiak, by which he was anciently designated in Rabbinical literature (see Bartolocci, ut supra, and Steinschneider's Bodl. s. v. Philon). We ought not to close this article without noticing the old opinion which made Philo the author of the beautiful Book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha. This opinion, which was at one time very preva lent, has not stood its ground before recent critical examination. For the literature of the question we can only refer our readers to Professor C. L. W. Grimm's Das Buck der Weisheit, Einleitung, sec. 6, where the authorities on both sides are given. Corn. a Lapide, in Librum Sapientice, also discusses Philo's claims to the distinguished honour which tradition had conferred on him, but decides against him [new edition by Vives, vol. viii., p. 264]. Besides Mangey's edition of Philo, men tioned above, may be added Turnebus's edition (Paris 1552, folio), emended by Hoeschelius (Colon. Allobrog. 16t3 ; Paris 1640 ; Francof. 1691) ; Pfeiffer's edition, incomplete (Erlangen 1755-92, 5 vols. 8vo), and the convenient edition of Richter (Lips. I528-30, S vols. 12mo). This last contains not only a reprint of Mangey, in the first six vols., but two supplementary volumes of Philo's writings, discovered by Angelo Mai in a Flbrentine MS., and by Bapt. Aucher in an Armenian version, and translated by him into Latin. A fuller ac count of these editions, with a list of the various versions of Philo's writings, which have been made from time to time into Latin, Hebrew, German, French, Italian, Spanish, and English, is con tained in Fuerst's Bibl. dud. Fuerst adds a cata logue of all the leading works in which Philo and his writings have been treated. To his list of ver sions we must here add the useful one published by Mr. Bohn, in four vols. of his Eccl. Library, by Mr. C. D. Yonge, B.A.—P. H.