PHILO, an ancient Greek writer, descended of a noble family amongst the Jews, flourished at Alexandria during the reign of Caligula. He was the chief of an embassy sent to Rome about the year forty-two, to plead the cause of the Jews against Apion, who had been sent by the Alexandrians to charge them with neglecting the honours due to Caesar. Caligula, however, would not allow him to speak, and be-
Philo. haved to him in such a manner that Philo was in considerable danger of losing his life. Others, again, tell us that he was heard, but that his demands were refused. He afterwards went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and both Eusebius and Jerome inform us that he became acquainted with St Peter, with whom he lived on terms of friendship. Photius adds, that he became a Christian, but afterwards, from some motive of resentment, recanted. All this, however, is uncertain, because the precise period at which St Peter visited Rome has not been ascertained.
Philo was educated at Alexandria, and made very great progress in eloquence and in philosophy. After the fashion of the time, he cultivated, like many of his nation and faith, the philosophy of Plato, whose principles he so thoroughly imbibed, and whose manner he so well imitated, that it became a common saying, Aut Plato philonizat, aut Philo platonizat. Josephus describes him as a man "eminent on all accounts;" and Eusebius represents him as "copious in speech, rich in sentiments, and sublime in the knowledge of Holy Writ." He was, however, so much immersed in philosophy, particularly the Platonic, that he neglected the Hebrew language, and also the rites and customs of his own people. Scaliger alleges, that Philo knew no more of Hebrew and Syriac than a Gaul or a Scythian. Grotius is of opinion that he is not fully to be depended on in what relates to the manners of the Hebrews; and Cudworth declares that, though a Jew by nation, he was yet very ignorant of Jewish customs. But Fabricius thinks differently; for although he admits the inadvertencies and errors of Philo in regard to these matters, he does not discover sufficient reason to justify charging so illustrious a doctor of the law with ignorance. He allows, however, that Philo's passion for philosophy had made him more than half a Pagan. It led him to interpret the whole of the law and the prophets upon Platonic ideas, and to admit nothing as truly interpreted which was not agreeable to the principles of the Academy. Besides, he turned every thing into allegory, and deduced the darkest meanings from the plainest words. This pernicious practice Origen is known to have imitated, and thus exposed himself to the scoffs of Celsus and of Porphyry. Philo's writings abound with high and mystical, as well as subtle, far-fetched, and abstracted notions; and indeed the doctrines of Plato and Moses are so promiscuously blended, that it is not easy to assign to each his peculiar prerogatives. In his works, however, there are certainly many excellent things. Though he is continually platonizing and allegorizing the Scriptures, he abounds with fine sentiments and lessons of morality; and his morals are rather the morals of a Christian than those of a Jew. History, as well as his own writings, give us every reason to believe that he was a man of great prudence, constancy, and virtue.
His works were first published in Greek by Turnebus, at Paris, 1552; and to these a Latin translation, executed by Gelenius, was afterwards added. The Paris edition of 1640, in folio, is the best that was published for a century; a circumstance which led Cotelerius to observe, that Philo was an author who deserved to have a better text and a better version. This, however, was accomplished, in 1742, when a handsome edition of his works was published at London,
by Dr Manger, in two vols. folio. In 1797, Jacob Bryant published the Sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the Logos or Word, in order to prove that Philo borrowed his sentiments and expressions relative to the second person of the adorable Trinity from the apostles. But it is to be observed here, that Philo's authority had repeatedly before been founded on by various writers in favour of the fundamental principle of the existence of a Divine Unity in a Trinity of Persons; particularly by Dr Allix in his Judgment of the Jewish Church, 1699, and also by Mr Whitaker in his Origin of Arianism Disclosed, 1791.