Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 1G Tay LUNE LED NENA . — ‘ . . <7 ' ie | eer BY SIUUNNELEUDEEAGHADOOMAREHUANOCOOUERCEOOOTEGUAONEOUEDEOCENECETUCUENUOUEAESHIDORETEELS POCSISSSPPSPBPICESSOSOSESORDIDSCOLESOFED ODO RD Fcar iy) (ea aa) Nise “4 fe on : ‘ TUTTI e¥ ar > cM . Hermelin and Weinberg From the Library of Irving M. Hermelin Gift of the Families DACeeANNOGN Eee ee NCUNEE ORC ERREURGECHGGEUD COG CEE CE CHA RREEUCER eRe eaacnetnaneedenane suseetOvtueNenEane I anne orwoye 3 f2 FRY ous yey ana IP» Jv3 sp) 1h vO )v) +3 a " se —- pee Dene Vm wOuP We [ sdyidd Bydog ([) = 0}70x]ad JoqIsg_ = ONOXJad Baqaey = qUNH Rowvsqey = sdiGd ous] sdyiidud seuor sdiqligd enysor SUT SOSO FE aa z | | | S19} suos ‘ir ‘sdiidd -ysnep g «18qj0g “WK Aue (ansst) | | | S280 qoorer = 4uoOnK = (FR8I "P) WeYyoD ssouBly = sdildd sd tad sdyithad sda sd pI sdyliidd sdjlIdd sdyititd ae Boooqey = LBId BN [9}1QBr) APU uaild eupleyIB) 86“ Ww AluaH «6yUOUIE]y sBuor | | | | | | | | (onssq) (@Nssy) I SUOTIOIOS *§ = UyWBfuag (ensst) ea lony = pi = aa ke = THO es (2%) Hud Hid Nudd nT — = sdyitd sd : woNolog sdq id “q A1UaH ‘gq suUOL SVxjoy oOYVY YB pee ei te sdydd Wes BT[EQuly = J Goll | | ees ieee oer: ere | (ansst) (anssy) (BES “P | | £Ad‘] 089d > 6LLI (onss}) uBsMyned (ansst) | JaBuIIW = oBUs] = eyydjop {BON lagosy = Sos0W BBX19g []BI}QV = SBX]9§ SUxjeg ZepueW Gea (BEI 'P (E681 “P “BiUd °Q) JonuUBA = (HYIP) JaAN = (Q68T “P) (Of8T HAOX MON “P (9ZRT “P) sapuaW JOyISYA (Z) -UBH [ayoVyY ([) = * 6921 °9) > QVL1 “G) Nudd Bd d sad edi SdH =OL41 BiqdiepBiud *q) sdytdd (OL8T “P = ELLT “Q) BUNT ed td UBUIZa[UZ el si 1ouIey Pee sdyidd rien ct fie sdyttUd ia i i Bd | eee eee ee ets Bl eS one ee ee | (TEST BIqdapuljqd “p (gost Bad apeiidd “P (angst) ‘OPLT HAOA MON “Q) > 984] AUBULIOS) °Q) UO0PILLBY,) JO sasO — = ae qRsug Opsyvepl Zapusp Booeqey = NWwdd ea sd UOIB ort -P) | (9921 ‘9 “P) cael ZOUNN YBodd]Z = OpsysuA ZopuoAy pjavg Phillips Phillips, Morris by the death of his brother J. Altamont Phillips, and subsequently became its treasurer. The Court of Common Pleas appointed him a member of the board of park commissioners May 18, 1867, and March 12, 1881, he was elected presi- dent of the board. He was appointed a member of the board of city trusts Sept. 2, 1869, became its vice-president May 11, 1870, and on March 13, 1878, was chosen its presi- dent, which office he re- signed in Dec.. 1881. In 1870 Phillips was appointed a member of the commission for the construction of a bridge crossing the Schuylkill River. Te was one of the original members of the Public Buildings Com- mission established in 1870, but resigned the next year. In 1870 he was chosen a director of the Academy of Music, became its presi- dent in 1872, and resigned in 1884. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society in Jan., 1871, and a director of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Northern Central Railroad, Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, and of the Western Union Telegraph Company in March, 1874. He became a director of the Pennsylvania Company for Insurance on Lives and Granting Annuities on Oct. 16, 1874. On Dec. 20, 1882, he presided at the “ bar dinner” given to Chief Justice Sharswood on the retirement of the latter; this was the last public occasion in which he participated as a member of the Phila- delphia bar, of which he had become a leader. Phillips was a member of the Sephardic (Spanish and Portuguese) Congregation Mickvé Israel of Philadelphia. In former years, more especially in the period from 18386 to 1851, he took considerable interest in its affairs, taking an active part in the controversy between Isaac Leeser and the congre- gation; his efforts were largely instrumental in elect- ing Sabato Morais as minister of the congregation on April 18, 1851. A. D. Sv. Isaac Phillips: Lawyer; born in New York June 16, 1812; died there 1889; son of Naphtali Phillips. He was appointed by President Pierce appraiser of the port of New York, which position he occupied for many years, and he was well known politically. He took a deep interest in educational matters, being a commissioner of the New York board of education; he was likewise the editor of va- rious newspapers in the city of New York, grand master of the freemasons of the state of New York, and an active member of the New York Chamber of Commerce. He married (1) Sophia Phillips and (2) Miriam Trimble. Jonas Phillips: The first of the family to settle in America; born 1736, the place of his birth being va- riously given as Busick and Frank fort-on-the-Main: died at Philadelphia, Pa., Jan. 29, 1803; son of Aaron Henry M. Phillips. Phillips. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 4 Ile emigrated to America from London in Nov., 1756, and at first resided in Charleston, S. C., where he was emploved by Moses Lindo. He soon removed to Albany, and thence, shortly afterward, to New York, where he engaged in mercantile pur- suits, As early as 1760 he was identified with a lodge of freemasons in that city. In 1762 he mar- ried Rebecca Mendez Machado (see Ma- cuAbDo). In 1769 he became a freeman of New York. At the outbreak of the American Revo- lution Phillips — fa- vored the patriot cause; and he wasan ardent supporter of the Non-Importation Agreement in 1770. In 1776 he used his influence in the New York congregation to close the doors of the synagogue and re- move rather than continue under the British. The edifice was abandoned; and, with the majority of the congregation, Phillips removed to Philadelphia, where he continued in business until 1778. In that year he joined the Revolutionary army, serving inthe Philadelphia Militia under Colo- ne] Bradford. When Congregation Mickvé Israel was estab- lished in Philadelphia, Phillips was one of its active founders, and was its president at the consecration of its synagogue in 1782. After the Revolution he removed to New York, but soon returned to Phila- deiphia, where he continued to reside until his death. His remains, however, were interred at New York in the cemetery, on New Bowery, of Congregation Shearith Israel. His widow survived until 1831. Of his twenty-one children, special mention should be made of the following six: (1) Rachel Phillips: Born 1769; dicd 1889; married Michael Levy, and was the mother of Com- modore Uriah P. Levy of the United States navy. (2) Naphtali Phillips: Born 1778; died 1870; married (1797) Rachel Mendez Seixas (d. 1822) of Newport, R.I. One year after her death he married Esther (b. 1789; d. 1872), the daughter of Benjamin Mendez Seixas. Phillips was the proprietor of the “ National Advocate,” a New York newspaper, and was also president of Congregation Shearith Israel in that city. (3) Manuel Phillips: Assistant surgeon in the United States navy from 1809 to 1824; died at Vera Cruz in 1826. (4) Joseph Phillips: Died 1854. the War of 1812. (5) Aaron J. Phillips: Actor and playwright; born in Philadelphia; died at New York in 1826. He made his first appearance at the Park Theater, New York, in 1815, and was successful in Shakes- peare’s “Comedy of Errors.” Later he became a’ theatrical manager (see Charles P. Daly, “Settle- Jonas Phillips. Ife served in & THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ment of the Jews in North America,” pp. 102-108, 120, New York, 1898). (6) Zalegman Phillips: Lawyer; born 177 died Aug. 21, 1839. He was graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1795, and became one of the leading criminal lawyers of Philadelphia. Jonas Altamont Phillips: Lawyer; born at Philadelphia 1806; died there 1862; brother of Henry M. Phillips. He became prominent asa lawyer, and in 1847-48 was the Democratic candidate for the mavyoralty of Philadelphia. President Buchanan is said to have tendered him the position of judge of the United States District Court, which he declined. In 1837 he married Frances Cohen of Charleston, 8. C. Jonas B. Phillips: Dramatist; born Oct. 28, 1805, at Philadelphia ; died 1869; son of Benjamin JJ. Phillips. He became known as a dramatist as carly as 1833. Among the playshe produced were: “Cold Stricken ” (1838), “Camillus,” and “The Evil Eye.” Subsequently he studied Jaw and became assistant district attorney for the county of New York, hold- ing that appointment under several successive ad- ministrations (see Daly, dc. p. 145). Jonas N. Phillips: Born 1817; died 1874; son of Naphtali Phillips. He waschief of the volunteer fire department in the city of New York for many years, and president of the board of councilmen and acting mayor in 1857. Naphtali Taylor Phillips: Lawyer; born in New York Dec. 5, 1868; son of Isaac Phillips by his second wife. He has held various political offices, e.g. : he was member of the New York state legislature (1898-1901), serving on the judiciary and other com- mittees and as a member of the Joint Statutory