account of creation. Strange though it may sound, the doctrine of development was derived from the words (Gen. ii. 4). 'These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day when Jahveh Elohim made earth and heavens.' It was argued, that the expression implied, they were developed from the day in which they had been created. Others seem to have held, that the three principal things that were created, earth, heaven, and water, remained, each for three days, at the end of which they respectively developed what is connected with them (Ber. R. 12).] Traces also occur of the doctrine of the pre-existence of things, in a sense similar to that of Plato, [b Ber. R. i.]
Like Plato and the Stoics, Philo regarded matter as devoid of all quality, and even form. Matter in itself was dead, more than that, it was evil. This matter, which was already existing, God formed (not made), like an architect who uses his materials according to a pre-existing plan, which in this case was the archetypal world.
This was creation, or rather formation, brought about not by God Himself, but by the Potencies, especially by the Logos, Who was the connecting bond of all. As for God, His only direct work was the soul, and that only of the good, not of the evil. Man's immaterial part had a
twofold aspect: earthwards, as Sensuousness; and heavenwards, as Reason. The sensuous part of the soul was connected with the body. It had no heavenly past, and would have no future. But 'Reason' was that breath of true life which God had breathed into man whereby the earthy became the higher, living spirit, with its various faculties. Before time began the soul was without body, an archetype, the 'heavenly man,' pure spirit in Paradise (virtue), yet even so longing after its ultimate archetype, God. Some of these pure spirits descended into bodies and so lost their purity. Or else, the union was brought about by God and by powers lower than God (daemons). To the latter is due our earthly part. God breathed on the formation, and the 'earthly Reason' became 'intelligent' 'spiritual' soul Our earthly part alone is the seat of sin. [1 For further notices on the Cosmology and Anthropology of Philo, see Appendix II: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'] This leads us to the great question of Original Sin. Here the views of Philo are those of the Eastern Rabbis. But both are entirely different from those on which the argument in the Epistle to the Romans turns. It was neither at the feet of Gamaliel, nor yet from Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsus learned the doctrine of original sin. The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so in Messiah all should be made alive, [2 We cannot help quoting the beautiful Haggadic explanation of the name Adam, according to its three letters, A, D, M, as including these three names, Adam, David, Messiah.] finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings. [3 Raymundus Martini, in his 'Pugio Fidei' (orig. ed. p. 675; ed. Voisin et Carpzov, pp. 866, 867), quotes from the book Siphre: 'Go and learn the merit of Messiah the King, and the reward of the righteous from the first Adam, on whom was laid only one commandment of a prohibitive character, and he transgressed it. See how many deaths were appointed on him, and on his generations, and on the generations of his generations to the end of all generations. (Wunsche, Leiden d. Mess. p. 65, makes here an unwarrantable addition, in his translation.) But which attribute (measuring?) is the greater, the attribute of goodness or the attribute of punishment (retribution)? He answered, the attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of punishment the less. And Messiah the King, who was chastened and suffered for the transgressors, as it is said, 'He was wounded for our transgressions,' and so on, how much more shall He justify (make righteous, by His merit) all generations; and this is what is meant when it is written, 'And Jehovah made to meet upon Him the sin of us all.'' We have rendered this passage as literally as possible, but we are bound to add that it is not found in any now existing copy of Siphre.] What may be called the starting point of Christian theology, the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin, through the fall of Adam, and of the consequent entire and helplesss corruption of our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism. The reign of physical death was indeed traced to the sin of our first parents. [4 Death is not considered an absolute evil. In short, all the various consequences which Rabbinical writings ascribe to the sin of Adam may be designated either as physical, or, if mental, as amounting only to detriment, loss, or imperfectness. These results had been partially counteracted by Abraham, and would be fully removed by the Messiah. Neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordingly they did not die. Comp. generally, Hamburger, Geist d. Agada, pp. 81-84, and in regard to death as connected with Adam, p. 85.] But the Talmud expressly teaches, [a Ber. 61a] that God originally created man withtwo propensities, [5 These are also hypostatised as Angels. Comp. Levy, Chald. Worterb. p. 342 a; Neuhebr. Worterb. p. 259, a, b.] one to good and one to evil (Yetser tobh, and Yetser hara [6 Or with 'two reins,' the one, advising to good, being at his right, the other, counselling evil, at his left, according to Eccles. x. 2 (Ber. 61 a, towards the end of the page).] The evil impulse began immediately after birth, [b Sanh. 91 b] [7 In a sense its existence was necessary for the continuance of this world. The conflict between these two impulses constituted the moral life of man.] But it was within the power of man to vanquish sin, and to attain perfect righteousness; in fact, this stage had actually been attained. [1
The solitary exception here is 4 Esdras, where the Christian doctrine of original sin is most strongly expressed, being evidently derived from New Testament teaching. Comp. especially 4 Esdras (our Apocryphal 2 Esdras) vii. 46-53, and other passages. Wherein the hope of safety lay, appears in ch. ix.]
