w
"
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
369
Alexandria, Louisiana Alexandrian Philosophy
system was already extaut, at least in all its fundamcutals, in the third feiiliiry n.c. I'nderlj-ing a large portion of the Jewishllcllenio Supposed literature, this ])hilo.so|)hy maintained Antiquity itself through three centuries of conof Philonic tiniious tradilion and llieii found in I'hilo its most ini]iorlaiit, though not Method. always original, exponent. The fundamental principles of this system are the following: the strict transcendence of God; the resulting necessjiry interjiosition of 'mi<ldle causes" l)etveen God and the world (whether the same he called " Logos," "Powers," or "Wisdom"); mystic union with the Deity, with asceticism as the means thereunto;
Bois demon.st rates), he exhibits quite remarkable divergences from him. Ill' is totally unaware of Philo's chief doctrines; and his few utterances concerning the Logos go no furlher than the Old Testament use of the word. These divergences are of so much the less importance as the book seems to have been written only a short time before Philo, who does not appear to have been aciiuaiuted with it. (/) Those who exjilain Essenism as arising not
Holy Scriptures, hy means of which the trulhsof Greek wisdom are presu|)posed and demonstrated to be the true meaning and deeper sense of the divine revelation. In order to render an intelligent judgment on
Pythagorean circles, from which someauthorities insist on tracing many Essenic usages and notions, ])ossis.sed no philosophical system whatever to transmit.
finally, the allegorical interpretation of
the theory of the religious philosophy underlying Hellenic .Judaism, it will be jnoper to Keview review the several products of the litof the enilure, which woidd have to be exLiterature, plained imder this assumption, and particularly to notice the various objections arising against it. (,11) Freudenthal, inopposing the statement that the Septuagint is the oldest exponent of Alexandrian religious jihilosopliy, shows that a whole series of general terms are therein employed, not in the mode of iihilosopliical terminoloiry, but quite in the ordinary and popular use of the words; and that the tendency to avoid all anthropomorphisms does not prove the iiitlueiiee of Greek philosophy ("Jew. tjnart. |{ev."
ii.
•H)-)--ii'i).
(Ii) Consideration of the Greek Esdras. II and III .Maccabees. Ecclesiasticus. and the "Sibyllines. may be omitted, because only scattered resemblances have been claimed in them, and these, ui)on elo.ser examination, to some extent disappear; and because, for the earlier ])eriods, only the last two can necessarily be of any service. (<•) Whatever opinion be lield about the date of the "Letter of Aristeas" (probably the beginningof the first century), it exhibits evidences of the adoption of only the most trivial views and conceptions. It is impossil)le to speak of any iihilosophieal system in connection with it. But in one particular it is very instructive. It containsan allegorical interpretation of the Jewish dietary laws, such as is repeated in Philo, Aristobulus. and Hartialms. without any evidence that these writers had made use of Aristeas. From this, and from thegeiteral lack of independence
may
in .Vristeas. it
be concluded that already
in his
linielheallegorical exposition of Scripture (and jiarlicidarly a moralizing inti'rpretation of the ritual laws) wasextant. Philo himself tells us that lierein he had tnidition liefori' him. ('/) Aristobulus would indeed ben witness of the greatest wiiglit, even though a solitary one, as lie woul<l prove, not indeed the existence of a conlinnons tradition, but at least the possible extension of (ireek philoso])hical inlliience among .Mexandrian .lews in the .second centnrv n.c. Hut if Aristobulus is a Christian forgery of the second century (see
AiiisTom
many
i.fs)
— though this isdeiiieil — can not be
liy
other scholars
lie
Schlirerand
adduced as a
witness. (( )
The
Rook of Wl.sdom betrays the and Stoic philosophy hail greatly
nullior of the
fact that Platonic
intluenced him. Miit he rather disproves the theory of the existence of a cletinile nid it ional system. For, llioiigh lie shows himself closely akin ineiilally to Pliilo in general lendeiicv, in fundamentals (as. e.;/., t
I.-2-J
from an internal Jewish origin and development, but from the intluence of Ori)hic communities, can only claim for it the adoption of the Orphic mode of life and Orphic ritual. That it sprang from Greek philosophical intluence can at least not be proved.
The
What is told about the allegorical interpretation of Scripture by the EsEssenism. senes leads no further than what is stated above concerning the "Letter of Aristeas. " The mere existence of an esoteric wisdom, and the little one hears of it, do not permit the inference that it arose in es.sentials from any body of traditional philosophy; nor are its teachings indicated in any extant work, such as Kohler lately attempted to show in his es.say on "The Testament of Job"
Notfrom
("Semitic Studies in Jlemory of A. Kobut." pp. 264338). The same conclusion holds concerning the Therapeuta', that neither the connection of this sect with the Essenes, nor the date of its establishment, can be |>roved. Great caution must always be observed in making use of the biased and Hellenic-colored statements of Philo and Joseplms. It is evident that violence has lieeii done to texts, in order to compel them to testify for Alexandrian philosophy. Freudenthal efTectively pointed out the arbitrariness of this jiroeedure, and lightly showed that such testimony, in point of fact, presenied rather a motley picture, tinged by the most divergent religious and pliilosoi>hical conceptions (" Die Flavins Joseplms IJeigelegte Schrifl i'lber die Herrscbaft der Vernunft," l>p. .Ss. 3i), Kl'.l, Breslau, ISti!)). General considerations would also seem to indicate the improliability of the conslruction of a delinile sy.stem by Jewish- Alexandrian i>liilo.sophy. Both this philosophy in general anil Philo, its chief representative, show an admixture of Platonism with Peripatetic and Stoic elePlatonic Elements nnnts, quite similar to the systems of the later Platonists (sir FreudenPresent. thal, " Per Platoniker Albinas." Berlin. It may. therefore, beinferred that Pliilodti 1879). uj)on Platonism as it existed in bis lime. For it is unlikely that he could have embodied the identical admixture of diverse elements accepted by the later Platonists. To make the latter ilei>eniienl upon Philo, as former writers have attemiited to do, is impossible. The genesis of Philo's attempt to Imrmnni/e Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy is only intelligible, if be is considered to have liased it. not upon a Platonism of bis own construction, but upon llie eclectic Platonism of bis day, as he learned it perhaps from Areins, Pidynius, and Potiinioii. This eclectic Platonism. like the kindred .syncrelism of Aristobulus (ineoUceivable in the second century li.c ), ])resupposes the approximation of the Middle Sloa to Platonic and Peripatetic views, a breaking down of all scliola.siic barriers, demonstrable also in the I'lalonists and Peripatetics of the lli-st century. Such an admixture would only be possible, at the earliest, in the middle of the ll|-sl century n.c, and it can only be explained by the eclectic spirit of that