Revision Commission of that body (1900); and dep- uty comptroller of the city of New York (from 1902). He is also a trustee of the American Scenic and His- toric Preservation Society, and a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and of the New York Historical Society. He is treasurer of the Jew- ish Historical Society and has contributed several papers to its publications. For fifteen years he has been clerk of Congregation Shearith Israel. In 1892 Phillips married Rosalie Solomons, daughter of Adolphus 8. Solomons. Mrs. Phillips is an active member of the Daughters of the American Revo- lution. BiBlioGraPHny: Charles P. Daly, Settlement of the Jews in North America, New York, 1883; Isaac Markens, The He- brewe in America, tb. 1888; Henry S. Morais, The Jews of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 189:: H. P. Rosenbach. The Jews in Philadelphia, 1883; N. Taylor Phillips, in Publ. Am. Jew. Hiat. Soc. ii. 51, iv. 24 et xeq.: Sabato Morais, ib. i.: M. J. Kohler, id. iv. 89; Herbert Friedenwald, t). vi. 50 et seq. (other references are found in almost all the volumes issued by the society); L. Hihner, New York Jeis in the Struggle for American Independence ; Pennaylvania As- aociatora and Militia in the Revolution, 1, 62; New York Gazette and Weekly Post Boy, July 23, 1770; New York Hiat. Soc. Col. for 1885, p. 49. A. L. Ht. PHILLIPS, BARNET: American journalist; born iu Philadelphia Nov. 9, 1828; educated at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, whence he was graduated in 1847. Shortly afterward he set out for Europe, where he continued his studies and engaged in journalism. On his return to the United States, Phillips joined the staff of the “New Phillips Phillips, Morris York Times” and published two books, “* The Strug- gle” and “Burning Their Ships.” Phillips’ connec- tion with the “New York Times” extends over thirty years. A. F. WW. Y. PHILLIPS, SIR BENJAMIN SAMUEL: Lord mayor of London; born in London in 1811; died there Oct. 9, 1889. He was a son of Samuel Phillips, tailor, and was educated at Neumegen’s school at Highgate and Kew. In 1888 he married, and soon afterward entered into partnership with his brother-in-law Henry Faudel, thus laying the foundation of the firm of Faudel, Phillips & Sons. Ife then became an active worker in the community, being elected president of the Institution for the Relief of the Jewish Indigent Blind in 1850 and president of the Hebrew Literary Society. He rendered im- portant services in the foundation of the United Synagogue, of which he was elected a life-member in June, 1880. Forthirty years Phillips was a mem- ber of the Board of Deputies as representative of the Great and Central synagogues; he served as a member of the Rumanian Committee, and was a vice-president of the Anglo-Jewish Association. Benjamin Phillips will be chiefly remembered for the prominent part he took in the struggle for the removal of Jewish disabilities. In 1846 he was clected a member of the common council as repre- sentative of the ward of Farringdon Within. After being returned at every subsequent clection, he was elected alderman of the ward in 1857. In 1859 he held the office of sheriff, and on Sept. 29, 1865, was elected lord mayor. He performed the duties of mayor with marked distinction, and the King of the Belgians, whom he entertained, conferred upon him the Order of Leopold. During his mayoralty he rendered considerable help in personally raising £70,000 toward the great Cholera Fund. In recog- nition of these services he was knighted by Queen Victoria. In 1888, owing to advancing years, he re- tired from the court of aldermen, being succeeded in the office by his second son, Alderman Sir George FaupeEL-PuiLiies, who was unanimously elected. Sir Benjamin Phillips was for many years a mem- ber of the Spectacle-Makers Company (of which he was master) and was on the commission for the Lieu- tenancy of the City of London. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Jew. Chron. and Jew. World, Oct. 18, 1889; The Times and other London pewspapers, Uct. 10, 1880. J. G. L. PHILLIPS, GEORGE LYON: Jamaican pol- itician; born in 1811; died at Kingston, Jamaica, Dec. 29, 1886. One of the most prominent and in- fluential residents of Jamaica, he held the chief magistrateship of the privy council and other im- portant executive offices on the island. During the anxious period known as the “Saturnalia of Blood ” Phillips especially conserved the interests of the col- ony by his gentle and calm demeanor at councils of state. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Falmouth Gazette (Jamaica), Dec. 31, 1885; Jew. World, Jan. 28, 1887; Jew. Chron. Feb. 4, 1887. J. G. L. PHILLIPS, MORRIS: American journalist and writer; born in London, England, May 9, 1834. Phillips, Philip Philo Judseus THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA . 6 Phillips received his elementary education in Cleve- land, Olio, and later continued his studies under private tutors in New York. He studied for the legal profession, first in Buffalo and later in New York. But the opportunity being open to him of association with Nathaniel Parker Willis as joint editor of the “New York Home Journal,” he em- braced it at once, and from Sept., 1854, until the death of Willis in Jan., 1867, Phillips was associate editor of that periodical, of which he then became chief editor and sole proprietor. Phillips was a prolific writer and an extensive traveler; as such he held commissions as special correspondent for several daily newspapers, and published in many magazines the fruits of his observations. A. F. H. V. PHILLIPS, PHILIP: American jurist; born in Charleston, S. C., Dec. 17, 1807; died in Wash- ington, D. C., Jan. 14, 1884. He was educated at the Norwich Military Academy in Vermont and at Middletown, Conn. He then studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1829, settling in Cheraw, S.C. He was a member of the Nullitication Con- vention of 1832. Elected to the state legislature in 1834, he resigned in 1885 and moved to Mobile, Ala., where he practised law. He was president of the Alabama State Convention in 1887, and was elected to the state legislature in 1844, being re- elected in 1852. In 1853-55 he was a member of Congress from Alabarna. He then moved to Wash- ington, where he continued his profession until] the Civil war, when he migrated to New Orleans. After the war he returned to Washington and resided there until his death. In 1840 he prepared a “Digest of Decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama,” and he wrote “ Practise of the Supreme Court of the United States.” He married Eugenia Levy of Charleston, 5. C., on Sept. 7, 1836. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Brewer, Alabama, pr. 406407: Garrett, Rem- tniscences of Public Men in Alabama, 1872, pp. 405-407. A. A. 8. I. PHILLIPS, PHINEAS: Polish merchant; flourished about 1775. He held the position of chief of the Jewish community at Krotoschin, at that time a fief of the princes of Thurn and Taxis. The reigning prince held Phillips in considerable esteem and entrusted him with personal commissions. In the course of business Phillips attended the Leipsic fairs and those held in other important Con- tinental cities. In 1775 he extended his travels to England. Once there, he settled for some time in London, where he carried on an extensive business in indigo and gum. After his death, while on a visit to his native town his son Samuel Phillips established himself in London and became the father of Sir Benjamin PriLuirs and grandfather of Sir George FAauDEL- Pai.uips, Bart., both lord mayors of London. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Jew. Chron. Oct. 18, 1889. J. G. I. PHILLIPS, SAMUEL: English journalist ; born at London 1815; dicd at Brighton Oct., 1854. He was the son of an English merchant, and at fif- teen yearsof age made his début as an actor at Cov- ent Garden. Influential friends then placed bim at Cambridge, whence he passed to Gottingen Uni- versity. Phillips then came to London, and in 1841 turned his attention to literature and journalism. Ilis earliest work was a romance entitled “ Caleb Stukeley,” which appeared in “ Blackwood’s Maga- zine” and was reprinted in 1843. Its success led to further contributions to “Blackwood’s,” including “We Are All Low People There” and other tales. Phillips continued to write for periodicals, and he was subsequently admitted as literary critic to the staff of the “Times.” His articles were noted for their vigor of expression and their wealth of ideas. Dickens, Carlyle, Mrs. Stowe, and other popular writers were boldly assailed by the anonymous critic, Whose articles became the talk of the town. In 1852 and 1854 two volumes of his literary essays were published anonymously. Phillips was also associated with the “ Morning Ilerald” and “ Jobn Bull.” When the Society of the Crystal Palace was formed Phillips became secretary and afterward literary director. In connection with the Palace he wrote the “ Guide ” and the “ Portrait Gallery.