PHILON. and conditions of men, of the good as of the bad. to universal natural relations. The written laws are explained first generally in the Decalogus. then, according to their more special ends, in the treatises de Circumcisionej de Monarchia, de Praemiis Sacer- dotum^ de Victimise &c. (comp. A. F. Gfrorer, Kri- tisclie Geschichte des Urchristenthuins, pt. i. Philon, p. 11, &c.). On the assumption that the allegorical writings were composed chiefly for Jews, and those relating to the laws, whether set forth in the con- duct of living models, or written, for Hellenes (de Vita Mosis, ii. 80), Gfrorer (1. c.) would entirely separate the one class from the other, and make the latter (the historicising), not the former (the alle- gorical), follow immediately the treatise de Mundi Opijicio. He refers the statement of Philon himself {de Fraemiis ac Poenis I.e.): — "The declarations of the prophet Moses divide themselves into two classes ; the one relates to the creation of the world, the contents of the second are of an historical kind, the third embraces the laws" — merely to the trea- tise on the creation of the world and the two series of writings relating to the law (ib. p. 23, &c.). On the other hand Dahne {I. c. p. 994, &c.) remarks with reason, that the historical part, according to the express remark appended in the passage of Philon referred to, is said to contain the description of wicked and virtuous modes of life, and the pu- nishments and rewards which are appointed to each in the different races, i. e. what is treated of in the allegories. Dahne further directs attention partly to a passage in the life of Moses (ii. p. 141), according to which Philon separates the books of Moses into two parts — the historical, which at the same time contains accounts of the origin of the world and genealogies, and one relating to commands and pro- hibitions ; partly to the circumstance that elsewhere {de Abrah. pr.) we find what in the other passage is called the historical part spoken of as belonging to the KOfffiovoia ; so that here again it is clearly enough indicated that the allegorical books hang together with the work on the creation ; and both these passages differ from that before adduced {de Proem, et Poen.) in this, that in the latter the two portions of Genesis, to which the Koafxoiroia is to be considered as equivalent, are again separated. Gfrorer's attempt (in the preface to the second edition of his Philon, p. xii. &c.) to establish his assumption against Dahne's objections cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and the series of allegorical books should rather (with Mangey, Dahne, &c.) come immediately after the account of the creation. To the treatises of Philon contained in the earlier editions have recently been added not only those found by Angelo Mai in a Florentme manuscript, de Festo Cophini, and de Parentilms colendis, both belonging to the dissertations on the laws {Philo et Virgilii Inlerpretes, Mediolan. 1818), but also the treatises, discovered by Bapt. Aucher in an Arme- nian version and translated into Latin, De Provi- dentia and De Animaiibus (Venet. 1822,fol. min.), Quaestion. et Solutt. in Genesim Serm. IV. in Exod. II., a short summary, in the form of question and answer, of the doctrines unfolded at length in the other treatises (comp. Dahne, I. c. p. 10, 37, &c.), Sermones de Sampsono, de Jona, et de tribus An- gelis Abraliamo apparentibus. (Philonis Judaei Pa- raliporaena Armena, ib. 1826, fol. min.) Of the latter, however, the Serm. de Sampsone et de Jona must be looked upon as decidedly spurious (comp. Diihne, I.e. p. 907, &c.), as also, among those PHILON. 311 pnnted earlier, the book de Mundo cannot pass as philosophical. The really or apparently lost hooks of Philon are enumerated in Fabricius {BM. Grace. vol. iv. p. 727, &c.). Tumebus's edition of the writings of Philon (Paris, 1532, fol.) appeared, emended by Hoescliel, first Colon. Allobrog. 1613, then, reprinted, Paris, 1640, Francof. 1691, &c. These were followed by Mangey's splendid edition (Lond. 1742, 2 vols. fol.). Still, without detract- ing from its merits, it is far from complete ; and how much remains to be done in order to make a really good edition, was shown by Valckenaer, Ruhnken, Markland, and others, at an earlier pe- riod, and more recently by Fr. Creuzer {Zur Kri- tik der Schriflen des Juden Philo, in Ullmann's and Umbreit's tlieologisclien Studien und Kritikeny 1832, pp. 1—43). The edition of Pfeiffer (Er- lang. 1785 — 92, 5 vols. 8vo) contributed but little to the correction of the text, and that of E. Richter (Lips. 1828 — 30, 8 vols. 12mo) is little more than a reprint of Mangey's, including the pieces disco- vered in the mean time. Dr. Grossmann ( Quaes- tiofium Philonearum part. prim. Lips. 1829) holds out the hope of a new critical edition. Even as early as the times of Alexander and Ptolemaeus Lagi, many Jews had been settled in Alexandria. In the times of Philon two of the five divisions of the town were exclusively occu- pied by them, and they had settled themselves in a scattered manner even in the rest. (Adv. Place. p. 523, &c.) Having become more closely ac- quainted with Greek philosophy by means of the museum established by the first Ptolemies, Soter and Philadelphus, and of the libraries, the learned Jews of Alexandria began very soon to attempt the reconciliation of this philosophy with the reve- lations contained in their own sacred writings. The more firmly however they were convinced of the divine origin of their doctrines, the less could they regard as contradictory or new what they re- cognised as truth in the Greek philosophy. Thence arose on the one hand their assumption that this truth must be an efflux, though a remote one, of the divine revelation, on the other hand, their en- deavour, by means of a profounder penetration into the hidden sense of their holy books, to prove that it was contained in them. In reference to the first point, in order to establish the derivation of the fundamental truths of Greek philosophy from the Mosaic revelation, they betook themselves to fic- titious references and supposititious books ; and with regard to the second point, in order to distin- guish between a verbal and a hidden sense, they had recourse to allegorical interpretations. Aristo- bulus had previously declared his views on both of these points in the dedication of his mystical com- mentary to Ptolemaeus Philometer (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. viii. 10 ; comp. Alex. Strom, i. p. 343). In the allegorical interpretation referred to definite maxims (canones), they proceeded on the assumption that every thing contained in the law must have an immediate influence upon the in* struction and amendment of men, and that the whole body of its precepts stands in a hidden con- nection, which must be disclosed by a more pro- found understanding of them. This new philosophy of religion, which was ob- tained through the appropriation of Greek philo- sophy by means of an allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic records, is taught us most clearly in the writings of Philon ; for although his creative powers X 4
