Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. I — G. R. S. Mead (1906)

"And if a man should not as yet have the good fortune to be worthy to be called Son of God, let him strive manfully to set himself in order1 according to His First-born Reason (Logos), the Oldest Angel, who is as though it were the Angel-chief of many names ; for he is called Dominion, and Name of God, and Eeason, and Man-after-His-Likeness, and Seeing Israel.

" And for this reason I was induced a little before to praise the principles of those who say : ' We are all sons of One Man.' For even if we have not yet become fit to be judged Sons of God, we may at any rate be Sons of His Eternal Likeness, His Most Holy Eeason (Logos); for Reason, the Eldest of all Angels, is God's Likeness [or Image]."2

Thus Philo gives us additional proof, if more were needed, for the full Anthrdpos-doctrine was evidently fundamental in his circle — that is to say, in the thought-atmosphere of the Hellenistic theology, or the religio-philosophy, or theosophy, of his day, the beginning of the first century A.D.

This date alone is sufficient for our purpose ; but it is not too bold a statement even to say that the Man -Mystery was a fundamental concept of the brilliant period of the Hellenistic syncretism which succeeded to the founding of Alexandria — the period of the expansion of Hellas beyond her national borders ; in other words, her birth into the greater world.

It is enough to know that the Mystery was hidden and yet revealed in the shadow-garments of Chaldsean, Babylonian, Magian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Egyptian, Phrygian, Thracian, and Greek mystery-traditions. It was, in brief, fundamental in all such wisdom-shows, and necessarily so, for it was the Christ-Mystery.

1 To make himself a cosmos like the Great Cosmos. * Ibid., § 28 ; M. i. 426, 427, P. 341 (Ri. ii. 279).

VIII

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE
HELLENISTIC THEOLOGY

CONCERNING PHILO AND HIS METHOD

SEEING that a study of the Trismegistic literature is essentially a study in Hellenistic theology, no introduction to this literature would be adequate which did not insist upon the utility of a careful review of the writings of Philo, the famous Jewish Hellenist of Alexandria, and which did not point to the innumerable parallels which are traceable between the basic principles of the Jewish philosopher-mystic and the main ideas embodied in our tractates. To do this, however, in detail would require a volume, and as we are restricted to the narrow confines of a chapter, nothing but a few general outlines can be sketched in, the major part of our space being reserved for a consideration of what Philo has to say of the Logos, or Divine Reason of things, the central idea of his cosmos.

In perusing the voluminous writings 1 of our witness, the chief point on which we would insist at the very outset, is that we are not studying a novel system devised by a single mind, we are not even face to face with a new departure in method, but that the writings

1 In all, upwards of sixty Philonean tractates are preserved to us ; and in addition we have also numerous fragments from lost works.

of our Alexandrian1 came at the end of a line of predecessors; true that Philo is now, owing to the preservation of his writings, by far the most distinguished of such writers, but he follows in their steps. His method of allegorical interpretation is no new invention,2 least of all is his theology.

In brief, Philo is first and foremost an " apologist " ; his writings are a defence of the Jewish myths and prophetic utterances, interpreted allegorical ly, in terms not of Hellenic philosophy proper, but rather of Hellenistic theology, that is, of philosophy theologised, or of theology philosophised ; in other words, in the language of the current cultured Alexandrian religio-philosophy of his day.

As Edersheim, in his admirable article,3 says, speaking

1 Philo is known to the Jews as Yedidyah ha-Alakhsanderi.