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Times (London), Oct. 17, 1854: Didot, - Nee a aes Général; Chambers, Cyc. of English J. G. IL. PHILO JUDZUS: Alexandrian philosopher; born about 20 B.c. at Alexandria, Egypt; died after 40 c.E. The few biographical details concerning him that have been preserved are found in his own works (especially in “ Legatio ad Caium,” §$ 22, 28; ed. Mangey [hereafter cited in brackets]. ii. 567, 072; “De Specialibus Legibus,” ii. 1 [ii. 299]) and in Josephus (“ Ant.” xviii. 8, 81; comp. 7. xix. 5, § 1; xx. 5, $2). The only event that can be deter- mined chronologically is his participation in the embassy which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome for the purpose of asking protection against the attacks of the Alexandrian Greeks. This occurred in the year 40 ¢c.£. Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Hebrew religion, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had Jearned from the Stoics. His work was not ac- cepted by contemporary Judaism. “The sophists of literalness,” ns he calls them (“ De Somniis.” i. 16- 17), “opened their eves superciliously ” when he ex- plained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Greek science, suppressed by the victorious Pharisecism (Men. 99), was soon forgotten. Philo was all the more enthusiastically received by the early Chris- tians, some of whom saw in him a Christian. His Works: The Church Fathers have preserved most of Philo’s works that are now extant. These are chiefly commentaries on the Pentateuch. As Ewald has pointed out, three of Philo's chief works lie in this field (comp. Siegfried, “ Abhandlung zur Kritik der Schriften Philo’s,” 1874, p. 565). («) He explains the Pentateuch catechetically, in the form of questions and answers (“ Zy77a7a Kal Atoric, Quiestiones ect Solutiones”). It can not now be determined how far he carried out this method. Only the following fragments have been preserved: passages in Armenian in explanation of Genesis and THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA xodus, an old Latin translation of a part of the Crenesis,” and fragments from the Greek text in ace “Sacra Parallela,” in the “Catena,” and also in .mbrosius. The explanation is contined chiefly to etermining the literal sense, although Philo fre- juently refers to the allegorical sense as the higher. (7) That he cared mainly for the latter he shows n his scientific chief work, the great allegorical ‘commentary, Néuwv ‘Iepav 'AAZzyopia, or “ Legum Allegorie,” which deals, so far as it His Alle- has been preserved, with selected gorical passages from Genesis. According to Commen- Philo’s original idea, the history of tary. primal man is here considered as a symbol of the religious and moral de- vclopment of the human soul. This great commen- tary included the following treatises: (1) “De Alle- variis Legum,” books i.-iii., on Gen. ii. 1-iii. 1a, “b-19 (on the original extent and contents of these three books and the probably more correct combina- tion of i. and ii., see Schiirer, “Gesch.” iii. 503); (2) ~ De Cherubim,” on Gen. iii. 24, iv. 1; (3) “ De Sacriti- ciis Abelis et Caini,” on Gen. iv. 2-4 (comp. Schitrer, Le. p. 504); (4) “De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insi- diatur”; (5) “De Posteritate Caini,” on Gen. iv. 16-25 (see Cohn and Wendland, “Philonis Alex- andrini,” etc., ii., pp. xviii. e¢ seg., 1-41; “ Philolo- gus,” Ivii. 248-288); (6) “ De Gigantibus,” on Gen. vi. 1-4; (7) “Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,” on Gen. vi. 4-12 (Schirer [/.c. p. 506] correctly combines Nos. 6 and 7 into one book ; Massebieau [“ Bibliothéque de l'Eecole des Hautes Etudes,” p. 23, note 2, Paris, 1889] adds after No. 7the lost books epi Acad jar) ; iS)" De Agricultura Nod,” on Gen. ix. 20 (comp. Von Arnim, “Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria,” 1899, pp. 101-140); (9) “ De Ebrietate,” on Gen. ix. 21 (on the lost second book see Schiirer, U.c. p. 507, and Yon Arnim, U.c. pp. 53-100); (10) “ Resipuit Nov, seu De Sobrietate,” on Gen. ix. 24-27; (11) “De Confusione Linguarum,” on Gen. xi. 1-9; (12) “De Migratione Abrahami,” on Gen. xii. 1-6; (18) “Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” on Gen. xv. 2-18 (on the work Ilepi M:odav cited in this treatise sce Massebieau, U.¢c. pp. 27 et seq., note 3); (14) “De Congressu Queerende Eruditionis Gratia,” on Gen. xvi. 1-6; (15) “De Profugis,” on Gen. xvi. 6-14: (16) “De Mutatione Nominum,” on Gen. xvii. 1-22 (on the fragment “ De Deo,” which contains a com- mentary on Gen, xvili. 2, see Massebieau, l.c. p. 29): (17) “ De Somniis,” book i., on Gen. xxviii. 12 et seq., XXXi. 11 ef 8eq.(Jacob’s dreams) ; “ De Somniis,” hook ii., on Gen. xxxvii. 40 ef seq. (the dreams of Joseph, of the cupbearer, the baker, and Pharaoh). Philo’s three other books on dreams have been lost. The first of these (on the dreams of Abimelech and Laban) preceded the present book i., and discussed the dreams in which God Himself spoke with the dreamers, this fitting in very well with Gen. xx. 3. Ona doxographic source used by Philo in book i., $4 [i. 623], see Wendland in “Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Akademie,” 1897, No. xlix. 1-6. (7) Philo wrote a systematic work on Moses and his laws, which was prefaced by the treatise “ De Opificio Mundi,” which in the present editions pre- cedes “De Allegoriis Legum,” book i. (comp. “ De Abrahamo,” § 1 [ii. 1], with “ De Priemiis ct Penis,” Phillips, Philip Philo Judssus $1 [ii. 408]). The Creation is, according to Philo, the basis for the Mosaic legislation, which is in complete harmony with nature (“De Opificio Mundi,” § 1 [i. 1]). The exposition of the Law then follows in twosections. First come the biographies of the men who antedated the several written laws of the Torah, as Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These were the Patriarchs, who were the living impersonations of the active law of virtue before there were any written laws. Then the laws are discussed in detail: first the chief On the’ ten commandments (the Decalogue), Patriarchs. und then the precepts in amplification of eachlaw. The work is divided into the following treatises: (1) “De Opificio Mundi” (comp. Siegfried in “ Zeitschrift ftir Wissenschaft- liche Theologie,” 1874, pp. 562-565; L. Coln’s im- portant separate edition of this treatise, Breslau, 1889, preceded the edition of the sume in “ Philonis Alexan- drini,” etc., 1896, 1.). (2) “De Abrahamo,” on Abra- ham, the representative of the virtue acquired by learning. The lives of Isaac and Jacob have been lost. Thethree patriarchs were intended as ty pes of the ideal cosmopolitan condition of the world. (8) “De Josepho,” the life of Joseph, intended to show how the wise man must act in the actually existing state. (4) “De Vita Mosis,” books i.-iii.; Schitrer, l.c. p. 523, combines the three books into two; but, as Massebieau shows (/.c. pp. 42 eé seq.), & passuge, though hardly an entire book, is missing at the end of the present second book (Wendland, in “ Hermes,” xxxi. 440). Schiirer (d.¢. pp. 515, 524) excludes this work here, although he admits that from a literary point of view it fits into this group; but he considers it foreign to the work in general, since Moses, un- like the Patriarchs, can not be conceived as a uni- versally valid type of moral action, and can not be described as such. The latter point may be ad- mitted; but the question still remains whether it is necessary to regard the matter in this light. It seems most natural to preface the discussion of the law with the biography of the legislator, while the transition from Joseph to the legislation, from the statesman who has nothing to do with the divine laws to the discussion of these laws themselves, is forced and abrupt. Moses, as the perfect man, unites in himself, in a way, all the faculties of the patriarchal types. His is the “most pure mind” (“De Mutatione Nominum,” 37 [i. 610]), he is the “loverof virtue,” who has been purified from all pas- sions (“ De Allegoriis Legum,” iii. 45, 48 [1. 