Skip to main content

Full text of "St. Paul and the church of the gentiles [microform]"

See other formats





anb tije Cijurdj 
of tje <entt(es! 





All rights reserved 

t $aul anfc tfje Ctwrcf) 
of tfie Gentile* 




Pembroke College, Cambridge, Formerly Scholar of 
Trinity College, Oxford; Hon. Canon of Ely 









at tfje ZSfntbers!tti 













Preface page ix 

Abbreviations, etc. xi 

Chapter I. The Failure of Eschatology i 

II. The Synagogue and the Gentiles 27 

III. The Divine Wisdom 55 

IV. From Omega to Alpha 90 
V. "And the Rock was Christ" in 

VI. The Life of the World to Come 125 

VII. Heresy and Orthodoxy 146 

VIII. The Pauline Epilogue 179 

IX. The Ephesian Continuator 182 


I. Greek Writers and Persian Religion 204 

II. Jewish Influences on Magical Literature 208 

III. The Mandeans 212 

IV. The Descent of the Redeemer 220 
V. Paul and "Mysteries" 227 

Indices 229 


ST PAUL'S letters are an attempt to express in terms of the theology 
of his day an ultimate fact of his experience. He was "in Christ " 
or Christ was "in him". The fact of his experience may have 
been no more than an illusion; but for him it was a matter of imme- 
diate certainty. It followed from this that nothing else mattered : even 
the venerable form of Semitic religion out of which the Pharisees were 
laboriously constructing an edifice of ethical monotheism was by 
comparison with this merely a service of weak and beggarly elements. 
It also followed that the truth could be expressed in any terms which 
served to bring home to others the truth which had been revealed to 


His writings, which are the earliest attempt to formulate a system 
of Christian theology, can only be understood if they are interpreted 
in the light of the conventional language of Hellenistic theology in 
which he expounded them to the Greek-speaking world. Otherwise 
the meaning they were intended to convey will be lost; we shall instead 
read into them a preconceived system of our own. On the other hand, 
the study of his language may seem to relegate his writings to the 
general level of the thought and religion of the world of his day, and 
so fail to do justice to the titanic force of his personal religion. I am 
acutely conscious that I have failed to do justice to the difference in 
quality between primitive Christianity, as it finds expression in St Paul, 
and the creeds and cults of his contemporaries. But it is impossible 
to do justice to the full intensity of his knowledge of God in Christ 
Jesus ; his own Epistles convey the fullness of his faith more adequately 
than any paraphrase can hope to do. But it is only in relation to the 
world of thought in which he lived and preached that we can under- 
stand his Epistles. 

Professor E. R. Goodenough's By Light, Light did not come into my 
hands until this book had almost reached its final shape. It will be 
obvious to anyone who has read his work and passes from it to the 
present book that we differ entirely as to the whole meaning of Philo's 
work and view of life. I am quite clear that his attempt to read a 
Light-mystery" religion into Philo's writings entirely misconceives 
the whole aim of Philo's work. He writes of the "passionate desire 
of the Hellenistic man to experience emotionally the concepts he has 
learned from Greek rationalism". The opposite seems to me to be the 
case; the passionate desire of the Hellenistic man, in so far as he cared 
for these things, was to find a philosophic basis which would justify him 
m continuing to practise the form of religion which attracted him or 


which he had inherited. Chrysippus had shown how this could be 
done: but often the "passionate desire" was little more than a mild 
interest in such things. Philo's object was to justify Judaism in terms 
of contemporary thought, and to read into it as much of the conven- 
tional theology of the Hellenistic world as he could drag in by hook 
or by crook. His desire was partly due to the need of countering anti- 
Semitic propaganda; but it was enhanced by the fact that Judaism was 
far more of a missionary religion than most contemporary cults. The 
fact that Philo in the closing sections of De Mund. Op. 61 (170 seqq., 
M. i. 41) summarises the value of a cosmogony which is based on the 
Timaeus and Posidonius in terms of purely conventional Judaism 
which ignores alike the Logos and the divine pattern, seems a decisive 
proof that he did not really care about it ; in the same way his ' ' powers ' ' 
are merely the Stoic manifestations of the one God in the figures of 
pagan religion; if rabbinical Judaism accepted them so easily as 
" attributes" of God, there was no reason why Philo should not do the 
same (cf. below, p. 50, for the origin of the idea). I am happy to find 
myself entirely in agreement with Professor A. D. Nock's review in 
Gnomon 13. 3. 156 seqq. (March 1937) on this point. I have refrained 
from detailed controversy, which would extend this book to an 
unconscionable length. 

My thanks are due to Mr H. M. Loewe, Reader in Rabbinics in the 
University of Cambridge, for his assistance in the study of the Hebrew 
language and the literature of Judaism; my debt to him is so large that 
I shall not attempt to express it. Naturally I am alone responsible 
for any inferences I may have drawn from that literature. To Professor 
A. D. Nock of Harvard University I owe my deepest thanks for his 
unfailing kindness in helping me, whether in conversation or by 
correspondence. The references in the index to his published works 
represent a very small fraction of what I have learnt from him. I can 
only hope that he will forgive me if at any point I have put forward 
as my own suggestions which I have borrowed from him without 
remembering that I have borrowed them. 

It was my privilege to attend the late Professor Burkitt's Seminar 
during the last year of his life; to sit at the feet of so great a teacher 
even for so short a time was an education in itself. Since then his 
work has been continued by Professor Dodd; to him and to the mem- 
bers of the Seminar my thanks are due for all I have learnt from them. 


November 1938 


Ap. and Ps. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. 


Apocr. N.T. The Apocryphal New Testament, translated byM. R. James. 
Conversion. Conversion, by A. D. Nock. 
Dox. Gr. Doxographi Graeci, ed. H. Diels. 
E.R.E. Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 
G.J.V. Geschichte des jildischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christ, by E. 


H.Z.N.T. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. H. Lietzmann. 
J.T.S. Journal of Theological Studies. 
Judaism. Judaism, by G. Foot Moore. 
Kyrios. Kyrios als Gottesname, by Graf W. von Baudissin. 
Orpheus. Orpheus and Greek Religion, by W. K. C. Guthrie. 
Papp. Mag. Gr. Papyri Magicae Graecae, ed. Preisendanz. 
Rel. Or. Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain, by F. Cumont 

(4th ed. 1929). 
Str.-B. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, by 

H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck. 

T.W.Z.N.T. Theologische Wdrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel. 
Urspr. u. Anf. Ursprung und Anfange des Christenthums, by E. Meyer, 
v. Arn. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. Hans von Arnim. 
Voc. Gr. N.T. Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, by Moulton and 

References to Philo are given with initials (or abbreviations) of the titles 
in Cohn-Wendland's edition ; the number of the paragraph is given after the 
titles, followed in brackets by the number of the section in Cohn-Wendland 
and the volume and page of Mangey's text. 

References to Josephus are given by the book, chapter and paragraph of 
the conventional text, followed by the number of the section in Niese. 

References to Origen are taken from the edition of Lommatzsch. 

References to Mandean documents are given from Lidzbarski's trans- 
lation, the number of the chapter or section being followed by the page and 
line of his version. 

In a few passages I have referred to my earlier book St Paul and the 
Church of Jerusalem, described as Jerusalem. 



THE meeting between Paul and the philosophers of Athens on the 
Areopagus revealed the limitations of fhe apocalyptic version of 
Christianity which he had been content to accept from the 
Church of Palestine. The meeting was apparently an accident, 1 the result 
of Paul's inability to keep silence in a city of such intense and misguided 
piety, and the publicity which the arrival of a new variety of teaching 
attracted in a city so given over to curiosity. Paul's speech began with 
the commonplaces by which Hellenistic Judaism sought to establish 
the unity of God ; they were acceptable enough; for they were largely 
borrowed from conventional philosophy, though they were scarcely 
novel or interesting. 2 But these commonplaces were quite inconsistent 
with the belief that the world could come tjo ah end. An end of the 
world presented no difficulty to the followers of Epicurus; the world 
was the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, and there was no 
reason why the atoms should not at any moment fly asunder. 3 But to 
the godless believers in atoms the rest of Paul's speech was merely a 
borrowing of fragments of the absurd theistic philosophies which they 
had long since rejected. 

Stoics went further than other schools of philosophy in the direction 
of admitting the possibility of an end of the world. According to the 
strict view of the Stoa the world was governed by a divine principle of 
intelligent fire, permeating the whole, and passing by degrees from its 
nature of fire into the other elements of 1}he cosmos. In immense 
periods of time it must return again to its nature of pure fire. Thus at 

1 Acts 17. 1 6 seqq. seems to imply that Paul had no intention of preaching there. 
Meyer's suggestion (Urspr. u. Anf. 3. 90) that he had any serious intention of con- 
quering the Greek world for Christianity is hardly probable; he was not really 
concerned with philosophy. The "affliction" of i Thess. 3. 7 may of course refer 
to his failure at Athens; but it may refer to some unknown incident. It is not 
easy to reconcile Meyer's view here with the statement (3. 309 n. z) : "Athens, as is 
well known, from Sulla to Hadrian was quite unimportant (lag ganz darnieder) and 
was only of consideration as a place of study for strangers, especially Romans." 

2 For the speech cf. Jos. c. Ap. z. zz (190), the prologue to Or. Sib. (Fr. i. 1-9, 
Ap. and Ps. z. 377), Wisd. 13. 3 seqq., Philo, De Sped Legg. i (De Sacr.), 3 (271, M. 
2- 253), ib. (De Man.) i (16 seqq., M. 2. 214), De Virt.\ (De Poen.), z (183, M. 2. 
406), De Sacr. Ab. et Cain, 18 (67, M. i. 175), De COM/J Ling. 27 (136, M. i. 425). 
For the quotation from Aratus cf. pp. 26 and 90. 

8 Placita 2. 4. 6 and 10 (Dox. Gr. 331). 



the end of recurring periods all things returned to a state of incande- 
scenee_and the process then began once more. 1 The soul of man, being 
a spark of that divine fire, might indeed retain its conscious existence 
until the next of these conflagrations; survival beyond that date was 
impossible, while it was uncertain whether that measure of survival 
was proper to man as such or only to the wise. 2 Later developments 
of Stoicism allowed a larger measure of transcendence to God, 
recognising that the divine fire or reason was concentrated as a domi- 
nant element in the firmament; 3 they were therefore able to allow a 
greater transcendence to the principle of reason in man, which beside 
being diffused through the whole body was also particularly con- 
centrated as a dominant element in the heart (which was regarded by 
most Stoics as the seat of reason rather than the head). This tradition 
allowed both for the real transcendence of God and for the immor- 
tality of the soul ; but came no nearer to believing in the possibility 
of an end of the world. Panaetius had even expressed doubts as to the 
return of all things to the state of fire at the suitable periods of 
time. 4 

But the Stoicism of Paul's age had no doubts on this point. It was 
faced with the task of reconciling philosophy and religion with science 
in the form of astrology. To those acquainted with the teachings of 
astrology there could be no question of the end of the world. The end 
of each Great Year must witness the return of the stars to their 
original positions at the first moment of creation, and this for the 
Stoics simply meant that all things must return to their original state 
of fire ; science had proved that Panaetius' doubts were unfounded. 
From this state the world must proceed to an exact repetition of all the 
events of every preceding cycle; whatever the length of each cycle of 
the Great Year might be, there could be no doubt that it must witness 
a precisely identical procession of the heavenly bodies through their 
courses, and therefore a precise repetition of the events of all its pre- 
decessors. The fate of man throughout all the ages must be an infinite 

1 For the strictly physicist view as laid down by Heraclitus (Diog. Laert. 9. 8) and 
carried on by the earlier Stoa cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 142 and 156; Placita i. 7. 33 (Dox. 
Gr. 305). 

2 Diog. Laert. 7. 157 for the difference between Cleanthes and Chrysippus on this 
point; Placita 4. 7. 3 (Dox. Gr. 393). 

3 Diog. Laert. 7. 147 and 159; Ar. Did. Epit. 29. 7 (Dox. Gr. 465) and Placita 4. 
4. 4 (ib. 390). Cf. Cicero, DeNat.Deor. 2. 11.29 seqq. Bevan (Stoics and Sceptics 43) 
traces the doctrine back to Zeno. It certainly is true that the later Stoics made this 
distinction, but it seems doubtful how far Zeno allowed this measure of transcend- 
ence to God and how far he was forced at times to use it by the difficulty of expressing 
a pantheistic system in language drawn from a tradition of theistic religion. 

4 Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 46. 118; cf. 2. 33. 85; Diog. Laert. 7. 142. 


series of identical details. 1 The Stoics, though they might be falsely 
charged with believing in the end of the world in virtue of their 
doctrine of periodical returns to the original state of fire, 2 were less 
able than any other school of philosophy to believe in its final termi- 
nation. Even if the latest development of Stoicism had forsaken 
the strict demands of its own logic so far as to allow for some real 
measure of immortality to the best and wisest of mankind, the privilege 
was normally reserved for a select few. 3 Thus the conception of a 
general resurrection at the end of the world was ridiculous and 
impious; it is possible that some of the audience were sufficiently 
familiar with Oriental beliefs to know that something of the kind was 
to be found in the religion of Persia ; Paul's Gospel may have seemed a 
variation of that contemptible and barbarous religion, as indeed it was 
in so far as Judaism was indebted to Zoroastrianism for a large measure 
of its eschatology . 4 The final verse of his speech as recorded in the Acts 
(17. 31) could only arouse the ridicule of the philosophers of Athens. 
There had indeed been a period, nearly a century before Paul 
addressed the Areopagus, when apocalyptic hopes had been widely 
entertained in the Hellenistic world. They may indeed, like the hopes 
of Judaism, have drawn their ultimate inspiration from the religions 
of Babylonia and Persia. But they had been amalgamated with beliefs 
of an entirely different character and drawn from sources whose 
contact with the East, if any such existed, lay far back in history. The 
belief in successions of world-ages lay behind Heraclitus and Hesiod ; 
the latter's conception had become part of the permanent stock of 
Greek culture, while the former's series of world-ages beginning and 
ending in fire would appear to have been necessitated by the fact that 
the other elements had already been adopted by his predecessors. 5 

1 For these cycles cf. Ar. Did. Epit. 37 ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 15. g. i (Dox. Gr. 469) ; 
Philo, De Act. Mund. 3 (8, M. z. 489) ; Chrysippus ap. Lact. Div. Inst. 7. 23 ; Philo, 
De Cher. 32 (114, M. i. 159) (here Philo has incorporated a fragment implying 
reincarnation in successive world-periods, a view which he certainly does not hold) ; 
Orig. c. Cels. 5. 20. 

z Philo, De Aet. Mund. loc. cit. and passim. I find it difficult to believe, in spite of 
Cumont, that Philo could really commit himself so completely not merely to 
abandoning belief in the end of the world, but actually to polemising against it. Cf. 
Diels, Dox. Gr. intr. p. 107.* The interest of the author in Judaism can be paralleled 
from Hecataeus ap. Diod. Sic. 40. 3 and Varro ap. Aug. De Consens. Evang. i. 30 
(xxii) ; see also below, pp. 45 seqq. 

3 See below, p. 75. 

4 For the Iranian influence on the origin and development of the eschatology of 
the O.T. cf. Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 578 seqq. ; Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 58 seqq. 
For the general Greek opinion of Persian religion see Note I. 

6 Water by Thales and air by Anaximenes. Earth could not be used for the 
purpose, since this would have involved a relapse into mere mythology, cf. Wilamo- 
witz-Mollendorff, Glaube der Hellenen i. 204. 



Its adoption by the Stoics gave it an enormously increased importance ; 
but by 50 B.C. it was tending to be syncretised with one which was in 
nature and origin entirely different. In the Timaeus, the bible of 
Hellenistic cosmogony, Plato held that at long intervals, as a result of 
planetary disturbances, cosmic catastrophes are fated to occur on a 
vast scale. 1 Elsewhere we learn that these catastrophes are the not 
unnatural effect of the reversing of the courses of the heavenly bodies. 2 
The source of the scheme appears to be Plato's imagination assisted 
by the statement of Hecataeus that the Egyptian priests had preserved 
records of four such changes in the past 11,340 years. 3 The belief 
had many advantages; it harmonised with the old belief in a series of 
world-ages 4 and with the remains of the older Minoan civilisations, 
which could hardly be fitted into the scheme of classical mythology 
and history; it also explained how barbarians in Egypt and elsewhere 
appeared to possess a civilisation more ancient than Hellas. 

The scheme was even more attractive to exponents of Eastern 
religions who could claim an older and truer account of one such 
cosmic catastrophe, the great deluge. When Berossus came from 
Babylon and introduced the history and astrology of his countrymen 
to the Greeks, he was entirely ready to accept the probability of a 
cosmic conflagration to counterbalance the historical deluge, though 
he corrected the astronomical conceptions of Plato and the Egyptians; 
the deluge had occurred when all the planets stood in line in the sign 
of Capricorn, the conflagration would occur when they reached a 
similar position in Cancer. 5 His influence led the later Stoics to modify 
their original belief in periodical conflagrations of a strictly physical 
character by the inclusion of deluges ; in any case the influence of the 
Timaeus in the Alexandrine period might have produced the same 
effect without his assistance. 6 After all there was no reason why the 
period furthest from the conflagration should not be marked by an 

1 Timaeus 22 d. For the Great Year see 39 d. 

2 Politicus 269 a seqq. How far Plato was influenced by Babylonian astrology is 
a matter on which I offer no opinion. 

3 Ap. Herodotus 2. 142. 

4 For the Hesiodic scheme (Works and Days 109 seqq.) as an attempt to fit the 
old beliefs as to the souls of the dead into the Homeric view of the Gods and of 
history cf. Rohde, Psyche 67 seqq. (Eng. tr. 1925). Reitzenstein and Schader, Studien 
mum Antiken Syncretismus 57 seqq., find an Iranian origin for Hesiod. 

6 Seneca Af.Q. 3. 29. i. Cf. Censorinus (De Die Nat . 18. n), where the "winter" 
of the Great Year is marked by a deluge, its " summer " by a conflagration. It appears 
that there is no evidence of the latter doctrine in the Babylonian sources (Clemen, 
Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des N.T. 147 ; cf. Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 573) : 
the Jewish parallels suggest that he invented it in order to win acceptance in 
philosophical circles. 

6 Cf. Seneca, loc. cit. and Dio Chrys. 36. 42 seqq. (v. Arn. 2. 178). 


excess of water. The latest development of Stoic philosophy of the 
first century B.C. even abandoned the supposedly Babylonian scheme 
so far as to dissociate the periods of world-catastrophes from the 
Great Year, leaving the Great Year to be inaugurated by some other 
suitable event of a portentous character both in heaven and earth. 1 
The belief in this form had the advantage of avoiding the destruction 
of all mankind at the end of each world-period : the individual could 
hope to survive into the new era. 2 

The cosmogony of Judaism was a variant of the Babylonian, and 
Hellenistic Judaism was quite as ready as Berossus to adapt it to the 
Platonic view of world-catastrophes. The end of the world, an awkward 
legacy from the tradition of the Scriptures, could easily be reduced to 
insignificance or omitted entirely. 3 This had been found necessary 
long before Paul excited the ridicule of the Areopagus. On the other 
hand, world-catastrophes could be employed to enhance the credit of 
Moses. Not only had he recorded the true story of the deluge, in 
which he was confirmed by many heathen writers; 4 he had also 
recorded a great conflagration. If any one doubted this story he could 
easily be convinced by a visit to the Dead Sea, where the traces of 
that disaster were plainly visible. 6 Further, the story confirmed the 
modernity of Greek history and so enhanced the prestige and antiquity 
of Moses. 6 It could even be claimed that the wise man who had 

1 In Cicero, De Rep. 6. 21. 23 and 22. 24. (Somn. Scip.), while we have cosmic 
catastrophes at fixed periods, as in the Timaeus, the end of the Great Year is marked 
by portentous events in heaven and earth (the last Great Year was marked by the 
eclipse at the death of Romulus) ; it is not marked, at any rate necessarily, by a 
cosmic catastrophe. Presumably this is Posidonius. Cf. p. 93. 

a Seneca however, following Berossus, believes in catastrophes by flood and fire 
which annihilate mankind (loc. cit. 5). 

3 Note the insignificance of the judgment of the world in the Wisdom of Solomon. 
Philo ignores it or positively controverts it, if he is the author of the De Aet. Mimd. 
(see above, p. 3, n. 2). 

4 Philo, De Vit. Mays. 2. 10 (53 seqq., M. 2. 142), with the technical Stoic term 
Tra\iyyevecria; cf. De Aet. Mund. 3 (9, M. 2. 489); Wisd. 10. 4. For the remains of 
the ark cf. Jos. Antt. 1.3.6 (93) following Berossus ; another proof of the truth of the 
Bible seems to be implied in Philo's statement that Noah means "righteous" (Leg. 
Alleg. 3. 24 (77, M. i. 102)) ; there seems no excuse for this, since Gen. 6. 9 does not 
imply that the name means " righteous ". But Sydyk, the Phoenician deity of Sanchu- 
niathon ap. Philo of Byblus (Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 10. 10), means "righteous"; he is also 
the father of the Dioscuri, Cabeiri, Corybants and Samothracians (sic), who were 
the inventors of ships. I suspect that Philo has incorporated a tradition of Judaism 
which explained that Sydyk and his sons were a Gentile perversion of the true story 
of Noah and his sons in the ark. lf ,\ ., 

B Philo, De Vit. Mays. loc. cit. 56; Wisd. 10.^; Jos. B.J. 4. 8. 4 (484). For the 
two catastrophes by water and fire, cf. Ad. et Ev. 50 (Ap, and Ps. z. 152; cf. Wells' 
note ad loc.). Celsus treats the Jewish-Christian last judgment as a misunderstanding 
of such cosmic disasters (Orig. c. Cels. 4. n); for a similar view of Zoroastrianism, 
cf. p. 207. 

Jos. c. Ap. i. 2 (9 seqq.); cf. p. 36. 


survived the conflagration had behaved as Chrysippus had pointed out 
that he would be compelled to act, if he and his family were the sole 
survivors of such a catastrophe. 1 The scheme could of course be 
combined with the orthodox eschatology; all previous catastrophes 
could be regarded as rehearsals for the one great event, which was yet 
to come. 2 It was normally, however, substituted for the end of the 
world, where Judaism was in sufficiently close touch with Greek 
thought to feel the difficulty of the biblical tradition. 

Such catastrophes again could be fitted into the scheme of eschato- 
logy which regarded history as consisting of a fixed number of world- 
periods. The Iranian tradition believed in four such periods, while the 
classical tradition of Hesiod believed in five. 3 But the Iranian tradi- 
tion, at any rate as described by Theopompus, 4 believed in periods of 
3000 years, one of which covered the reign of Ahriman and one the age 
of conflict. Babylonian tradition as recorded by Berossus recognised 
two Great Years, one of 600 and one of 3600 ordinary years. 5 Both 
were calculated to suggest to Judaism the belief that the duration of 
the world consisted of six ages, a view which corresponded admirably 
with the Jewish predilection for the number seven. It was popular in 
Hellenistic circles, since it corresponded with, the value attached by 
Pythagoras to the number_.sey.en, the seven ages of man and the 
seven planets; to Judaism these were all imitations or else mystical 
types of the sabbath^ It was obvious that there ought to be six ages 
of the world, to precede the eternal sabbath of God; 7 the view was 

1 For Chrysippus cf. Orig. c. Cels. 4. 45 and the parallel versions given in v. Arn. 
Stoic. Vet. Fr. 3.185. For the rabbinical interpretation of the story of Lot's daughters 
by their belief that they were the sole survivors cf. Gen. R. 49. 8. Clem. Recog. i. 32 
modifies the tradition by making the intercession of Abraham avert the world- 

2 z Pet. 2. 5 seqq., and cf. the Hellenisation in Lk. 17. 26-28 of the logion of Mt. 24. 37. 

3 Loc. cit. p. 4, n. 4 above. For the Iranian belief cf. Lommel, Die Religion Zara- 
thustras 139 seqq. 

4 See note on Greek writers and Persian Religion, p. 204. It may perhaps be 
pointed out here that for the Hellenistic age it is more important to know what 
Theopompus and Greek opinion thought than what Zoroaster really believed. 
Cf. also Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 578. 

6 Syncellus 173 ap. Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. 498. 4; Jos. Ant. i. 3. 9 (106). 

6 Cf. Philo passim. In De Mund. Op. 30 (89, M. i. 21 seqq.) all but the first two 
sentences and the last section are Hellenistic ; the sabbath alone is a Jewish addition. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. 16. 145 (815 P) mentions a book on the subject by Hermippus 
of Berytus. 

7 2 En. 33. i ; cf. the systems of Irenaeus and Augustine quoted in Ap. and Ps. 2. 
451 ad loc. Irenaeus is probably following Jewish convention rather than Enoch. 
In i En. 93. 3 we have seven "generations" represented by their leading figures, 
from Enoch to the Messiah; in 4 Esdr. 3. 4 seqq. the fall of Jerusalem represents the 
sixth age. Cf. Test. Abr. 19 (Texts and Studies 2. 2. 101); Firmicus Maternus, 
De Err. Prof. Rel. 26. 3. In Lactantius, Div. Inst. 7. 14, God's religion and truth 
labour against evil in the present sixth day as in the first day He laboured in creation ; 


also easily adapted to at least one heathen view, which accepted seven 
world-ages, one ruled by each of the planets, 1 though naturally in the 
heathen view the seven ages were repeated one after the other to all 
eternity; the -Jewish system led to an end, either after a seventh 
Messianic age or at the end of the sixth. In the later Christian tradition 
the Messianic age was essential ; there must be seven ages, of which six .' 
were occupied with the history of the world to correspond to the days 
of creation, while Christianity could not identify eternity with any- 
thing below the ogdoad, the eighth day, which was like the first day 
of the week a Sunday, and corresponded to the resurrection of the 
Lord, the first day of the new creation, as the first day of the week was 
the first day of the old. 2 Judaism and Christianity agreed in a lack 
of serious interest in astrology, while both were concerned to fit 
whatever scheme of world-ages they adopted into the framework of 
history provided by the book of Genesis. Consequently they were 
compelled to abandon the astrological Great Year, whose duration was 
in any case a matter of dispute, while there were even sceptics who 
doubted its existence. 3 For this could be substituted either periods 
of history as recorded in the Old Testament, without regard to their 
real or supposed duration, or periods of 400, 600 or 1000 years, 4 while 
the number of periods of world-history could be adjusted accordingly: 
thus twelve periods corresponded to the tribes and the signs of the 
zodiac. The duration of history itself was of a pleasing uncertainty; 
calculations of the time from Adam to Moses varied from 3859 to 
2450 years. 5 It was agreed that Adam fell on the same day as that on 

here as elsewhere Lactantius shows affinities with Zoroastrian ideas (cf. Lommel, 
Die Rel. Zarath. 143 for the conception of the true religion labouring in the world). 
Although the number seven need have nothing to do with the planets it is always 
associated with them in Hellenistic literature; for its original independence cf. 
Jastrow, Rel. Bab. et Ass. i. 282. For the antiquity of the hebdomad in Semitic 
religion cf. Jack, The Ras Shamra Tablets (O.T. Studies, no. i), p. 36. 

1 Cumont, Catal. Codd. Astr. Gr. 4, quoted by Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes 15 ; 
cf. Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Sterndeutung 158. The Mandean belief in planetary 
world-ages appears to be derived from Babylon (Bousset, Rel. des jfudenthums 575). 
Lactantius, loc. cit., ascribes a belief in seven ages of Rome to Seneca. 

a For this kind of playing with numbers cf. the way in which Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. 6. 16. 138 seqq., 8ioP) revises, without acknowledgment, the 
attempt of Aristobulus (Eus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 13) to equate Wisdom, as the precosmic 
light, with the sabbath; here Christian arithmetic fared better than Jewish. Cf. Ep. 
Barn. 15. 5, 8 and 9: the last may be taken from Aristobulus. 

3 Censorinus, De Die Nat. 18. n. The Egyptians held that it was of 1461 solar 
years; Hellenistic views varied from 2484 (Aristarchus) to 136,000 (Cassander). 

4 For millennia, cf. Ap. andPs. 2. 451, and Rev. 20. 3 ; the writer's predilection for 
hebdomads makes it fairly safe to assume that he would have accepted six periods of 
world-history before the millennial kingdom. In 4 Esdr. 7. 28 the Messianic kingdom 
lasts 400 years, while in 14. u we have twelve periods; cf. 2 Bar. 53. 5 seqq., where 
each period is a mixture of good and evil. 

B Cf. Charles' note on Ass. Mays. i. 2 in Ap. and Ps. 2. 414. 


which he was created; but it was impossible to say whether the "day" 
on which he was created was a mere human day of 24 hours or a " day 
of the Lord" of 1000 years. 1 v Even history from Moses to the writer's 
own day was not dated with any exact precision. Thus it was possible 
to have six periods of 600 years, five millennia of history with a sixth 
millennium spent by Adam in the Garden of Eden except for the last 
few minutes, or twelve of 400 without going outside the limits of Holy 
Scripture. The substitution of periods of history for exact periods of 
time naturally allowed an infinity of speculation both as regards the 
precise numbers and their mystical meanings. 2 

Thus both Jews and Christians could fit this kind of speculation 
into their systems ; Christianity, if it adhered to the popular system of 
hebdomads, was cursed with the necessity of an otiose millennial 
reign of Christ upon earth, while Judaism could always merge its 
seventh millennium into eternity; on the other hand, Christianity was 
not compelled to regard seven as the highest and best of numbers in 
virtue of its association with the sabbath. It was thus able to associate 
God with the ogdoad, the number of the zone of the fixed stars which 
was the proper home of the supreme deity who dwelt in the highest 
heaven. He was the Mind that ruled the whole, 3 just as mind was the 
ruling element in the eightfold soul of man; this remarkable corre- 
spondence between the heavens and man was a discovery admirably 
typical of the temper of the Hellenistic age-,2 Judaism, on the other 
hand, was liable to find its god identified with Saturn: 5 who could 
the "most High" God be, whom the Jew worshipped every Saturday, 
but the highest of the planets, the seventh from the earth? 

A century before Paul spoke, speculations similar to those of 
Judaism and Christianity were finding a ready welcome in the 
Mediterranean world. Persian religion may have been one of the 
influences which led mankind to look for the speedy establishment 
of an age of gold, and to associate this hope with a ruler who was 

1 Cf. Str.-B. on 2 Pet. 3. 8 for this difficult question. 

2 So Orig. In Ev. Matt. 15. 33 seqq. explains the five "hours" of Mt. 20. i seqq. 
as five world-periods, corresponding to the five senses. Clem, Alex. Strom, i. 21. 
147 (409?) explains the genealogy of Mt. i. 17 as meaning six hebdomads of 
generations. 3 Placita 4. 4. 4 (Dox. Gr. 390). 

