had many predecessors, and in fact he refers frequently to the writings of esteemed men who had preceded him in this path. In his tract "de Septenario et Festis Diebus," (Tom. II. p. 292, ed. Mang.) he says, in reference to the explanation given of the origin of the feast of the Passover; "These things are explained according to the ancient allegory; those who are accustomed to allegorical interpretation consider the sacrifices of the passover as denoting purification of heart." So likewise he adds, after his explanation of circumcision; "These things then, have come to our ears, spoken of old by inspired men who have interpreted with care the works of Moses." (De Circumcis. Tom. II. p. 211. See also, De Leg. spec. II. p. 805; De Cherub. I. p. 143; De Alleg. Leg. 1. p. 54; Vita Abrah. II. p. 15; Quis rerum divinarum Hæres, I. p. 513; De Josepho, II. p. 63; De Septen. et Festis Diebus, II. p. 293.) Philo does not name these persons; but it is highly probable that they were Therapeuta, whom he held in high esteem. In his treatise "De Vitâ Contemplativâ," (Tom. II. p. 483,) he says of them, that they compare the whole law to an animal, and consider the literal commands as the body, the secret sense as the soul. And on page 475, he says; "When they occupy themselves about the holy scripture, they connect therewith philosophical speculations, giving an allegorical meaning to the doctrines of their hereditary religion; because they seek under the text secrets of nature, which are mystically concealed there. They have also interpretations handed down from former times, the writings of the founders of their sect, who have left many memorials respecting the ideas to be developed by means of allegories, which their followers imitate." So far Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," (Lib. II. cap. 17,) cites this passage from Philo, and adds, that these ancient interpretations of the Scriptures of the Old Testament resemble the critical expositions in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in several of Paul's epistles.

Another Alexandrian of earlier date, by name Aristobulus, is mentioned by old writers as an allegorist. In modern times, indeed, Richard Simon, in his "Critical History of the New Testament," (Vol. II., page 189, and Vol. III., page 499,) also Hody (Contra Historiam Aristeæ de LXX Interpr. p. 53,) and Eichhorn, in his "Library of Theological Literature," (B. V. p. 253, seq.), have not only disputed the genuineness of the fragments remaining under the name of Aristobulus, but the very

fact of his having existed. Valkenaer, however, in his "Diatribe de Aristobulo Judæo," (Lyons, 1806,) has adduced sufficient grounds to establish the genuineness of these fragments. Aristobulus lived about 180 B. C., was tutor of king Ptolemy Philometor, and belonged to the school of the Peripatetics. He wrote an allegorical commentary on the books of Moses, which he dedicated to king Ptolemy Philometor. The fragments of this work still remaining are mostly collected by Eichhorn, in his General Library, (B. V. pp. 281 – 298.) He openly manifests therein his zeal to vindicate for the writers of the Old Testament, all the wisdom which was admired in the Greek philosophers; he remarks at the same time, how many different nations have taken the same road to truth. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work against Julian, (Lib. IV. p. 134. Opp. Tom. VI. Paris, 1638,) says, "Aristobulus, the Peripatetic, somewhere remarks, that all things which have been said respecting nature by the ancients, have been said also by philosophers living out of Greece; some among the Indians by the Bramins, and some in Syria by the people called Jews."" According to Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. p. 342, ed. Sylburg.), Aristobulus sought to prove what is so frequently asserted by the Fathers of the church, that even the Greek philosophers derived their wisdom from the Old Testament. "And even Plato" he says, "followed our laws." Nay, the Hebrew sages are represented by him as far superior to the Greek. Eusebius (Præp. Evang. Lib. VII. cap. 13, 14,) quotes him. as saying; "This may also be applied to Wisdom, for from her proceeds all light; on this account the Peripatetics affirm, that she has the character of a lamp, and that they who follow her steadily are unshaken during the whole of life. More wisely and beautifully says one of our progenitors, Solomon, 'She existed before heaven and earth,' (Prov. viii. 22); corresponding with what has already been alleged." In another fragment, preserved by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. Lib. VIII. cap. 9, 10), he defends Moses against the charge of a material representation. of God; he shows to the king that there is another meaning concealed therein. Such figurative expressions, says he, are usual even in common life. Thus, when the king sends forth a force to execute something, it is said, Μεγάλην χεῖρα ἔχει 8 Baotlevs (The king has a mighty hand), and, in the same manner, Moses also says; "With a strong hand has the Lord brought you out of Egypt." This expression originates from

the circumstance, that the strength of man lies particularly in his arms. Then he proceeds to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, and shows that all the phenomena described by Moses, the fire, the thunder, the sound of trumpets, were real, but produced by God without the aid of material organs, God thus manifesting the supremacy of his power. The same spirit appears in another fragment found in Eusebius, (Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 11, 12,) where he treats of the creation, and of the institution of the Sabbath. The account of the creation of the world in six days, has no other object than to establish a division of time; and yet he passes to a philosophical speculation respecting the sacredness of the number seven, "in which we have knowledge of human and divine things: on the number seven, turns the whole world both of animal and vegetable life."

From all the fragments of his writings which remain to us, we can get but a small insight into his mode of allegorical interpretation. Thus much, however, is certain, that Aristobulus was an acute man, who could not satisfy himself, like the rude and ignorant, with the representations of the doings of God in material images, but sought to ascertain the true ideas to be drawn from them. He also shows a very correct conception of the object of the revelation contained in the Old Testament, which he looks for, not in a dealing-out of mysteries, but in the promotion of the fear of God.