118, 115]). As the person awaiting the divine revelation, he is also specially fitted to announce it to others, after having received it in the form of the Commandments (¢4, iii. 4 |i, 89 et seq. ]). (5) “De Decalogo,” the introductory treatise to the chicf ten) command- ments of the Law. (6) “De Specialibus Legibus,” in which treatise Philo attempts to systematize the several Jaws of the Torah, and to arrange them in conformity with the Ten Commandments. To the first and second commandments he adds the laws relating to priests and sacrifices; to the third (mis- use of the name of God), the laws on oaths, vows, ete.: to the fourth (on the Sabbath), the laws on festivals; to the fifth (to bonor father and mother), On the Law. Philo Judeus THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 3 the laws on respect for parents, old age, etc. ; to the sixth, the marriage laws; to the seventh, the civil and criminal laws; to the eighth, the laws on theft; to the ninth, the laws on truthful testifying; and to the tenth, the laws on lust (comp. Stade-Holtzmann, “Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” 1888, ii. 585-545; on Philo as influenced by the Halakah, see B. Ititter, “Philo und die Halacha,” Leipsic, 1879, and Sieg- fried’s review of the same in the “Jenaer Litera- turzeitung,” 1879, No. 35). The first book includes the following treatises of the current editions: “ De Circumcisione”; “De Monarchia,” books i. and ii. ; “De Sacerdotum Honoribus”; “De Victimis.” On the division of the book into these sections, the titles of the latter, and newly found sections of the text, see Schtirer, l.c, p. 517; Wendland, @.c. pp. 136 e¢ seq. The second book includes in the editions a sec- tion also entitled “ De Specialibus Legibus ” (ii. 270- 277), to which is added the treatise “ De Septenario,” which is, however, incomplete in Mangey. The greater part of the missing portion was supplied, under the title “De Cophini Festo et de Colendis Parentibus,” by Mai (1818), and was printed in Richter’s edition, v. 48-50, Leipsic, 1828. Thecom- plete text of the second book was published by Tischendorf in his “Philonea” (pp. 1-88). The third book is included under the title “De Speciali- bus Legibus ” ined. Mangey, ii. 299-334. The fourth book also is entitled “ De Specialibus Legibus”: to it the last sections are added under the titles “ De Judice” and “De Concupiscentia ” in the usual edi- tions; and they include, also, as appendix, the sec- tions “De Justitia” and “De Creatione Princi- pum.” (7) The treatises “De Fortitudine,” “De Caritate,” and “ De Peenitentia ” are a kind of appen- dix to “ De Specialibus Legibus.” Schtirer (/.c. pp. 519 [note 82], 520-522) combines them into a special book, which, he thinks, was composed by Philo. (8) “De Premiis et Penis” and “De Execratione.” On the connection of both see Schirer, J.¢c. pp. 522 et seg. This is the conclusion of the exposition of the Mosaic law. Independent Works: (1) “Quod Omnis Probus Liber,” the second half of a work on the freedom of the just according to Stoic principles. The genu- ineness of this work has been disputed by Frankel (in “ Monatsschrift,” ii. 80 et seg., 61 et seqg.), by Gritz (“Gesch.” iii. 464 e¢ seg.), and more recently by Ans- feld (1887), Hilgenfeld (in “Zeitschrift far Wissen- schaftliche Theologie,” 1888, pp. 49-71), and others. Now Wendland, Ohle, Schtirer, Massebieau, and Krell consider it genuine, with the exception of the partly interpolated passages on the Essenes. (2) “In Flaccum” and “De Legatione ad Caium,” an ac- count of the Alexandrian persecution of the Jews under Caligula. This account, consisting originally of five books, has been preserved in fragments only (see Schirer, U.c. pp. 525 e¢ seqg.). Philo intended to show the fearful punishment meted out by God to the persecutors of the Jews (on Philo’s predilection for similar discussions see Siegfried, “ Philo von Al- exandria,” p. 157). (3) “De Providentia,” preserved only in Armenian, and printed from Aucher’s Latin translation in the editions of Richter and others (on Greek fragments of the work see Schitrer, U.c. pp. 531 et seg.). (4) “De Animalibus” (on the title sce Schirer, l.c. p. 582; in Richter’s ed. viii. 101-144). (5) 'Yxoterixad (“Counsels”), a work known only through fragments in Eusebius, “ Preparatio Evan- gelica,” viii. 6, 7. The meaning of the title is open to discussion; it may be identical with the follow- ing (No. 6). (6) Mepi "Iovdaiwy, an apology for the Jews (Schitrer, U.c. pp. 582 et seq.). For a list of the lost works of Philo see Schtirer, lc. p. 534. Other Works Ascribed to Philo: (1) “De Vita Con- templativa” (on the different titles comp. Schfirer, lc. p. 535). This work describes the mode of life and the religious festivals of a society of Jewish ascetics, who, according to the author, are widely scattered over the earth, and are found especially in every nome in Egypt. The writer, however, contines himself to describing a colony of hermits settled on the Lake Mareotis in Egypt, where each lives separately in his own dwelling. Six days of the week they spend in pious contemplation, chiefly in connection with Scripture. On the sev- enth day both men and women assemble together in a hall; and the leader delivers a discourse consist - ing of an allegorical interpretation of a Scriptural passage. The feast of the fiftieth day is especially celebrated. The ceremony begins with a frugal meal consisting of bread, salted vegetables, and water, during which a passage of Scripture is intcr- preted. After the meal the members of the society in turn sing religious songs of various kinds, to which the assembly answers with a refrain. Theceremony ends with a choral representation of the triumphal festival that Moses and Miriam arranged after the passage through the Red Sea, the voices of the men and the women uniting in a choral symphony until the sun rises. Afteracommon morning prayer cach goes home to resume his contemplation. Such is the contemplative life (3io¢ @ewpytixds) led by these Orpazevrai (“servants of YHWH”). The ancient Church looked upon these Therapeute as disguised Christian monks. This view has found advocates even in very recent times; Lucius’ opin- ion particularly, that the Christian monkdom of the third century was here glorified ina Jewish disguise, was widely accepted (“Die Therapeuten,” 1879). But the ritual of the society, which was entirely at variance with Christianity, disproves this view. The chief ceremony especially, the choral represen- tation of the passage through the Red Sea, has no special significance for Christianity; nor have there ever been in the Christian Church nocturnal festi- vals celebrated by men and women ‘““De Vita together. But Massebieau (“Revue Contempla- de |’Histoire des Religions,” 1887, xvi. tiva.” 170 et seqg., 284 et s8eg.), Conybeare (“Philo About the Contemplative Life,” Oxford, 1895), and Wendland (“Die Thera- peuten,” etc.. Leipsic, 1896) ascribe the entire work to Philo, basing their argument wholly on linguistic reasons, which seem sufficiently conclusive. But there are great dissimilarities between the funda- mental conceptions of the author of the “De Vita Contemplativa” and those of Philo. The latter looks upon Greek culture and philosophy as allies, the former is hostile to Greek philosophy (see Sieg- fried in “ Protestantische Kirchenzeitung,” 1896, No. 9° THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 42). He repudiates a science that numbered among its followers the sacred band of the Pythagoreans, inspired men like Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno, Cleanthes, Heraclitus, and Plato, whom Philo prized (~ Quod Omnis Probus,” i., ii.; “Quis Rerum Divi- marum Heres Sit,” 48; “De Providentia,” ii. 42, 48, etc.). He considers the symposium a detestable, common drinking-bout. This can not be explained as a Stoic diatribe; for in this case Philo would uot have repeated it. And Philo would have been the last to interpret the Platonic Eros in the vulgar way in which it is explained in the “De Vita Contempla- tiva,” 7 [ii. 480], as he repeatedly uses the myth of double man allegorically in his interpretation of Scripture (“De Opificio Mundi,” 24; “De Allegoriis Legum,” ii. 24). It must furthermore be remem- bered that Philo in none of his other works men- tions these colonies of allegorizing ascetics, in which he would have been highly interested had he known of them. But pupils of Philo may subsequently bave founded near Alexandria similar colonies that endeavored to realize his ideal of a pure life tri- umphing over the senses and passions; and they might also have been responsible for the one-sided development of certain of the master’s principles. While Philo desired to renounce the lusts of this world, he held fast to the scientific culture of Hel- lenism, which the author of this book denounces. Although Philo liked to withdraw from the world in order to give himself up entirely to contempla- tion, and bitterly regretted the lack of such repose (“De Specialibus Legibus,” 1 [ii. 299]), he did not abandon the work that was required of him by the welfare of his people. (2) “De Incorruptibilitate Mundi.” Since the publication of I. Bernays’ investigations there has been no doubt that this work is spurions. Its Peri- patetic basic idea that the world is eternal and in- destructible contradicts all those Jewish teachings that were for Philo an indisputable presupposition. Bernays has proved at the same time that the text has been confused through wrong pagination, and he has cleverly restored it (“Gesammelte Abhand- lungen,” 1885, i. 2838-290; “ Abhandlung der Berliner Akademie,” 1876, Philosophical-Historical Division, pp. 209-278; #. 