4 The eightfold division of the soul (Placita loc. cit.) harmonises the microcosm 
with the macrocosm. The limitation of the gods to eight, the firmament and the 
planets, was as old as Xenocrates of Chalcedon (c. 300 B.C.), according to Cicero, 
De Nat. Dear. i. 13. 34, Clem. Alex. Protr. 5. 66, (58 P), both from a doxographic 
collection (Diels, Dox. Gr. 130 and 540). 

8 Tac. Hist. 5. 4 assumes that the God of the Jews is Saturn and mentions the 
position of Saturn as the highest, and therefore the object of Jewish worship. A 
further reason lay in the equation of the God of the Jews with the El-Cronos of 
Phoenician religion (Philo of Byblus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 10. 16). 


an earthly king and yet at the same time a saviour sent from heaven; 
it is not entirely certain whether the belief of the later Avestas that the 
final saviour is both a son and a reincarnation of Zoroaster had ap- 
peared before Sassanid times. 1 But whatever their origin may have 
been, hopes of this kind had appeared in different parts of the world 
whenever intolerable conditions led men to hope for a miraculous 
deliverance, or when it seemed politic to regard the sudden emergence 
of a new ruler as the realisation of the best hopes of the past. Egyptian 
literature had described the triumphs of the rulers of the land in 
remote ages in language of a thoroughly Messianic type. "He shall 
make himself a name for all eternity . . . the Asiatics shall fall before 
his carnage and the Libyans before his flame. Right shall come again 
into its place and iniquity is cast forth." 2 Thus Egypt had a native 
tradition of apocalyptic; it will be seen shortly that it was revived in 
the Hellenistic age. Judaism was in close contact with the Gentile 
world from the time of Alexander onwards; and during this period 
it was transforming the hope of a prosperous reign for the latest king 
of the house of David, described in the language of court-poetry, into 
the faith that the judge of all the earth would vindicate His will and 
His power to uphold the right, by the establishment of a golden age 
on earth under a more or less divine ruler of a Messianic age. It is 
not clear how far the development was spontaneous, and again it is 
possible that language which appears to reflect the newer develop- 
ments of the Messianic hope may really express a quite primitive belief 
in the divinity of the king. In any case contact with Judaism was 
quite probably a contributory factor in the development of apocalyptic 
hopes in the Gentile world. On the other hand, while it is clear that 
the main stimulus to Judaism came from its contact with Persia, early 
Jewish literature contained much material which could be interpreted 
as justifying such hopes. 3 
Yet another element in the development of apocalyptic came from 

1 Lommel, op. cit. 205 seqq. 

2 From the "prophecy of Neferrohu", apparently glorifying the recent triumph 
of Amenemhet (c. 1995-1960 B.C.) (Blackman, Literature of the Ancient Egyptians 

3 Thus Briggs (Int. Crit. Comm. the Psalms) dates Ps. 2 before the exile and 
includes v. 7 as authentic; Ps. 45 to Jehu, but w. 7-83 as a gloss "later than the 
Ps., and its Messianic interpretation was later still"; Ps. 72 is a prayer on the 
accession of a king, w. 8-12 later Messianic additions; Ps. no is a Messianic 
Psalm, earlier than Ps. 2 and embodying a belief in the priestly character of the 
Davidic monarch. See notes ad loc. These views are all liable to dispute, but there 
seems no reason to doubt the possibility that what was originally court-poetry 
became, either by interpretation or by interpolation, Messianic Psalmody. The fact 
that this type of literature was current would assist an independent development of 
the Messianic ideal, even if the first stimulus came from outside. 


the Hellenic world itself. The tragedy of the Peloponnesian War had 
led to the first deification of a man, when the people of Samos bestowed 
divine honours on Lysander in his lifetime: 1 it is possible that the 
Greek practice rested on a misunderstanding of the ceremonial of the 
court of the Great King. 2 The career of Alexander could scarcely fail 
to impress his contemporaries with the belief that he was more than 
man. The period of the wars of his successors and the growth of the 
power of Rome, culminating in the conquest of the Hellenistic world 
and the final agonies of the Republic, produced a state of chaos which 
not only convinced the world that its destinies were largely ruled by 
an inevitable fate, 3 but also made it ready to offer divine honours 
to any saviour who seemed able to offer some deliverance from the 
evils of the present situation. The .old city life, in which the individual 
had at least some control over his own affairs, was at the mercy of 
strange rulers of whom he had hardly heard, and the old local city-gods 
seemed powerless to help in a hostile universe. 4 The only hope of 
mankind lay in a God who should prove his power to deliver. 5 The 
Eastern cults, which later invaded the Western world, only gradually 
made their way into the West, offering a faith which satisfied man's 
desire for religion in this world and immortality hereafter; the 
Ptolemaic cult of Isis and Sarapis was the first to make itself felt. This 
was an Egyptian cult artificially Hellenised to serve as a bond of union 
between the Greek and Egyptian subjects of Ptolemy I. 6 The cults of 
Asia were later to follow those of Egypt, adapting themselves to their 
surroundings as they moved Westwards ; Attis offered salvation to his 
initiates in perfect iambic trimeters, while the ancient cults of Greece 
retained their primitive language and their primitive methods of 
versification. 7 They, and some of the ancient Greek mysteries which 

1 Plutarch (Lysander 18. 443 b), quoting Duris (c. 300 B.C.). Cf. Nilsson, 
Griechische Feste, 49. 

2 Bevan (E.R.E. 4. 526, Art. "Deification") holds that the Greeks invented the 
practice and handed it on to the East. But Theopompus' story of Nicostratus of 
Argos, who set a special table for the Sa/jucov of the Great King in imitation of the 
Persian court (ap. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6. 60. 2523), and the story of Themi- 
stocles in Plutarch (Themistocles 27. 125 c) suggest that Persian court practice may 
have led to Greek deifications. 

3 See below, pp. 63 seqq. 

4 The change has been often described ; cf. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics 98 ; Nock, 
Conversion 99 ; Murray, Four Centuries of Greek Religion u i . For the effect of the 
amalgamation of clans and townships in ancient Babylonia in changing social into 
personal religion cf. Kyrios 2. 48. 

6 For the development of the god of a social unit into a personal deliverer cf. 
Kyrios 3. 343 seqq., with special reference to Marduk. 

Nock, Conversion 38; cf. Cumont, Rel. Or. 69; UPZ 83. 

7 Cf. Firmicus Maternus, De Err. Prof. Rel. 22. i, where the verses Bappeire, 

V deov creo'axrp.fvoi, eorai yap vpiv eic irovaiv (rairrjpia from the rites of Attis 


regained their prosperity during this age, met the needs of the time 
by offering security from all the perils of life by land and sea, and 
everlasting life in the future; 1 the Cabeiri of Samothrace, with an 
extraordinary disregard for the highest teachings of philosophy, even 
went so far as to offer grace to achieve that moral dignity which man 
ought to attain by his unaided efforts. 2 

The last offer, however, was one which appealed only to the super- 
stitious. The ordinary man asked primarily for deliverance from perils 
in this life and was perfectly ready to render divine honours to those 
who were able to offer it, and willing to do so if sufficiently flattered ; 
the later Diadochi were deified as a matter of course, the Ptolemies 
inheriting the traditional godhead of the kings of Egypt. The honour 
of such deification, with the title of "saviour" and "Epiphanes", was 
bestowed with a freedom calculated to render it meaningless, as an 
expression of any religious sentiment. 3 

(Reitzenstein, Hell. Myst. ~Rel. (3), 400) show the adaptation of the commonplaces 
of Hellenistic religion to the versification of the classical drama. Real Greek religion 
was still at the stage of evoi SiKepcas o~ip,op(pe (Firmicus Maternus, 21. z). Cf. the 
liturgy of the Curetes in Harrison, Themis 7 ; it seems that this extremely primitive 
liturgy was still being used in the third century A.D. ; for a less daring interpretation 
cf. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenean Religion 475 seqq. 

1 For such "deliverances" cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2. 39. 139, Isis and 
Sarapis are helpers of those in the utmost danger; Diod. Sic. i. 25. 3 for "epi- 
phanies" of Isis as "helper" and "benefactor"; cf. Juv. Sat. 6. 531 for the promi- 
nence of dreams in Egyptian religion, and such a vision of the god Mandulis is 
discussed by Nock in Harvard Theological Review 27. i. 53 seqq. Meyer, Urspr. u. 
Anf. 3. 391, regards " salvation" as a concept primarily derived from a more or less 
monotheistic conception of " God" attaching itself to particular gods as "saviours". 
It must however be noticed that particular gods were worshipped as " saviours" in 
classical Greece, though with reference to "salvation" from specific disasters; the 
thought of " salvation " in general could easily be attached to the power of particular 
gods to save from shipwreck or similar disasters. The temple of Zeus Soter at 
Troezen was said to have been built by Aetius ; and he was a grandson of Poseidon 
(Pausanias, Descr. Or. 2. 31. 10). 

a Diod. Sic. 5. 49. 6; this can hardly be due to the Phoenician origin of the cult 
(Bloch ap. Roscher, Lexikon, s.v. p.eyd\oi deal, doubted by Baudissin, Kyrios 3. 76), 
since the cult had been Hellenised long before. Greek religion demanded holiness ; 
it did not provide means of attaining it?. Cf. Plut. De Stoic. Rep. 31. io48d. Polybius, 
10. 5. 5, resents the view that P. Scipio Africanus owed his victories to the gods, whom 
he relegates in 37. 9. 2 to the control of natural phenomena. Livy, 26. 19, records 
his habit of meditating on the day's business in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, 
but ascribes it to his love of surrounding himself with mystery. Celsus ap. Orig. 
c. Cels. 3. 59 condemns Christianity for offering salvation to the wicked; Plato 
recognises prayer for knowledge as right (Timaeus 270), but on the ground that it is 
perilous to embark on a cosmogony owing to the danger of offending the gods. The 
nearest parallel seems to be Epict. Diss. 3. 21. 15. 

3 Cf. the freedom with which Polybius describes men as " saviours ", e.g. 18. 46. 12. 
He ridicules Prusias of Bithynia for addressing the Senate ^ai'pere deal KOI a-corJjpey, but 
it is only a slight extension of popular practice (30. 19. 5). In Dion. Halic. Antt. Rom. 
10. 46, a cohort after winning an unexpected victory in a forlorn hope greets its com- 
mander as irca-epa KOI <ro>rr;pa (cat Qeov. This is of course ludicrous as history of ancient 
Rome, but presumably reasonable as Hellenistic practice; cf. Lucan, Phars. 6. 253. 


It was in these conditions that the apocalyptic hope of a deliverer 
who should appear and establish an age of gold made its way into the 
Western world. In Egypt the fourth century B.C. was marked by the 
successful rebellion against Persia, to be followed by a fresh subjuga- 
tion and the conquest of the land by Alexander the Great. This 
left a legacy of apocalyptic hopes, possibly even the tradition that 
Nectanebos II would one day return as a saviour, rex quondam, rexque 
futurus. A later specimen of such hopes, known as the "Potter's 
Oracle", foretells the coming of a hateful king from Syria, who is to 
be a madman; the document thus dates itself to the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. 1 In spite of its wretched workmanship the oracle, which is 
the "burden" of Alexandria, is quite in keeping with the style of the 
Old Testament when denouncing the doom of the great cities which 
oppressed Israel. It is distinctly stronger in its denunciation of the 
present and its threats of doom than in its forecast of future blessings ; 
but this is a failing shared by greater prophets. The city by the sea 
(Alexandria) will become a place for fishermen to dry their nets (cf. 
Ezek. 26. 5), because the 'Ayados Aaijutoj/ and Cnephhave gone thence 
to Memphis, so that they who go by will say: "Was this the city that 
nourished all men (cf. Lam. 2. 15), wherein every race of men was 
made to dwell? Then shall Egypt be increased when the benevolent 
king, of fifty-five years of age, shall come from the sun, being appointed 
as the giver of good things by the great goddess Isis ; so that men shall 
pray that the dead might rise again to partake in such good things." 2 
The reminiscences of the Old Testament are interesting, but it is 
very doubtful if Ezekiel and Lamentations were translated into Greek 

1 For Nectanebos cf. P.R.E. 16. n. 2237 seqq.; E. Meyer, Kleine Schriften z. 
69 seqq. (I owe this reference to Dr M. Braun of Manchester College, Oxford). 
Later Nectanebos appears as the real father of Alexander the Great in the romance 
of Pseudo-Callisthenes. The figure of the great man who is not really dead but will 
return to save the nation is a striking instance of the danger of assuming common 
sources for apocalyptic hopes. P.R.E. loc. cit. gives several instances from modern 
times. In 1916 there were many people in London who refused to believe that the 
late Lord Kitchener perished with the Hampshire, and expected him to win the war 
from Russia. 

2 The text is printed and discussed by Reitzenstein and Schader, Stud. z. Ant. 
Syncr. 40 seqq. It is also discussed by Tarn injf.R.S. 22. 2. 146. The former suggest 
Iranian influence. But their main argument, the wish that the dead might rise again, 
is inevitable in an apocalypse of a golden age on earth. Either the dead are dead, and 
it is sad that they cannot share in such blessings, or they are immortal, in which case 
the golden age on earth is unnecessary, but expresses the yearning of an evil age for 
happiness on earth. Cf. Verg. Eel. 4. 53 ; Pss. Sol. 17. 50 for a similar motif. If there 
is any Iranian influence, it must lie in the general impetus to apocalyptic, which has 
to be placed before Hesiod ; the probability of this I must leave to others to decide. 
Tarn seems to demand an undue degree of consistency in apocalyptic in distinguishing 
between the warrior-king who precedes the age of gold and the king of that age itself. 
The two are merely doublets. The king in question may be Ptolemy III. 


by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and still more doubtful whether 
they were well enough known to influence a prophecy which expresses 
the hatred of Memphis for Alexandria, i.e. the native Egyptian for the 
cosmopolitan immigrants who followed the Macedonian conquerors. 
It seems more likely that we have a common use of a conventional 
theme, the destruction of a great maritime city; if everything else is 
imagined away, the fishermen drying their nets on the shore are the 
only thing left; it corresponds to the "making into a sheep walk" of 
an inland city. 1 The amazement of those who pass by the ruins and 
taunt the fallen queen of mankind is also probably derived from a 
general apocalyptic convention of the taunting of the imperial city in 
the hour of its disaster. 2 

This feature reappears in the pagan "apocalypse" which has found 
its way into the Jewish collection of Sibylline Oracles. 3 Here Rome 
is to be cast down and her locks shaved off by her mistress; but after 
being cast down from heaven to earth, she is to be raised up again. 
Asia will enjoy peace and Europe an age of gold, marked by perfect 
weather, and fertility both of the soil and of beasts; its blessings extend 
even to the creeping things^ef the earth. Blessed is the man who shall 
live to see that day, when law, justice, concord, faith and friendship 
descend to earth from heaven and necessity, lawlessness and all evils 
flee away. The prophecy appears to date from about 33 B.C., and to 
look forward to the triumph of Antony and Cleopatra over Rome, 
whose revival after her downfall is a marked contrast to the normal 
convention, but intelligible in view of the fact that Antony in 33 B.C. 
can have had no desire for the downfall of Rome. The personified 
virtues coming down from heaven to earth show a thoroughly 
Hellenistic point of view; they are also a remarkable advance on the 
material blessings which form the stock-in-trade of apocalyptic, which 
is here replaced by the ideal world-state of Hellenistic philosophy. In 
other features however the prophecy is true to type ; Rome is drunk 
with her many-suitored weddings, as she is in the apocalyptic figure of 
the great harlot drunk with the blood of the saints. 4 The personifica- 

1 For -^fvyp-as as a drying-place for nets or anything else cf. Preisigke, WSrt. Gr. 
Pap. Urk. s.v. At Arsinoe in the second century B.C. a Jewish house of prayer 
shares a site with a ^vypus. 

2 Is. 47. i, and see below, n. 4. For Is. 47. i as referring to Rome cf. Str.-B. on 
Rev. 14. 8. 

3 Or. Sib. 3. 350 seqq. For the origin and interpretation of this apocalypse see 
Tarn, loc. cit. 135 seqq. I have ventured to disagree with one or two minor details. 

4 Rev. 17. 4 seqq. and 18. 3, which curiously enough Tarn does not notice; this 
seems more likely than his explanation that the passage is a retort to Roman scandals 
as to Cleopatra's drunkenness. The same motif appears in Is. 51. 21, Jer. 51. 7 
(Babylon), Nahum 3. 411 (Nineveh). 


tion of the city is a natural result of its identification with its goddess j 1 
the downfall of Nineveh would be regarded as the downfall of Nina- 
Ishtar, and the same sentiment would see the downfall of Ishtar in the 
downfall of Babylon. Jewish prophecy, which has alone survived, 
personifies the city, but cannot introduce the figure of the goddess, 
but there were many others who would rejoice in the overthrow of 
Babylon without feeling hampered by the scruples of Jewish mono- 
theism; the taunting of Ishtar for her many lovers could claim a 
precedent in the literature of Babylon itself. 2 The prosperity of the 
beasts, even of the creeping things of the earth, indicates that they 
have undergone a change of heart similar to that of Is. 1 1 . 8, 3 while the 
universal reign of righteousness, in a Hellenistic form, corresponds 
with that which is implied, even where it is not explicitly stated, in 
Jewish pictures of the Messianic kingdom. 4 

It is not, however, to be supposed that the picture is coloured by 
the Jewish Scriptures or even by popular Jewish beliefs. Judaism 
represents one particular line of development of the hope of a golden 
age which was felt everywhere; in one instance we can see the hopes 
of Israel coloured by those of the Hellenistic world. Philo has for the 
most part eliminated the apocalyptic element of Judaism from his 
writings ; but he cannot eliminate the warnings and promises of the 
Pentateuch. 5 But when they appear, they are entirely hellenised. 
Neglect of the hebdomad (i.e. the sabbath) results in neglecting the 
law, the salt, the libations, the altar of pity (e'Aeos), and the common 
hearth by which friendship and concord are established. Philo here is 
working on a pagan source; the altar of pity is Athenian, 6 concord 
(ojiidvota) is Stoic and the whole is reminiscent of the Orphic-Stoic 
remodelling of the Olympian religion which appears in the temenos 
of Demeter of Pergamos. 7 But after the neglect of the hebdomads has 
exhausted the soil, the deserted land will recover and produce a new 

1 Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 190 seqq. 

2 In the taunting of Ishtar in the Gilgamesh epic, 6. 42 seqq. (Gressmann, Das 
Gilgamesh-Epos 31). 

3 Cf. 2 Bar. 73. 6. Kennett, Composition of the Book of Isaiah 75, brings this 
passage down to the Hellenistic age. But this appears to represent a preconceived 
view of the date of Messianic developments in Israel. The theme is obviously part 
of a widely spread convention; it might easily originate independently out of the 
belief in a state of original innocence when men and beasts were friends ; cf. E.R.E. 
z. 704 b. 

4 E.g. Test. Lev. 18. 2; 4 Esdr. 6. 25 seqq. In any Jewish golden age the Torah 
would be supreme, unless the need for it was replaced by a complete change of 

5 De Execr. 7 (154, M. 2. 434), expounding Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 seqq. 

Pausanias, Descr. Gr. i. 17. i ; cf. Frazer's note ad loc.; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 
9. 187. . 7 Cf. Orpheus 260. 


and blameless race; for the desert, as the prophet says, will abound in 
children. Is. 54. i is here used to justify a belief which can only be 
drawn from Greek mythology. Philo passes on to a moral allegory; 
his immediate source appears to have been a midrashic exposition of 
the Pentateuch which was so coloured by Hellenistic views that it had 
not even eliminated the altar of mercy. It is rare to find Jewish 
apocalyptic drawing so largely on Greek ideas, and the ultimate source 
seems to have been literature which looked for the beginning of a 
new world-age in which the Stoic ideals of virtue would be realised, 
as in the Sibylline apocalypse of Antony and Cleopatra. 

The growth of hope in a supernatural deliverance and a new world- 
order was indeed responsible for a remarkable growth in the output 
of Sibylline literature. Ancient Greek tradition knew of one Sibyl; 
Varro is acquainted with ten. 1 The output of Jewish Sibylline Oracles 
is a proof of their popularity; Jewish propaganda would not have 
chosen this unpromising form, if it had not been suggested by the 
tastes of the Gentiles. 2 "Wars and rumours of wars" were common 
enough to lead men to look for the imminent end of a world-age, to be 
accompanied by the cosmic catastrophes of Plato 3 or the final con- 
flagration of Stoicism; 4 possibly Eastern beliefs with regard to the 
proper portents for the end of the world reinforced those which were 
already familiar to Hellenic thought. 5 Prophecies were common; but 
prophets were not confined to prophecy as a means of self-expression. 
Once at least the extremes of misery expressed their faith in prophecy 
in a form which shook the Roman world to its foundation. Eunus 
the Syrian, who led the slave- rebellion in Sicily in 134 B.C., 6 in his 
dreams and waking visions, in which the gods showed him the future, 
is true to the traditions of Semitic prophecy, as manifested by the 
servants of the Syrian goddess ; 7 it was she who had foretold that he 

1 Ap. Lact. Div. Inst. i. 6. For the Sibylline literature in general cf. Lanchester 
in Ap. and Ps, 2. 368. Cf. also Lucan, Phars. i. 564. 

2 For another apocalypse cf. Or. Sib. 3. 741-95 ; it contains the usual promises of 
peace and prosperity for the righteous of Israel and their proselytes ; there is a strong 
colouring of Isaiah. In general the oracles are more concerned to proclaim the true 
religion and to foretell the punishment of the heathen. 

3 Cf. Lucan, Phars. i. 72 seqq. Naturally here the golden age is to begin with the 
apotheosis of Nero (ib. 66). 

4 Or. Sib. 5.512 seqq., which shows no trace of being Jewish. 

6 For the Zoroastrian world-ending cf. Lommel, op. cit. 209. In the Bimdahesh 
Lommel, op. cit. 222, holds that the Zoroastrian view goes back to a primitive myth 
of a world-ending by fire. 

Diod. Sic. 34/35. 2. 5 ap. Photius 525. Diodorus describes him as a Syrian from 
Apamea ; since he would not be likely to know of his race except from his birthplace, 
it is to be presumed that he means Apamea on the Orontes. 

7 Apuleius, Metam. 8. 27 (581 seqq.) and i Kings 18. 19, where the "prophets of 
the Asherah" appear to be, like those of Baal, Syrian importations to be attributed 


would one day be a king. Even his mastery of the old conjurer's trick 
of fire-breathing is suggestive of a favourite feature of apocalyptic 
literature. 1 

But apocalyptic expectation had even found its way into official 
Roman religion. The prolonged trumpet-blast from a clear sky which 
preceded the civil war of 86 B.C. was explained by the Etruscan 
haruspices to portend a change in the state of the world. 2 For there 
were eight races of mankind, to each of which was assigned a Great 
Year. The end of one period and the beginning of the next were 
announced by a sign to show that a new race had appeared, caring for 
the gods less than its predecessor. 3 One remarkable feature of this 
account is its acceptance of a scheme of eight world-ages. A succession 
of ages should work in hebdomads, one for each of the planets, 4 
whereas a system of eight should succeed in passing out of the series of 
planetary successions into the firmament of heaven, above the decrees 
of the planets and of fate. 5 This however may be merely an echo of 
the scheme of the Timaeus [3 9 (a)] for the duration of each world-age. 
It is more striking that the Etruscans should explain the trumpet- 
blast in this way. Such blasts are part of the stock-in-trade of ancient 
portents. 6 But they have no obvious association with the change of 
world-ages, whereas in Judaism they have such an association; 
trumpets mark the accession of a king, 7 the beginning of the new year 
with the new moon of Tishri, 8 which was also the beginning of the 
sabbatical years and of the theoretical fiftieth year of the Jubilee, 
which may have been a late invention and never observed in practice, 
but was likely enough to suggest the beginning of a new series of 
world-ages after seven weeks of years were past. 9 The trumpets of the 

to Jezebel. (Cf. Allen in Hastings' DB i. 165, s.v. Astarte, where the word is 
regarded as a mistake for Ashtoreth.) The technique in Apuleius and i Kings is 
remarkably similar. 

1 4Esdr. 13. io;cf.Is. u.4and2Thess. 2. 8, based on Isaiah, for the destruction 
of the enemy by the "breath" of the Messiah, which presumably goes back to the 
same source in primitive magic. Cf. Talmud, Shabb, 88 b. For a variation of 
the trick of fire-breathing cf. Hipp. El. 4. 33 (70). 

z Diod. Sic. 38/39. 5 from Suidas and Plut. Sulla 7. 445 f. 

3 Reading dtois iJTrov TO>V irporepav /ieXovrey, which appears to reflect correctly 
the essential clerical attitude. 

4 Cf. Verg. Eel. 4. 6, Saturnia regna, for which see below, p. 18. 

6 Whether the Etruscans are correctly reported or not is a secondary question ; it 
is equally surprising that Diodorus should take such a view. 

6 Pliny, N.H. 2. 57. 148; Lydus, De Ostentis 6 (22 c), where this and similar 
trumpet-blasts are referred to as foreboding wars. 

7 i Kings i. 39; 2 Kings u. 14. 

8 Lev. 23. 23 seqq. ; Num. 29. i seqq. 

9 For the origin and meaning of the shofar cf. Finnesinger in Heb. Union College . 
Annual 8. 193 seqq. 


New Year were also associated with the giving of the Torah, which 
was a proclamation to all mankind that the great event had occurred, 
which was intended to put an end to the wars of mankind and their 
counterpart, the upheavals of nature with which God visits the 
iniquity of man. 1 Moreover, the periods of fifty-year Jubilees, how- 
ever fictitious they may have been, were prominent features in the 
calculation of the times by which the history of the world was deter- 
mined and its future duration established. 2 Thus trumpets are 
naturally associated with a new world-age as in the Jewish festival of 
Rosh-ha-Shanah. 3 Hence from the time of Zechariah they form a 
regular feature of Jewish-Christian apocalyptic. 4 But the association 
of trumpets with an apparently closed system of world-ages at Rome 
in 85 B.C., or even in the imagination of Diodorus Siculus, is sur- 
prising, since it is hard to imagine a connection between the Etruscan 
haruspices and the Jewish colony at Rome. 5 On the other hand, a 
fortuitous coincidence of this kind is somewhat unlikely. 

The years that followed the trumpet-blast were calculated to en- 
hance the belief that the end of a world-age was at hand. The opportu- 
nities of the prophets were increased by the burning of the Sibylline 
Books in the fire that destroyed the Capitol in 82 B.C. The end of the 
triumvirate produced the great masterpiece of pagan apocalyptic, the 
Fourth Eclogue of Vergil. Its preservation is to be attributed not only 
to its literary quality, but to the fact that the author was on the right 
side at the end of the Civil Wars, and that the Eclogue could at least 
be interpreted as supporting the cause of Augustus. Many of the 
problems of this much discussed poem do not concern us. 6 The old 

1 Philo, De Spec. Legg. 2 (De Sept.), 22 (189 seqq., M. 2. 295). Philo equates the 
giving of the Torah with Rosh-ha-Shanah (instead of the more usual Pentecost), 
and uses the trumpets in order to associate the giving of the Torah with a new 
world-age, which is a Hellenistic age of gold. 

2 So in the Book of Jubilees. Is this the explanation of the figures of Ass. Mays. 
i. 2 and 10. 12, where Moses dies in 2500 A.M. and there are 250 "times" till the 
coming of the Messiah? Charles in Ap. and Ps. ad loc. takes these as periods of seven 
years, quoting the Talmud (Sank. 97 b) for a similar figure. But 1750 years from the 
death of Moses to the coming of the Messiah.and a total of 4250 years or 85 jubilees 
seem pointless. I am inclined to suggest that " times " here are decads, and that we 
are intended to fix the death of Moses as half-way through the world, i.e. after 50 out 
of 100 jubilees. 

3 Cf. the Mishnah, Rosh-ha-Shanah 3. 2 seqq. (Danby 191); the same thought 
appears in Pss. Sol. n. i, Mekilta Tr. Pish. 14. 116 (ed. Lauterbach, i. 116). 

4 Zech. 9. 14, where however they may be rather a sign of God going out to war; 
see further 4 Esdr. 6. 23 ; Or. Sib. 4. 174; Mt. 24. 31 and similar N.T. passages. 

6 It is of course possible that similar speculations were attached to a similar use of 
trumpets in some other Semitic religion and that these, and not the Jewish, are the 
source of this incident. 

Tarn, loc. tit., deals with the poem and the literature, and is one of the few 
writers on it who bears in mind steadily the important point that Vergil did not know 



age is at an end, the new age of Saturn is beginning; that this is also 
an age of Apollo or the sun is due to the association of the two 
planets. 1 Pollio is called on to banish the civil wars of the age, in 
order that the child who is to be born may enter on a peaceful age in 
which he can consort with the gods and heroes who will naturally be 
more accessible in the new time. This age is then described in perfectly 
conventional language (11. 18-25); as ne grows older it will actually 
improve (11. 26-30). But there will remain some traces of the ancient 
sin of mankind, which will make it necessary for the child to repeat the 
exploits of the ancient heroes (11. 31-36). This will be followed by a 
yet more abundant provision of the natural bounties of the golden 
age. The ending of the present age is already being heralded by the 
appropriate portents: the poet hopes for a long life in the new. It 
appears that Vergil is working with a type of world-age, which 
allowed for such a hope; the catastrophes of a collapsing world do not 
involve the destruction of all mankind. 

That the child is a real child, or an expected child of two real parents, 
seems certain. 2 That, though divine, he is of human parentage need 
occasion no surprise. The heroes of old were of partly divine parentage, 
yet they were human. It was always doubtful whether they achieved 
their godhead by their exploits or their exploits by their godhead; the 
achievements of Alexander the Great had led to a belief in his divine 
descent. 3 To the first generation of Christians it seemed natural to 
ascribe the Messianic origin of Jesus to His divine origin, to His human 
exploits or to His resurrection, without any sense of inconsistency. 4 

the futurewhen he wrote ; hence he may have foretold a glorious future for a child who 
was a disappointment, or was never born. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, seems 
to me to exaggerate Iranian influences as against general apocalyptic convention. 

1 For the passage cf. Peterson, Eis Qeos too, who shows that the age of the sun, 
described by Servius ad loc. as the last, is also the first. The Saturnia regna of 
primitive Italian mythology, or what Dionysius of Halicarnassus regards as such 
(Antt. Rom. i. 36), are conflated with the age of the sun. For the connection of 
the sun and Saturn see also Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Sterndeutung 5. 

2 Tarn, loc. cit., seems to me entirely convincing in his argument for a hoped-for 
child of Antony and Octavia. 

3 Dion. Halic. Antt. Rom. i. 40, where Evander has heard (i) that it is fated that 
Heracles, (z) being the child of Zeus and Alcmena (3) is to rise above mortal nature, 
and (4) to become immortal on account of his virtue. Cf. 2. 56 for Romulus, whose 
birth and dissolution provide a good argument for those who deify the souls of great 
men. Tarn, loc. cit., doubts whether a Roman of 40 B.C. would combine both views 
as, he admits, a Greek would ; Dion. Halic. suggests that such speculations were not 
alien to a Roman audience. For Alexander's miraculous birth cf. Plut. Alexander z 
and 3 (665 b), following Eratosthenes (c. 250 B.C.). 