Similarly, Philo regarded the soul of the child as 'naked' (Adam and Eve), a sort of tabula rasa, as wax which God would fain form and mould. But this state ceased when 'affection' presented itself to reason, and thus sensuous lust arose, which was the spring of all sin. The grand task, then, was to get rid of the sensuous, and to rise to the spiritual. In this, the ethical part of his system, Philo was most under the influence of Stoic philosophy. We might almost say, it is no longer the Hebrew who Hellenises, but the Hellene who Hebraises. And yet it is here also that the most ingenious and widereaching allegorisms of Scripture are introduced. It is scarcely possible to convey an idea of how brilliant this method becomes in the hands of Philo, how universal its application, or how captivating it must have proved. Philo describes man's state as, first one of sensuousness, but also of unrest, misery and unsatisfied longing. If persisted in, it would end in complete spiritual insensibility. [2 Symbolised by Lot's wife.] But from this state the soul must pass to one of devotion to reason. [3 Symbolised by Ebher, Hebrew.] This change might be accomplished in one of three ways: first, by study, of which physical was the lowest; next, that which embraced the ordinary circle of knowledge; and lastly, the highest, that of Divine philosophy. The second method was Askesis: discipline, or practice, when the soul turned from the lower to the higher. But the best of all was the third way: the free unfolding of that spiritual life which cometh neither from study nor discipline, but from a natural good disposition. And in that state the soul had true rest [4 The Sabbath, Jerusalem.] and joy. [5 For further details on these points see Appendix II: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.']
Here we must for the present pause. [6 The views of Philo on the Messiah will be presented in another connection.] Brief as this sketch of Hellenism has been, it must have brought the question vividly before the mind, whether and how far certain parts of the New Testament, especially the fourth Gospel, [7 This is not the place to enter on the question of the composition, date, and authorship of the four Gospels. But as regards the point on which negative criticism has of late spoken strongest, and on which, indeed (as Weiss rightly remarks) the very existence of'the Tubingen School' depends, that of the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel, I would refer to Weiss, Leben Jesu (1882: vol. i. pp. 84-139), and to Dr. Salmon's Introd. to the New Test. pp. 266-365.] are connected with the direction of thought described in the preceding pages. Without yielding to that school of critics, whose perverse ingenuity discerns everywhere a sinister motive or tendency in the Evangelic writers, [1 No one not acquainted with this literature can imagine the character of the arguments sometimes used by a certain class of critics. To say that they proceed on the most forced perversion of the natural and obvious meaning of passages, is but little. But one cannot restrain moral indignation on finding that to Evangelists and Apostles is imputed, on such grounds, not only systematic falsehood, but falsehood with the most sinister motives.] it is evident that each of them had a special object in view in constructing his narrative of the One Life; and primarily addressed himself to a special audience. If, without entering into elaborate discussion, we might, according to St. Luke i. 2, regard the narrative of St. Mark as the grand representative of that authentic 'narration', though not by Apostles, [2 I do not, of course, mean that the narration of St. Mark was not itself derived chiefly from Apostolic preaching, especially that of St. Peter. In general, the question of the authorship and source of the various Gospels must be reserved for
separate treatment in another place.] which was in circulation, and the Gospel by St. Matthew as representing the 'tradition' handed down, by the Apostolic eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, [3 Comp. Mangold's ed.of Bleek, Einl. in d. N.T. (3te Aufl. 1875), p. 346.] we should reach the following results. Our oldest Gospel-narrative is that by St. Mark, which, addressing itself to no class in particular, sketches in rapid outlines the picture of Jesus as the Messiah, alike for all men. Next in order of time comes our present Gospel by St. Matthew. It goes a step further back than that by St. Mark, and gives not only the genealogy, but the history of the miraculous birth of Jesus. Even if we had not the consensus of tradition, every one must feel that this Gospel is Hebrew in its cast, in its citations from the Old Testament, and in its whole bearing. Taking its key-note from the Book of Daniel, that grand Messianic text-book of Eastern Judaism at the time, and as re-echoed in the Book of Enoch, which