1882, sect. iii. 82; Von Arnim, é.c. pp. 1-52). (3) “De Mundo,” a collection of extracts from Philo, especially from the preceding work (comp. Wendland, “ Philo,” ii., pp. vi.-x.). (4) “De Samp- sone” and “ De Jona,” in Armenian, published with Latin translation by Aucher. (5) “Interpretatio Hebraicorum Nominum,” a collection, by an anony- mous Jew, of the Hebrew names occurring in Philo. Origen enlarged it by adding New Testament names; and Jerome revised it. On the etymology of names occurring in Philo’s exegetical works see be- low. (6) A “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” which was printed in the sixteenth century and then disappeared, has been discussed by Cohn in “J. Q. R.” 1898, x. 277-832. It narrates Biblical history from Adam to Saul (see Schfirer, /.c. p. 542). (7) The pseudo-Philonic “ Breviarium Temporum,” pub- lished by Annius of Viterbo (see Schirer, /.c. note 168). His Exegesis. Cultural Basis: Philo, of Jewish Philo Judseus descent, was by birth a Hellene, a member of one of those colonies, organized after the conquests of Alexander the Great, that were dominated by Greek language and culture, The vernacular of these colonies, Hellenistic Greek proper, was every- where corrupted by idiotisms and solecisms, and in specifically Jewish circles by Hebraisms and Semi- tisms, numerous examples of which are found in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Testa- ment. The educated classes, however, had created for themselves from the classics, in the so-called ko.v?) diazextoc, & purer medium of expression. In the same way Philo formed his language by means of extensive reading of the classics. Scholars at an early date pointed out resemblances to Plato (Suidas, s.v.; Jerome, “ De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis,” Cata- logue, 8.v.). But there are also expressions and phrases tuken from Aristotle, as well as from Attic orators and historians, and poetic plirases and allu- gions tothe pocts. Philo’s worksoffer an anthology of Greek phraseology of the most different periods; and his language, in consequence, lacks simplicity and purity (see Treitel, “De Philonis Judsi Ser- mone,” Breslau, 1870; Jessen, “De Elocutione Phi- lonis Alexandrini,” 1889), But more important than the influence of the Ian. guage was that of the literature. He quotes the epic and dramatic poets with especial frequency, or alludes to passages in their works. He has a wide acquaintance with the works of the Greek philos- ophers, to which he was devoted, owing to them his real scholarship, as he himself says (see “ De Con- gressu Querende Eruditionis. Gratia,” 6 [i. 550]; “De Specialibus Legibus,” ii. 229; Deane, “The Book of Wisdom,” 1881, p. 12, note 1). He holds that the highest perception of truth is possible only after a study of the encyclopedic sciences. Hence his system throughout shows the influence of Greek philosophy. The dualistic contrast between God and the world, between the finite and the infinite, appears also in Neo-Pythagorism. The influence of Stoicism is unmistakable in the doc- Influence trine of God asthe only efficient cause, of in that of divine reason immanent in Hellenism. the world, in that of the powers ema- nating from God and suffusing the — world. In the doctrine of the Logos various cle- ments of Greek philosophy are united. As Heinze shows (“Die Lehre vom Logos in der Griechischen Philosophie,” 1872, pp. 204 et seq.), this doctrine touches upon the Platonic doctrine of ideas as well as the Stoic doctrine of the yevxoraréy tre and the Neo-Pythagorean doctrine of the type that served at the creation of the world; and in the shaping of the Adyo¢ touei'c it touches upon the Heraclitean doctrine of strife as the moving principle. Philo’s doctrine of dead, inert, non-existent matter harmonizes in its essentials with the Platonicand Stoic doctrine. His account of the Creation is almost identical with that of Plato; he follows the latter’s “Timeus” pretty closely in his exposition of the world as having no beginning and no end; and, like Plato, he places the creative activity as well as the act of creation out- side of time, on the Platonic ground that time begins only with the world. The influence of Pythago- rism appears in the numeral-symbolism, to which Philo Judsus Philo frequently recurs. The Aristotelian contrast between dStvauig and évreAéyeca (“ Metaphysics,” iii. 73) is found in Philo, “De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 64 (on Aristotle see Freudenthal in “ Monatss¢chrift,” 1875, p. 233). In his psychology he adopts cither the Stoic division of the soul into eight facultics, or the Platonic trichotomy of reason, courage, and desire, or the Aristotelian triad of the vegetative, emotive, and rational souls. The doctrine of the body as the source of all evil corresponds entirely with the Neo-Pythagorean doetrine: the soul he conceives as a divine emanation, similar to Plato's vot¢ (see Siegfried, “Philo,” pp. 189 et seqg.). His ethics and allegories are based on Stoic ethics and allegories. Although as a philosopher Philo must be classed with the eclectics, he was not therefore inerely a com- piler. He made his philosophy the means of de- fending and justifying the Jewish religious truths. These truths he regarded as fixed and determinate ; and philosophy was merely an aid to truth and a means of arriving at it. With this end in view Philo chose from the philosophical tenets of the Greeks, refusing those that did not harmonize with the Jewish religion, as, e.g., the Aristotelian doc- trine of the eternity and indestructibility of the world. Although he devoted himself largely to the Greek language and literature, especially Greek philoso- phy, Philo’s national Jewish education is also a fac- torto be taken into account. While he read the Old Testament chiefly in the Greek trans- His Knowl- lation, not deeming it necessary to use edge of = the Hebrew text because he was under Hebrew. the wrong impression that the Greek corresponded with it, he nevertheless understood Hebrew, as his numerous etymologies of IIebrew names indicate (see Siegfried, “ Philonische Studien,” in Merx, “Archiv ftir Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des A. T.” 1871, ii. 2, 143-168; ¢dem, “Hebritische Worterkliérungen des Philo und Ihre Einwirkung auf die Kirchenviiter,” 1863). These etymologies are not in agrcement with modern He- brew philology, butare along the lines of the etymo- logic midrash to Genesis and of the carlier rabbinism. His knowledge of the Halakah was not profound. B. Ritter, however, has shown (/.¢c.) that he was more at home in this than has been generally assumed (sce Siegfried’s review of Ritter’s book in * Jenaer Literaturzeitung,” 1879, No. 35, where the principal points of Philo’s indebtedness to the Halakah are enumerated). In the Haggadah, however, he was very much at home, not only in that of the Bible, but especially in that of the earlier Palestinian and the Hellenistic Midrash (Frankel, “Ueber den Einfluss der Palistinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandri- nische Ifermeneutik,” 1851, pp. 190-200; Schiirer, ic. p. 546; “De Vita Mosis,” i. 1 [ii. 81)). His Methods of Exegesis: Philo bases his doctrines on the Old Testament, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but in general of all truth. [ts pronouncements are for him divine pronouncements. They are the words of the ispog Zb;0¢, Détog Z6yuc, Opto Zo; 0¢ (* De Agricul- tura Not,” $12 [i. 808]; “De Somniis,” i. 681, ii. 25) uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet, especially through Moses. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 10 whom Philo considers the real medium of revelation, while the other writers of the Old Testament appear us friends or pupils of Moses. Although be distin- guishes between the words uttered by God Himself, us the Decalogue, and the edicts of Moses, as thie special laws (“ De Specialibus Legibus,” $3 2 ef 87. (ii. 300 et seq.]; “ De Preemiis et Panis,” § 1 [ii. 408]), he does not carry out this distinction, since he be- lieves in general that, everything in the Torah is of divine origin, even the letters and accents (“ Ge Mu- tatione Nominum,” § 8 [i. 587]). The extent of his canon can not be exactly determined (comp. Horae- mann, “Observationes ad Ilustrationem Doctring de Canone VY. T. ex Philone,” 1776; B. Pick, “Philo’s Canon of the O. T.,” in “Jour. of Exeg. Society,” 1895, pp. 126-143; C. Bissel, “The Canon of the O. T.,” in * Bibliotheca Sacra,” Jan., 1886. pp. 83-86; and the more recent introductions to the Old Testament, especially those of Buhl, “Canon and Text of the O. T.” 1891, pp. 17, 48, 45; Ryle, “ Philo and Holy Script,” 1895, pp. xvi.