4 Rom. i. 4 dates the Messiahship to the Resurrection, while Gal. 4. 4 asserts a 
divine origin. Heb. 5. 7 asserts a Messiahship won by achievements, but the author 
is beginning to be influenced by tradition and inserts the saving clause, "though 
he was a Son". 


Hellenistic Judaism in the same way went as far as it could in investing 
the birth and death of Moses with a supernatural halo. 1 

The poem contains one departure from the normal convention in 
the three stages of the development of the golden age, one accom- 
panying the birth of the child, one corresponding to his growth and 
one marking the end of his exploits. These are, however, conditioned 
by the fact that the poem appears to be an epithalamium. The work 
of salvation has to be divided between the bridegroom and the off- 
spring of the marriage, though here the exploits of the bridegroom are 
transferred to Pollio, Vergil's patron, perhaps in virtue of a revision in 
the light of later events. The poet cannot underrate his patron's 
achievements, yet he must, if the child is to be human, leave him some 
exploits; it is also necessary to tide over the awkward period of his 
childhood; the apocryphal Gospels show the difficulty of describing 
the boyhood of a docetic Christ, which Jewish apocalyptic avoided by 
the convenient fiction of the Messiah's miraculous concealment at his 
birth, 2 or his ignorance of his office, until it is revealed to him at his 
anointing by Elijah. 3 Christianity was saved from the difficulty; a 
Messiah who could suffer death could have a normal childhood. The 
variations from the conventional method of establishing the golden 
age by the sudden appearance of the triumphant saviour are thus 
imposed on Vergil by his theme; the ordinary apocalyptist was too 
poor an artist to realise the difficulties. It is of course possible that 
Vergil has been influenced by some version of the Zoroaster legend, 
in which Zoroaster is followed by two "helpers" who produce a 
sudden improvement, followed by a further deterioration; it is only 
the third who brings the scheme of history to an end; 4 it is also 
possible that the curious appeal to the child to smile at his mother 
alludes to the legend that Zoroaster alone of all men laughed on the 
day of his birth. 5 But it seems unnecessary to find these allusions ; 

1 Jos. Antt. 2. g. z (205) and 3 (312); 4. 8. 48 (326). Cf. Philo.De Vit. Mays. i. 5 
(zoseqq., M. z. 83) and z (3), 39 (290, M. 2. 179). For rabbinical legends cf. 
Str.-B. on Acts 7. 22, which presupposes these legends, and Ginsburg, Legends of the 
Jews 2. 262 seqq. Presumably the original Moses-legend contained a miraculous 
birth and death which have been modified in the Scriptures and unconsciously 
revived in the legends. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 23. 153 (412 P) says that his heavenly 
name after his assumption was Melchi. (These appear to be "mystics" who know 
Hebrew.) Cf. Noah in i En. 106. 2; note that Noah here is the medium of a 

2 As in the Jewish apocalypse underlying Rev. 12. i, cf. Gunkel, Schopfung u. 
Chaos 198. 

3 Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 8. 226 b; cf. Jno. 7. 27, which implies one or other 
of the stories. 

4 Lommel, op. cit. 205 seqq. 

5 Pliny, N.H. 7. 15. 72; cf. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism 91. 



Heracles was always smiling, and Heracles was one of the inter- 
mediate beings of the saviour-type who had survived. 1 It is apparently 
as a contrast to the levity of pagan saviours that Hellenistic Judaism 
insists on the perpetual seriousness of the infant Moses. 2 

Thus it is possible but by no means certain that we have here the 
preservation of a genuine tradition of Zoroastrianism. But the figure 
of the child, or at any rate of the inaugurator of the new age, is neces- 
sary to the scheme. All things had begun (in so far as they could be 
said to have had a beginning) with an age of gold, and each world-age, 
or series of world-ages, was a precise reproduction of its predecessors. 
This was a logical necessity, for all things were determined by the 
divine reason immanent in the world, by a fate determined by the stars 
in their courses or by nature, the three phrases being different methods 
of stating the same truth. 3 Hence the end of one age must usher in the 
new, and the new must witness the primitive bliss of the kingdom of 
Saturn. It was therefore necessary that it should begin, as the first had 
begun, with a hero from whom the new race should take its origin, or 
with a leader of the new race with which mankind was to be peopled 
from heaven. Vergil indeed is quite illogical; the new race of 1. 7 is 
incompatible with the hope of survival into the new age in 1. 53, but 
we are dealing with court-poetry, not with a scientific prediction of the 
future. The reappearance of the heroes is equally necessary, for the 
heroes must repeat their former exploits, except in so far as they had 
been released by their virtue from the round of existence. 4 Indeed it 
was hardly politic to suppose in a poem addressed to the hero of a new 
world-age that he was reincarnated from a former age, since it 
suggested that he had not been worthy to make good his escape. But 
the difficulty could be avoided by supposing that he was a new hero 
sent from heaven to inaugurate "the new age. 5 Here the conflation of 
the strictly Stoic scheme of a complete restart from a state of in- 
candescence with the Timaeus and its widespread catastrophes left an 
opening both for the appearance of a new race from heaven with a new 
hero and for the survival of at least a chosen few into the new age ; the 
result was lacking in logical justification, but was comforting to the 

1 Tarn, op. cit. 156. 

2 Philo, De Vit. Mays. i. 5 (20, M. 2. 83). Moses is also so quick to learn that his 
progress seems due to fi.d6r)<ris rather than avn^vrfa-is. Since Philo does not believe 
in reincarnation, this comes perilously near to suggesting that he is of semi-divine 
origin. Ordinary souls may pre-exist as 8aip.6vta but have to learn: they do not 

3 Cf. below, p. 64. 4 Cf. p. 3. 

5 Cf. Norden, op. cit. 46 seqq., for the welcome of great men as saviours sent down 
from heaven. The practice seems to appear from the East in the first century B.C. 


feelings of all concerned ; in any case Vergil has canonised in literature 
the theme of the saviour of society who inaugurates a new world-age 
or series of world-ages. Properly the end of the series ought to be to 
deteriorate into the same state of chaos as that from which the new 
age is to be a deliverance; it is possible that the Zoroastrian tradition 
has suggested the hope that the new saviour is to inaugurate a series of 
ages which will not carry within themselves the seeds of their decay, 
but will lead to a state of eternal prosperity. It is however more 
probable that Vergil in writing court-poetry is not concerned with such 
a distant future, which it would indeed be hardly tactful to mention. 
The hope of a new age is an expression of a longing for deliverance, 
and in Vergil as in the inscriptions which hail such ages the strict 
demands of logic for a fresh degeneration are ignored. 1 

Another possible link with the religion of Persia is the figure of 
Hystaspes the "ancient king of Media" who was credited with 
prophecies of the downfall of Rome which were older than the Trojan 
war. His name suggests that the association of Zoroaster with some- 
one named Vistaspa was known; he was credited with dreams in which 
he had foretold the destruction of Rome; in the miseries of the last 
days the righteous would raise their hands in prayer to Jupiter, who 
would hear their prayer and save them, while destroying the wicked. 2 
He also foretold the destruction of the world by fire. The reference 
to Jupiter suggests, though it does not definitely prove, that the 
prophecies of "Hystaspes" were pagan and not Jewish; but Justin 
Martyr suggests that he was singled out for destruction with the 
Sibyl when Augustus suppressed inconvenient prophecies. 3 His 
prediction of the destruction of the world by fire might indicate an 
Iranian origin, but it is equally likely that he derived it from the 
common stock of apocalyptic literature; Justin Martyr, who records 
the fact, treats it as a variation of the Stoic view, 4 while the statement 

1 For an interesting variant cf. Philo, De Migr. Abr. 22 (125, M. i. 455). From 
Noah, the survivor of the Deluge, springs the race of wisdom, which produces the 
"seeing Israel", as represented by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the "measures of the 
aeon", who prove that virtue is, has been and will be. It may at times be hidden by 
the anaipiai of men, but Kaipos the servant of God will reveal it afresh. The three 
patriarchs are the heroes of the new aeon ushered in by Noah, and suggest the aeon 
made up of equal periods which recur eternally (but are naturally commuted by 
Philo into the. eternity of virtue). Cf. Reitzenstein, Erlosungs-Mysterium 176. But 
the conception is simply taken over from the general Hellenistic background. 

a Schiirer, G.J.V. 3. 592. 

3 Apol. i. 44, 82 b. The account is confused, since there seems no evidence of 
any infliction of the death-penalty on those who possessed the prophecies of the 
Sibyl or Hystaspes. It seems that Justin is referring to the destruction of prophecies 
by Augustus, for which see below, p. 24. 

4 Apol. i. 20, 66 c. 


of Lactantius that his prophecies were in the form of dreams suggests 
that "Hystaspes' " origin is to be sought not in Persia but the pages of 
Herodotus. 1 His genuine affinities with Persia may well amount to no 
more than a vague knowledge that a quite different "Hystaspes" was 
a friend of Zoroaster. It appears that his prophecies had the quality 
of other prophecies of gathering round them the floating material of 
the age; Lactantius complains that the evil spirits have cut out of 
them all reference to the sending of the Son of God ; 2 but Clement of 
Alexandria knows of a text in which the defect had been remedied long 
before the days of Lactantius. 3 Hystaspes no doubt resembled Enoch, 
Ezra and Baruch when acclimatised in Judaism and Christianity. 

The same period produced at least two variations of the literature 
of escape in the form of Utopias, in which the Golden Age is replaced 
by the Islands of the Blessed. In Diodorus Siculus we read how a 
certain lambulus was taken prisoner by the Ethiopians. 4 It was the 
custom of his captors, every 600 years (one of the varieties of the 
Great Year), to effect a purification by putting two men into a boat 
with six months' food and orders to sail southwards to the Islands of 
the Blessed ; they were threatened with the direst punishment if they 
returned. lambulus and his companion arrived at an island where the 
inhabitants, apart from various physical peculiarities, practised the 
communism of Plato's Republic; the island to which lambulus came 
was one of seven ; he was allowed to stay there seven years. The in- 
habitants practised the highest form of religion, worshipping the 
firmament, the sun and the rest of the heavenly bodies. The trees 
bear fruit all the year round; this is a feature borrowed from apoca- 
lyptic, though Diodorus appeals for support for his statement to the 
gardens of Alcinous. The numerical features of the story show its 
affinity with the apocalyptic convention, which is reinforced by a 
lively imagination and travellers' tales ; the days and nights are of equal 
length and the inhabitants have a tongue divided down the middle, so 
that they can conduct two conversations at once. Here we have a 
complete Utopia; a curious compromise between Utopian and apoca- 
lyptic survives in the sixteenth Epode of Horace, where the Islands of 
the Blessed, to which Horace proposes flight, are the refuge preserved 
by Jupiter for the righteous when he contaminated the age of gold 

1 Div. Inst. 7. 15 ; cf. Hdt. I. 209. Lactantius credits him with a prophecy of the 
fall of Rome and the end of the world : it is possible that he is the source of Tertullian, 
ad Scap, z and Apol. 32, where the duration of Rome and the saeculum are bound 
up as in the Apocalypse. Possibly this expectation underlies 2 Thess. 2. 3 seqq. It 
may reflect a fairly widespread belief dating from the last years of the Republic ; 
cf. Or. Sib. 3. 56 seqq. 

" Div. Inst. 7. 18. 3 Strom. 6. 5. 43 (762 P). * 2. 55 seqq. 


with brass, as now he has hardened it with iron, an interesting 
conflation of the Hesiodic world-ages with utopianism. 

The battle of Actium brought the vogue of apocalyptic writing to 
an end. "Peace and the principate" appeared for the moment a 
satisfactory realisation of the age of gold, and the triumph of Augustus 
was duly celebrated as the fulfilment of the hopes of mankind by those 
who had hastened to rally to the victor's cause. 1 The deification of the 
saviour of the world was the natural climax of the Messianic hopes of 
the Gentile world. Hopes of the same kind might linger on and revive 
when times were bad; 2 and the language appropriate to the appearance 
of a Saviour might be used to greet the accession of a new Emperor, 
particularly if he were the young and promising successor of an 
unpopular ruler. The accession of Caligula seemed to many to be a 
new kingdom of Saturn, and his recovery from sickness shortly after- 
wards to be comparable to the first establishment of civilisation; even 
Jews of the Dispersion, who had recently been suffering from 
Tiberius' attempt to suppress Jewish propaganda in Rome by the 
expulsion of the Jews, were prepared to make use of the language of 
the Gentiles. 3 Otherwise pagan apocalyptic came to an abrupt ending. 
Augustus celebrated the establishment of peace and the restoration of 
religion with the Ludi Saeculares of 17 'B.C. ; Horace was commissioned 
to produce a hymn which should pray for the blessings of fertility for 
mankind, for beasts and for the soil which had figured largely in the 
apocalypses of earlier decads. 4 Augustus, as the saviour of the world, 
replaced Vergil's Messianic child; if he were a somewhat prosaic 
figure, it could at least be hinted that he was a kind of representative 
of Aeneas. 5 The Sibyl herself was employed to order the celebration, 
and the third stanza to some extent suggested that the new age of the 

1 For soteriological language in the cult of the Emperor cf. Friedrich in T. W.z.N. T. 
s.v. evayyeAiov. There is an interesting blend of philosophy and apocalyptic in the 
inscription of Halicarnassus (Brit. Mus. 984, Wendland, H.z.N.T. Die Hell.-Rom. 
KultUT 410: f) dddvaros roO irdvros (puem. . .dvdpanrois e^apt'eraro Kal<rapa TOV 2e/3a<r- 
TOV, aramjpa r<3f avdpomav yevovs). For this blending cf. above, p. 13. 

2 So in Corp. Herm. Ascl. 3. 24b seqq. (Scott 341), where we have a thoroughly 
nationalist Egyptian apocalypse, dated by Scott on internal grounds at A.D. 370. It 
might contain older material, but it is interesting to find heathen apocalyptic as late 
as this. 

3 Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 2. (13, M. 2. 547) for Caligula's accession as Saturnia regna 
and ib. 3 (20, M. 2. 549) for his recovery. I have to thank Dr M. Braun of Manchester 
College, Oxford, for calling my attention to these two passages. Further parallels 
are given by Kittel in T.W.z.N.T. s.v. <uo>i/. For the expulsion of the Jews from 
Rome by Tiberius cf. Jos. Antt. 18. 3. 5 (84) and Tac. Ann. 2.85. 

* Note the fourth, fifth and eighth stanzas. For an account of the Ludi Saeculares 
cf. Warde Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People 438 seqq. 

5 He is neither exactly a " new " Aeneas nor a reincarnation of him, but stanzas 1 1 
and 1 3 hint that he is something of one kind or the other. 


sun was beginning. It was all a rather prosaic realisation of the 
yearnings of mankind, but it would scarcely have been decent to hope 
for anything further. Moreover, steps were taken to avoid the risk that 
might attach to such prophecies in the new era. Augustus collected 
all the prophecies he could find and burnt them to the number of 
two thousand. 1 Only suitable selections from the Sibyl's Oracles 
were allowed to survive. A despotism can have no liking for prophecy; 
but the measures of destruction would hardly have been successful, 
if the prophets had not been reasonably satisfied with the age of gold, 
which set in with the establishment of the empire of Augustus. Only 
in one corner of the Empire did a living tradition of apocalyptic 
survive. In Judaea Herod the Great could not be accepted as the 
fulfilment of the prophecy of a righteous king of the house of David. 
On the other hand he seems not to have troubled himself with the 
suppression of the prophets. By an interesting irony of fate the 
apocalyptic literature of Judaism owes to him its preservation from 
destruction and its further development. 

Jewish apocalyptic had assumed a full-fledged form at the time of 
the Maccabean persecution, when Judaism first came into serious 
conflict with the great Macedonian Empires. In Daniel 2 it takes a 
more definitely Oriental colour than in the Hellenistic world in general. 
The ending of the world-process and the angelic rulers of the nations 
are apparently derived from Persian religion ; yet the description of the 
resurrection of the dead seems to represent a mixture of the Semitic 
revival of the dead from the dust of the earth 3 and the Babylonian 
translation of some specially righteous souls (properly the souls of 
kings) to the firmament of heaven. 4 The authenticity of Daniel's 
message is vindicated by the marvellous manner in which he and his 
companions are rescued from utmost perils in the fiery furnace and the 
lions' den. The thought was essentially similar to the Hellenistic 
desire for gods who could vindicate their power by bringing salvation 
in the hour of peril; 5 the essential difference between the hope of 

1 Suet. Augustus 31. 

2 For the book of Daniel cf. A. A. Bevan, The Book of Daniel 1 1 seqq. 

3 Dan. 12. 2 seqq. For this as a Semitic view cf. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun 
418, where this, and the similar language of Is. 26. 19, are traced to the Semitic 
belief in a vegetation god, who dies away and rises again. The date of Is. 26. 19 is 
open to dispute ; it suggests however the possibility that the Jewish belief in a future 
life was not simply borrowed from Persia but developed out of purely Jewish beliefs ; 
the soul of the dead goes to Sheol and remains there, but in Isaiah it is miraculously 
reunited to its body, and therefore becomes once more capable of life. For Persian 
influences cf. above, p. 6. 

4 Cumont, Rel. Or. 265, n. 91 as against Reitzenstein, Poimandres 79. 
B Cf. above for "salvation" in this practical form. 


Israel and the similar hopes of their neighbours lay not in the desire 
for deliverance nor the language employed, but in the different con- 
ceptions of the nature of God and His relation to the conduct of man. 
The Exodus of Israel from Egypt had become a specimen of a divine 
act of salvation on the stage of history; the new deliverance must be 
something comparable. 1 The hope flourished in Palestine rather than 
in the Dispersion, where it died away as a serious factor with the 
establishment of the Empire. Possibly its disappearance was due in 
part to its doubtful legality. In Palestine it even seemed for a moment 
that salvation had arrived with the establishment of the Hasmonean 
monarchy. The identification of John Hyrcanus with the Messiah 
might involve the transference of the Messianic promises from the 
house of David to the house of Aaron, but that was a small matter; 
apocalyptic is not bound by the fetters of dogma. 2 It was, however, 
soon made clear that the time was not yet. In spite of this disappoint- 
ment the hope of the Messiah remained alive in Judaism, when it was 
extinct in the world in general. The contact of Jew and Gentile had 
been strong enough to enable Christianity to describe the coming of 
the Lord into the world in language which reflects the common hopes 
of both. 3 Outside the Church, however, the apocalyptic hope con- 
tinued to flourish only in Judaism; elsewhere it was so little regarded 
that it was only here that prophecies of a king from the East could be 
found to vindicate the triumph of Vespasian. 4 

Consequently it is not surprising that Paul's attempt to convert the 
philosophers of Athens was a failure. The commonplaces by which 
Judaism sought to represent itself as the divine revelation of the truths 
at which philosophy had guessed, his appeal to the guidebook curiosity 
of altars to "Unknown Gods" 5 and the commonplace-book quotation 

1 So in the late prophecy in Is. 63. 8 and cf. below, p. 28. 

z Test, Lev. 18. 2 and cf. Charles' introduction in Ap. and Ps. 2. 282 and 294. 
But it is a mistake to talk of a "revolution in the Messianic hope". Apoca- 
lyptic could recognise as the Messiah anyone who appeared to be establishing the 
Messianic kingdom, just as the Church found prophecies to justify its own inter- 

3 Pss. Sol. 1 1 . 2 seqq. ; the " good tidings " of Is. 40. 9 is transformed quite simply 
into the " Gospel " of the Messianic kingdom. The opening chapters of Luke 
resemble the language of the Gentile world because they reflect a common hope, 
which has affected the language of the LXX. But the general atmosphere of the 
chapters is essentially Jewish, though it reflects a Judaism which had been affected 
both by the Eastern religions which influenced both Judaism and Hellenism and 
also by the Hellenistic influences which were at work on Judaism during the last 
two centuries B.C. 

4 Tac. Hist. 5. 13; Jos. B.J. 6. 5. 4 (312). 

5 The reference in Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 6. 3. 5, sounds like a common- 
place from popular descriptions of Athens ; for a full discussion cf . The Beginnings of 
Christianity 5. 240 seqq.; Frazer, Pansanias' Description of Greece 2. 33. 


from Aratus 1 were scarcely likely to impress an audience of such a 
character, still less to convert it to a belief that the world-process could 
be brought to an end by a divine assize, or to a system centred not on 
a semi-divine being who had been translated to the heavens in the dim 
remoteness of antiquity but to a man who had risen from the dead 
within the last few years. 2 The Areopagus only laughed ; Paul was faced 
with the necessity of reconstructing the Gospel, if he was to appeal to 
the intellect of the Gentile world. 

That the scene in its essence is historical and that the speech 
contains in a Thucydidean form the kind of argument which Paul used 
on the occasion need not be doubted ; it is an attempt to express the 
Gospel in the commonplace terms of Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, 
as Paul would naturally have learnt them. It is significant that from 
this point onwards his Epistles show a progressive adaptation of the 
Christian message to the general mental outlook of the Hellenistic 
world. There is no reason for doubting that he was first compelled to 
face the need of this restatement by his chance meeting with serious 
philosophy on the Areopagus. 

1 It is perhaps significant that the collection of heathen testimonies to Judaism 
ascribed to Aristobulus (Bus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12) contains the passage from Aratus, as 
does the similar collection in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14. 99 seqq. (707 P), which is 
a purely Jewish defence of the "voice of God" and the narrative of Genesis; there 
is no reason for supposing that the series which Clement has incorporated is 
Christian rather than Jewish. 

a Cf. above, p. 20. Such redeemers would be raised to the stars in the language 
of Chaldean astrology (Cumont, Rel. Or. 161), which could easily be harmonised 
with classical legends, and also easily adapted to old beliefs of the disappearance of 
heroes in thunderstorms (Frazer, The Golden Bough, The Magic Art 2. 181). Resur- 
rection was unknown. At Athens the claim that the resurrection could be proved as 
a fact of recent history would not be a recommendation. For Hercules in the 
tragedies of Seneca as a saviour whose death ought to carry with it the destruction 
of the world cf. Kroll, Gott u. Holle 412 seqq. It is entirely inconsistent with the 
outlook of the age (op. cit. 443) and with Seneca's real belief (cf. above p. 4, nn. 5 
and 6). Kroll sees in its appearance as a literary motif the influence of a dualist 


IN the Dispersion Judaism had long since faced and accommodated 
itself to the difficulties which Paul experienced at Athens. In the 
past Sibyls had uttered oracles of doom on behalf of the one true 
God; it is possible that they continued to do so, for Judaism was 
recognised as a peculiar religion and allowed a good deal of latitude. 
But educated or semi-educated circles had by this time lost interest 
in such matters. The type of Judaism which might reasonably hope to 
influence and even to convert intelligent Gentiles was not concerned 
with speculations about the coming of the end of all things. In spite 
of their sympathies with their brethren in Palestine, the Jews of the 
West were not to be led away into vague aspirations for the restoration 
of Israel, which could only endanger the peace and prosperity which 
the nation enjoyed under the Empire. 1 The solidarity of the Jewish 
nation might be an impressive testimony to the truth of their religion ; 2 
but their religion was represented as concerned not with hopes of the 
future but with the divine revelation of those truths of cosmogony 
at which the cults and philosophies of the heathen world had only 
guessed, and with the true way of "salvation" which that knowledge 
enabled the Jew to give to the world. 3 "Salvation" rested on a true 
knowledge of the nature and origin of the world, 4 and of the ethics 
and worship which that knowledge implied; and what else was the 
content of the Torah? It was obvious that it contained the true account 

1 Judaism outside Palestine remained entirely unaffected by the rebellion of 
Judaea in A.D. 66. The risings in Egypt and Cyrene under Trajan (A.D. 115) may 
represent a revival of Messianic hopes ; the study of the O.T. might always lead to 
such a revival. But the quiescence of Judaism in A.D. 66 seems to indicate a complete 
indifference on the part of the leaders of the Jews outside Palestine. 

2 Jos. c. Ap. 2. 19 (179), where the 6/iwoin of the Jews is evidence that the 
Torah enables the Jew to realise the ideal of Hellenistic philosophy. 

3 Note the complete suppression of the Messianic hope by Josephus. In Philo it 
appears only in the two closely connected tracts De Praem. et Poen. 15 [(88 seqq , 
M. 2. 422), where we have the taming of the beasts and a warrior-Messiah of a 
purely human type (ib. 16 (95)), who is forced on Philo by the LXX text of Num. 
24. 7, which reads "a man shall go forth from his seed" for "he shall pour forth 
water from his buckets"; the LXX appears to be an attempt to amend an unin- 
telligible text], and De Execr. 9 (165, M. z. 436), where we have a miraculous return 
to Palestine. 

4 Cicero, De Fin. 3. 22. 73, explains the impossibility of right conduct without a 
knowledge of nature and the gods. " Salvation" can be this view transferred from 
philosophy to a supposedly revealed religion. Philo, De Ebr. 28 (107 seqq. M.I. 374). 


of the creation of the world and the nature of man; the truth of its 
system of religion as a means for attaining to righteousness was 
vindicated by that supreme act of "salvation" through which God had 
delivered His people from Egypt and brought them to the promised 
land. The canonical account of the Exodus, with a superficial colouring 
drawn from the religious language of the Hellenistic world, became a 
regular form of "preaching" addressed to the Gentiles. 1 The type was 
established before the close of the canon of the Old Testament and 
embedded in the worship of Judaism, notably in the domestic Liturgy 
of the Passover. 2 It becomes more definitely in the Dispersion a 
proclamation of the "salvation" which God has wrought for His 
people on the stage of history, and of the "epiphanies" in which He 
has shown Himself to be their "benefactor". 3 In all this there was no 
real breach with the tradition of the Old Testament, though occasion- 
ally Alexandrine Judaism allowed itself somewhat serious lapses from 
the strict proprieties of monotheism; 4 as a rule, however, these are 
successfully observed. The theme is frequently associated with the 
giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, which is associated with a solemn 
proclamation of the past benefits and future promises of God; the 
whole leads up to the proclamation of the decalogue. The lacuna of 
Exod. 19. 25-20. i gave an opportunity for the insertion of such a 
proclamation into the narrative of the Old Testament; it was easy to 

1 The illuminating conception of the Apostolic kerygma in Dodd's The Apostolic 
Preaching and its Developments provides the key to the phenomena of Jewish literature 
here discussed. It seems that the Church adopted a method of exposition which had 
already been established in the synagogue. For the influence of such recitals on the 
Christian Liturgy cf. Lietzmann, Messe u. Herrenmahl 125. 

a Apart from the canonical Exodus we have in Ps. 78 a conflation of two such 
kerygmata, and another in Ps. 1 36 ; this Psalm as forming part of the Hallel enters into 
the Passover Haggada, which in its modern form is a conflation of three kerygmata 
quite apart from the Psalm. The theme appears in Is. 63. 8 seqq., with a distinctly 
Hellenistic colouring, for which see below p. 122; Judith 5. 5 seqq. 

3 So in Wisd. 10. i. seqq., pvo/ being preferred to tra>u> except in v. 4. In 
Jos. Antt. 2. 15. 4 (326)-3- i. i. (i) tram/pia appears eight times; cf. 2. 16. 2 (339) 
for the parting of the Red Sea as an epiphany. Cf. the Greek Esther 15. 2. In 
Philo the connection of God as " saviour " with the Exodus remains in De Post. Cain. 
45 (156, M. i. 255), De Agric. 17 (80, M. i. 312), De Migr. Abr. 5 (25, M. i. 440) 
and passim; but the phrase has become a commonplace and God appears as 
"saviour and benefactor" without any such reference, as in De Mund. Op. 60 
(169, M. i. 41), etc. The convention appears among the Gnostic Peratae, where the 
Exodus is, after the manner of Philo, a type of the soul coming out of the world into 
the desert (Hipp. El. 5. 16 (133)). 

4 As in Alypos" dedication of a synagogue to Cleopatra and Ptolemy XV as the 
great gods who give ear (eV^/coot), Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel 2. 41 1. 
In Philo lapses are fairly common, as in De Mund. Op. 7 (27, M. i. 6), where the 
"visible gods" appear from Timaeus 413, or a commentary on that work; cf. the 
virgin Victory who springs armed^rom the head of Zeus, ib. 33 (100, M. i. 24). 
But in Philo we have no more than careless revision of the sources. 


find appropriate words for Moses in the place which the original 
compilers had left open. 1 The necessity of instructing a proselyte in 
his duties as summarised in the decalogue would seem to have been 
prefaced with the account of God's works of salvation, while the 
decalogue itself was treated as a "mystery" too sacred to be revealed 
to vulgar ears, for its words were the words of God Himself. 2 Although 
orthodox Judaism, like Christianity, professed to regard the whole of 
the Scriptures as equal in sanctity, it was inevitable that in practice 
some parts should be more important and therefore more sacred than 
others; the withdrawal of the decalogue from those who were not 
proselytes would have the double advantage of stimulating the curio- 
sity of enquirers and preserving the great summary of Jewish ethics 
from the ribaldry of Alexandrine anti-Semitism. 3 It could not be 
foreseen that the whole of this method of treatment would give to the 
Church an admirable opportunity of arguing that the real Torah 
consisted of the decalogue alone, and that the ceremonial law and 
Mishnah were only a secondary and inferior law imposed on the Jews 
for their sin in the matter of the Golden Calf. 4 

With a rather bold extension of this method of exegesis it was 
possible to assimilate Judaism to a mystery-cult to a remarkable 
extent. The normal cultus of the synagogue was as public as could 
be; Gentiles were welcomed and almost invited to attend. But the 
Paschal meal which celebrated the great deliverance could only be 
eaten by the circumcised proselyte. A fragment of Philo exploits this 
point in order to describe the meal in all the correct terminology of 
Eleusis; if cities refuse to reveal their mysteries to the uninitiated, 
still less should the true rites (TeAcrat), which lead to piety, be cast 

1 So in Jos. Antt. 3. 5- 3 (84). For rabbinical enlargements on the passage cf. 
Yalkut, Yithro 279 ad init. 

2 Antt. 3. 5. 4 (go) (oil depirov) ; cf. R. Judah the Patriarch in Judaism i. 335 for the 
correspondence between the Exodus and the circumcision, baptism and offering 
of the sacrifice of the proselyte. Naturally the theme appears more frequently in 
Hellenistic literature in view of its greater missionary interest, 

3 Cf. the Christian treatment of the Creed. Of course there was no real secrecy 
about the duties of a proselyte any more than about the Christian faith. Cf. 
Conversion 214. 