After the passage last cited, he says, "The whole ordering of our law is intended to promote piety, righteousness, temperance, and all other things truly good." And I should almost doubt the propriety of considering him as one of the founders of allegorical interpretation, if we had not the most indisputable testimony of ancient times to the fact; for instance, Origen in his work against Celsus (Lib. IV. cap. 51,) says; "It appears to me, that he (Celsus) has heard of writings containing allegorical expositions of the law;"-" he seems to speak of the writings of Philo, or of still older ones, such as those of Aristobulus." But, even in the fragments preserved by Eusebius, an allegory is presented (Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12), where, in treating of the creation of the world, when he comes to the origin of light, he says, "This may also be applied to Wisdom;" that is, to Wisdom hypostatized. I believe, therefore, that we find allegory in its earliest state in Aristobulus. The philosophy of Aristotle gave him a disVOL. XXI.— - 3D S. VOL. III. NO. II.

22

gust for the representation of the Deity under a human form; but his interest as an apologist led to a farther infusion of the Aristotelian philosophy into the books of Moses. In doing this, however, he seems to have proceeded timidly, as is shown by the example adduced.

Of the Alexandrine Jewish school we have still two representatives remaining, namely, the authors of Ecclesiasticus and of the Book of Wisdom. The translator of the former, who, in his preface to the work of his grandfather, professes to have translated it in the thirty-eighth year of King Evergetes, probably Evergetes Physcon, lived, we may conclude, in the year 131 B. C.; and the author of the book, therefore, was nearly contemporary with Aristobulus. The author (chap. xxiv.) glorifies wisdom, considered as hypostatized. It is through her, that God governs all things. She has, at the command of God, chosen the Israelitish people as her especial residence ; she bears the choicest fruits of knowledge and of life. Afterwards he proceeds thus (verse 23): "This is all, even the book of the covenant of the highest God; the law which Moses has ordained, as an inheritance to the assemblies of Jacob. It sheds wisdom, like the Phison and the Tigris in the season of spring; it gives fulness of knowledge, like the Euphrates and the Jordan in the days of harvest; discipline beams from it like light. The first cannot fully know it, nor the last explore it. For its meaning is richer than the sea, and its counsel deeper than the abyss.' From verse 30th, he goes on describing how he has drawn from this source of wisdom little streams for his own use. This passage I cannot look upon as furnishing any traces of allegory, as do Ohlshausen (in his Tieferer Schriftsinn, p. 57), and Rosenmüller (in his Hist. Interpret. Lib. Sac. I. p. 17). Without entering into the consideration of the conceptions concerning Wisdom, or the later conceptions respecting the Logos, I need merely refer to the mode in which the Scriptures of the Old Testament are here treated by the author. There is no trace of allegory; the wisdom which flows for him from the source of the Holy Scriptures, is of a purely practical kind; it guards men from sin. (Chap. xxiv. 22.) I can, therefore, only look upon the whole passage as an expression of the highest reverence for the Holy Scriptures. A more distinct exhibition of his views is

[* We give the translation of the author, (who omits the 24th verse,) though it does not appear to us correct.]

contained in chap. xxxix. v. 1—3. He insists that, "in order to study the law, a man must be exempt from other labors, for he must search out wisdom and occupy himself with prophecies; he must consider the treatises of distinguished men, and penetrate into the hidden sense of parables, and solve dark sayings and riddles." Here the author states expressly, how he would have the Scriptures of the Old Testament used. He has, indeed, devoted himself much to ancient history, and even extracted the most remarkable parts of it; but moral sayings, enigmas, and parables are what he most esteems; and, therefore, he imitates especially the Proverbs. Here is nothing that looks like allegory. How would what follows the passage just quoted be consistent with allegorical studies? "He (who seeks wisdom in the manner described) can serve princes, and be attendant on lords; he may be sent into foreign lands, for he has tried what is useful to a people, and what is not."

The author of the Book of Wisdom is not to be ascertained, but he appears to belong to the time of Philo. He shows (chap. x.) how wisdom has ruled the pious from the creation of the world, particularly the people of God. This was a favorite subject, derived from the Proverbs. The author shows, also, on the other hand, the fate of the Egyptians and Canaanites, who were forsaken by divine Wisdom. (Chap. xi. xix.) But the traces of allegory are hardly to be discovered. Scarcely any thing appears but a philosophical reasoning on the Old Testament history. We will examine more closely the two passages which have been appealed to, as affording specimens of allegorical interpretation. In chap. xviii. 21-25, the author refers to the destruction of the troop of Korah, Numbers xvi. 46. Aaron interposes between the people and the angel of death, arrayed in his sacred ornaments, before which every one must bow; but he overcomes the destroyer, not with bodily weapons, but with those of his office, prayer and sacrifice, alleging the sacred oath of God to the ancient patriarchs. This is only the Mosaic account embellished, according to the taste of the period. The pestilence is the destroying angel. The expiation is made by the priest, arrayed in his sacred ornaments; these and the sacrifices, however, do not restrain the wrath of God, but prayer and the appeal to the promise. That this is rather a piece of reasoning than an allegory, must be confessed by every one who is acquainted with the writers of the allegorical school. Of the