-xxxv.; and other references in Schirer, lc. p. 547, note 17). Ife does not quote Ezekiel, Daniel, Canticles, Ruth, Lamen- tations, Ecclesiastes, or Esther (on a quotation from Job see E. Kautzsch, “De Locis V. T. a Paulo Apostolo Aliegatis,” 1869, p. 69; on Philo’s manner of quoting see Siegfried, lc. p. 162). Philo regards the Bible as the source not only of religious revela- tion, but also of philosophic truth; for, according to him, the Greek philosophers also have borrowed from the Bible: Heraclitus, according to “Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 [i. 508]: Zeno, according to “Quod Omnis Probus Liber,” § 8 [ii. 454]. Greek allegory had preceded Philo in this field. As the Stoic allegorists sought in Homer the basis for their philosophic teachings, so the Jewish alle- gorists, and especially Philo, went to the Old Testa- ment. Following the methods of Stoic allegory, they interpreted the Bible philosoph- Stoic ically (on Philo’s predecessors in the Influence. domain of the allegoristic Midrash among the Palestinian and Alexan- drian Jews, see Siegfried, l.¢c. pp. 16-37). Philo bases his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical (comp. * Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,” § 11 i. 280] ; “De Somniis,” i. 40 (i. 656}). He ea es the purty Kat garvepa axodvote (“De Abrahamo,” § 36 [ii. 29 et seq.]), “ad litteram” in contrast to “allegorice ” (“Questiones in Genesin,” li. 21). The two inter- pretations, however, are not of equal importance: the literal sense is adapted to human needs; but the allegorical sense is the real one, which only the ini- tiated comprehend. Hence Philo addresses himself to the wrarac (“initiated”) among his audience, by whom he expects to be really comprehended (“De Cherubim,” § 14 [1. 47]; “De Somniis,” i. 33 {i. 649]), A special method is requisite for determin- ing the real meaning of the words of Scripture (“Canons of Allegory,” “ De Victimas Offerentibus,” $5 [ii 255]: “Laws of Allegory,” “De Abrahamo,” S15 [ii 11]): the correct application of this method determines the correct allegory, and is therefore called “the wise architect” (“De Somniis,” ii. 2 [i 660]). Asaresult of some of these rules of inter- 11 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Philo Judeeus Pretation the literal sense of certain passages of the Bible must be excluded altogether; ¢.g., passages in which according to a literal inter- Attitude pretation something unworthy is said Toward of God; orin which statements are Literal made that are unworthy of the Bible, Meaning. senscless, contradictory, or inadimissi- ble; or in which allegorical expres- sions are used for the avowed purpose of drawing the reader's attention to the fact that the literal sense is to be disregarded. There are in addition special rules that not only direct the reader to recognize the passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, but help the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an apparently superfluous ex- pression in the text; (3) the repetition of statements previously made; (4) a change of phraseology—all these phenomena point to something special that the reader must consider. (5) An entirely different meaning may also be found by a different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and clauses. (6) The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why Zad¢ is used in one passage and pevoc in another, etc. (7) A play upon words must be utilized for finding a deeper meaning; e¢.9., sheep (spu3aror) stand for progress in knowledge, since they derive their name from the fact of their pro- gressing (zpo3aiver), etc. (8) A definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles, ad- verbs, prepositions, etc.; and in certain cases it can be gathered even from (9) the parts of a word; e.g., from dia in didZevxoc, (10) Every word must. be explained in all its meanings, in order that different interpretations may be found. (11) The skilful interpreter may make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule, “ Read not so, but so” (Ber. 10a). Philo, therefore, changed ac- cents, breathings, etc., in Greek words. (12) Any peculiarity in a phrase justitics the assumption that some special meaning is intended; e.g., where xia (7 one”) is used instead of zpory (“ first”; Gen. i. 5), ete. Details regarding the form of words are very important: (13) the number of the word, if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the plural; the tense of the verb, ete.; (14) the gender of the noun; (15) the presence or omission of the article; (16) the artificial interpretation of a single expres- sion; (17) the position of the verses of a passage ; (18) peculiar verse-combinations; (19) noteworthy omis- sions; (20) striking statements; (21) numeral sym- bolism. Philo found much material for this sym- bolism in the Oid Testament, and he developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the Pythagoreans and Stoics. Hecould follow in many points the tradition handed down by hisallegorizing predecessors (“De Vita Contemplativa,” $ 38 [il 481]). Philo regards the singular as God’s number and the basis for al) numbers (“De Allegoriis Legum,” ii. 12 [i. 66]). Two is the number of schism, of that which las been created, of death (De Opificio Mundi, $9[i. 7]; “De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 2 [i. 44]; “De Somniis,” ii. 10 [i. 688]). Three is the number of the body (“De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 2 [i. 44]) or of the Divine Being in connection with His fun- damental powers (“ De Sacrificiis Abe- Views on lis et Caini,” $15 (i. 173]). Four is Numbers. potentially what ten is actually, the perfect number (“ De Opificio Mundi,” &3 15, 16 [i. 10, 11], ete.); but in an evil sense four is the number of the passions, 7a (“ De Con- gressu Queerendwe Eruditionis Gratia.” § 17 [i. 532)). Five is the number of the senses and of sensibility (“De Opificio Mundi,” § 20 [i. 14], etc.). Six, the product of the masculine and feminine numbers 3 x 2 and in its parts equal to 3+ 8, is the symbol of the movement of erganic beings (“ De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 2 [i. 44]). Seven has the most various and mar- velous attributes (“ De Opificio Mundi,” $$ 80-43 [i. 21 et seq.}; comp. I. G. Miller, “ Philo und die Welt- schépfung,” 1841, p. 211). Eight, the numberof the cube, has many of the attributes determined by the Pythagoreans (“Questiones in Genesin,” iii. 49 [i. 223, Aucher]). Nine is the number of strife, ac- cording to Gen. xiv. (“ De Congressu Qu. Eruditionis Gratia,” $17 [i. 582]).. Ten is the number of. per- fection (“ De Plantatione No’,” § 29 [i. 347]). Philo determines also the values of the numbers 50, 70, and 100, 12, and 120. (22) Finally, the symbolism of objects is very extensive. The numerous and inanifold deductions made from the comparison of objects and the relations in which they stand come very near to confusing the whole system, this being prevented only by assigning predominance to certain forms of comparison, although others of secondary importance are permitted to be made side by side with them. Philo elaborates an extensive symbol- ism of proper names, following the example of the Bible and the Midrash, to which he adds many new interpretations. On the difference between the physical and ethical allegory, the first of which refers to natural processes and the second to the psychic life of man, see Siegfried, dc. p. 197. Philo’s teaching was not Jewish, but was deriyed from Greek philosophy. Desiring toconvert it into a Jewish doctrine, he applied the Stoic mode of alle- goric interpretation to the Old Testament. No one before Philo, except his now forgotten Alexandrian predecessors, had applied this method to the Old Testament—a method that could produce no lasting results. It was attacked even in Alexandria (“ De Vita Mosis,” iii. 27 [ii. 168]), and disappeared after the brief florescence of Jewish Hellenism. His Doctrine of God: Philo obtains his theol- ogy in two ways: by means of negation and by posi- tive assertions asto the nature of God (comp. Zeller, “Philosophie der Griechen,” 3d ed., iii., & 2, pp. 353-360; Drummond, “ Philo Judius,” ii. 1-64, Lon- don, 1888). In his negative statement he tries to ~ define the nature of God in contrast to the world. Here he can take from the Old Testament only cer- tain views of later Jewish theology regarding God's sublimity transcending the world (Isa. lv. 9), and man’s inability to behold God (Ex. Xx xii. 20 ef seq.). But according to the conception that predominates in the Bible God is incessantly active in the world, is filled with zeal, is moved by repentance, and comes