Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. I — G. R. S. Mead (1906)
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
2 Thus, in D. V. C'., § 3 ; M. ii. 475, P. 893 (Ri. v. 309, C. 65), referring to his beloved Therapeuts, he himself says : " They have also works of ancient authors who were once heads of their school, and left behind them many monuments of the method used in allegorical works." Nor was this "allegorising" Jewish only ; it was common. It was applied to Homer ; it was the method of the Stoics. Indeed, this "treatment (Oepairtla) of myths " was the only way in which the results of the philosophy and science of the time could be brought into touch with popular faith.
The text I use is that of Richter (M. C. E.), Philonis Judcei Opera Omnia, in Bibliotheca Sacra Patrum Ecclesix Grwcorum. (Leipzig, 1828-1830), 8 vols. M. refers to the edition of Mangey ; P. to the Paris edition ; Ri. stands for that of Richter — thus abbreviated so as not to be confused with R., which elsewhere stands for Reitzenstein ; C. stands for Conybeare's critical text of the D. V. G. (Oxford, 1895), the only really critical text of any tractate which we so far possess.
3 " Philo," in Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ. Biog. (London, 1887), iv. 357-389 — by far the best general study on the subject in English. Drunimond's (J.) two volumes, Philo Judceus, or The Alexandrian Philosophy (London, 1888), may also^be consulted, but they leave much to be desired. The only English translation of this blend of the faith of the synagogue with the thinking of Greece : " It can scarcely be said that in the issue the substance and spirit were derived from Judaism, the form from Greece. Rather does it often seem as if the substance had been Greek and only the form Hebrew."
But here Edersheim seems to be not sufficiently alive to the fact that the " Greek thinking " was already in Hellenistic circles strongly theologised and firmly wedded to the ideas of apocalypsis and revelation. How, indeed, could it have been otherwise in Egypt, in the face of the testimony of our present work ?
Philo, then, does but follow the custom among the cultured of his day when he treats the stories of the patriarchs as myths, and the literally intractable narratives as the substance of an ethical mythology. It was the method of the religio-philosophy of the time, which found in allegorical interpretation the " antidote of impiety," and by its means unveiled the supposed under-meaning (virovoia) of the myths.
The importance of Philo, then, lies not so much in his originality, as in the fact that he hands on much that had been evolved before him; for, as Edersheim says, and as is clear to any careful student of the Philonean tractates : " His own writings do not give the impression of originality. Besides, he repeatedly refers to the allegorical interpretation of others, as well as to canons of allegorism apparently generally recognised. He also enumerates differing allegorical interpretations of the same subjects. All this affords evidence of the existence of a school of Hellenist [Hellenistic, rather] interpretation " (p. 362).
is that of Yonge (C. D.), The Works of Philo Judwus (London,
1854) in Bonn's Library ; but it is by no means satisfactory, and
I have in every instance of quotation made my own version.
But this does not hold good only for the interpretation of "the myths of Israel" by Hellenistic Jews; it holds good of the whole cultured religious world of the time, and pre-eminently of the Hellenistic schools of every kind in Egypt. In brief, Philo's philosophy was often already philosophised myth before he ingeniously brought it into play for the interpretation of Hebrew story.
In short, the tractates of Philo and our Trismegistic sermons have both a common background — Hellenistic theology or theosophy. Both use a common language.