4 The theme underlies Acts 7. 38; the "living oracles" were rejected. Cf. 
Ep. Barn. 14. i seqq. ; Ir. Haer. 4. 15. i ; Tertullian, adv. Jud. 3 ad fin. ; it is implied 
in Orig. c. Cels. z. 74 and worked out in Didascalia 6. 16. 6 (where secundatione is a 
reference to the Mishnah; cf. Const. Apost. 6. 20. 4 seqq. ; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4. 10). 
The theme reflects the rabbinical view of the Golden Calf as the great sin of Israel 
(Judaism i. 537). It appears to be the reason for the withdrawal of the decalogue 
from the Jewish Liturgy " owing to the cavils of the heretics " (ib. i. 291 and n. 64, 
where Moore fails to notice the wide extension of this argument in Christian writers 
who are entirely orthodox, though the Church never formally accepted this view). 
In Clem. Recog. i. 36 Moses allows sacrifice as a means for averting a relapse into 


before ears full of ribaldry; those who desire admission to such things 
must possess piety towards the one true God, and have rejected 
idolatry and rites that are no true rites and mysteries that are no true 
mysteries (reXerais areXearois /cat fj,varr)piois dvo/jytaerrots). They 
must next be cleansed with purifying cleansings (KadapOyvai ras 
ayvevovaas KaBdpaeis) in body and soul through the laws and customs 
of the fathers, and in the third place they must give a sure pledge of 
their worthiness to join in the revels, lest, after receiving the sacred 
food, they should be changed by satiety and make a drunken mockery 
where it is not lawful (ov 0e/s) to do so. 1 The similarity of the Paschal 
meal to a Hellenistic mystery could even be extended to the point of 
regarding it as not merely a memorial of a past redemption but a 
means of present deliverance and redemption of the soul. 2 

In Hellenistic Judaism the symbolism was naturally adapted to the 
ideas of popular theology ; it was a commonplace that mysteries were 
symbols of true philosophy. 3 Thus it could be explained as symbolising 
anything that was thought desirable. It could represent the beginning 
of the year when corn, the necessity of life, was ripe, but fruits, which 
were luxuries, were not. 4 Or it could represent the beginning of 
creation of which the spring equinox was an annual commemoration; 
the use of unleavened bread then either commemorated the hasty 
Exodus or was suited to the state of the crops which were still unripe ; 
or it might be, "as the exegetes say", a reminder of the natural state 
of primitive man. 5 The state of primitive man was a favourite theme of 

1 Fr. ap. Joh. Damasc. Sacra Parallela 782 b (M. z. 658). For the terms cf. Aristo- 
phanes, Frogs 354 seqq. ; the last sentence is a precaution for securing ev$r)iiia. Philo 
is entirely in the classical tradition, either as mediated through the Sarapis-cult or 
(perhaps more probably) because his knowledge of such things is largely academic. 
Goodenough (By Light, Light 261) objects that the Paschal meal could only, at this 
date, be eaten in Jerusalem, quoting Judaism 2. 40 seqq. But Philo normally follows 
the text of the O.T., in which it is assumed that the full Paschal rite is binding on 
all Jews. I am inclined to doubt whether the prominence of Passover and Exodus in 
Hellenistic- Jewish literature does not indicate that there was some observance, apart 
from that of the synagogues. Cf. the observance of the Passover by the Jewish colony 
at Elephantine apparently under directions from Jerusalem (Vincent, Rel. desjudeo- 
Arameens d'Eleph. 281. 

2 So R. Gamaliel in Mishnah, Pesachim 10. 5 (Danby 151) ; this sentence however 
is omitted in the older texts ; but ib. 6 the Passover is associated with the ransoming 
of the soul by R. Akiba. For the importance of the Passover symbolism cf. the 
Christian interpolation in Ezra (6. 21?) which Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of 
suppressing (Dial. c. Tryph. 72. 297 d): "this passover is our saviour and refuge", 
etc. Justin's good faith can hardly be disputed : it seems that the interpolation was 
made at such a date that he could suppose it a genuine reading. Cf. Clem. Alex. 
Strom, i. 21. 124 (392 P), where the same interpolation is implied. 

3 Plato, Gorgias 493 a. Cf . Chrysippus ap. Plutarch, Tranq. Anim. 20. 477 d ; De 
Stoic. Rep. 9, 1035 b and Etym. Magn. s.v. TeXen;, 750. 16 ap. v. Arn. 2. 299 (1008). 

4 Philo, De Vit. Mays. 2 (3) 29 (222, M. 2. 169). 

5 Philo, De Spec. Legg. 2 (De Sept.), 19 (159, M. 2. 293). 


the Stoics, but it does not appear that the rabbis associated the 
Passover with it. On the other hand, they sometimes regarded it as 
the date of creation; 1 it is likely enough that Philo has here taken over 
some Stoic explanation of one or other of the numerous festivals 
associated with the vernal equinox as relating to creation and attached 
it to the Passover. Or again the festival could be elaborately explained 
as a symbol of the soul's escape from the spheres of earth, the planets 
and the fixed stars to its home in heaven ; for the lamb must be chosen 
on the tenth day, and the Passover of the soul is a passage from the 
sensible to the decad which is intelligible and divine ; and again on the 
tenth of the month the moon is only two-thirds full; during the 
ensuing week it must grow, until like the full moon it is nothing but 
heavenly light and can offer the true sacrifice of propitiation, a blame- 
less progress in virtue. The passage is interesting, as being drawn from 
a system of symbolism which appears to belong to the solar religion of 
Syria; the ennead of earth, the planets and the firmament appear to 
have been drawn from one of Posidonius' speculations as to the nature 
of the cosmos; 2 it may be doubted whether he was not almost as 
willing as Philo to incorporate material from any source that interested 
him. It is disappointing to pass from this symbolism to the mere 
cleansing of the soul from the body and its passions. 3 

In this way the Passover could be Hellenised into a mystery-rite, 
open only to the initiate who had accepted circumcision. It com- 
memorated a past deliverance; here the "myth" differed only from 
the ordinary myth of a mystery-religion as being more seriously 
concerned with history. It was an effectual symbol of future salvation, 

1 For the Passover as the date of creation as against Rosh-ha-Shanah cf. Gen. R. 
22. 3 on Gen. 4. 3. For the New Year as a counterpart of creation in Babylonian 
religion cf. Jeremias ap. Bertholet-Lehmann, Lehrb. der Religionsgeschichte i. 505. 

2 D.C.E.R. 19 (106 seqq., M. i. 534) repeated Clem. Alex. Strom, 2. n. 51 
(455 P) ; God has been detached from the firmament to make a decad for the Paschal 
season; the same ennead with God identified with the firmament in Cicero, De 
Rep. 6 (Somn. Scip.), 17. 17; it is read by Servius into the navies Styx inter/lisa 
coercet of Vergil, Aen. 6. 439. A variation, perhaps under Iranian influence, appears 
in the nine world-ages, of which the last is also the first and the age of the sun 
(Peterson, loc. cit. p. 19, n. i) ; for ten in Persian religious symbolism cf. the dream of 
Cyrus from Dinon's Persica (Cicero, De Div. i. 33. 46). Peterson, loc. cit., quotes 
Sethe against the probability of the ennead in literature of this type being derived 
from the Egyptian ennead. Cf. also Plut. De Def. Orac. the "demon" who slew 
Typho at Delphi cannot return till the end of nine great years. Philo may have used 
a source which followed the Syro-Chaldean view of the moon as the place of purifica- 
tion of the soul, cf. Plut. De Fac. in Orb. Lun. 30. 945 a and Rel. Or. 1 16 and notes, the 
full moon is the time when souls are released to rise to the sun in Manichean belief 
(Polotsky in P.R.E. Supp. 6. 255. 40), which may go back to older mythology. [It 
must however be noted that the association of Apollo with the ennead goes back 
to the religion of pre-classical Greece, cf. Nilsson, Griechische Feste 119, n. 3.] 

3 De Spec. Legg. 2 (De Sept.), 18 (147, M. 2. 292). 


which could be interpreted in any manner that was compatible with 
the Torah and belief in immortality. Judaism could without difficulty 
substitute schemes of this kind for belief in a catastrophic winding-up 
of history, which was an alien accretion of comparatively recent date. 
Judaism, like Babylonian religion, did not really look forward to an 
end but backward to a beginning. Religion began with the creation 
and ended with the revelation on Mount Sinai. 

Thus the Torah, which recorded the story of creation and culminated 
in a system of religion and ethics^ could easily be made to wear a 
Hellenistic dress. It is never absolutely equated with the creative 
Wisdom of God by the Alexandrines as it is by the rabbis; for the 
Alexandrines were concerned, as the rabbis were not, to commend 
Judaism as a system of cosmogony to the Gentile world. But it is 
given an exalted place in the scheme of things ; the Law is in harmony 
with the cosmos and the cosmos with the Law; 1 when Moses received 
it, he was prepared by forty days of fasting for initiation into the 
mysteries of the true religion. 2 When he received it, he actually 
listened to the music of the spheres. 3 Nor was the ritual side of 
Judaism, apart from the one stumbling-block of circumcision which 
was repulsive to Greeks and Romans, very difficult to justify. Cere- 
monial purity, as enjoined in Exod. 19. 15, was a feature of Greek and 
Egyptian religion; it is duly emphasised by Josephus and Philo in the 
technical language of Greek cultus. 4 The ceremonial lustrations of 
Judaism could be transferred in the same way, 5 together with other 
features which had been drawn from the common stock of primitive 
religion or borrowed in prehistoric times. 

One element in Jewish cultus offered a curious opening for proving 
that Judaism contained the full truth at which the Gentiles had 
guessed, but only guessed. The one Temple at Jerusalem was 
sufficiently remote to allow Jewish propaganda to borrow the argu- 
ments by which Gentile philosophers proved the futility of all 
sacrifice, and to use them as their own. 6 Yet it was the centre of the 
national life so long as it stood, and though there is considerable 
evidence of slackness in paying the tithes and offerings due from the 

1 De Mund. Op. i (3, M. i. i) 153. 

2 De Vit. Mays. 2 (3), 2 (70 seqq., M. 2. 146); cf. p. 153. 

3 De Somn. i. 6 (36, M. i. 626). Here also is an allusion to Moses" fast. 

* Herodotus a. 64 for the tabu as shared by Greeks and Egyptians ; it is of course 
common, but apparently unknown to the other religions observed by Herodotus. 
For Judaism cf. Jos. Antt. 3. 5. i (78) and Philo, De Decal. n (45, M. 2. 188). 

6 Cf. the use of such terms as dyvfvw, irepippavrripiov, etc. ; for parallel practices in 
later Hellenistic religion cf. Tertullian, De Bapt. 5. 

6 Philo, De Plant. 30 (126, M. r. 348). 


Jews of Palestine, there is also ample evidence for enthusiasm among 
the Jews of the Dispersion in regard to the annual tax for its upkeep. 1 
The fact that it was the only Temple in the world where sacrifice might 
be offered constituted an impressive testimony to the unity of God. 2 
In the ritual of the Temple the High Priest was an impressive central 
figure; the ordinary Jew from abroad on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 
or the proselyte would not realise how far the holders of the office had 
fallen from the ideals, which they should have represented in the 
opinion of the representatives of the Pharisaic tradition. 3 Their robe 
of office had indeed acquired that special sanctity which can only be 
acquired by a sacred object when it becomes a matter of political 
controversy : the procurators had on several occasions taken the robe 
into the Tower of Antonia as a security against disturbances, only 
allowing it out of custody when it was actually needed for ceremonial 
purposes. 4 It thus became a sacramental expression of the hope of 
the deliverance of Israel. 

But it could also receive a mystical significance. Our three principal 
sources for Hellenistic Judaism all mention the cosmic significance of 
the robe. In Wisd. 18. 24 it is assumed as sufficiently familiar to be 
understood in an allusive reference, while Josephus gives a symbolical 
interpretation of the robe and of the Tabernacle and its furniture as a 
sufficient reply to those who criticise Judaism as lacking in due respect 
for the divine; 6 cosmic symbolism was de rigueur in the religion of 

1 For the difficulty of securing the due payment of tithes in Palestine cf. Mishnah, 
Demai, passim, and Danby 20, n. 9 ; the Mishnah is confirmed by Philo, De Spec. 
Legg. i (De Sacerd. Hon.), 5 (153, M. z. 236) and Judith u. izseqq. For the 
payments by Jews of the Dispersion cf. De Spec. Legg. i (De Templo), 3 (78, M. 2. 

z De Spec. Legg. i (De Templo), i (67, M. 2. 223) ; Jos. c. Ap. z. 23 (193). For this 
conventional panegyric of "unity" cf. p. 194. There is a curious puzzle as to the 
temple of Onias at Leontopolis, which appears to have stood until the time of 
Vespasian. Philo ignores it completely, though it was partially recognised by 
official Judaism (Mishnah, Men. 13. 10; Danby 512). However unimportant it may 
have been, it is hard to suppose that Philo was unaware of its existence, since it is 
known to Josephus (B.y. 7. 10. 2 (420 seqq.)). Presumably orthodox Jews of 
Alexandria disapproved of it very strongly, though the rabbis could not entirely deny 
the validity of its cultus. 

3 Mishnah, Yoma i. 3 and 5 (Danby 162 and 163). 

4 Jos. Antt. 18. 4. 3 (90). 

8 Antt. 3. 7. 7 (179). Cf. B.J. 5. 5. 4 (213 seqq.). Goodenough, By Light, Light 23, 
says that it is impossible "to imagine how intense must have been the emotional 
associations of the Jews of antiquity with the secret ark of the covenant". The im- 
possibility is enhanced by the reticence of the authorities. Philo and Josephus only 
refer to it when they come upon it in the natural course of their exposition of the 
narrative of Exodus. The rabbis seem to have regarded the problem of the accom- 
modation of the wings of the cherubim in the confined space of the sanctuary as 
providing light relief from more serious discussions, cf. Str.-B. on Rom. 3. 25 (3. 
168 seqq.), while the whole of this note shows how little relation the ancient object 



educated circles. Naturally Philo gives it in greater detail and in 
several places. The long robe of blue or black represents the air, the 
flowers (from the LXX version of Exod. 28. 34 (30)) ; pomegranates 
and bells stand for earth and water at the bottom of the cosmos; the 
ephod is heaven, the two emeralds the two hemispheres, the six 
names of tribes on each are the six signs on each side of the sun's path 
through the zodiac, while the twelve names of the breastplate are the 
signs themselves. The double breastplate (Aoyetoi/ in LXX) stands for 
the double function of the Logos in the universe, as Logos of the ideal 
and the material world, and in man as evBidBeros and irpofopiKos', the 
same symbolism applies to "truth" and "showing", the LXX attempt 
to render Urim and Thummim. On his head is the golden mitre, 
engraved with the tetragrammaton, the symbol of the goodness of God 
which holds the cosmos in being. The whole dress shows that the 
High Priest who is consecrated to the Father of the universe must have 
as his advocate God's son the Logos, and that the servant of God must be 
worthy, if not of God, which is impossible, at least of the cosmos ; if it is 
permissible to say so, and it is right to speak truly concerning the truth, 
he must be a small cosmos. Since Philo elsewhere uses the analogy of 
macrocosm and microcosm with complete freedom, the apology of the 
last clause shows that he is incorporating matter from an earlier source. 1 
Here the figure of the High Priest has replaced Zeus, who is con- 
ventionally represented with a nimbus of blue to represent the heaven 
or a mantle of blue with the same meaning ; the mantle of blue is some- 
times spangled with stars. 2 The ornaments of Zeus could be attributed 
to other deities ; they appear in Attis, Men and the Zeus Oromazdes of 
the monument of Antiochus of Commagene; it does not appear how 
far in particular cases they represent the transference of the attributes 
of Zeus to other deities or a conflation of the proper character of these 
deities with that of Zeus. 3 They reappear in a late Orphic hymn to 
the sun which has a curious connection with Judaism 4 and in the 

of veneration retained when it was no longer present in the sanctuary. The High 
Priest's robe plays a far larger part in the Hellenistic writers. It must be remembered 
that the whole Temple-cultus was more calculated to impress visitors from the 
Dispersion than Jews of Palestine, in view of the opposition to the Sadducees. The 
surviving literature reveals very little veneration for the ark. 

1 De Vit. Mays. 2 (3). n (109 seqq., M. i. 151). For further references to this 
symbolism by Philo cf. p. 49. 

2 Cook, Zeus i. 33 seqq., i. 56 seqq. This primitive feature of Zeus as the sky-god 
was preserved in the art of the Hellenistic era. 

3 Cook, op. cit. z. 386 seqq. 

4 Macrob. Sat. i. 18. 22, following immediately on the oracle of Apollo of Claros 
describing lao as the supreme deity. The hymn and the oracle with the other verses 
quoted by Macrobius come from an older collection ; the position of lao seems to be 
due to the influence of Jewish Gnosticism. 


Egyptian deities Cneph and Phthah described by Porphyry, both 
deities being dressed in robes similar to those of Zeus and the High 
Priest, while Phthah also wears a crown of gold which represents 
among other things the stars. 1 The borrowing of the figure of Zeus for 
the High Priest was rendered possible by the Stoic practice of finding 
allegories of the one divine principle in the cosmos in the mythology 
and cultus of Hellas. 2 In a form which may have had a widely 
different origin but was not dissimilar in its total effect the cosmos 
could be regarded as the body of the deity, a conception which appears 
to have been derived from the solar religions of the East but was 
naturally read into the religion of Egypt by the imaginative powers of 
the Alexandrines. 3 The Stoic convention appears to have associated 
its cosmic symbolism with the name of Orpheus, the traditional 
founder of Greek mythology, 4 possibly under the influence of religious 
sects which claimed to be the heirs of the Orphic religious tradition. 5 
This was a godsend to Judaism. If Orpheus had visited Egypt, it 
was obvious that he had learnt there the Orphic system of religion, 
which was not monotheistic; yet "at heart it worshipped one God, 
Dionysos". 6 Other wise men of Greece had in one form or another 
believed in the unity of God; it was significant that they too had 
visited Egypt. It was obvious that their knowledge of the one true 
God was an unacknowledged borrowing from Moses, whose teaching 
they had learnt there. 7 It was even possible by a rather bold con- 
jecture to identify with Moses the shadowy figure of Musaeus, the 

1 Ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 3.11. 29. Cneph was identified with the 'Ayados &ai.p,a>v, the 
patron deity of Alexandria (Conversion 40) ; Phthah, the creative word of Memphite 
theology, goes back to the pyramids (Breasted, Religion and Thought in Ancient 
Egypt 43). Phthah in Porphyry's account has his legs joined together, a feature 
which appears in Eudoxus' story of the myth of Zeus and Isis (Plut. De Is. et Os. 
62, 376 c). It seems that the cult-images of Zeus and Phthah were identified as early 
as Eudoxus (c. 350 B.C.). Cf. also the robe worn by Demetrius Poliorcetes at 
Athens (Douris ap. Athenaeus, Deipnos. 12. 50. 535 f.). 

a Cf. p. 30 and below, p. 53. 

3 Diod. Sic. i. n. 6, where Osiris is the sun and Isis the moon, and the rest of 
the universe is the body of which they are the head. The explanation is associated 
with "Orpheus" (11. 3); it appears to go back to Manetho (Eus. Pr. Ev. 3. 2. 9). 
Cf. also the oracle given by Sarapis to Nicocreon of Argos (Macrob. Sat. i. 20. 16) 
and Pantaenus* description of the cosmic body of Christ (Clem. Alex. Ed. Proph. 
56 (1003 P)). 

4 Cicero, De Nat. Dear. i. 15. 41 ; cf. Orpheus 255. See also Galen, De Hipp, et 
Plat. Plac. 3. 4 (120), p. 281 M. (v. Arn. 2. 255). 

6 Orpheus 253 as against Cumont, Rel. Or. 303 and Nock in Essays on the Trinity 
and the Incarnation 65, a view which he has perhaps modified slightly in Conversion 
30. I have not the courage to express an opinion in such a conflict. 

" Orpheus 251. 

7 Pseudo- Justin, Cohortatio 14. isb, who quotes Diodorus Siculus (i. 96. i) for 
the visits of the wise men of Greece to Egypt ; but the tradition goes back to Judaism, 
see note following. 



legendary son or disciple of Orpheus, who could easily be transformed 
into his teacher. 1 The question of chronology was easily settled; the 
necessity of proving the priority of Moses to Orpheus was one of the 
chief themes of the wearisome calculations of dates by which Judaism 
and later Christianity proved the superiority of the Bible to the 
philosophy of Greece, which possessed nothing of value but its 
unacknowledged borrowings from Moses. 2 

The essence of Orphism was its offer of a true understanding of the 
origin of the cosmos and of man and of the means by which he might 
hope to escape from the material world. 3 This was what the Judaism of 
the Dispersion offered, and once it had been established that Orpheus 
had borrowed from Moses it was perfectly safe to produce "Orphic" 
literature which presented the teachings of Judaism in an Orphic- 
Stoic dress and represented him at the same time as acknowledging 
the debt which he owed to the instructors whose assistance he had 
failed to mention in the versions of his writings current among the 
Gentiles. Thus it is not surprising to find at least one considerable 
"Orphic" fragment of Jewish origin and composition going back to a 
date earlier than Aristobulus 4 in the second century B.C. In this, the 
universe is described as the body in which God may be seen by those 
who have the wisdom to see Him. 5 The fragment is addressed to 
Musaeus. The ancient account of Him tells that He is one and the 
maker of all things, and Himself moves in them ; no mortal soul can 
know Him, but mind alone. So far the texts agree; here (line 13 in 
Aristobulus) we are told that He does not bring evil out of good to men, 
but grace and hatred follow Him, and war and pestilence. The language 
here is uncertain, since Christian-Jewish thought wavered between 
preserving the original protest of Is. 45. 7 against Zoroastrian dualism 

1 Artabanus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 27. i. 

2 Cf. p. 5. Cf. also Jos. c. Ap. i. 22 (161). In Eus. Pr. Ev. 10. 7. 12 this passage 
is immediately followed by Diod. Sic. i. 96. i, which also appears in Pseudo-Justin 
(see above, p. 35, n. 7). Diodorus appears to be a fixed part of propaganda as to the 
antiquity of the Jews. The construction of chronologies for this end goes back to 
Demetrius (c. 222 B.C.; cf. Schurer, G.jf.V. 3. 473; Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 33), 
quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 21. 141 (403 P). The whole chronology begins 
ib. i or (378?); for the borrowings of Orpheus and Plato from Moses, cf. also 
5. 12. 78 (692 P). For the theme, cf. Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 31. 118 seqq.; Eus. Pr. Ev. 
Book 10. 

3 Cf. Aristophanes, Birds 692, where a parody of the Orphic cosmogony is 
offered as a means of escape from Prodicus., 4 For Aristobulus cf. p. 68. 

6 For the whole of this literature cf. Schurer, G.jf.V. 3. 599. The Orphic fragment 
appears in Aristobulus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 4 seqq. Part of it appears in Clem. 
Alex. Protr. 7. 74 (63 P) ; further parts at Strom. 5. 12. 78 (692 P) and 14. 123 (723 P). 
The greater part of it has by this time passed into the stock of Christian collections 
and reappears in Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio 15. 150 and De Man. 2. 1040. There is 
an allusion to it in Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 8. 39. 


and softening down the charge that God creates evil. 1 Orpheus himself 
cannot see Him for a cloud cuts Him off from sight, and ten Trru^at 
(folds or layers) conceal Him from men; 2 none can see Him but those 
who like Abraham rise above the sphere of the stars. 3 It is God who 
rules the spirits (or winds) in the air and the water and brings the 
flash of fire to light; the author has here tried without much success to 
put Gen. i. 2-3 into Orphic verse. God Himself sits in heaven on a 
throne of gold and His feet stand on the earth (Is. 66. i). 4 His right 
hand is stretched out over the Ocean, and the mountains tremble at 
His anger and cannot stand before His might. He is Himself in 
heaven and fulfils all things on earth, being Himself the beginning and 
middle and end of all things; the last thought is an adaptation to 
Jewish tradition of the recognised conception of Zeus in popular 
philosophy which saw in Zeus the divine power immanent in the fate 
which ruled the cosmos through each world-age ; but it was an " ancient 
word" in the time of Plato and had its roots in the ancient Zeus cult 
of Dodona. 5 This is the ancient word expounded by him who was born 
from the water, who received it from God in accordance with the 
ordinance of the two Tables. 6 
The poem is of Jewish origin, though following Gentile models. 7 

1 In Aristobulus the lines run 

avrbs ' et; dyaB&v QVIJTOIS KOKJIV OVK CTrtrtXXet 
avBpaiirois airw Se X&P IS Ka ' M" 5 oirrjftti 
Kai iroXffjLos Koi Xoi/xo? 18' a'A/yea fiaicpvoo/ra, 
while the version of Pseudo-Justin is 

OVTOS &' e' dyadolo KOKOV 6vr\Tdiai Si'Saxn 
Kai TrdXe/xor Kpvoevra Kai aXyea SaitpvoevTa, 

which Schiirer regards as original, as does Peterson, Efr Qeos ; the latter overlooks 
the fact that the dualism in any case is modelled on Isaiah ; the Iranian influence lies 
behind the O.T. 

2 Apparently the ten Trru^at are the ennead of Philo (cf. p. 31), God Himself 
being the last ; astral mathematics are always liable to insert additional units, and 
the author had to make his line scan. 

3 Peterson, Els Qeos 298, denies the reference to Abraham and sees a reference to 
the speculations of the Iranian-Chaldean cult of the Aeon; but he overlooks the 
reputation of Abraham as the father of astrology, who rose above the planets to find 
the one true God in heaven (p. 101). Pseudo-Justin omits the astrological lines and 
the reference to Abraham, and merely emphasises the impossibility of seeing God 
with mortal eyes : Clement quotes a variant of his version, but also that of Aristobulus. 

4 Schiirer, loc. cit. 6 Cf. p. 160. 

6 Moses, who is eliminated from the Christian versions. 

7 It does not appear in the collection of hymns to the sun associated with the name 
of Cleanthes in Macrob. Sat. 1. 18. 14, although Cleanthes followed Chrysippus in 
reconciling Orpheus to the Stoa (Philodemus, De Piet. 13. 80 g (Dox. Gr. 547)). It is 
interesting to note that in Macrobius" collection the line Efs Zeus, els 'AtS^s, fls 
"HXtoff, els Aioi>u<roff appears; it is found in Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio, loc, cit. 
immediately after our fragment, but not in the other versions ; it would seem that the 
line which may reflect the Oriental conception of the sun as the one divine Aeon 
expressing himself in the four seasons and so representing the division of eternity 


The figure of God is modelled on the Old Testament and yet Approxi- 
mated to Gentile pantheism. Judaism could never be really pan- 
theistic, yet it could accommodate itself to any monotheistic system, 
since it was not concerned with the niceties of philosophy ; Aristobulus 
could proceed from his Orphic lines to quote Aratus' description of all 
things as filled with Zeus, "for we are also his offspring", which 
Paul used on the Areopagus. The imagery of the Orphic lines could 
be safely adopted and it was not necessary to enquire as to its imme- 
diate source, since it came in the last resort from Moses himself. The 
thought was in reality a commonplace; it declined in the last days of 
paganism into a formula of magic to describe the 'Aya0os Aat]u,cov 
whose head is the heaven, the aether his body, the earth his feet and 
the water about him the Ocean. 1 But in its day the Orphlic-Stoic 
convention was reputable theology and could safely be employed to 
describe the one true God. 2 Its teaching was to be found in the 
philosophy of Greece ; Orphism may have been one of the contributory 
factors in the early development of Greek philosophy; 3 but the Hel- 
lenistic age had long since forgotten that the resemblances between 
Orpheus and the philosophers might not be merely fortuitous or 
providential. Judaism was simply adapting itself to general practice 
in availing itself of the name of Orpheus to advocate a system of 
monotheism. Orpheus proclaimed the mysteries of the one God who 
pervaded the Stoic universe; he could also proclaim the one God of 
the cosmogony of Genesis. Judaism could also borrow from him the 
convention of calling on mankind to wake from the slumber and 
drunkenness of ignorance and turn to the daylight and the (sobriety 
of the truth. 4 It was a simple matter to avoid the extremer forms of 

into recurring cycles of time has not penetrated to the earlier sources. The Jewish 
Gnosticism which introduced lao into this scheme appears to be later than 
Aristobulus and Clement. For similar Orphic poetry cf. Valerius Soranus ap. Aug. 
De Civ. Dei 7. 9. 

1 Papp. Mag. Gr. 12. 243, 13. 771 and 21. 6, in a more or less fixed formula, in 
which iravTOKparatp and 6 fiKpiHrrjaras irvevfjia av6pa>irnis els a>r)v and the ovop,a 
appr)Tov all suggest Jewish influence. Does the imagery of the papyri come from that 
of Cneph as described by Porphyry (see p. 35)? 

2 Philo does not use it, but in De Vit. Mays. 2 (3). 4. 82 (M. 2. 147) is an elaborate 
explanation of the geometry of the Tabernacle, where the Holy of Holies is the head 
and mind, the outer court the feet and sense ; here we have the same symbolism 
applied to man as the microcosm. 

3 Orpheus ch. vn. 

4 Aristophanes, Birds 685, where the description of mankind as 7rXdo-/xara irrfkov 
shows how easily fortuitous parallels occur in widely separated religions ; tiie phrase 
might easily be supposed to come from Gen. 2. 7. For the convention cf. Corp. 
Herm. i (Poimandres), 27 (Scott 132); it is the theme of Corp. Herm. 7 (Scott 170), 
Philo, De Somn. 2. 44 (292, M. i . 697) ; cf. the " initiate's " prayer for enlightenment, 
ib. i. 26 (164, M. i. 645) ; see also the Oxyrhynchus Logion, Pap. i. 8 (Apocr. N.T. 
27), Rom. 13. ii seqq., i Thess. 5. 6 seqq., Eph. 5. 14. The absence of rabbinical 
parallels in Str.-B. is significant. 


pantheism in accommodating the history and cultus of Judaism to this 
cosmic philosophy; even the shadowy figure of Phanes, a double, it 
would seem, of Dionysos, 1 but not like him associated with the cult 
and mythology of the Olympian pantheon, could be introduced as a 
guess by Orpheus at the cosmic word or wisdom or spirit of God. 2 

Thus Judaism followed the example of contemporary religion in 
general in reading the mysteries of the cosmos into the institutions of 
religion. Incense was a peculiarly favourite theme for such treatment; 
Egyptian incense was made out of sixteen ingredients, and so furnished 
an impressive testimony to the Pythagorean admiration for the number 
four; Jewish incense was at least made of four ingredients, and could 
therefore claim to prove that Judaism was acquainted with this part 
of the wisdom of Pythagoras ; it was fortunate that Moses should have 
noticed in compounding the incense the need of alluding to a number 
which the book of Genesis otherwise treats with little respect. 3 
Incense was naturally a favourite theme with the exponents of the 
Pythagorean tradition of Alexandria. For the master had forbidden 
the sacrifice of animals; 4 naturally it was necessary to prove the 

1 Orpheus 95 seqq. 

2 In one instance at least Phanes appears as an anticipation of Christianity, 
Lactantius, Div. Inst. 1.5. So in Clem. Horn. 6. 4 seqq. Appion makes Phanes the 
immanent spirit in the cosmic egg; Clement's reply hardly touches him and confines 
itself to the conventional attack on pagan mythology, as borrowed by Judaism from 
the Academics (cf. Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 3. 21. 53 seqq.). Cf. Ps.-Just. Cohort. 15. 
i6b for Orpheus' borrowing of the creative Word of Genesis from Moses during his 
stay in Egypt. Since Phanes was derived from $(uVo>, " because he first shone forth ", 
he was obviously capable of identification with the " light " of Jewish cosmogony. 
Phanes was also Protogonos (Orpheus, loc. cit.) : and Protogonos is one of the mani- 
festations of the Logos in Jewish Gnosticism (p. 49) ; as a regular title of the Logos 
in Philo it probably reflects the general language of the age. But in Athenagoras, 
Leg. pro Christ, zo. 96, Phanes is merely condemned as a typical heathen deity. 