to aid His people; He is, therefore, entirely different from the God described by Philo. Philo Philo Judeeus THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 12 does not consider God similar to heaven or the world | previously made. While he at first had placed God or man; He exists neither in time nor space; He has no human attributes oremotions. Indeed, He has no attributes whatever (a7/vrc), and in consequence no name (dppytoc), and for that reason he can not be perceived by man (axardZyrroc), He can not change (arpevroc); He is always the same (aidiog). He needs no other being (ypySwv ovdevdg 70 xapazrav), and is self- sufficient (éav7@ ixavéc), He can never perish (a¢@ap- toc). He is the simply existent (6 oy, ro év), and as such has no relations with any other being (rd yap bv éorey ovyi Tov mpd¢ 72). It is evident that this is not the God of the Old Testament, but the idea of Plato designated as Oedc, in contrast to matter. Nothing remained, therefore, but to set aside the descriptions of God in the Old Testament by means of allegory. Philo character- izes as a monstrous impiety the anthropomorphism of the Bible, which, according to the literal mean- ing, ascribes to God hands and feet, eyes and ears, tongue and windpipe (“ De Confusione Linguarum,” § 27 [i. 425]). Scripture, he says, adapts itself to human conceptions (¢b.); and for pedagogic reasons God is occasionally represented as a man (“Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,” § 11 [i. 281]). The same holds good also as regards His anthropopathic at- tributes. God as such is untouched by unreason- able emotions, as appears, e.g., from Ex. ii. 12, where Moses, torn by his emotions, perceives God alone to be calm (“De Allegoriis Legum,” iii. 12 [i. 943]). He is free from sorrow, pain, and all such affections. But He is frequently represented as endowed with human emotions; and this serves to explain expres- sions referring to His repentance. Similarly God can not exist or change inspace. He has no“ where ” (zof, ob- tained by changing the accent in Gen. iii. 9: “ Adam, where [ot] art thou?”), is not in any place. He is Himself the place; the dwelling-place of God means the same as God Himself, as in the Mishnah ppp = “ God is” (comp. Freudenthal, “ Hellenistische Studien,” p. 73), corresponding to the tenet of Greek philosophy that the existence of all things is summed up in God (comp. Schtirer, “Der Begriff des Himmelreichs,” in “Jahrbuch fir Protestantische Theologie,” 1876, i. 170). The Divine Being as such is motionless, as the Bible indicates by the phrase “God stands” (Deut. v. 31; Ex. xvii. 6). It was difficult to har- monize the doctrine of God’s namelessness with the Bible; and Philo was aided here by his imperfect knowledge of Greek. Not noticing that the Sep- tuagint translated the divine name YHwn by Ktpuoc, he thought himself justified in referring the two names Océ¢ and Kipiog to the two supreme divine faculties. Philo’s transcendental conception of the idea of God precluded the Creation as well as any activity of God in the world; it entirely separated God from man; and it deprived ethics of all religious basis. But Philo, who was a pious Jew, could not accept the un-Jewish, pagan conception of the world and the irreligious attitude which would have been the logical result of his own system; and so he accepted the Stoic doctrine of the immanence of God, which led him to statements opposed to those he had Views on Anthropo- mor- phisms. cutirely outside of the world, he now regarded Him as the only actual beingtherein. God is the only real citizen of the world; allother bcings are merely sojourners therein (“ De Cherubim,” § 34 [i. 661]). While -God as a transcendent being could not operate at all in the world, He is now considered as dving everything and as the only cause of all things (“De Allegoriis Legum,” iii. 8 [i. 88]). He creates not only once, but forever (db. i. 13 [i. 44]). He is identical with the Stoic “ efficient cause.” He is impelled to activity chiefly by His goodness, which is the basis of the Creation. God as creator is called Ged (from rityuc; comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 27 [i. 425]). This designation also characterizes Ilim in conformity with His goodness, because all good gifts are derived from God, but not evil ones. Hence God must call upon other powers to aid Him in the creation of man, as He can have nothing to do with matter, which con- stitutes the physical nature of man: with evil Iie can have no connection; He can not even pun- ish it. God stands in a special relation to man. The human soul is God’s most characteristic work. It is a retlex of God, a part of the divine reason, just as in the system of the Stoics the human soul is an emanation of the World-Soul. The life of the soul is nourished and supported by God, Philo using for his illustrations the figures of the light and the fountain and the Biblical passages referring to these. Doctrine of the Divine Attributes: Al- though, as shown above, Philo repeatedly endeav- ored to find the Divine Being active and acting in the world, in agreement with Stoicism, yet his Pla- tonic repugnance to matter predominated, and con- sequently whenever he posited that the divine could not have any contact with evil, he defined evil as matter, with the result that he placed God outside uf the world. Hence he was obliged to separate from the Divine Being the activity displayed in the world and to transfer it to the divine powers, which accordingly were sometimes inherent in God and at other times exterior to God. This doctrine, as worked out by Philo, was composed of very differ- ent elements, including Greek philosophy, Biblical conceptions, pagan and late Jewish views. The Greek elements were borrowed partly from Platonic philosophy, in so far as the divine powers were con- ceived as types or patternsof actual things (“arche- ty palideas”), and partly from Stoic philosophy, in so far as those powers were regarded as the efficient causes that not only represent the types of things, butalso produce and maintainthem. They fill the whole world, and in them are contained all being and all individual things (“ De Confusione Linguarum,” § 34 [i. 431]). Philo endeavored to harmonize this conception with the Bible by designating these powers as angels (“De Gigantibus,” § 2 [i. 263]; “De Somniis,” i. 22 [i. 641 et sey.]), whereby he des- troyed an essential characteristic of the Biblical view. He further made use of the pagan conception of demons (t6.). And finally he was influenced by the late Jewish doctrine of the throne-chariot (Aw pp 735°), in connection with which hein a way de- taches one of God's fundamental powers, a point which will be discussed further on. In the Haggadah 13 this fundamental power divides into two contrasts, which modify each other: DONA AW) YA Nw. In the same way Philo contrasts the two divine at- tributes of goodness and power (aya6érn¢ and apy, Stvauig yapioruy and ovyKodacrixy), They arealso ex- pressed in the names of God; but Philo’s explanation isconfusing. “ Yuwit” really designates God asthe kind and merciful one, while “Elohim” designates him as the just one. Philo, however, interpreted “Elohim” (L.AXX. 6ed¢) as designating the “cosmic power”; and as heconsidered the Creation the most important proof of divine goodness, he found the idea of goodness especially in @ed¢ (“ De Migratione Abrahami,” § 32 [i. 464]). On the parallel activity of the two powers and the symbols used therefor in Scripture, as well as on their emanation from God and their further development into new pow- ers, their relation to God and the world, their part in the Creation, their tasks toward man, etc., see Siegfried, “ Philo,” pp. 214-218. Philo’s expo- sition here is not entirely clear, as he sometimes con- ceives the powers to be independent hypostases and sometimes regards them as immanent attributes of the Divine Being. The Logos: Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philos- opby, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo’s conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heracli- tus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (7.6;0¢ touetc), Which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“ Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 48 [i. 508]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (* De Migratione Abrabami,” § 18 [i. 452]; “De Spe- cialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in ad- dition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of YHwu is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 18; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. Hecalls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 [i. 411]), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the ex- alted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ixéri¢ (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 [i. 501], and zapaxAntoc (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wis- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Philo Judseus dom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philo, in connecting his doctrine of the Logos with Scripture, first of all bases on Gen. i. 27 the re- lation of the Logosto God. He trans- Relation of lates this passage as follows: “He the Logos made man after the image of God,” to God. concluding therefrom that an image of God existed. This image of God is the type for all other things (the “ Archetypal Idea” of Plato), a seal impressed upon things. The Logos is a kind of shadow cast by God, having the outlines but not the blinding light of the Divine Being. The relation of the Logos to the divine powers, especially to the two fundamental powers, must now be examined. And here is found a twofold series of exegetic expositions. According to one, the Logos stands higher than the two powers; ac- cording to the other, it is ina way the product of the two powers; similarly it occasionally appears as the chief and leader of the innumerable powers proceeding from the primal powers, and again as the aggregate or product of them. In its relation to the world the Logos appears as the universal substance on which all things depend; and from this point of view the manna (as yevixwrardéy tr) becomes a symbol for it. The Logos, however, is not only the archetype of things, but also the power that produces them, appearing as such especially under the name of the Logos roueis (“the divider”). It separates the individual beings of nature from one another according to their characteristics; but, on the other hand, it constitutes the bond connecting the individual creatures, uniting their spiritual and physical attributes. It may be said to have in- vested itself with the whole world as an inde- structible garment. It appears as the director and shepherd of the things in the world in so far as they are in motion. The Logos has a special relation to man. It is the type; man isthe copy. The similarity is found in the mind (vov¢) of man. For the shaping of his nous, man (earthly man) has the Logos (the “heavenly man”) for a pattern. The latter officiates here also as “the divider” (ropeis), separating and uniting. The Logosas “interpreter” announces God’s designs to man, acting in this respect as prophet and priest. As the latter, he softens punishments by making the merciful power stronger than the punitive. The Logos has a spe- cial mystic influence upon the human soul, illu- minating it and nourishing it with a higher spiritual food, like the manna, of which the smallest piece has the same vitality as the whole. Cosmology: Philo’s conception of the matter out of which the world was created is entirely un- Biblical and un-Jewish; he is here wholly at one with Plato and the Stoics. According to him, God does not create the world-stuff, but finds it ready at hand. God can not create it, as in its nature it resists all contact with the divine. Sometimes, fol- lowing the Stoics, he designates God as “ the efficient cause,” and matter as “the affected cause.” He seems to have found this conception in the Bible (Gen. i. 2) in the image of the spirit of God hover- Pneuma- tology. Philo Judseus ad ing over the waters (“De Opificio Mundi,” § 2 [i. 12]). On the connection of these doctrines with the speculations on the P°YRID AWD, see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 2380 et seq. Philo, again like Plato and the Stoics, conceives of matter as having no attributes or form; this, however, does not harmonize with the assumption of four elements. Philoconccives of matter as evil, on the ground that no praise is meted out to it in Genesis ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 32 [i. 495}). As a result, he can not posit an actual Creation, but only a formation of the world, as Plato holds. God appears as demiurge and cosmoplast. Philo frequently compares God to an architect or gardener, who formed the present world (the xéopo¢ ao S770) according toa pattern, the ideal world (xdopog voyTé¢). Philo takes the details of his story of the Creation entirely from Gen. i. A specially impor- tant position is assigned here to the Logos, which executes the several acts of the Creation, as Gud can not come into contact with matter, actually creating only the soul of the good. Anthropology. The Doctrine of Man as a Nat- ural Being: Philoregards the physical nature of man as something defective and as an obstacle to his de- velopment that can never be fully surmounted, but still as something indispensable in view of the nature of his being. With the body the necessity for food arises, as Philo explains in various alle- gories. The body, however, is also of advantage to the spirit, since the spirit arrives at its knowledge of the world by means of the five senses. But higher and more important is the spiritual nature of man. This nature has a twofold tendency: one toward the sensual and earthly, which Philo calls sensibility (aiadnacc), and one toward the spiritual, which he calls reason (votc). Sensibility has its seat in the body, and lives in the senses, as Philo elabo- rates in varying allegoric imagery. Connected with this corporeality of the sensibility are its limitations; but, like the body itself, it is a necessity of nature, the channel of all sense-perception. Sensibility, however, is still more in need of being guided by reason, Reason is that part of the spirit which looks toward heavenly things. It is the highest, the real divine gift that has been infused into man from without (“De Opiticio Mundi,” i. 15; “De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur,” i. 206); it is the masculine nature of the soul. The vor¢ is originally at rest; and when it begins to move it produces the several phenomena of mind (évJuusjpara), The prin- cipal powers of the vove are judgment, memory, and language. Man as a Moral Being: More important in Philo’s system is the doctrine of the moral development of man, Of this he distinguishes two conditions: (1) that before time was, and (2) that since the begin- ning of time. In the pretemporal condition the soul was without body, free from earthly matter, without sex, in the condition of the generic (}evx6c) man, morally perfect, ¢.e., without flaws, but still striving after a higher purity. On entering upon time the soul loses its purity and is confined ina body. The nous becomes earthly, but it retains a tendency toward something higher. Philo is not entirely certain whether the body in itself or merely THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 14 in its preponderance over the spirit is evil. But the body in any case is a source of danger, as it easily drags the spirit into the bonds of sensibility. Here, also, Philo is undecided whether sensibility is in itself evil, or whether it may merely lead into temptation, and must itself be regarded as a mean (uéoor), Sensibility in any case is the source of the passions and desires. The passions attack the sensi- bility in order to destroy the whole soul. On their number and their symbols in Scripture see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 245 et seq. The “desire” is cither the lustful enjoyment of sensual things, dwelling assuch in the abdominal cavity («ecA/a), or it is the craving for this enjoyment, dwelling in the breast. It connects the nous and the sensibility, this being a psychologic necessity, but an evil from an ethical point of view. According to Philo, man passes through several steps in his ethical development. At first the sev- eral elements of the human being are ina state of Intency, presenting a kind of moral neutrality which Philo designates by the terms “naked” or “ medial.” The nous is nude, or stands midway so Jong as it has not decided either for sin or for virtue. In this period of moral indecision God endeavors to prepare the earthly nous for virtue, presenting to him in the “earthly wisdom and virtue” an image of heavenly wisdom. But man (nous) quickly Jeaves this state of neutrality. As soon as he meets the woman (sensibility) he is filled with desire, and passion en- snares him in the bonds of sensibility. Here the moral duties of man arise; and according to his at- titude there are two opposite tendencies in hu- manity. Ethics. Sensual Life: The soul is first aroused by the stimuli of sensual pleasures; it begins to turn toward them, and then becomes more and more in- volved. It becomes devoted to the body, and hegins to lead an intolerable life (,3:0¢ a,3iwroc), Itis inflamed and excited by irrational impulses. Its condition is restless and painful. The sensibility endures, ac- cording to Gen. iii. 16, great pain. A continual inner void produces a lasting desire which is never satisfied.