8 Philo, Q.R.D.H. 41 (196 seqq., M. i. 500), and Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 79, 383 a, 
both make incense a symbol of the Pythagorean virtue of equality and the value of 
four ; Plutarch adds the superiority of the morning to the evening air, which is also 
Pythagorean (Diog. Laert. 8. 26). The tetragrammaton is treated in the Pythagorean 
vein in De Vit. Moys. z (3). n (115, M. 2. 152), but only with a brief allusion; cf. 
p. 48. 

4 So in Epiph. adv. Haer. 3. 8 (Dox. Gr. 590). This doxographic collection is no 
doubt wrong in the statement in view of the varying accounts of Diog. Laert. 8. 20, 
which fairly clearly imply that Pythagoras did not reject all sacrifices, but that the 
later Pythagoreans did, and tried to claim his authority. According to Egyptian 
tradition, as recorded by Macrob. Sat. i. 7. 15, animals were not sacrificed in Egypt 
till the cults of Sarapis and Saturn were introduced by the Ptolemies. That burnt- 
offerings were not a regular feature of Egyptian religion until a fairly late period 
appears to be correct: but animal food-offerings were made and apparently burnt- 
offerings were offered when it was impossible to make a food-offering at the temple 
(Erman, Die Religion der Mgypter 176). The Pythagoreans seem to have read their 
views into this system. For the Orphic rejection of animal sacrifice cf. Plato, 
Laws 782 c. For their retention to some extent in Pythagoreanism cf. also Athenaeus, 
Deipnos. 7. 80 (3080). [Wilcken UPZ 87 ascribes the tradition of Macrobius to a 
misunderstanding of the practice of locating temples of Sarapis, as a god of the 
underworld, outside cities.] 


mystical value of the incense which was the only offering welcome to 
the gods. Philo is aware of this tradition ; indeed he shows some skill 
in conflating it with the view of the prophets that God demands mercy 
and not sacrifice, when he writes that the smallest offering of incense 
by the righteous is better than the holocaust of the wicked. 1 

In one point indeed Judaism could claim that its cultus contained 
that element of mystery which always has a potent appeal to the human 
instinct of curiosity. The name of God had been withdrawn from the 
public worship of the synagogue about the beginning of the Christian 
era, and was only uttered in the Temple on occasions of special 
solemnity. 2 The withdrawal was indeed comparatively recent, since 
Philo has incorporated sources which still admitted its use in oaths of 
a solemn kind. 3 On the other hand, he is acquainted with the rabbinical 
substitutes and the interpretations placed on them. 4 Philo is entirely 
ready to make the use of the name in the Temple worship into a 
mystery of the approved type, in which the priests, who hear the name 
when the High Priest utters it, have to play the part of allegorical 
initiates. 5 He is even prepared to hold that the true meaning of the 
tetragrammaton, "I that am" (6 &v), is that nothing which exists can 
"consist" (ovarfjvai) without calling upon the name of God. Here 
Philo has abandoned the LXX use of Kvpios as the rendering of the 
name of God, presumably because he is a good enough Greek scholar to 
know that this is impossible. 6 In Josephus Moses desires to be told the 
name of God in order that he may call on Him by name to be present 
at the time of sacrifice; 7 the tetragrammaton carved on the mitre 
of the High Priest had even won the worship of Alexander the Great. 8 
After this it is no great thing that Artabanus should relate that the 
mere whisper of it in Pharaoh's ear had caused him to fall lifeless ; 
written on a tablet, it had slain an Egyptian priest who mocked. 9 All 

1 De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacr.), 4. 275 (M. 2. 254). That this is so is proved by the 
fact that the altar of burnt-offerings is of stone and outside the Tabernacle, the 
altar of incense inside and made of gold. 

2 Mishnah, Yoma 3. 8 and 6. 2, Tamid 3. 8 (Danby 165, 169 and 585); cf. Philo, 
De Vit. Mays. 2 (3). n (114, M. 2. 152). * De Decal. 19 (93, M. 2. 196). 

1 Q.R.D.H. 35 (170, M. i. 497), where the reference is to Adonai and Elohim as 
symbolising the two divine attributes of mercy and justice ; see below, p. 45, for his 
reversal of the rabbinical order. 6 De Vit. Mays. loc. cit. n. 2 above. 

6 Loc. cit. 14 (132). The thought is suspiciously reminiscent of the statement of 
Theopompus ap. Diog. Laert. i. 9 that according to the Magians all things that are 
continue in existence through their incantations (if this is the correct translation ; 
cf. Hicks' translation and note ad loc. in the Loeb version). 

7 Antt. 2. 12. 4 (275), where it is ov BepiTov for Josephus to reveal the name. 

8 Antt. ii. 8. 5 (331); the passage is an interesting glorification of the High 
Priest's robe, but the emphasis is on the name inscribed on the mitre. 

Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 27. 13. It seems a recognised trick of magic; cf. Simon Magus' 
killing of a boy by whispering in his ear, Acts of Peter 25 (Apocr. N.T. 325). For a 


this was quite in accordance with pagan ideas ; Valerius Soranus had 
approved of the making public of the secret name of Rome, and come 
in consequence to an evil end. 1 But Judaism itself was perfectly well 
aware of the importance and value of names, and of a knowledge of the 
correct name of God ; one of the reasons urged by the rabbis for the 
withdrawal of the name, and its disclosure in the days of the Temple 
only to suitable people, was that it might be used by "violent" men 
for purposes of vengeance. 2 In Christianity the belief is still to be 
found, either, as in Paul's case, surviving in phrases which imply it, 
but have lost all real meaning, 3 or, as in the Apocalypse, expressing the 
popular belief in the potency of a name which is known to none but 
God and its bearer, who is thus immune from the assault of hostile 
powers. 4 Later Christianity, even in its most enlightened exponents, 
recognised the value of the right name in addressing the powers of the 
unseen world; 5 it was even held that the name of Jesus Christ was not 
the real name, but only that used by Him on earth, but here we are 
in circles of an unorthodox character. 6 

In one respect at least Jewish insistence on the supremacy of the 
God of Israel with the ineffable Name produced unfortunate results. 
The underworld of Hellenistic magic could not afford to ignore so 
potent a deity. The name itself, in its Greek form, lao, was sug- 
gestive, for it contained the first, middle and last of the vowels (un- 
fortunately in the wrong order), and the vowels possessed a magic 
efficacy of their own as the means by which the voiceless consonants 
could express what would otherwise be unutterable. 7 The wrong order 

magical use of the name (to locate the coffin of Joseph in the Nile) cf. Mekilta, Tr. 
Besh. i. 93 (ed. Lauterbach i. p. 176). 

1 Pliny, N.H. 3. 9. 65. For Roman views on the secrecy of divine names cf. Warde 
Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People 120, Lucan, Phars. 6. 732. 

3 Talmud, Kiddushin 7 1 b ; cf . Rashi, ad loc. for the view that its withdrawal " when 
violent men multiplied" refers to those "who made practical use" of the name; it 
was revealed while the Temple stood to those who did not stand on their rights, 
because they would not use it for vengeance. No doubt the tablet of Rheneia 
(Deissmann, Licht v. Ost. 305) praying for vengeance to the most High God, the 
Lord of the spirits of all flesh, would have acquired an added potency from the 
insertion of the name. The name or rather names of Aoth, Abaoth the God of 
Abraham, lao of Isaac and Aoth, Abaoth the God of Israel appear in a "defixion" 
adjuring the demon in a grave to bring Urbanus to his lover Domitiana ; the tablet 
appears to date from the third century A.D. (Leclercq, Diet. d'Arch. Chret. i. 527, 
regards it as possibly Christian, but a comparison with the papyri suggests that it 
need not even be Jewish). 

3 Phil. 2. 9. 

4 Rev. 2. 17; the references to "new names" in this book passim reveal a real 
belief in their efficacy. 

6 Cf. p. 208. 6 Acts of Thomas 163 (Apocr. N.T. 435). 

7 Philo, De Mund. Op. 42 (126, M. i. 30). Such a statement shows how close 
"sympathy" can come to magic. 


was not a decisive objection, since in magic the repetition of the 
vowels in every possible permutation and combination of order was 
a regular practice; the spirits, even the stars themselves, would not 
obey any but the correct address. 1 It seems that the mysterious 
name of the God of Israel was taken as a sort of summary of all the 
potency of the mystical sounds of the vowels which themselves re- 
presented, among other things, the planets ; for the planets and the 
vowels were correlated by the ancient learning of the Chaldeans. 2 
Since then the name could be a symbol of the hebdomad, it sum- 
marised that mystical correspondence between the nature of the 
heavens and the whole cosmos, and the nature of the microcosm man, 
which was the ultimate secret of all wisdom. 3 Hellenistic magic could 
not fail to recognise that such a name possessed a peculiar potency of 
its own; Judaism appears to have adopted the theme by adding the 
last letter of the alphabet and so making the name laoth, which could 
symbolise, not very accurately, the position of God as the beginning, 
the middle and the end of all things. 4 Moreover, the God of Israel 
had other names, whose number could be brought up to seven by the 
addition to the ordinary four names of God, as found in the Scriptures, 
of others drawn from the sphere of magic. 5 Thus He could be made to 
play a prominent part in this realm, the more so in view of His court of 
angels, whose outlandish names were calculated to attract the attention 
of the vulgar, and to increase the effectiveness of the magician's 
incantations. 6 

1 For the importance of the right name cf. Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Stern- 
deutung 125. Cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 208 for the position of lao in regard to the 
seven vowels in the Gnostic cosmogony of the Monad or Eighth book of Moses ; 
I suspect that this was one of the main reasons for the popularity of lao. 

2 Plut. De Ei ap. Delph. 4. 3863 and the oracle Porphyry ap. Bus. Pr. Ev. 5. 14. 2, 
and the "great name with seven vowels", Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 39. 

3 Cf. the whole passage on the hebdomad in Philo, De Mund. Op. 30(90, M. i. 21)- 
42 (127, M. i. 30), especially the "physical sympathy" of 117. Here we have a 
harmless Stoic-Pythagorean play with numbers which is hardly intended seriously ; 
contrast the system of Marcus in Ir. Haer. i. 14. 7, where the same scheme as that 
which appears in Philo, possibly drawn from the same source, is fitted into the 
magic which is the basis of Marcus' system. (Cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. passim for the 
letter-magic described in Ir. Haer. i. 14. i, and "Uphor" in 12. 316 with the 
"Ouphareg" of Ir. Haer. i. 21. 3.) 

4 Photius, ad Ampl. Q. 89. 7, where it symbolises that God is without beginning and 
without end ; but properly Tau as the last letter should show that He is the end of all 
things, as Omega does in Greek. lao has travelled into Greek and there been used 
to show that He is the end, in virtue of the Omega, and returned to Hebrew where He 
has had to assume the Tau in order to retain His character. 

6 Orig. c. Cels. 6. 32. Origen appears to be well informed. 

For the value of Hebrew or Babylonian names cf. Lucian, Alexander 13, and 
Papp. Mag. Gr. 3. 119 Kara rfjs 'E/Spai'/cj;? <f>u>vrjs as a means of adjuration ; for the 
superior efficacy of prayer in a barbarous tongue Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 21. 143 
(405 P). 


The prestige of the Jewish God was enhanced by the success of 
Jewish exorcisms, which were undoubtedly effective, both in the more 
definitely "magical" form in which they were associated with the use 
of the herbs and fumigations handed down by Solomon, which 
orthodox Judaism recognised as effective, while doubtful of their 
orthodoxy, 1 and in the liturgical or "kerygmatic" form which sought 
to overpower the demons by the recitation of the mighty works of the 
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the creation of the world and in 
the deliverance of His chosen people ; the predilection for His mighty 
works in bringing His people through the Red Sea and Jordan may 
have been intended to overawe the demons yet further, for they knew 
that they could not cross running water ; a fortiori they could not resist 
the God who was able to bring His people through it dryshod. 2 

How far this magical efficacy of Judaism led to the abandonment of 
religion in favour of magic by members of the Jewish nation is perhaps 
a doubtful question; Jews who lapsed in this way would leave no trace 
on the religious literature. The influence of Judaism on the magical 
literature of the Hellenistic world is very strong, 3 but it would be 
perfectly easy for Gentiles, who were impressed with the potency of 
the Most High God of the Jews, to attach themselves to the synagogue 
and so acquire a good working knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. 4 
The Greek bible could probably be purchased at Alexandria, as it 
could certainly be stolen at Ephesus. 5 In any case it is clear that 

1 Jos. Antt. 8. 2. 5 (46) records such an exorcism by the herbs of Solomon enclosed 
in a signet-ring which he witnessed in the presence of Vespasian and his staff; cf. 
B.J. 7. 6. 3 (180) for a specially valuable herb, which can only be gathered at grave 
personal danger. For fumigations cf. the burning of the fish's liver, Tobit 6. 17, and 
8. 2 seqq. The doubts of the rabbis as to these methods appear in the Baraitha to 
Mishnah, Pes. 4. 8 (Danby 141), where the sages approved of king Hezekiah for 
hiding away the "roll of healings" no less than for destroying the brazen serpent. 
For adjurations written by Solomon cf. Orig. In Matt. Comm. Ser. no; Justin 
Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 85 (sue), accuses the Jews of the use of fumigations and 
binding spells; he holds that exorcisms in the names of kings, righteous men, 
prophets or patriarchs (presumably Solomon) are not effective, but has to admit the 
efficacy of those by the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (see below, p. 208). 
It may be suspected that Justin's orthodoxy here is more reliable than his account 
of the facts. The Q-Logion Mt. 12. 27 = Lk. n. 19 is a testimony to the effectiveness 
of Jewish practice. (For the Hezekiah story cf. McGown The Testament of 
Solomon 92 seqq.) z See Note II on Jewish influences in magical literature. 

3 Nock, Gnomon 12. n. 607. 

4 A class of persons of this type appears to be implied in Acts 19. 18 ; they would 
seem to have gone over from Judaism to Christianity as a more efficacious system, 
and subsequently to have undergone a genuine conversion. Apart from a possible 
exaggeration of the value of the literature burnt, the story seems perfectly probable. 
Cf. below, p. 148. 

6 Jos. Antt. 16. 6. 2 and 4 (i&(. and 168). It is hard to see why a gentile should 
steal a copy of the Bible or the roll of the Torah and fly to asylum out of a mere 
excess of anti-Semitic zeal ; it would be more effective either to destroy it or deface 
it, cf. Antt. 20. 5. 4 (115). 


mystical value of the incense which was the only offering welcome to 
the gods. Philo is aware of this tradition; indeed he shows some skill 
in conflating it with the view of the prophets that God demands mercy 
and not sacrifice, when he writes that the smallest offering of incense 
by the righteous is better than the holocaust of the wicked. 1 

In one point indeed Judaism could claim that its cultus contained 

that element of mystery which always has a potent appeal to the human 

instinct of curiosity. The name of God had been withdrawn from the 

public worship of the synagogue about the beginning of the Christian 

era, and was only uttered in the Temple on occasions of special 

solemnity. 2 The withdrawal was indeed comparatively recent, since 

Philo has incorporated sources which still admitted its use in oaths of 

a solemn kind. 3 On the other hand, he is acquainted with the rabbinical 

substitutes and the interpretations placed on them. 4 Philo is entirely 

ready to make the use of the name in the Temple worship into a 

mystery of the approved type, in which the priests, who hear the name 

when the High Priest utters it, have to play the part of allegorical 

initiates. 5 He is even prepared to hold that the true meaning of the 

tetragrammaton, "I that am" (o o>v), is that nothing which exists can 

"consist" (ovorfjvai) without calling upon the name of God. Here 

Philo has abandoned the LXX use of Ku/atos as the rendering of the 

name of God, presumably because he is a good enough Greek scholar to 

know that this is impossible. 6 In Josephus Moses desires to be told the 

name of God in order that he may call on Him by name to be present 

at the time of sacrifice; 7 the tetragrammaton carved on the mitre 

of the High Priest had even won the worship of Alexander the Great. 8 

After this it is no great thing that Artabanus should relate that the 

mere whisper of it in Pharaoh's ear had caused him to fall lifeless; 

written on a tablet, it had slain an Egyptian priest who mocked. 9 All 

1 De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacr.), 4. 275 (M. 2. 254). That this is so is proved by the 
fact that the altar of burnt-offerings is of stone and outside the Tabernacle, the 
altar of incense inside and made of gold. 

3 Mishnah, Yoma 3. 8 and 6. 2, Tamid 3. 8 (Danby 165, 169 and 585); cf. Philo, 
De Vit. Mays. 2 (3). n (114, M. 2. 152). a De Decal. 19 (93, M. 2. 196). 

4 Q.R.D.H. 35 (170, M. i. 497), where the reference is to Adonai and Elohim as 
symbolising the two divine attributes of mercy and justice; see below, p. 45, for his 
reversal of the rabbinical order. 6 De Vit. Mays. loc. cit. n. 2 above. 

Loc. cit. 14 (132). The thought is suspiciously reminiscent of the statement of 
Thcopompus up. Diog, Lnert. i. 9 that according to the Magiana all things that are 
continue in existence through their incantations (if this is the correct translation ; 
cf, Hicks' translation and note (id loc. in the Loeb version). 

7 Aittt, 2. 12. 4 (275), where it i </i'< ()t/ttr<>i> for Josephus to reven! the name. 

* Anlt, n. K. 5 (331); the passage is an interesting glorification of the High 
I'riest's robe, but the emphasis is on the name inscribed on the mitre. 

" HUH, I'r. F.v. y. 27. 13. It seems a recognised trick of magic; cf. Simon Magus' 
killing !' u boy by whispering in his ear, Acts of Pater 25 (Apocr, N.T. 325). For a 


this was quite in accordance with pagan ideas; Valerius Soranus had 
approved of the making public of the secret name of Rome, and come 
in consequence to an evil end. 1 But Judaism itself was perfectly well 
aware of the importance and value of names, and of a knowledge of the 
correct name of God; one of the reasons urged by the rabbis for the 
withdrawal of the name, and its disclosure in the days of the Temple 
only to suitable people, was that it might be used by "violent" men 
for purposes of vengeance. 2 In Christianity the belief is still to be 
found, either, as in Paul's case, surviving in phrases which imply it, 
but have lost all real meaning, 3 or, as in the Apocalypse, expressing the 
popular belief in the potency of a name which is known to none but 
God and its bearer, who is thus immune from the assault of hostile 
powers. 4 Later Christianity, even in its most enlightened exponents, 
recognised the value of the right name in addressing the powers of the 
unseen world; 5 it was even held that the name of Jesus Christ was not 
the real name, but only that used by Him on earth, but here we are 
in circles of an unorthodox character. 6 

In one respect at least Jewish insistence on the supremacy of the 
God of Israel with the ineffable Name produced unfortunate results. 
The underworld of Hellenistic magic could not afford to ignore so 
potent a deity. The name itself, in its Greek form, lao, was sug- 
gestive, for it contained the first, middle and last of the vowels (un- 
fortunately in the wrong order), and the vowels possessed a magic 
efficacy of their own as the means by which the voiceless consonants 
could express what would otherwise be unutterable. 7 The wrong order 

magical use of the name (to locate the coffin of Joseph in the Nile) cf. Mekilta, Tr. 
Besh. i. 93 (ed. Lauterbach i. p. 176). 

1 Pliny, N.H. 3. 9. 65. For Roman views on the secrecy of divine names cf. Warde 
Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People 120, Lucan, Phars. 6. 732. 

2 Talmud, Kiddushin 7 1 b ; cf . Rashi, ad loc. for the view that its withdrawal " when 
violent men multiplied " refers to those " who made practical use " of the name ; it 
was revealed while the Temple stood to those who did not stand on their rights, 
because they would not use it for vengeance. No doubt the tablet of Rheneia 
(Deissmann, Licht v. Ost. 305) praying for vengeance to the most High God, the 
Lord of the spirits of all flesh, would have acquired an added potency from the 
insertion of the name. The name or rather names of Aoth, Abaoth the God of 
Abraham, lao of Isaac and Aoth, Abaoth the God of Israel appear in a "defixion" 
adjuring the demon in a grave to bring Urbanus to his lover Domitiana ; the tablet 
appears to date from the third century A.D. (Leclercq, Diet. d'Arch. Chret. i. 527, 
regards it as possibly Christian, but a comparison with the papyri suggests that it 
need not even be Jewish). 

3 Phil. 2. 9. 

* Rev. 2. 17; the references to "new names" in this book passim reveal a real 
belief in their efficacy. 

6 Cf. p. 208. " Acts of Thomas 163 (Apocr. N.T. 435). 

7 Philo, De Mtind. Op. 42 (126, M. i. 30). Such a statement shows how close 
"sympathy" can come to magic. 


was not a decisive objection, since in magic the repetition of the 
vowels in every possible permutation and combination of order was 
a regular practice; the spirits, even the stars themselves, would not 
obey any but the correct address. 1 It seems that the mysterious 
name of the God of Israel was taken as a sort of summary of all the 
potency of the mystical sounds of the vowels which themselves re- 
presented, among other things, the planets ; for the planets and the 
vowels were correlated by the ancient learning of the Chaldeans. 2 
Since then the name could be a symbol of the hebdomad, it sum- 
marised that mystical correspondence between the nature of the 
heavens and the whole cosmos, and the nature of the microcosm man, 
which was the ultimate secret of all wisdom. 3 Hellenistic magic could 
not fail to recognise that such a name possessed a peculiar potency of 
its own; Judaism appears to have adopted the theme by adding the 
last letter of the alphabet and so making the name laoth, which could 
symbolise, not very accurately, the position of God as the beginning, 
the middle and the end of all things. 4 Moreover, the God of Israel 
had other names, whose number could be brought up to seven by the 
addition to the ordinary four names of God, as found in the Scriptures, 
of others drawn from the sphere of magic. 5 Thus He could be made to 
play a prominent part in this realm, the more so in view of His court of 
angels, whose outlandish names were calculated to attract the attention 
of the vulgar, and to increase the effectiveness of the magician's 
incantations. 6 

1 For the importance of the right name cf. Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Stern- 
deutung 125. Cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 208 for the position of lao in regard to the 
seven vowels in the Gnostic cosmogony of the Monad or Eighth book of Moses ; 
I suspect that this was one of the main reasons for the popularity of lao. 

2 Plut. De Ei ap. Delph. 4. 3863 and the oracle Porphyry ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 5. 14. 2, 
and the "great name with seven vowels", Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 39. 

3 Cf. the whole passage on the hebdomad in Phi\o,DeMund. 0^.30(90, M. 1.21)- 
42 (127, M. i. 30), especially the "physical sympathy" of 117. Here we have a 
harmless Stoic-Pythagorean play with numbers which is hardly intended seriously ; 
contrast the system of Marcus in Ir. Haer. i. 14. 7, where the same scheme as that 
which appears in Philo, possibly drawn from the same source, is fitted into the 
magic which is the basis of Marcus' system. (Cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. passim for the 
letter-magic described in Ir. Haer. i. 14. i, and "Uphor" in 12. 316 with the 
"Ouphareg" of Ir. Haer. i. 21. 3.) 

4 Photius, ad Ampl. Q. 89. 7, where it symbolises that God is without beginning and 
without end ; but properly Tau as the last letter should show that He is the end of all 
things, as Omega does in Greek. lao has travelled into Greek and there been used 
to show that He is the end, in virtue of the Omega, and returned to Hebrew where He 
has had to assume the Tau in order to retain His character. 

8 Orig. c. Cels. 6. 32. Origen appears to be well informed. 

For the value of Hebrew or Babylonian names cf. Lucian, Alexander 13, and 
Papp. Mag. Gr. 3. 119 Kara rrjs 'E/3paiK^s (j>a>vrjs as a means of adjuration; for the 
superior efficacy of prayer in a barbarqus tongue Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 21. 143 
(405 P). 


The prestige of the Jewish God was enhanced by the success of 
Jewish exorcisms, which were undoubtedly effective, both in the more 
definitely "magical" form in which they were associated with the use 
of the herbs and fumigations handed down by Solomon, which 
orthodox Judaism recognised as effective, while doubtful of their 
orthodoxy, 1 and in the liturgical or "kerygmatic" form which sought 
to overpower the demons by the recitation of the mighty works of the 
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the creation of the world and in 
the deliverance of His chosen people; the predilection for His mighty 
works in bringing His people through the Red Sea and Jordan may 
have been intended to overawe the demons yet further, for they knew 
that they could not cross running water; a fortiori they could not resist 
the God who was able to bring His people through it dryshod. 2 

How far this magical efficacy of Judaism led to the abandonment of 
religion in favour of magic by members of the Jewish nation is perhaps 
a doubtful question ; Jews who lapsed in this way would leave no trace 
on the religious literature. The influence of Judaism on the magical 
literature of the Hellenistic world is very strong, 3 but it would be 
perfectly easy for Gentiles, who were impressed with the potency of 
the Most High God of the Jews, to attach themselves to the synagogue 
and so acquire a good working knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. 4 
The Greek bible could probably be purchased at Alexandria, as it 
could certainly be stolen at Ephesus. 5 In any case it is clear that 

1 Jos. Antt. 8.2.5 (46) records such an exorcism by the herbs of Solomon enclosed 
in a signet- ring which he witnessed in the presence of Vespasian and his staff; cf. 
B.J. 7. 6. 3 (180) for a specially valuable herb, which can only be gathered at grave 
personal danger. For fumigations cf. the burning of the fish's liver, Tobit 6. 17, and 
8. 2 seqq. The doubts of the rabbis as to these methods appear in the Baraitha to 
Mishnah, Pes. 4. 8 (Danby 141), where the sages approved of king Hezekiah for 
hiding away the " roll of healings " no less than for destroying the brazen serpent. 
For adjurations written by Solomon cf. Orig. In Matt. Comm. Ser. no; Justin 
Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 85 (3110), accuses the Jews of the use of fumigations and 
binding spells; he holds that exorcisms in the names of kings, righteous men, 
prophets or patriarchs (presumably Solomon) are not effective, but has to admit the 
efficacy of those by the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (see below, p. 208). 
It may be suspected that Justin's orthodoxy here is more reliable than his account 
of the facts. The Q-Logion Mt. 12. 27 = Lk. n. 19 is a testimony to the effectiveness 
of Jewish practice. (For the Hezekiah story cf. McGown The Testament of 
Solomon 92 seqq.) z See Note II on Jewish influences in magical literature. 

3 Nock, Gnomon 12. n. 607. 

4 A class of persons of this type appears to be implied in Acts 19. 18 ; they would 
seem to have gone over from Judaism to Christianity as a more efficacious system, 
and subsequently to have undergone a genuine conversion. Apart from a possible 
exaggeration of the value of the literature burnt, the story seems perfectly probable. 
Cf. below, p. 148. 

6 Jos. Antt. 16. 6. 2 and 4 (i&f. and 168). It is hard to see why a gentile should 
steal a copy of the Bible or the roll of the Torah and fly to asylum out of a mere 
excess of anti-Semitic zeal ; it would be more effective either to destroy it or deface 
it, cf. Antt. 20. 5. 4 (115). 


Judaism was a leading factor in the magical world, in so far as its 
God, in virtue of His wonderful names and His position as the creator 
of the universe, and His proved power to deliver His people in the 
past, and those possessed with demons in the present, showed that He 
controlled vast spiritual forces. 1 Here there was a link which connected 
Judaism with the lower side of the religion of the Hellenistic world, 
which was always ready to absorb the practices of religion and convert 
them to magic purposes; naturally the line between religion and magic 
was even less fixed than in modern times, and prayers and forms of 
worship with a perfectly reputable origin, or exorcisms based on 
belief in the power of God to heal those possessed by evil spirits, 
would easily degenerate into magic of the crudest type, which bound 
the spirits of evil to work the will of those who knew the correct 
formula. 2 

Nor was Judaism of a more purely religious type always strict in its 
adherence to the limits of Jewish monotheism. In the main stream 
of Palestinian and Alexandrine tradition there is no evidence of any 
real deviation from orthodox Judaism. The Hellenistic writers in 
general know of lao, the God of the Jews, as being another name for 
Saturn, 3 or as being the God who is above the' seven spheres. 4 
According to others he is "the unknowable" 5 or more often "the 
invisible". The last title is significantly associated with the name of 
God by Paul in his opposition to the more or less Gnostic teachers at 
Colossae; in itself it was entirely unexceptionable, while the frequent 
anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament made it necessary for 

1 The importance of cosmogony seems to lie in the fact that a recitation of creation 
proves to the demons that the magician has an intimate knowledge of the methods of 
the supreme being. The efficacy attached to the Jewish knowledge of cosmogony 
appears from the fact that the Gnostic cosmogony contained in Papp. Mag. Gr. 13 
(cf. Jacoby quoted in the introductory note) is described as the Eighth book of 
Moses, though it has on the whole rather less than the average amount of Jewish 
influence. In 12. 92 seqq. the adept transforms himself into Moses, who is conceived 
in the style of Philo as chief of a body of initiates. 

2 Cf. Dieterich, Abraxas 2 for the view that the religious elements in the magical 
papyri are borrowed from the liturgical books of various religious communities. 

3 See above, p. 8. 

4 So in an unnamed writer ap. Lydus, De Mens. 4. 53 (ed. Wunsch), where the 
name Sabaoth implies that he is the God who is above the seven spheres (from a 
source which recognises the similarity of sabaoth and sabbath). The view that the 
Jews worshipped the firmament was a natural way of expressing the fact that they 
had only one god, whom they did not identify with any particular figure or factor in 
the cosmos, and who dwelt in the firmament, which was, according to the general 
Stoic view, the riyfp.wiK6v in the cosmos. So in Hecataeus ap. Diod. Sic. 40. 3. 4 
(ap. Photius /&/. 244. 58) and (presumably) Posidonius ap. Strabo 16. 2. 35 (761), 
where God is either the firmament or the cosmos or the nature of the world. The 
same opinion appears in Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. 5. 6. 

6 Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos 58 seqq. 


Judaism to insist on the invisibility of God against the criticism of the 
Gentiles. 1 Moreover, the invisibility of the soul and the invisibility 
of God were two elements in that correspondence of macrocosm and 
microcosm which played a leading part in the apologetics of Stoicism. 
But it was easy to pass from the invisibility of God to the visible forms 
in which the divine manifested itself to the world. In general Judaism 
was content to do so by means of such abstractions as the "Wisdom" 
of God, or His "powers" or attributes. 2 But it would seem that 
speculation sometimes went further than this. Later Gnosticism used 
the Jewish names of God to describe the spheres through which the 
soul must pass in its ascent to the firmament. 3 It is stated by Lydus 
that according to Herennius (Philo of Byblus), Varro identifies lao, 
the God of the Jews, with "intellectual light". 4 The line of descent is 
not perhaps above suspicion. If it be true, it would seem that the 
"mystical writings of the Chaldeans", which are Varro's alleged 
source, equated the tetragrammaton with that light which God created 
in the beginning (Gen. i. 3). Aristobulus equated Wisdom with that 
light, 5 and had at the same time identified it with the sabbath by a 
rather unsuccessful attempt to equate the first and seventh days of the 
week with one another; in his glorification of the hebdomad he had 
pointed to the recognition of the seven planets as a tacit recognition of 
the importance of the sabbath. This was all quite harmless propa- 
ganda; but it is hard to feel so certain of Varro's "Chaldeans", who 
are clearly not Chaldeans or even Babylonian Jews. They can only be 
Greek-speaking Jews, for whom the tetragrammaton is represented by 
the LXX Kujotos; this again represents God's second attribute of 
justice, not the attribute of goodness which is His pre-eminent 
character as 0eos. 6 For Hebrew-speaking Jews the tetragrammaton 

1 Cf. p. 159. For lao as "invisible" cf. the Onomastica (ed. Wutz), passim. For 
God as invisible as against charges of anthropomorphism cf. Philo, De Conf. Ling. 
27 (138, M. i. 425), De Cher. 30 (101, M. i. 157), with an allusion to Plato (Phaedo 
793). But the conception was easily found in the O.T., cf. Exod. 33. 20. 

2 Cf. pp. 50 seqq. 3 See below, p. 1 54. 

4 Loc. cit. 

5 Ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 13 seqq. 

6 For Ku/Hor as justice and therefore secondary to deos cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. 3. 23 
(73, M. i. 101). The change could hardly be avoided in view of the connotation of 
the Greek words. Hence in Philo, De Conf. Ling. 28 (146, M. i. 427), the Logos can 
be the name of God, i.e. Kvpios, the LXX rendering of the tetragrammaton. The 
whole of this passage is very curious. The Logos appears as the chief of the angels; 
for this there are two parallels, Q.R.D.H. 42 (205, M. i. 501), a passage where the 
Logos is unusually personal and concrete (cf. p. 123), and De Somn. i. 25 (157, 
M. i. 645), where Jacob's dream implies the archangel as lord (rov apxayyikov 
Kvptov), standing at the head of the ladder; the phrase is obscure; it suggests that it 
comes from a source where lao as=K.vpios was a secondary manifestation of God. 
For the passage in De Conf. Ling, see below, p. 49. 


was inevitably the supreme name, and the secondary attribute of 
iustice was represented by Elohim. 1 

Thus Varro's reference must be to Greek-speaking Jews whose 
description as "Chaldeans" implies that they dabbled in astrology, 
even if they did no more. If they identified the tetragrammaton with 
the first-created light and combined this view with astrology, it is 
hard to avoid the suspicion that they carried out the scheme to its 
logical conclusion ; the seven days of creation would naturally represent 
seven aspects of God, each represented by one of the seven planets, 2 
and each represented by one of the names of God. Again, the planets 
could be regarded as the manifestation in action of the divine unity 
concentrated in the firmament of heaven; Jewish speculations of this 
kind obtained the approval of no less an authority than Apollo 
himself. 3 The oracle is undated but bears a suspicious resemblance to 
an ostensibly harmless passage in Philo, dealing with the affinity which 
exists between the monad, the number of the firmament, and the 
hebdomad, which possesses a peculiar affinity to the monad, and 
provides the divisible element in it, while the firmament provides the 
indivisible. 4 Beneath the Pythagorean mathematics and the Platonic 
distinction of Jihe two varieties of substance there seems to lie a system 
which really was concerned with astral speculation of the type indicated 
in the oracle of Apollo, though Philo has reduced it to harmless 
proportions; a similar suspicion is excited when we read elsewhere 5 
that the two cherubim represent the fixed sphere and the planets re- 
spectively, and the flaming sword none less than God Himself. Now 
here the flaming sword should obviously be the Logos, as in other 
systems it can be Mithras ; G but the appearance of God and the contro- 

1 Kyrios 3. 707. 

2 Naturally astrological allegory would find no difficulty in the lack of any planets 
till the fourth day of creation. 

3 Quoted by Porphyry ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 10. 4. 

4 De Decal. 21 (102 seqq., M. 2. 198). I am not sure if the correspondence of unit 
and hebdomad to firmament and planets can be paralleled in Philo ; the fact that by 
preserving their proper relations they "prolong the aeon", i.e. make up the Great 
Year, is hardly to be found elsewhere in his writings. Cf. below, p. 49. 

5 De Cher. 7 (24, M. i. 143), where God committed the reins to none but 
Himself for fear of a rebellion ; this seems to reflect an Iranian dualism, where the 
Logos took the place which Philo assigns to God at this point as a controversial reply 
to an unorthodox view. The flaming sword between the trees of Paradise appears in 
the Ophite system, ap. Orig. c. Cels. 6. 33. Cf. also Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 254 and 335, 
where the adept proclaims himself to be " He that sitteth upon the two cherubim", 
i.e. identifies himself with lao, and summons the archangel ( = the Logos?) to appear. 

Orig. c. Cels. 6. 22. Celsus explains Mithraism as the spheres of the fixed stars 
and the planets, and the descent of the soul between them ; presumably here the 
planets belong to the material. For Mithras as mediator between Ahura Mazda and 
Ahriman cf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 46. 3690. 


versial note seem to show that Philo is combating unorthodox specu- 
lation which saw the action of the Logos embodied in the planetary 
spheres. It is also likely enough that Philci's controversy with 
"Chaldeans" (ostensibly the natives of Ur, as opposed to Abraham) 1 
represents the need of refuting Jews who dabble in astrology; it need 
hardly be said that Philo elsewhere incorporates such speculations as 
his own, though reduced to a harmless form in which the three cities 
of refuge beyond Jordan represent the three "powers" of God which 
man cannot imitate, the Logos, creation and government ; the three 
on the near side, mercy, commandment and prohibition, represent 
those which he can. 2 Similarly we find an apparently controversial 
statement that God had no helper when He imposed the element of 
order on the chaos of matter, which may be an allusion to unorthodox 
speculations as to the role of Wisdom in creation (Philo has for- 
gotten that in associating the chaos of matter with the creation of 
the ideal world, with which he is ostensibly concerned at this point, he 
is confusing two completely incompatible cosmogonies, the ideal 
world of the Timaeus which is not as yet related to the chaos of 
matter and the book of Genesis). 3 An equally unorthodox line of 
thought appears to have made itself felt in his admission of the dis- 
tinction of the Timaeus between the immortal side of man's nature, 
created by God Himself, and the mortal and material side created by 
the "powers". 4 It may be that he is merely airing his knowledge of 
Plato; but the "powers" have a tendency to identification with the 
planets, and it is quite possible that there lies behind this passage a 

1 De Migr. Abr. 32 (178, M. i. 464). 

2 De Fug. et Inv. 19 (103 seqq., M. i. 561). Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 404, 
sees here Ahura Mazda and the six Amhaspands. It is of course possible that Philo's 
source was inspired by a memory of the Persian tradition ; but the real point of the 
passage is to find a peculiarly elaborate symbolism to justify the obvious problem 
presented by the six cities of refuge. An omnipotent god of perfect holiness ought to 
have been able to save an involuntary homicide from the perils of the blood-feud 
without this curious machinery. The rabbinical "positive" and "negative" com- 
mandments show how hard pressed the writer was to find a symbolism which he 
could read into his text. The same applies to the cherubim in Quaest. in Exod. z. 
62 seqq. Philo has produced a hebdomad out of God and His two chief attributes 
united by the Logos, two parallels of the first two attributes and the " intellectual 
world" symbolised by the mercy seat. He has thus secured a celestial hebdomad 
to correspond to the planets and at the same time transferred the awkward figures 
of the winged beasts from the sanctuary to heaven ; the motive is obvious in view of 
the apparent conflict between the figures of the cherubim and the Jewish view of 

3 Timaeus 48 a ; the position of matter in the Timaeus is sufficiently ambiguous, 
but Philo's view of it here reflects the chaos of Genesis and perhaps the Stoic view 
in the form described by Diog. Laert. 7. 134. For Philo see DeMund, Op. 6 (23, M. 

i. 5). 

4 De Fug. et Inv. 1 3 (69, M. i . 556). Cf . Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 62 (285 d), for 
Jewish heretics who hold that the body of man was made by angels (Timaeus 41 c). 


rather dangerous speculation. If the "powers" were the planets, or 
even if they were angelic beings corresponding to them but able to 
overrule them in virtue of their higher order in the heavens, it might 
easily follow that the true "Gnostic was no longer bound to the 
burden of the literal observance of the Torah, which need only apply 
within the limits of the material world ; the observance of the seventh 
day was after all the quintessence of the Torah, and the importance 
of the hebdomad in the natural sympathy of the cosmos need not 
apply to those who were above it. 1 Similar conclusions could be 
drawn from the identification of the seven archangels, powers or 
manifestations of God in the days of creation, with the Logos, a 
speculation which may be implied in the equation of lao with the 
"intellectual light" created on the first day; the ultimate God of the 
universe had no name. 2 Similarly, the equation of lao with Saturn 
may reflect such speculations, 3 which could easily lead to the assimi- 
lation of Judaism to Gentile religion by introducing a lower order of 
the divine nature accessible to the ordinary man, but not to the 

It is far from clear how widely such speculations were diffused. It 
would seem that they lie behind the teaching which Paul opposes at 
Colossae and some of the curious contacts between paganism and 
Judaism which meet us in later literature, usually in connection with 
the fourfold aeon. 4 It would of course be natural that Jews of such 
unorthodox views would join hands with the Gnostics who cared 
little for Christianity; it is probable that some of the contacts 

1 Cf. p. 46 ; Jews who reject the Torah on the ground that it does not apply to 
them because they are "above" the material world seem to be implied in De Migr. 
Abr. 16 (90, M. i. 450). 

2 This was the inevitable result of the substitution of Kvpins for the tetra- 
grammaton. Philo's inconsistencies on this point (the supreme God cannot have a 
name (see references on p. 40) ; the name on the mitre " is said " to be of four letters ; 
it is not the real name, but that applied to the powers, Q.R.D.H. 35 (170, 
M. r. 497)) represent different sources and the gradual withdrawal of the name from 
use during the last century B.C. and the first century A.D. 

3 But see p. 8. 

4 Cf. p. 37 and the further hymn in Macrob. Sat. i. 18. 20, where lao takes the 
place of Adonis as the fourth manifestation of Helios-Aion; cf. Peterson, Eis 0eoy 
243 . Such speculations would enter Judaism more easily, since the sun was created 
on the fourth day; hence Philo, De Plant. 28 (117 seqq., M. i. 347), allegorises the 
number four in relation to the light of the sun and the seasons in a manner which 
suggests such speculations, but is simply based on Genesis and the Pythagorean 
tetrad. So in Q.R.D.H. 34 (165, M. i. 496) the four first days belong to the aeon, 
the last three to time (Genesis and the Timaeus). Origen, In Ev. Jo. 13. 40, 
conflates the two lines of speculation by making the present age a tetrad, corre- 
sponding to the four elements ; eternity and heaven begin with the sphere of the 
moon. But these speculations would "easily associate themselves with the less 
orthodox views later associated with the chariot of Ezekiel. 


between allegorical interpretation of the Philonic type and the 
Gnostic systems represent the work of Jewish heretics, though they 
have been overlaid by the anti-Semitism of later generations. 1 In any 
case all this allegorising in its Philonic form is entirely harmless; but 
it seems difficult to suppose that a description of the Logos in De Conf. 
Ling. 28 (146, M. i. 427) in which he appears as "protogonos", the 
archangel, the beginning, the Name of God, the archetypal man and 
"the seeing Israel", does not represent a sevenfold division of the 
Logos accommodated to Gnostic speculation and to astrology. 2 It is 
interesting to note that it is associated with the view that if we are not 
yet worthy to be called the sons of God, we must seek to be sons of 
His image, the Logos, language which is neither Jewish nor Greek, 
but suggests a Gnostic ascent of the .soul to God through the Logos, 
while elsewhere 3 the title of Protogonos is associated with the Logos 
as the High Priest who inhabits the cosmos [he is symbolised by the 
High Priest's robe, which represents the stars], just as the rational soul 
dwells in man. The latter passages are innocent enough; the sevenfold 
Logos is suspicious, especially in view of the magical formula which 
we meet elsewhere in which the seven names of archangels (ending 
with Israel) form a "sword" of peculiar potency and of a purely 
Jewish character. 4 The apocryphal "Prayer of Joseph" preserved by 
Origen 5 represents a similar speculation: "Jacob" is the patriarch's 
human name : to God he is known as Israel, the first of all creatures 
to whom God has given life. When he leaves Mesopotamia (LXX) the 
angel Uriel opposes him: Jacob points out that Uriel is only eighth in 
order, while he is first; here we have a rebellious hierarchy below the 
seven angelic beings of whom Jacob is first. He is distinctly superior 
to Abraham and Isaac; 6 who the other angels are does not appear. 

1 Thus the system of the Peratae (Hipp. El. 5. 16 seqq. 133) combines an en- 
tirely Philonic allegory of the Exodus with the view that Cain is righteous as 
against Abel, who serves "the master of this world", and Esau as against Jacob. 
There is no hint of the method by which Moses was retained as on the side of the 
two higher elements, Father and Son, as against the lowest element of " becoming" 
which is subject to the stars : I suspect that a Jewish system has been incorporated. 

2 Cf. God as = the monad = the firmament mirrored in action in the planets 
= the hebdomad in De Decal. 21 (102 seqq. M. 2. 198). Properly God in action 
also=the Logos, but Philo does not say so here. 

3 De Somn. i. 37 (215, M. i. 653). 

4 For the "sword of Dardanus" see p. 203. 

5 In Ev. Jo. 2. 25. There is no hint of Christianity in the fragments preserved by 
Origen, who regards it as an orthodox Jewish work of an almost canonical character. 
But Origen's standard of orthodoxy is not high. 

6 This appears to be the meaning of the statement that as Israel "the man who 
sees God " he is irpcaroyovos TTO.VTOS fwov caovp.evov viro deov while Abraham and 
Isaac TrpoeKria-Orjtrav irpo iravrbs epyov. But Abraham and Isaac may be referred 
back to a pre-angelic order of creation. 



Another way of expressing God's action on the world was to speak 
of His "powers". This conception was drawn from the Stoic attempt 
to combine a theoretical monotheism with a practical conformity to 
established religion. 1 From the Stoics the word passed into the Jewish 
exegesis of Alexandria, where it provided a convenient method of 
explaining away the remnants of polytheism embedded in the cosmo- 
gony of Genesis and the stories of the patriarchs. In the case of the 
story of Creation the use of the plural indicated the fact that God 
consulted His powers in regard to the formation of man, the only 
creature capable of moral evil. 2 It was ingeniously argued that the 
use of the two titles of "God" and "Lord" implied the two main 
attributes of God, His goodness and His justice; for the orthodox 
exposition of Alexandria tended to reduce the attributes of God to 
these harmless ethical qualities, though angels and the celestial bodies 
could also, in more incautious moments, be included among them, or 
their number could be increased if the exigencies of allegory demanded 
it. 3 By a fortunate coincidence the visitations of divine anger in 
Gen. 11.3 and 18. 20 (cf. v. i) were associated with the remnants of 
polytheistic language; consequently it was possible here too to draw 
the lesson that God by Himself is only the author of good; where He 
is compelled by the sin of man to inflict punishment He only does 
so after consultation with His powers. The source of this ingenious 
explanation appears to be the treatise of Posidonius on divination [or 
a tract of a similar type], which was concerned with the view of the 
Etruscan haruspices that lightnings sent by Jupiter alone are harmless; 
those which do harm are sent only after consultation with the rest of 
the gods. 4 The Etruscan view was dismissed as absurd from the Stoic 
standpoint ; yet it contained a salutary lesson for kings that they should 
only punish their subjects after due deliberation ; Philo draws precisely 
the same lesson from the plural manifestation of God at the destruction 
of the cities of the plain, in a manner which clearly reveals that he is 
drawing on the same source as that which explained away the lore of 
Etruscan divination. 5 The whole of this ingenious explanation was 

1 Diog. Laert. 7. 147, where they are described as oticeidrqres; "powers" appear 
in Plut. De Is. et Os. 67 (378 a') as also in Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 9. 40, Aristides 
(Keil), 45. 8, Aug. De Civ. Dei 4. n, cf. Cumont, Etudes Syriennes 197. 

2 Cf. p. 84. 

3 Philo (De Cow/. Ling. 34 seqq. (171, M. i. 431)) equates the powers employed in 
creation with the world of ideas, which is also the world of the heavenly bodies, and 
with the traditional angels ; normally, however, he limits them to goodness and mercy, 
as in the passages referred to on p. 45. For a curious variation cf. p. 47. 

1 Seneca, N.Q. 2. 43. i ; I can hardly doubt that this is drawn from Posidonius in 
view of the extent to which he and Philo follow him. 

5 De Abrahamo 28 (143 seqq., M. 2. 22) ; here the powers are goodness and punish- 


taken over by the rabbis of Palestine, who replaced the "powers" by 
the term middoth (measures or attributes); 1 the rabbinical exegesis 
was able to use language which suggested that goodness and mercy 
were "qualities" of God, a view which was impossible for the 
Alexandrines, since it was a dogma of Greek thought that God was 
"without qualities". 2 Naturally the terms which described the 
attributes were reversed; in Hebrew the tetragrammaton had to 
stand for goodness, the supreme attribute of God. 3 

The "powers" explained the somewhat polytheistic cherubim of 
the ark: the mercy seat between them represents the Logos, 4 whose 
position as uniting and ruling the powers here, as compared with the 
position of God between the powers on the road to Sodom, proves 
that the figure of the Logos has no real meaning; God Himself might 
just as well have taken its place. 5 

There was, however, a further use for the powers. The natural 
sympathy which holds together the universe could be regarded as a 
system of "powers" emanating from God into the cosmos. 6 This 
terminology was drawn from Gentile sources, not from the Jewish 
attributes of God. 7 Gentile convention could regard the mysterious 
"powers" which upheld the cosmos as being in sympathy with, if not 
governed by, the planets which foretold or ruled the fate of man; the 
cosmos itself was divine, or ruled by a divine world-soul immanent in 
it. 8 Here we have a consistent Stoicism which omits the transcendent 
elements of deity in the firmament; it would appear to represent a 
reaction to the original Stoic scheme, though it is quite possible that it 
was adopted in one or another of the writings of Posidonius or his 
followers. Naturally Judaism could not allow this : but it was easy to 
explain that the planets were endowed with a celestial nature, like the 
rest of the angelic beings who peopled the upper air. 9 In that capacity 

1 The powers appear as "measures" in De Sacr. Ab. et Cain. 15 (59, M. i. 173). 

8 Cf. Leg. Alleg. i. 15 (51, M. i. 53). For the rabbinical conception of the attri- 
butes cf. R. Meir, quoted in Judaism i. 387. 

s See p. 45. 

* For the Logos as a "power" employed in creation cf. p. 83: for Wisdom as a 
"power" see Leg. Alleg. 2. 21 (86, M. i. 82). 

6 De Fug. et Inv. 19 (101, M. i. 561). Cf. De Cher. 9 (27, M. i. 144) for the two 
cherubim of paradise and the naming sword ; Philo seems to regard this as peculiarly 
his own. 

De Migr. Abr. 32 (181, M. i. 464), with a definite allusion to Timaeus 413. 

7 Cf. Plut. De Anim. Procr. in Tim. 26, 1025 c, where the principles of identity 
and diversity appear as "powers" of the world-soul. 

8 De Migr. Abr. loc. cit. (179). 

8 De Con/. Ling. 34 (173, M. i. 431); in the parallel passage, De Somn. i. 22 
(141, M. i. 642), they are called "demons" by "other philosophers" but angels by 
Scripture. Actually Philo tends to avoid angels, except where he is explaining the 



they could be employed by God to do His will, but it was useless for 
man to try to read the secrets of these higher beings. 1 

But when once the position of Judaism had been safeguarded 
against the perils of astrology, it was safe to read the heavens and their 
movements as the work of the "powers" of God. Thus without 
denying the astral wisdom of the age to the extent of rejecting entirely 
the belief that there was a direct connection between the heavenly 
bodies and the life of man, it was possible to reduce such speculations 
to comparatively harmless dimensions by seeing in both spheres the 
action of the divine powers of mercy and justice embodied in the 
Torah and in the history of Israel. All Jewish speculations were by 
no means so harmless; in general however Alexandrine Judaism, 
as represented by Philo, confines the planets to the position of con- 
ventional angels of the Jewish type ; they are free agents, but they have 
no desire to do anything but the will of God. The danger of heretical 
speculation was too pressing to allow for any trifling in this matter; 
the rabbis of Palestine were more secure, and were quite ready to 
agree that the Gentiles were subject to a fate that was determined 
by the hostile powers which ruled the heavens. 2 This Alexandrine 
orthodoxy dared not allow; at the most they could foretell cosmic 
disasters, a view which the rabbis also admitted. 3 
Thus the powers of God could be employed for almost any purpose. 
It is indeed possible that in methods of exegesis less elaborate than 
that of Philo the conception of a single "power" representing God's 
dealings with the universe was already current. This power could be 
equated with the Memra or the Shekinah or any other of the peri- 
phrases by which Judaism endeavoured to avoid an excessive measure 
of anthropomorphism in describing God's dealings with the universe, 
without for a moment supposing that the introduction of such a 
figure in any way interfered with the absolute unity of God. 4 The use 
of such terminology was a mere periphrasis, except in so far as it 
served to demonstrate Moses' familiarity with the esoteric truths of 

nature of the stars and other disembodied souls of the Platonic type. In De Vit. 
Moys. 2 (3). 39 (291, M. i. 179) the angels who bury Moses are "immortal 

1 P. 63. * Cf. p. loo. 

3 Cf. Tosefta, quoted below, p. 100. 

4 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 128 (3583). Justin points out that the Jews 
allow one power, which is an angel when it brings messages, the glory when it appears 
in a vision, a man when sent in human form, the Logos (Memra) when it reveals 
God to man. Justin opposes the view that it is put out from God yet inseparable from 
Him, as the light from the sun, and urges that it is dpiQpa erepov. But it is possible 
that this conception of one "power" represents Jewish controversy with the Church 
as to the Logos, not independent speculation. 


religion, as known to the philosophers and read by them into the 
mythology of paganism. 

All this range of speculation might originate in a perfectly harmless 
desire to show that the true doctrine of the one God manifested in 
creation and in history was not to be found, as the heathen vainly 
supposed, in a belief in a divine principle, permeating the whole as 
fate and nature, arid capable of being identified either with the 
greatest of all the gods, or with a particular deity in so far as the divine 
principle was being considered in one particular manifestation; 1 God 
was in the one God of Israel, manifesting Himself either in person or 
through His angels or powers under different aspects expressed by 
different names. This belief could be regarded as orthodox, though it 
had a suspicious resemblance to polytheism; clearly it could not be 
safeguarded from such a danger when the manifestations of God were 
related to the planets and so to the general astrological scheme of 
paganism. It would be equally dangerous if related not to the seven 
days of creation and the seven planets, but to the four seasons in which 
the sun manifested himself, and so to the one unending aeon manifested 
in the succession of four world-ages; yet the Jewish Scriptures could 
be urged in support of such teachings, since Ezekiel's vision of the 
chariot of God could easily be made to symbolise such a teaching, and 
had in fact probably been derived from it. 2 

It must, however, be noticed that this tendency to Gnosticism, while 
it makes itself felt on the borders of Judaism and Christianity in the 
heresy of Paul's opponents at Colossae, was in most cases, exceptindeed 
in the lower class of magical practice, confined to mystery-mongering 
of the most innocent variety. Judaism, especially in Palestine, felt 
sure of itself. The worship of the synagogue, consisting mainly of the 

1 The conception of one God manifested in the whole cosmos as fate, nature and 
Jupiter, and as the various gods of the pantheon in particular aspects of nature, was 
a commonplace of Stoicism, and was vital to it as a means of upholding the general 
practice of religion while avoiding the crudities of mythology (Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 
2. 13. 36,24. 63 seqq. ; Varro a. Aug. >e Cfo. )' 7. 6 ; Seneca, De Benef. 4. 7. iseqq,). 
It is of course possible that the Stoic view represents Oriental influences quite apart 
from the astrological ; but the general Hellenistic scheme provides a quite adequate 
explanation of the Jewish views suggested here, which meet us later in Colossians 
(cf. c. 7 below). There is no need to look for an Oriental source for the theory. 

2 Cf. p. 207. Ezek. c. i. may be derived from Iranian speculations of the aeon 
manifesting itself in four ages (cf. Peterson, Ety Qeos 250). But it appears to leave 
Jewish speculation quite unaffected, apart from providing four beasts for the 
conventional imagery of apocalyptic, until after the Christian era. I cannot believe 
that Philo could ignore the whole chapter, if it had been a popular theme for mysticism 
in his day ; his omission would imply that it was being used for entirely unorthodox 
purposes, but if this had been the case, we should expect a polemic against it rather 
than a complete silence. I am inclined to think that it came into fashion when 
Christianity had made speculation on Genesis i too dangerous. 


recitation or exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures or the 
exposition of them and of prayers closely modelled on the tradition 
of those Scriptures, could be trusted to preserve the transcendent 
omnipotence of the one God of Israel. It is a striking proof of the 
security which the Pharisees felt, that they were willing to adopt 
cosmic speculations, which might seem to be dangerous, and to read 
them, as the Alexandrines did, into the cultus of the Temple, without 
fear that they might lead to a syncretism of Judaism with the religion 
of the Gentiles. 1 In Alexandria there was little danger, for the cultus 
of the Temple was known only to Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes 
at second hand, except in the case of those who were both wealthy 
and devout enough to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the great 
festivals. It appears, however, that even in Jerusalem itself the whole 
theology of Hellenistic convention could be read into the cultus of 
altar, candlestick and incense or anything else: "Hermes" could be 
called as a witness to the truth of the Torah. The Pharisees were 
willing to go to lengths which excited the affected horror of their 
Sadducean opponents, precisely because they felt entirely secure of 
the system of Judaism. There is no evidence that their confidence 
would have been misplaced, apart from the historical incidents which 
gave rise to Christianity. 

1 Cf. Tosefta, Hag. 3. 35, where the Sadducees, seeing the Pharisees cleaning the 
candlestick in the Temple, exclaim, " Come and watch these Pharisees cleaning the 
radiance of the moon". But the Jerusalem Talmud reads (79 d) "the orb of the 
sun". In Philo, Q.R.D.H. 45 (221, M. i. 504), the main candlestick in the middle, 
with three smaller lights on each side, represents the sun in the middle with three 
planets on each side, and the divine Logos (i.e. mind as a divine element in man) 
dividing the six parts of the soul. Here again there may be a reminiscence of the six 
Amhaspands, but it is purely formal and artificial; the object is to find something 
which the candlestick can symbolise. For the possible relation of this symbolism to 
Hermetic speculations among the Pharisees cf. below, p. 113. 



A~ long as the unity of God and the supremacy of the Torah were 
preserved, Judaism was prepared to adopt any argument and 
any form of thought that seemed suited to the purpose. 
Naturally Paul was willing to do the same. In this, as in his whole 
theological outlook, he was thoroughly true to the tradition of the 
Judaism which he had learnt at the feet of Gamaliel, apart from the 
one decisive change. It had been said by one of the great figures of 
early Judaism that the world stood on three things, the Torah, the 
worship of the Temple and acts of love. 1 For Paul the world stood on 
Jesus, faith in Him and love as the fulfilling of the Law. 

Paul, in common with the leaders of rabbinical Judaism in his day, 
assumed the apocalyptic outlook of the Scriptures and the conventions 
of apocalyptic writing; 2 But if the Greek world, while rejecting the 
Gospel 3 as a system of eschatology, was prepared to accept it as a 
system of cosmogony, Paul was perfectly prepared to meet their 
wishes. Either system of exposition was from the Jewish point of 
view midrashic rather than dogmatic; in other words it was to be 
regarded riot as a statement of ultimate truth in the sphere of meta- 
physics, phrases which would have meant nothing to the mind of a 
Jew of the period, but as means of bringing home to the mind and 
conscience of the hearer the paramount claims of Jesus on the 
obedience of all mankind, claims which rested on His resurrection as 
the guarantee of the divine authority of the whole of His earthly life 
and teaching. 

Judaism had already provided a terminology in which Paul could 
expound the position of Jesus in the scheme of the universe. To 
understand his language it is necessary to go back to the time of the 
return from the exile. At that time Judaism was arriving with infinite 

1 Simeon the Just, Mishnah, Aboth i. 2 (Danby 446). 

2 Cf. below, p. 90. The attempt of Christian writers (e.g. Charles, Ap. andPs. 2. 
xi) to distinguish between the ethical outlook of apocalyptic and rabbinical Judaism 
seems as unfounded as the counter-statement of Travers Herford (Talmud and 
Apocrypha 235) that "the Apocalyptic and the ethical spirit do not get on well 
together". Paul's case shows how easily they can be combined in the same mind. 
Cf. below, p. 112, n. i. 

3 For the contents and structure of the primitive Gospel see Dodd, The Apostolic 
Preaching and its Developments. I am inclined to think that he underestimates the 
importance of the eschatology in the form of an imminent second coming. 


labour at an absolute monotheism; but outlying colonies still wor- 
shipped a pantheon of at least five figures, apparently without fearing 
that the authorities of the Temple at Jerusalem would disapprove of 
their action. 1 The Jews of Elephantine burnt incense to Anath, as 
their grandparents had burnt incense to the Queen of Heaven in the 
cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, at the end of the fifth 
century B.C. It is possible that Ezra had not yet arrived from Babylon, 
and that the Judaism of Jerusalem was still of an unreformed type. 2 
It is perhaps more likely that the exiles of Elephantine were ignorant 
of the change of affairs at Jerusalem and that their appeal fell on deaf 
ears. In any case Jewish monotheism was a recent growth at the 
beginning of the fourth century B.C. 

In that century the face of the Eastern world was changed by the 
conquests of Alexander the Great, and by the year 300 B.C. Judaea had 
become an outlying province of the Ptolemaic Empire. Judaism was 
in consequence brought into contact with the cult of Sarapis and Isis. 
The central figure of the cult as it affected the public at large was Isis, 
not mainly as the sorrowing wife and sister, but rather as the divine 
agent, who created and sustained the universe, and the teacher who 
had revealed to mankind the principles of morality and the laws and 
arts of civilisation. Isis proclaimed her greatness to the world in a 
style which was new to Greek religion; her panegyric of herself 
attained a canonical form and was widely diffused throughout the 
dominions of the Ptolemies. 3 The panegyric was old enough for a 
copy inscribed in stone to have become largely illegible by the end of 
the first century B.C. 4 The cult was attractive, and although the 
Ptolemies were too wise to attempt any systematic persecution of 
Judaism as a religion, their policy provided the temptation of full 
citizenship and the consequent opportunities of advancement in 
public life to those who were initiated into the mysteries. 5 

1 Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. xviii, 72 and 148. Cf. Cook, 
The Old Testament 150, Vincent, op. cit. p. 30, n. i. 

2 Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel 2. 1 14 seqq., date the return of Ezra 
about 400 B.C., which is about the date of the papyri. On the other hand, Ezra makes 
no reference to polytheism in the strict sense at Jerusalem ; it seems unlikely that he 
would have ignored it. 

3 For the aretalogy of Isis at Cyme and los see Peek, Die Isishymne von Andros. 
The text appears in my article on the Divine Wisdom mJ.T.S. 38. 151. 230 seqq. 

4 Diod. Sic. i. 27. 4. Although the "tomb" of Isis at "Nyssa" in Arabia is open 
to suspicion (Nyssa is the legendary birthplace of Dionysus : Arnobius, adv. Gentes 
5. 28), the accurate quotation of the opening clauses of the aretalogy makes it clear 
that he or his source was acquainted with an inscription in which the inscription was 
illegible through age. For the prominence of Isis as against Sarapis or Osiris in 
the Hellenistic cult cf. UPZ. 29. 

B For settlements of Jews in Egypt under the Ptolemies, cf. Letter of Aristeas 12, 
and Andrews' note ad loc. in Ap. and Ps. 2. 95. The persecution of Ptolemy Physcon 


In any case the temptation to relapse into polytheism, either 
as more attractive in cultus, 1 or as politically more advantageous, 
was constantly present before the Maccabean rebellion. 2 Con- 
sequently it is not surprising that the new cult, which combined 
official support with missionary propaganda, should have appeared a 
serious danger to the men who were concerned to maintain the 
purity of the reformed religion as established by the successors 
of Ezra. 3 

It was to meet this danger that the personified figure of Wisdom was 
introduced into the literature of the third century B.C. Wisdom as an 
expression of the nature of God and the ideal character of man is 
naturally a conception which might easily occur independently in 
different civilisations; it expresses the ideals of an established order 
in Church and State as against dangerous revolutionary tendencies on 
the part of the younger generation. In Judaism "wisdom-literature" 
as a whole may have been inspired by Egyptian models, which show 
a close similarity to the Jewish. 4 This is merely the adoption of a 
form of writing and a conception of the nature of God and man that is 
natural to a certain stage of development. But the personified Wisdom is 
a female figure definitely on the divine side of the gulf which separates 
God from man; the gulf is made more conspicuous by the absence 
from the earlier Wisdom-documents of the angelic hierarchy; this 

(so Jos. c. Ap. 2. 5 (53 seqq.) as against Philopator in 3 Mace. i. i) was accompanied 
according to the latter book with an offer of citizenship to those who were initiated 
into the mysteries (2. 30); 3. 21 suggests rather that a formal compliance on state 
occasions was enough. The book dates apparently from c. 100 B.C. (Emmet, Ap. and 
Ps. i. 158), and represents the temptation to obtain full citizenship by sharing in the 
religion of the city, even if there was no particular offer at the time ; the writer of 
3 Mace, admits that some accepted it (2. 31). 

1 Cf. Is. 65. 1-15 and 66. 17. For the official encouragement of the cult cf. Rel. 
Or, 74 and 235, n. 21. Wilcken, UPZ 83, admits the political purpose of the cult 
in its hellenised form. 

2 i Mace. 1.13; the distinction in the text would not necessarily present itself so 
clearly to the worshipper, who would ascribe the superior attractiveness and the 
political advantage to the superior powers of the deity. 

3 A specimen of their methods appears in the Passover, a nomad pastoral festival 
blended with an agricultural festival of unleavened bread (W. J. Moulton in Hastings' 
D.B. 3. 684 seqq., Art. " Passover"). But it has been transformed into a commemora- 
tion of the Exodus with such success that hardly a trace of the original remains in the 
scriptural account. Pentecost remains in the O.T. a harvest festival, and Philo has 
no knowledge that it has any other meaning. But Acts 2. 2 seqq. represents Pentecost 
as the giving of the new Law, which implies a knowledge of the rabbinical view that 
Pentecost is the festival of the giving of the Torah (Judaism z. 48, but Moore here 
has overlooked the implications of the scene in Acts ; for this cf. The Beginnings of 
Christianity 5. 115 and below, p. 195). For the survival of the external ritual of 
primitive rain-magic in the feast of Tabernacles, and for possible Dionysiac elements 
in it, cf. Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 194; it was known in magical circles, cf. Papp. Mag. 
Gr. 13. 997. 

1 Cf. Peet, Literature of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia 99 seqq. 


recitation or exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures or the 
exposition of them and of prayers closely modelled on the tradition 
of those Scriptures, could be trusted to preserve the transcendent 
omnipotence of the one God of Israel. It is a striking proof of the 
security which the Pharisees felt, that they were willing to adopt 
cosmic speculations, which might seem to be dangerous, and to read 
them, as the Alexandrines did, into the cultus of the Temple, without 
fear that they might lead to a syncretism of Judaism with the religion 
of the Gentiles. 1 In Alexandria there was little danger, for the cultus 
of the Temple was known only to Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes 
at second hand, except in the case of those who were both wealthy 
and devout enough to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem f<j)r the great 
festivals. It appears, however, that even in Jerusalem itself the whole 
theology of Hellenistic convention could be read into the cultus of 
altar, candlestick and incense or anything else: "Hermes" could be 
called as a witness to the truth of the Torah. The Pharisees were 
willing to go to lengths which excited the affected horror of their 
Sadducean opponents, precisely because they felt entirely secure of 
the system of Judaism. There is no evidence that their 1 confidence 
would have been misplaced, apart from the historical incidents which 
gave rise to Christianity. 

1 Cf. Tosefta, Hag. 3. 35, where the Sadducees, seeing the Pharisees cleaning the 
candlestick in the Temple, exclaim, " Come and watch these Pharisees cleaning the 
radiance of the moon". But the Jerusalem Talmud reads (79 d) "the orb of the 
sun". In Philo, Q.R.D.H. 45 (221, M. i. 504), the main candlestick in the middle, 
with three smaller lights on each side, represents the sun in the 1 middle with three 
planets on each side, and the divine Logos (i.e. mind as a divine element in man) 
dividing the six parts of the soul. Here again there may be a remjinispence of the six 
Amhaspands, but it is purely formal and artificial ; the object is to find something 
which the candlestick can symbolise. For the possible relation of this symbolism to 
Hermetic speculations among the Pharisees cf. below, p. 113. 


A" long as the unity of God and the supremacy of the Torah were 
preserved, Judaism was prepared to adopt any argument and 
any form of thought that seemed suited to the purpose. 
Naturally Paul was willing to do the same. In this, as in his whole 
theological outlook, he was thoroughly true to the tradition of the 
Judaism which he had learnt at the feet of Gamaliel, apart from the 
one decisive change. It had been said by one of the great figures of 
early Judaism that the world stood on three things, the Torah, the 
worship of the Temple and acts of love. 1 For Paul the world stood on 
Jesus, faith in Him and love as the fulfilling of the Law. 

Paul, in common with the leaders of rabbinical Judaism in his day, 
assumed the apocalyptic outlook of the Scriptures and the conventions 
of apocalyptic writing; 2 But if the Greek world, while rejecting the 
Gospel 3 as a system of eschatology, was prepared to accept it as a 
system of cosmogony, Paul was perfectly prepared to meet their 
wishes. Either system of exposition was from the Jewish point of 
view midrashic rather than dogmatic; in other words it was to be 
regarded not as a statement of ultimate truth in the sphere of meta- 
physics, phrases which would have meant nothing to the mind of a 
Jew of the period, but as means of bringing home to the mind and 
conscience of the hearer the paramount claims of Jesus on the 
obedience of all mankind, claims which rested on His resurrection as 
the guarantee of the divine authority of the whole of His earthly life 
and teaching. 

Judaism had already provided a terminology in which Paul could 
expound the position of Jesus in the scheme of the universe. To 
understand his language it is necessary to go back to the time of the 
return from the exile. At that time Judaism was arriving with infinite 

1 Simeon the Just, Mishnah, Aboth i. z (Danby 446). 

2 Cf. below, p. 90. The attempt of Christian writers (e.g. Charles, Ap. andPs. z. 
xi) to distinguish between the ethical outlook of apocalyptic and rabbinical Judaism 
seems as unfounded as the counter-statement of Travers Herford (Talmud and 
Apocrypha 235) that "the Apocalyptic and the ethical spirit do not get on well 
together". Paul's case shows how easily they can be combined in the same mind. 
Cf. below, p. 112, n. i. 

3 For the contents and structure of the primitive Gospel see Dodd, The Apostolic 
Preaching and its Developments. I am inclined to think that he underestimates the 
importance of the eschatology in the form of an imminent second coming. 


labour at an absolute monotheism; but outlying colonies still wor- 
shipped a pantheon of at least five figures, apparently without fearing 
that the authorities of the Temple at Jerusalem would disapprove of 
their action. 1 The Jews of Elephantine burnt incense to Anath, as 
their grandparents had burnt incense to the Queen of Heaven in the 
cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, at the end of the fifth 
century B.C. It is possible that Ezra had not yet arrived from Babylon, 
and that the Judaism of Jerusalem was still of an unreformed type. 2 
It is perhaps more likely that the exiles of Elephantine were ignorant 
of the change of affairs at Jerusalem and that their appeal fell on deaf 
ears. In any case Jewish monotheism was a recent growth at the 
beginning of the fourth century B.C. 

In that century the face of the Eastern world was changed by the 
conquests of Alexander the Great, and by the year 300 B.C. Judaea had 
become an outlying province of the Ptolemaic Empire. Judaism was 
in consequence brought into contact with the cult of Sarapis and Isis. 
The central figure of the cult as it affected the public at large was Isis, 
not mainly as the sorrowing wife and sister, but rather as the divine 
agent, who created and sustained the universe, and the teacher who 
had revealed to mankind the principles of morality and the laws and 
arts of civilisation. Isis proclaimed her greatness to the world in a 
style which was new to Greek religion; her panegyric of herself 
attained a canonical form and was widely diffused throughout the 
dominions of the Ptolemies. 3 The panegyric was old enough for a 
copy inscribed in stone to have become largely illegible by the end of 
the first century B.C. 4 The cult was attractive, and although the 
Ptolemies were too wise to attempt any systematic persecution of 
Judaism as a religion, their policy provided the temptation of full 
citizenship and the consequent opportunities of advancement in 
public life to those who were initiated into the mysteries. 5 

1 Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. xviii, 72 and 148. Cf. Cook, 
The Old Testament 150, Vincent, op. cit. p. 30, n. i. 

2 Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel 2. n^seqq., date the return of Ezra 
about 400 B.C., which is about the date of the papyri. On the other hand, Ezra makes 
no reference to polytheism in the strict sense at Jerusalem ; it seems unlikely that he 
would have ignored it. 

3 For the aretalogy of Isis at Cyme and los see Peek, Die Isishymne von Andros. 
The text appears in my article on the Divine Wisdom in jf.T.S. 38. 151. 230 seqq. 

4 Diod. Sic. i. 27. 4. Although the "tomb" of Isis at "Nyssa" in Arabia is open 
to suspicion (Nyssa is the legendary birthplace of Dionysus : Arnobius, adv. Gentes 
5. 28), the accurate quotation of the opening clauses of the aretalogy makes it clear 
that he or his source was acquainted with an inscription in which the inscription was 
illegible through age. For the prominence of Isis as against Sarapis or Osiris in 
the Hellenistic cult cf. UPZ. 29. 

6 For settlements of Jews in Egypt under the Ptolemies, cf. Letter of Aristeas 12, 
and Andrews' note ad loc. in Ap. and Ps. 2. 95. The persecution of Ptolemy Physcon 


In any case the temptation to relapse into polytheism, either 
as more attractive in cultus, 1 or as politically more advantageous, 
was constantly present before the Maccabean rebellion. 2 Con- 
sequently it is not surprising that the new cult, which combined 
official support with missionary propaganda, should have appeared a 
serious danger to the men who were concerned to maintain the 
purity of the reformed religion as established by the successors 
of Ezra. 3 

It was to meet this danger that the personified figure of Wisdom was 
introduced into the literature of the third century B.C. Wisdom as an 
expression of the nature of God and the ideal character of man is 
naturally a conception which might easily occur independently in 
different civilisations; it expresses the ideals of an established order 
in Church and State as against dangerous revolutionary tendencies on 
the part of the younger generation. In Judaism "wisdom-literature" 
as a whole may have been inspired by Egyptian models, which show 
a close similarity to the Jewish. 4 This is merely the adoption of a 
form of writing and a conception of the nature of God and man that is 
natural to a certain stage of development. But the personified Wisdom is 
a female figure definitely on the divine side of the gulf which separates 
God from man; the gulf is made more conspicuous by the absence 
from the earlier Wisdom-documents of the angelic hierarchy; this 

(so Jos. c. Ap. 2. 5 (53 seqq.) as against Philopator in 3 Mace. i. i) was accompanied 
according to the latter book with an offer of citizenship to those who were initiated 
into the mysteries (z. 30); 3. ai suggests rather that a formal compliance on state 
occasions was enough. The book dates apparently from c, 100 B.C. (Emmet, Ap. and 
Ps. i. 158), and represents the temptation to obtain full citizenship by sharing in the 
religion of the city, even if there was no particular offer at the time ; the writer of 
3 Mace, admits that some accepted it (2. 31). 

1 Cf. Is. 65. 1-15 and 66. 17. For the official encouragement of the cult cf. Rel. 
Or. 74 and 235, n. 21. Wilcken, UPZ 83, admits the political purpose of the cult 
in its hellenised form. 

2 i Mace. i. 13 ; the distinction in the text would not necessarily present itself so 
clearly to the worshipper, who would ascribe the superior attractiveness and the 
political advantage to the superior powers of the deity. 

3 A specimen of their methods appears in the Passover, a nomad pastoral festival 
blended with an agricultural festival of unleavened bread (W. J. Moulton in Hastings' 
D.B. 3. 684 seqq., Art. " Passover"). But it has been transformed into a commemora- 
tion of the Exodus with such success that hardly a trace of the original remains in the 
scriptural account. Pentecost remains in the O.T. a harvest festival, and Philo has 
no knowledge that it has any other meaning. But Acts 2. 2 seqq. represents Pentecost 
as the giving of the new Law, which implies a knowledge of the rabbinical view that 
Pentecost is the festival of the giving of the Torah (Judaism z. 48, but Moore here 
has overlooked the implications of the scene in Acts ; for this cf . The Beginnings of 
Christianity 5. 115 and below, p. 195). For the survival of the external ritual of 
primitive rain-magic in the feast of Tabernacles, and for possible Dionysiac elements 
in it, cf. Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 194; it was known in magical circles, cf. Papp. Mag. 
Gr. 13. 997. 

4 Cf. Peet, Literature of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia 99 seqq. 


absence is natural, since it represents a borrowing from Persian as 
against Egyptian sources. 1 She appears abruptly in interpolated 
passages as a figure who utters a panegyric of herself. 2 The style of the 
panegyric is entirely out of keeping with the tradition of Jewish 
writing, where Psalmists praise God, but God does not praise Himself, 
except in a few cases where this is necessitated by dramatic conven- 
tion. 3 The subject-matter of the panegyric is even more alien to 
Jewish orthodoxy. Wisdom appears as the source of good counsel, 
strength and justice, through whom kings reign and do justice, and 
from whom all prosperity is derived. But she is more than this, for 
she is the first of God's creatures, made by Him before He created the 
universe, yet delighting to dwell among the sons of men. 4 As such 
Wisdom has no function to play in creation and no reason for ap- 
pearing at all. But these functions are precisely those which Isis 
claims for herself in her aretalogy, except that there she is the agent of 
creation and the divine power manifested in the maintenance of the 
cosmos ; the latter function was impossible for Wisdom in view of the 
essentially deistic view of creation which is characteristic of Judaism 
as against the pantheism of Hellenistic Egypt, 5 while the former could 
hardly be ascribed to her in a Jewish document. Hence she remains 
the delight and darling of God, just as the Isis of the aretalogy is the 
eldest daughter of Cronos, 6 and in some sense a link between God and 
man, as Isis in the aretalogy is the real intermediary between the gods 
and the world of men, for it is through her that man has learnt the 

1 The tantalising Wisdom-fragment of i En. 4.2. i seqq. combines the angels of 
Persian origin with the personified Wisdom ; but it is an isolated fragment to whose 
date there seems no clue. 

2 Prov. 8. 1-31 has been inserted so clumsily that the contrast between Wisdom's 
invitation to her banquet and that of the " strange woman " is entirely interrupted. 
Wisdom's house with the seven pillars does not belong to the main panegyric and 
the personification here is entirely different. It is quite unnecessary to see in the 
house with seven pillars an allusion to the seven-storied temple of Babylon (so 
Rankin, Israel's Wisdom-Literature 252, following Reitzenstein, Ir. Erl. Myst. 208). 
If the seven pillars are not part of the normal equipment of an Eastern house 
(Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel 2. 311) they are probably the seven 
planets, for the cosmos is the natural home of Wisdom. But Judaism at this date 
shows little interest in astrology. In Ecclus. 24 we have no actual interruption; but 
it would be hard to find a train of thought to interrupt. In Prov. 3. 19 we have 
a casual interpolation of the figure apparently suggested by the allusion to 
"rubies"; cf. below. 

3 Thus in Pss. 50. 7 seqq. and 81. 10 seqq., but the purpose is not that God should 
praise Himself, but that He should convict His people. 

* LXX "when he delighted" (Prov. 8. 31) is meaningless and can only be due to 
failure to understand the Hebrew. 

6 So in the aretalogy tya> eV rals TOV rj\iov avyais dpi and e'yo> TrapeS/Hveo rfi rov 
T)\[OV iTopeia. (clauses 44 and 45) ; the conception is entirely alien to Judaism. 

8 So in Apuleius, Metam. 11.5. 761, Isis is saeculorum progenies initialis. 


knowledge of the gods and the method of serving them. 1 The similarity 
of the style and subject-matter and the interpolated character of the 
whole passage show that we are dealing not with a nattiral expression 
of Jewish piety but with a personification of the attribute of Wisdom 
as the highest characteristic of God and man, designed as a counter- 
blast to the figure of Isis, as she meets us in her panegyrics of herself. 2 
The figure was sufficiently familiar to the compiler of the opening 
chapters of Proverbs to be present before him in two versions, since 
we have an anticipation of her in 3. 19 seqq., though in a less definitely 
personal form. But although Wisdom is not definitely personified here, 
her identity with the personal Wisdom appears from ^:he mention of 
the "tree of life" 3 and the superiority of Wisdom to "rubies". 4 The 
former identification is a regular attribute of Wisdom ; the superiority 
seems to have been an attribute of the virtuous women of Israel before 
ever the personal Wisdom made her appearance. 

This portrait of Wisdom would appear to date from about 250 B.C. 5 
In Ecclus. 24 we get another version, again interpolated into the text, 
and again in the form of a panegyric by Wisdom on herself. But the 
portrait is very different. Instead of the colourless and correct Isis of 
the aretalogy who has no particular character of her own but does 
everything which a good goddess ought to do, we have a figure who 
proceeded from the mouth of the Most High and wandered through 
all the earth seeking for a suitable abode; this she was unable to find 
until her creator gave her an inheritance in Israel. She is eternal ; she 
was established in the Tabernacle and the Holy City. Wisdom proceeds 

1 In the aretalogy eyo> /iUTjtrets avdp&trois eVe8a; cf. Wisd. 8. 4 and Corp. 
Herm, Exc. 23 (Kdpq Kdoyiou), 65 seqq. (Scott 492), on which see Conversion 


8 The " egoistic" style appears to be characteristic of the missionary propaganda 
of Isis ; cf. Apuleius, loc. cit., which is another specimen of this type of literature. The 
writer of Proverbs may not be following the aretalogy, but a different version to 
which he may be adhering more closely. 

8 The "tree of life" appears in Prov. 3. 18 and Wisd. 16. 4; where, curiously 
enough, it is the ark, as also in 14. 7, which is a different document. But in Philo, 
Leg. Alleg. 3. 17 (52, M. i. 97), Wisdom is the tree oflife. The association of Wisdom 
and the first man reappears in Job 15. 7 seqq. For the text cf. Rankin, Israel's 
Wisdom-Literature 237 ; but there is no need to introduce thie myth of a " cosmic 
man" to explain the passage, which can be quite adequately explained from Gen. 3. 6, 
though it may reflect an older version of the myth. 

* The phrase occurs six times. In Lam. 4. 7 it is used of the Nazirites. It is 
applied to the personal Wisdom of Prov. 3. 15 and 8. n and to "lips of knowledge" 
(20. 15) ; it is used of the quasi-personal wisdom in Job 28. 18. The reason seems to 
be that it is already proverbially applied to a virtuous woman. The virtuous wife of 
Prov. 31. 10 appears in i Sam. i. 2 seqq., where Hannah is better than Peninnah 
("Ruby"). Properly the word means corals. 

8 Cf. Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel 2. 201 and Nowack in Hastings' 
D.B. 4. 142, Art. "Proverbs". 


to compare herself to the forest trees of Lebanon and the trees and 
shrubs of the low countries, with a special reference to those used for 
making the incense of the Tabernacle. 1 From comparing herself to 
the vine she passes to an invitation to come and feast on her, which is 
perhaps modelled on the theme of Proverbs. Here the panegyric ends, 
and we pass to explicit identification of Wisdom "as described above" 2 
with the Book of the Law of Moses, which is then compared to the 
four great rivers of Eden, with Jordan added in deference to Palesti- 
nian tradition. This is the first specific equation of Wisdom and Torah, 
which plays a great part in rabbinical theology. Here it is obviously 
quite unharmonised with the earlier description of Wisdom in the 
character of the great nature-goddess. Moreover it reflects a con- 
ception of Wisdom later than that of Ecclesiasticus, in which Wisdom 
has been equated with the Stoic reason pervading the cosmos. Law, 
which ruled in the affairs of gods and men alike, was simply the divine 
mind or reason at work in the sphere of conduct. 3 It would seem that 
it was the conflation of Wisdom with the deity pervading the cosmos 
that led to the further identification of the Torah with Wisdom ; for if 
the Gentiles held that the true law was that immanent in the cosmos, 
it was obvious that they must be referring to the Torah. 

Thus the passage appears from its content to be a late interpolation, 
perhaps intended to soften down the startling figure. Yet a further 
mark of its unauthentic character is the abandonment of the " I-Style" 
and still more the impossible comparison of the feminine Hokmah or 
Torah of the Hebrew to a river, which is always masculine and always 
a god in classical or Semitic mythology. 4 The comparison can only 
have been added to the panegyric by a writer who thought in Greek 
and equated the rivers with the masculine voftos. 5 

Apart from this there can be little doubt as to the original of this 
highly coloured portrait. The lady who dwells in the city of Jerusalem 
and in its Temple, who is also to be compared to all the forest trees 

1 Possibly an allusion to the cosmic symbolism of the four ingredients of the 
incense; cf. above, p. 39. But there is no necessity for such a reference. 

a Note the very clumsy transition ravra navra in 24. 23, which is merely the 
interpolator's transition to a totally different theme. 

3 Cf. Chrysippus ap. Marcianus i (i. u. 25, v. Arn. 3. 77) and cf. the extracts 
from Cicero, DeLegibus quoted by v. Arn. ib. (3-7%seqq.). The equation of Wisdom 
with the Torah though due to Stoic influences may have been assisted by Deut. 4. 6, 
which however does not seem to be quoted in this sense. I owe this suggestion to 
the Rev. H. St J. Hart. 

4 For Semitic river-gods cf. Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 174. In Philo Wisdom is always 
associated with springs, but never with a river, except in Q.R.D.H. 62 (3 1 5 , M. i . 5 1 8) ; 
here Euphrates symbolises the wisdom of God as against the Nile, which represents 
the body and its passions, but wisdom is not in any way personified. 

6 Actually the passage is not found in the Hebrew, but this proves nothing. 
Philo, De Ebr. 9 (32, M. i. 362) seems to be an echo of it. 


of Hermon and the luxuriant verdure of the Jordan valley, is the great 
Syrian goddess Astarte or Atargatis, at once the goddess of great 
cities, 1 and the mother manifested in the fertility of nature. 2 The 
search for "rest" throughout the universe seems at first sight in- 
appropriate for Astarte as against Isis. But the two goddesses had 
been practically merged into one another for centuries before this, 3 
and the particular feature of the quest of Isis had been adopted on 
behalf of Astarte. 4 The change in the portrait appears to represent- 
Isis in the character of Astarte or Astarte in the character of Isis, the 
ambiguous figure who appears on coins of Antiochus Epiphanes. 5 This 
transformation in the character of Wisdom dates from the beginning of 
the second century B.C., the time of the transfer of Palestine from the 
Ptolemaic to the Seleucid Empire. 6 It would seem that this panegyric 
was written at a time when the' danger to Judaism came from a 
propaganda which centred on Antioch rather than Alexandria; the 
more highly coloured figure of Syria might have less attraction for the 
Greeks; but it had a greater affinity to the Jewish point of view. The 
character of Wisdom as searching throughout the cosmos remains a 
feature of later writings, 7 though the difficulty of the personification of 
a female figure led the author of Job to rationalise the theme of the 
quest of Wisdom throughout the cosmos into a quest of the whole 
cosmos for Wisdom. 8 The final appearance of the search of Wisdom 

1 Especially of Byblus. For the Baalath Gebal cf. Cook, op. tit. 93. [Properly 
Astarte is the goddess of Sidon, Atargatis of Syria.] 

2 For cedars as associated with Astarte cf . Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun 193 ; cedars 
are sacred to Irnini-Ishtar in the Gilgamesh Epic (Gressmann 5 . 6, p. 27) ; the monster 
Humbaba reappears as CombabosintheStratonice romance ofLucian'sDeDea Syria 
19; cf. Harmon's note ad loc. in the Loeb edition and Garstang, The Syrian Goddess 
58, n. 35. Gressmann, however (pp. cit. 112), denies the connection. For cypresses 
cf. Furtwangler in Roscher, Lexikon i. 395, Art. "Astarte", and Elmslie's note on 
Mishnah Abodah Zarah(Texts and Studies 8. 2.60). For Astarte as a goddess of fertility 
Roscher ib. 397. 

3 Cook, op. cit. 108 ; for the Hellenistic age cf. Kyrios z. 268. On the offering of 
Dionysius of Sidon 130 B.C. cf. Roussel, Cultes Egyptians d Delos 132. 

4 "Sanchuniathon" ap. Philo of Byblus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 10. 21. 

6 Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun 196. For the reverse process cf. the inscription of 
Carvoran, Biicheler, Anth. Lot. (Epigr.) i. 24, where the Syrian goddess who 
is " inventress of justice, foundress of cities, weighing life and good rights in the 
balance " has become the colourless Isis of the aretalogies. 

6 Ecclesiasticus appears to date from 200 to 175 B.C. (Box and Oesterley in Ap. 
and Ps. i. 293). The conquest of Palestine by Antiochus appears to have been 
completed in 199 B.C. 

7 Cf. i En. 42. 2. Rankin, op. cit. 258, compares the quest of Dike in Aratus, 
Phaen. g6seqq. But it is a far cry from Aratus to Enoch, and we have not a quest of Dike 
but her gradual withdrawal from earth to heaven. Isis-Sophia is a good deal nearer. 

8 This seems more likely than a cosmic myth. We have a vague parallel for such 
a myth in Ad. et Ev. 36 (Ap. and Ps. 2. 143), where Seth is sent to find the oil of 
mercy from the Tree of Life (cf. above, p. 59). But it seems more likely that the 
search of Wisdom throughout the cosmos for something entirely unspecified has been 
transformed into a search for wisdom throughout the cosmos, a rational and therefore 
probably secondary feature. 


in theology is in the romance of Valentinus, where she figures as the 
divine element sunk in the material world, and seeking to return to 
her home in the pleroma. 1 

There were two ways in which orthodox Judaism could assimilate 
this embarrassing female figure. She could be identified with the 
Torah, which could be described in the language of midrashic piety 
almost as a personal figure; but the Torah could never lose its character 
as a written book and become a real person. 2 There was, however, 
another line of development open for the figure of Wisdom. In 
Alexandria from the middle of the second century B.C. Judaism was 
in contact with Hellenistic philosophy, with which it was bound to 
come to terms, if it was to retain its hold on the intelligent and 
educated members of the nation. The sacrifices which loyalty to the 
religion of Israel demanded 3 could not be asked of any but the most 
ignorant, unless Judaism could find means of reconciling itself with 
the attitude of the intelligent and cultured outlook of mankind. 4 
Wisdom provided the means of reconciliation. 

The general philosophy of the Hellenistic world was a compromise 
between Platonism, Pythagoreanism and Stoicism, a philosophy which 
may reflect the rather shadowy personality of Posidonius. 5 The 
differences of the schools of philosophy, which were a sign of intel- 
lectual vigour in classical Greece, were no recommendation to the 
Hellenistic age, which asked rather for a practical guide of life, which 
would enable man to feel at home in a strange and hostile universe. 6 

1 Ir. Haer. i. 2. 2 and i. 4. i seqq. ; cf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 78, 383 a, for Isis as the 
divine element in the cosmos seeking for the pure principle of divinity. 

2 The identification goes back to Ecclus. 24. 23 and may be implied in Aristobulus. 
The personification of the Torah appears to be implied in Qovpa in " Sanchuniathon " 
ap. Philo of Byblus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 10. 28; cf. Kyrios 3. 446. (My thanks 
are due to Professor S. A. Cook for calling my attention to this reference.) It appears 
that Cronos ( = El (ib. 1 6), = Israel (ib. 29) and therefore presumably = lao = Saturn) 
left Thot to teach religion to mankind. Thot = Moses in Artabanus (ib. 9. 27. 2). 
Thouro explains his teaching to mankind ( = Isis of the aretalogy clauses 19-22). 

3 Philo dismisses circumcision in the short tract De Circumcisione (De Spec. Legg. 
i, M. 2. 210). Elsewhere he hardly mentions it (Cohen-Wendland, index, notes three 
references. He admits that it is ridiculed everywhere). It is very much softened down 
in the LXX version of Deut. 10. 16, " Cut off the hardness of your heart " and 30. 6, 
"The Lord will cleanse your hearts". For Stoic objections cf. Orig. in Ep. ad 
Rom. 2. 13 (ed. Lommatzsch 6. 137). 

* Cf. De Con/. Ling. 2 seqq. (2, M. i. 405). The use of the myth of the Aloades 
to discredit the story of the Tower of Babel appears to be a stock argument already : 
it recurs in Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. 4. 21 ; cf. Cyril, c. jful. 134 seqq.). 

6 I have here followed Sevan's view (Stoics and Sceptics 85). Reinhardt's Po- 
seidonios seems to give him a quite exaggerated importance as a real philosopher. 

Cf . Sevan, op. cit. 25 ; naturally the state of affairs in the third century was only 
intensified by developments between that date and 100-50 B.C. Bouch6-Leclercq, 
L' Astral. Gr. 354, n. 2, points out the influence of the wars of the Diadochi on the 
acceptance of astrology by the Hellenistic world; after all astrology is not much more 
complicated or meaningless than the politics of the period. 


Posidonius urged that the differences of philosophers were no reason 
for abandoning philosophy, since at that rate we should have to 
abandon life altogether; 1 it would seem that he solved the problem of 
their divergences by amalgamating as many philosophies as possible 
into a single system without enquiring too closely into their con- 
sistency. He hoped in this way to provide mankind with a system 
which would withstand the confusion of the first century B.C. At the 
same time he was a scientific observer of real ability; he had travelled 
to Gades, and there established by strict observation the dependence 
of the tides of the Atlantic on the moon. 2 Few discoveries have been 
so disastrous. If the moon could dominate so vast a thing as the 
Atlantic, it was difficult to doubt that there was "a tide in the affairs 
of men". If, as he held in accordance with the whole Stoic tradition, 
the cosmos was governed by a divine power of reason pervading the 
whole, which was also the natural "sympathy" which united all things 
to one another, 3 nothing could be more natural than to suppose that 
the wisdom of the Chaldeans had indeed discovered in the movements 
of the planets through the fixed stars the signs which foretold, to those 
who could read them aright, the future destinies of the world, and 
indeed of every individual in the world ; for all were bound together 
by that natural "sympathy", which was also providence and fate and 
the will of God. Hence Posidonius, though he does not appear to have 
accepted the belief that the planets gjoverned the fate of man, or that 
the fate of mankind was determined by hostile powers, accepted the 
belief that the future could be; read in the stars by those who were 
skilled to do so, in virtue of fate, 4 which was simply the causal con- 

1 Protreptica ap. Diog. Laert. 7. 129. For philosophy as a means of escape from 
the disasters of the time cf. Cicero, De NaU Dear. i. 4. 7; De Div. 2. 2. 6. 

2 Strabo 3. 5. 8 (173). ' 

3 The view goes back to ChrysippUs (Stftb. Ed. i. 153. 24, v. Arn. 2. 152, and 
Alex. Aphr. De Mixt, 216. 14, ib. 154). Cf. Verg. Aen. 6. 734 seqq. ; Servius, ad loc. ; 
Seneca, De Benef. 4. 7. i seqq., Ad Helv. Matr. de Cons. 8. 3. In Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. 9. 79 the influence of the moon on natural phenomena proves that the cosmos 
is a single body, whose nature must be rational, since it includes rational natures 
and the whole is greater than the part ;'cf. Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 7. 18 seqq. and De 
Div. 2. 14. 34, where sympathy is admitted but divination denied in a parody of the 
conventional argument; it would seem that Posidonius was not willing to let his 
great discovery die. For Philo cf. De Prov. 2.76 (A. 95); in Leg. Alleg. i. 4 (8, M. i. 
45) in a brief panegyric on the hebdorriad the! moon is the "most sympathetic" to the 
earth of all the stars; the theme is developed in De Spec. Legg. 2 (De Sept.), 17 (140- 
seqq., M. 2. 292). For the general theme cf. Corp. Herm. Exc. 12 (Scott 434). 

4 For this limited influence cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 38 (113, M. i. 27) and 19 
(58, M. i. 13); for disasters cf. Timdeus 40 a, omitting ou. In Clem. Alex. Strom. 
5. 6. 37 (668 P), in a revised version of Philo's account of the High Priest's robe the 
rulers of the planets assist in the " becoming " of things on earth (or " in the birth of 
men on earth"?). According to Origen, in Gen. Comm. 3. 5, the stars are used by 


nection which governed the course of all things, and might equally 
well be described as nature or Zeus. 1 Divination, of which astrology 
was a branch, was the system of judging the future on the basis of 
past experience, similar to the power of the astronomer an ominous 
analogy to foretell the movements of the heavenly bodies. The 
argument opened the way for the dominion of astrology for centuries 
to come. 2 Although it has been urged that in accepting astrology 
within this rather limited sphere, he betrayed his Oriental affinities 
for he was a native of Apamea in Syria it may be doubted whether in 
his attempt to find a single principle of order to explain all natural 
phenomena and in his willingness to argue from one branch of 
knowledge to another on the basis of superficial analogy, he did not 
show himself a true child of the spirit of classical Hellas. 3 But his 
admission of astrology, even though he seems only to have admitted 
it as a branch of the science of divination, on the strength of a cosmic 
sympathy, seems to have opened the floodgates. 4 His more temperate 
disciples might limit the range of astrology severely; Philo accepts it 
only as a branch of meteorology of value in foretelling natural cata- 
strophes and as a guide to the farmer and the navigator, 5 but the 
Hellenistic world in general was delighted at the discovery of a science 
which offered a single consistent explanation for all the phenomena of 
the universe; the temptation was one which the Greek mind could 
hardly resist. 6 

God to direct the powers who execute His will ; they can only be read in so far as the 
rebel angels have betrayed the secrets entrusted to them. Cf. i En. 8. 3, Clem. Alex. 
Eel. Proph. 53 and 55 (1002 P). They still have no power over men; but in Clem. 
Recog. i. 28 they foretell the future and can be read by the learned; they can also 
(10. 12) determine man's evil desires, but he has power to resist. This is a long way 
from Philo's incautious admission (cf. De Migr. Abr. 33 (184, M. i. 465), where the 
meaning of the stars is simply beyond man's understanding). (For the possibility of 
Chaldean influences on the Timaeus cf. Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Sterndeutung 93.) 

1 Cf. p. 51. For fate as the causal connection of all things cf. Cicero, De Div. 
i. 55. 125, following Posidonius; a rhetorical version of the same theme in Seneca, 
ad Marc, de Cons. 18. 2. 

z It appears from Boll-Bezold, op. cit. 26 that the way had been prepared by 
others. Bouche-Leclercq, L' Astral. Gr., seems unduly severe in regarding him as 
the villain of the piece (545). 

3 Reinhardt is right to this extent in calling him a great "vitalist", in so far as he 
tried to find a single rational principle pervading all phenomena. 

4 Thus in Cicero, De Div. i. 19. 36, astrology is defended only as one specimen of 
divination and not the most important. Cf. ib. 42. 93 (for the reasons for its vogue 
in Egypt and Babylon) and 52. 118 for natural "sympathy" as explaining the 
possibility of divination. 

6 Cf. p. 63, n. 4. A queer bit of genuine astrology has crept into De Somn. 2. 16 
(i 14, M. 2. 673), but Philo does not vouch for it (the greater stars vie with one another 
for escorts of the smaller). 

The influence of Oriental contacts, in causing the general acceptance of astrology, 
seems very uncertain ; Diogenes of Babylon reduced the influence of the stars to a 


The main interest of this school of philosophy was, however, the 
reconciliation of Stoicism with the teaching of the Bible of the 
Hellenistic schools of Alexandria, the Timaeus of Plato. 1 There were 
several reasons for the position which this dialogue enjoyed. It is 
Plato's only formal cosmogony; but it is put into the mouth of the 
Pythagorean Timaeus of Locri, and so could be regarded as the 
synthesis of Plato and Pythagoras. 2 It was monotheistic in so far as it 
recognised one transcendent deity. But besides the "father of the 
universe" there is the living and divine pattern of the universe, which 
is projected from the mind of the God to be either the ideal world of 
which the actual is a copy, or the ideal world from the union of which 
with the material the universe derives its existence. The ambiguity of 
the relation was characteristic of Plato: the Hellenistic age was not of 
course likely to regard a lack of consistency and clarity at a vital point 
as a disadvantage. In terms of Pythagorean mathematics God was the 
pure monad who expanded himself into the duad ; and from this act of 
expansion the universe came into being. 3 Yet again this divine pattern 
could also be equated with that element of reason, which was the 
refined and ethereal fire which pervaded the universe and was itself 
divine. By means of this amalgamation of the Timaeus with the older 
Stoic tradition, it became possible to combine a system of transcen- 
dental monotheism with the pantheism of the early Stoa. 4 Thus the 
Timaeus attained an almost canonical position: it had, no less than 
Stoicism, always found a place for the gods of the Greek pantheon 
and for the cult of the pagan world. But while the supreme deity 
of Plato was, at least in many passages, not merely the "idea of the 
good" but a genuinely transcendent personal being, in the older 

minimum (Cicero, De Div. z. 43. 90), and Seleucus of Seleuceia on the Tigris even 
supported the impious view of Aristarchus that the earth moved round the sun 
(Plut. Plat. Quaest. 8. i. ioo6c). The ultimate belief in the immanence of God in the 
cosmos, which underlay the whole scheme, goes back to Zeno, who is credited with 
such affinities in virtue of his Phoenician origin ; but an interest in God as source of 
the law of nature is quite alien to the Semitic mind (cf. Kyrios 3. 461 seqq.). 

1 Bouchd-Leclercq, op. cit. 20. 

2 The actual question of the relation of the Timaeus to Pythagoreanism is irrele- 
vant from the point of view of the Hellenistic age, which accepted it as representing 
the two great masters. 

3 Placita i. 3. 8 (Dox. Gr. 280); cf. Zeller, Phil, der Gr. 4 3. 2. 129 seqq. 

4 According to Diog. Laert. 7. 142 and 156, Zeno, like Heraclitus (ib. 9. 7 seqq.), 
regarded fire as the principle of which all things are composed ; the cosmos comes 
into being as it contracts into air, moisture and earth and then returns to fire. 
Cf. Ar. Did. Epit. 36. 2 (Dox. Gr. 468) : the fire is ethereal, intelligent and divine 
(Placita i. 6. i, Dox. Gr. 292 and Diog. Laert. 7. 137). But in Diog. Laert. 7. 134 
God, as reason, is the artificer, acting on an independent matter. It seems uncertain 
whether the inconsistency is due to Zeno or his followers. Bevan, op. cit. 43, holds 
that Zeno left room for a transcendent element of deity. 



Stoicism he was often difficult to distinguish from the reason imma- 
nent in the cosmos; and a pure pantheism offers no possibility for 
worship. The later Stoics however, if not the earlier ones, distinguished 
between the element of divine fire immanent in the cosmos and the 
concentrated element of fire in the firmament of heaven. Their 
favourite analogy between the universe as the macrocosm and man as 
the microcosm helped them here ; for as man has a dominant element 
of reason in his head (or usually his heart), yet pervading his whole 
body and enabling the dominant element to be aware of sensations, 1 
so there was in the cosmos a dominant element of aether or fire con- 
centrated in the firmament (the highest part of the cosmos being 
naturally superior to the lower), and also a diffused element of divinity, 
diffused throughout the cosmos, but present in different parts of nature 
in different degrees; that which was present in inanimate objects as 
a mere "force" was present in man as reason. 2 The argument was 
invaluable to the astrologers ; 3 but in itself it was a serious attempt to 
vindicate the existence of God as a being whom man could know and 
worship in virtue of that affinity between God and man which was 
proclaimed by the very structure of his body, which enabled him alone 
of all the beasts to contemplate the stars without difficulty. 4 

It would be hard to imagine a system which has less in common with 
the religion of the Old Testament, with its utter insistence on the 
transcendence of God as the ruler, first of the nation He had chosen, 
and later of the world which He created in the beginning. From His 
Temple at Jerusalem He had been transferred to the firmament of 
heaven some centuries before, when the destruction of the Temple 
and the exile had compelled Judaism to raise Him to be ruler of the 

1 For an incredibly literal account of the way in which the "breath" of life, as 
inspired into Adam, penetrated his whole body cf. Tert. De Anim. 9, but Tertullian 
had the advantage of a revelation from a prophetess. For a similar account from a 
less ambitious source cf. Philo, De Fug. et Inv. 32 (182, M. i. 573). Tertullian 
(De Anim. 32) justly claims that the extension of the soul through the body 
proves the impossibility of its transmigration into another body which would not 
fit it. 

2 Diog. Laert. 7. 139. It should be observed that from the point of view of 
Hellenistic Judaism it is less important to ask what the great figures of the Stoa 
really taught than what the doxographers and journalists of the type of Diogenes 
said that they taught. Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 6. 17 for the view that the 
" higher" part of the cosmos must be " better" than the " lower" and n. 29 for the 
rational nature of the fiyt^ovmov ; it is not clear whether the fiyefioviKov is the aether 
or firmament or a reason residing in one or other of them. 

3 For the commonplace macrocosm-microcosm analogy cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 
23 (69, M. i. 16) and 27 (82, M. i. 19). For its use by the astrologers see p. 174. 

4 The thought appears in the Timaeus 903; it was a favourite among the later 
Stoics, cf. Philo, Quod Del. Pot; Ins. 23 (85, M. i. 207); Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 
2. 56. 140; Seneca, ad Ser. de Ot. 5. 4, and the literature of the period passim. 


cosmos, if He was not simply to be one among the many gods of the 
nations who had signally failed to deliver their worshippers from the 
kings of Assyria and Babylon. Judah, under the influence of the 
prophets, had taken the heroic course; the sky became "heaven" and 
the God of Israel the "God of heaven". 1 Here Judaism could easily 
accommodate itself to philosophy ; for Judaism God was a perfectly 
holy spiritual being who dwelt in the firmament; for philosophy the 
firmament was an intelligent being, who was perfectly good in an 
ethical sense; the "numinous" quality of holiness could hardly be 
applied to the supreme deity of philosophy. Thus there was little 
difference, especially as the Stoics were quite liable to substitute 
the "mind" in the aether or firmament for the aether or firmament 
itself; 2 the apparent materialism of Stoicism, which could not deny 
that even God Himself was in some sense "material", did not 
detract from the entirely spiritual character of their conception of 
God. 3 But as against this possibility of agreement it might have 
seemed that the further conception of a divine power or a "second 
God" immanent in the cosmos presented an insuperable difficulty 
to the strictly Unitarian monotheism of Judaism. Judaism was the 
cult of a God of the tribe, who had never been a nature-God, 4 and it 
had attained to its monotheism by a rigid elimination of the deities in 
whom the Semites saw the bestowers of the bounties of nature. In con- 
sequence it had singularly little interest in nature as such ; even where it 
comes nearest to such an interest, it is limited to the animal world. 5 

1 Cf. Cook, The Old Testament 132, for the relation of earth and sky as the abode 
of Yahweh. But the " God of heaven " in Neh. i . 4 has replaced the Lord of Is. 6. i , 
who, though " high and lifted up " , is still in His Temple. The religions of Babylon and 
Persia were no doubt partly responsible for the change. A general tendency to 
transfer gods from earth to heaven appears in the growing use of the title " most 
High" (Hypsistos); for this cf. Roberts, Skeat and Nock in Harvard Theological 
Review 29. i. 56 seqq. (Jan. 1936). Both Jewish and pagan usage imply a definitely 
monotheistic conception (ib. 66), as against the Syrian and Phoenician titles of El 
Elyon and Baal-Shamayim, which may be merely complimentary and not suggest 
that the deity in question is in any sense a supreme God (Kyrios 3. 83 and 115). The 
" lord of Heaven " may be merely a local deity resident in the sky above his city, not 
ruler of the whole firmament (ib. 37 and 43). Naturally astrology told in favour of 
the prestige of any deity who could prove an established connection with the sky 
(Rel. Or. 118). 

2 Cf. above, p. 44, for the God of the Jews as equated by intelligent Gentiles with 
the firmament itself, and Pladta i. 7. 33 (Dox. Gr. 306) for vovs eV alt)epi as God. 

3 Cf. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation 272 seqq. 

4 Cf. Kyrios 3. 463 seqq. for the distinction between tribal Gods and nature-Gods 
in Semitic religion. 

6 Ps. 104 is a startling exception to the general outlook of Judaism (Kyrios 3. 487). 
But the peculiarity of its outlook may be due to Greek influence (for its late date cf. 
Briggs, Int. Crit. Comm. 2. 331). Even so the " breath" of God, as the source of life, 
does not extend beyond the animal world (vv. 26 seqq.) ; the vegetable world exists 
for the benefit of the animal (vv. 14-18). 



But Judaism was provided with a figure which could easily be 
employed in the role of the divine element immanent in the cosmos. 
The divine Wisdom, like her prototype Isis, could easily assume this 
character; it was indeed easier for Wisdom. She had never been more 
than an otiose; personification, invented to divert attention from the 
attractions of Isis and equated with the Torah, whereas Isis was a 
sharply personal and transcendent deity, who needed all the capacity 
for accommodation, characteristic of Egyptian theology, 1 to exchange 
her role of the sorrowing wife and sister, who was also queen and 
saviour of mankind, for that of an immanent principle of deity. 2 

The earliest writer to attempt the identification of Wisdom with the 
divine power immanent in the cosmos is, or professes to be, Aristo- 
bulus, tutor of Ptolemy VI Philometor (2 Mace. i. 10). His writing 
takes the form of a letter to the king, explaining away the anthropo- 
morphisms of the Old Testament. 3 The interest of his letter lies in his 
statement that God, in creating the cosmos, gave the sabbath to man 
as a day of rest. This day might also be called in nature the first 
coming into being of the light in which all things are contemplated. 
The same title might be transferred to Wisdom, for all light comes from 
her. 4 Hence some of the Peripatetic school have described her as a 
beacon, 5 while Solomon describes her as being older than heaven and 
earth. This leads on to an explanation of God's rest on the sabbath, 
which is not to be taken literally but as symbolising the Jewish use of 
the sabbath for obtaining the knowledge of things human and divine ; 
this again leads up to a selection of verses in praise of the hebdomad, 
including some from "Linus" which mention the sevenfold construc- 
tion of the spheres of heaven. It is clear that we have here a Jewish 
writer, not a Christian, since the sabbath has to play the part both of 
the first day on which light was created and also of the seventh ; but a 
correspondence between the first and seventh days is only a desperate 
attempt to read the correspondence of the beginning and the end into 
Judaism, which is committed to a seven-day week. It is rendered 
possible by the fact that the first day of Gen. i. 3 is a creation of 

,.* Rel. Or. 8 1 ; cf. Erman, Die Rel. der Mgypter c. 6. 

2 jCf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 54. 373 a seqq. ; Osiris is the monad or pure idea, Isis is 
matter, which is however not lifeless but intelligent; Horus is the cosmos, who as 
child of the two is not eternal but continuous through a cycle of rebirths. Cf. 77! 
3820 for a variant of the theme ; cf . also the role of " nature " in Corp. Herm. Exc. 23 
(K.6prj Kdo-finv), 10 (Scott, 463). For the real character of Isis in Hellenistic religion 
cf. Apuleius, Metam. n. 3. 756 seqq. 

3 Eus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 13; cf. 7. 14. i and 8. 10. i. 

4 Or "the whole is light as a result of her (action)". 

6 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 6. 7. 1141 a, 17. It is perhaps doubtful whether Aristobulus 
has any other claim to his usual title of "the Peripatetic". 


precosmic light. 1 None the less it remains unconvincing ; Clement of 
Alexandria takes over the passage without acknowledgment and re- 
constructs it into the Christian ogdoad, in which the first day of 
creation and the first day of the resurrection have a far more natural 
"correspondence". 2 Thus Aristobulus is certainly Jewish, while it is 
unlikely that he is later than the more elaborate treatment of the theme 
in the Wisdom of Solomon. 3 

In Aristobulus Wisdom has derived her character of precosmic light 
from the book of Genesis, yet it was also a character of Isis. 4 The 
attempt to place her at the beginning of all things and yet to identify 
her with the sabbath suggests that he has in mind the equation of 
Wisdom with the Torah, as described in the interpolation in Eccle- 
siasticus and in rabbinical tradition. 5 His panegyric on Wisdom 
enables him to introduce the argument that the philosophers of Greece 
had really borrowed from Moses; 6 unfortunately it also reveals the 
paucity of his acquaintance, and that of his successors, with the 
philosophy of the classical age, since he like the rest of them fails to 
notice the one passage in that philosophy in which a cosmic figure of 
Wisdom really appears, in the Philebus of Plato; 7 the omission is a 
striking proof of the extent to which the philosophy of Judaism 
depended on doxographers' handbooks. 

The Wisdom of Solomon is a composite document of Alexandrine 

1 Cf. above, p. 36. In Philo, De Mund. Op. 8 (30, M. i. 6), the light of the first 
day is a vorfrov cfrus, which is the image of the Logos : but since it corresponds to 
mindasthe^ye/iOfiKOj'of the soul, it really is the Logos. Cf. De Somn. 1. 13 (75, M. i. 
632). Philo's obscurity is due to his attempt to combine the cosmogony of Genesis 
with the Timaens, and shows the obscurity of the latter as to the relation of the arche- 
typal divine pattern to the actual heaven. 

2 Cf. above, p. 7, n. z. 

3 His authenticity is defended by Schiirer, G.J.V. 3. 512; cf. Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 
2. 366. The only question seems to be whether the mixture of Orphic and Stoic 
elements which he represents, both of them coloured by the Pythagorean value of 
the hebdomad, and the introduction of a scrap of Peripatetic teaching, can really go 
back to 1 50 B.C. If not, it remains perfectly probable that a Jew of Alexandria 
should have written under his name fifty or a hundred years later ; after all it would 
suggest that the prominent figure of Alexandrine Judaism had anticipated the 
philosophers of that city. Apparently Ep. Barn. 15. 9 is borrowed from him with 
suitable revision. 

* C.7.G. 3724. 

8 Cf. Genesis Rabba on Gen. i . i, which would seem to represent an older tradition 
of cosmogony adapted to the necessity of Christian controversies. For the sabbath 
as " last in time but first in thought" cf. the hymn HIT i"D^> from the Jewish liturgy 
(Singer's Authorised Jewish Prayer-book), which shows the tradition persisting till the 
1 6th century. 

" Cf. p. 35. 

7 Philebus 300 is, so far as I know, the only reference to "wisdom" as a cosmic 
power in classical philosophy ; in Aristotle, quoted by Aristobulus, wisdom is really 
the habit of mind acquired by philosophy. There is no allusion to it even in Philo, 
or the Jewish writers used by the apologists and Clement of Alexandria. 


origin, 1 the relevant part of which (6. 12-11. 4) may saiely be regarded 
as older than Philo. Philo substituted the term Logos for Wisdom as 
the title of the divine power immanent in the cosmos, and so elimi- 
nated the awkward female figure from the theology of Alexandrine 
Judaism ; she had by now fulfilled her purpose as a counter-attraction 
to Isis, who could safely be disregarded. 2 This section is simply one 
representative of a whole school of Jewish exegesis of the pre-Philonic 
era. On the other hand, it is later than the amalgamation of Plato and 
the divine reason of the Stoics, which seems to be the work of 
Posidonius. 3 

The glories of Wisdom as described in 6. 12 seqq. open with a well- 
known and entirely inappropriate borrowing from Stoicism; Wisdom 
is easily seen by those who love her;* the saying was applicable to the 
Stoic God diffused through the material world, and it was justified by 
the language of Prov. 3. I5b. It was however quite inappropriate 
to the Jewish conception of God as entirely transcending the universe, 
a conception which Wisdom really shares in this book in spite of the 
writer's attempts to place himself in the Stoic tradition. 5 The section 
which follows (6. 13-16) is modelled on the tradition of Proverbs 6 and 
leads up to the sorites, which proves that by following wisdom man 
can attain to that immortality which comes from being near to God 
and is the true kingdom. 7 Solomon proclaims her to mankind; for he 
is himself a mortal and all his wisdom only comes from the gift of 
wisdom which was granted to him as an answer to his prayer for her. 8 
Here he is of course true to the tradition of the Old Testament; yet 
it was also the view of the later Stoics that the great man is great by the 

1 Meyer regards 1. 1-6. u as a separate book (Urspr. u. Attf. 2. 362). It is far more 
certain that 11.4 begins a separate book, by a writer of a far lower spiritual level and 
intellectual outlook. For the arguments against its unity cf . Holmes in Ap. and Ps. i . 
521 seqq., where they are stated with great moderation. 

z For Wisdom in Philo see below, p. 81. 

3 It is, however, quite possible that it was begun by earlier writers. 

* Comm. Bern. Lucan 63. 5. 28, p. 305. 23 (ed. Usener): Ait enim Posidonius 
Stoicus 6e6<s Ion TTveujua voepov dirJKOv 81' dirdarrjs oiivlas, hoc est terram, aquam, 
aera, caelum. Hunc spiritum summum deutn Plato vocat, artificem permixtum mundo, 
omnibusque quae in eo sunt. Quod si ita est, omnes eum videmus. Cf. Corp. Herm. 

II (2), 223 (Scott, 222). 

6 But cf. the equation of nature with Zeus in the passages referred to p. 64. 

6 6. i4 = Prov. 8. 34b and 3a, 6. i6 = Prov. 8. 2b; 7. 8-g = Prov. 8. io-n, 
"Precious stones" was as near as the LXX could get to the "rubies" of the 

7 For the wise man as king cf. Diog. Laert. 7- 122 ; as divine ib. 119; the theme is 
of course a commonplace. Cf. Epict. Diss. 2. 17. 33. In Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 7 
(42 seqq., M. 2. 452) Philo manages to work it into Judaism on the strength of 
Exod. 7. i. 

8 Note the repudiation of envy in 6. 23 and 7. 13, going back to the Platonic 
tradition as in Phaedms 2473. 


gift of God. 1 The effect is that we have the Spirit of God, as it 
appears in the Old Testament, transformed into the quality of intel- 
lectual mysticism 2 and represented as the character by which the world 
is to be governed and the individual advanced in virtue, learning and 
piety. "Solomon" becomes an idealised philosopher-king, 3 with a 
complete understanding of cosmogony and the problem of time in 
relation to philosophy and history, 4 meteorology and astronomy (or 
astrology; it must be remembered that meteorology and astronomy 
were one science for the Greeks), zoology, demonology, 6 psychology 
and botany (with special reference to the magic of which Solomon 
was a master). Here Solomon has somewhat ousted the Greek philo- 
sopher; but to the Jewish mind the wisdom of Solomon was in no way 
incompatible with his reputation as a magician. 

This brings us to the description of Wisdom (7. 22 seqq.) ; there is in 
her an intelligent spirit. Properly she is herself that infinitely subtle 
spirit which pervades all things, but the Wisdom of the earlier 
tradition is too strongly personified to allow her to be treated in this 
way. But the spirit which is "in" Wisdom is really Wisdom herself, 
an infinitely subtle spirit, which is capable of pervading all other 
spirits however subtle they may be. 6 Her subtlety and holiness are 
described at length in twenty-one epithets, possibly a mystical 
number, while the long list follows the tradition set by Cleanthes. 7 
She is an exhalation of the power of God, the emanation of His glory, 
a beam of the everlasting light and a perfect reflection of the action of 
God. She is thus described in terms of all those varieties of "emana- 
tion" which were a standing puzzle to the philosophical physics of 

1 Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2- 66. 165 ; cf. p. 75, n. 4. 2 7. 10. 8 7. i^seqq. 

4 For the problem of time cf. Ar. Did. Epit. 26 (Dox. Gr. 461), where Posidonius 
figures largely; it is clear that the problem of time was a theme of interest at 
Alexandria. Note the connection of eviavrmv KVK\OVS (world-periods) with doreptw 

5 So Holmes rightly in Ap. and Ps. ad loc. "Violence of winds" is a possible 
translation, but an impossible displacement of the order of learning; Solomon's 
reputation as an exorcist was quite reputable and his botany was mainly magical. 
8ia\oyicrp.ot are the secret thoughts of men which Solomon's supernatural powers 
enabled him to read. Cf. Lk. 2. 35, Mk. z. 8 and parallels, and similar passages; also 
Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 176 and Clem. Recog. 2. 50, 65, 3. 45 and elsewhere for ability to 
read the thoughts as a proof of magical ability. But on the other side the thought 
goes back to the conception of God as KapSioyvaxrTtjs (Acts i. 24, etc.). 

6 An allusion to the conception that the soul is TrveO/na rj XeTrro/xepeo-repov rt 
nvevfiaros. (Cleanthes ap. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hypot. 2. 70.) 

7 Cf. Holmes in Ap. and Ps. ad loc., who quotes Cleanthes' catalogue of epithets 
of goodness. The catalogue appears in the selection of extracts from heathen writers 
in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14. no (715?), which has all the appearance of being a Jewish 
collection, expanded from Aristobulus (or an earlier compiler) ; cf. above, p. 26, n. i . 
The author of Wisdom seems to be imitating Cleanthes, as known through the 
medium of the commonplace book. 


the ancient world, 1 and provided the Stoics with standing examples of 
the possibility of the permeation of one "material" body by another; 2 
for light though ' ' material ' ' permeates air, which is no less " material ' ' . 
The original and rival of Wisdom, Isis, was in the same way trans- 
formed by the theology of Alexandria into the image and emanation 
of Osiris in the material world, or the power which brought into the 
material world that order which is the imitation and image of Osiris. 3 
Wisdom is again (v. 27) the Stoic principle of divinity, which at stated 
periods of time absorbs all substance into itself and creates it anew ; 4 
the writer would have found it hard to justify this conflation of the 
God of Israel with the God of Zeno ; but he has ascribed to Wisdom 
the Stoic commonplace of God as immanent in the cosmos without 
regard to the implications of the concept or the range of speculations 
to which it might lead. 5 This conception of the divine action on the 
cosmos is introduced to lead up to her function of entering from 
generation to generation into the souls of holy men and making them 
friends of God and prophets. 

In this sudden transition from the immanent deity of Zeno to the 
Spirit of God in the Old Testament there is implied the whole 
development of the teaching of the later Stoics as to the relation be- 
tween God and the human soul. Zeno was a logical thinker, and 
admitted the logical implication of his view by agreeing that God 
permeates all the material world, even in its most repulsive elements. 6 
If so, he is not particularly present in the soul of man, which has no 
particular divinity; but the divinity of man's nature and his duty of 
living up to his true nature were articles of faith on which the Stoic 
creed insisted. Chrysippus tried to meet the difficulty by holding that 
while the divine element is present in all things as "habit", it is 
present in the highest part of the soul of man as "mind" ; Posidonius 

1 Cf. Theophr. Physic. Opin. Fr. 23 (Do*. Gr. 494); Placita 4. 13. i seqq. (ib. 
403 seqq.) ; and index ib., s.v. airoppoia. Cf. also the airoppniai of the sun's rays, 
which are all that the human eye can behold, owing to its inability to look direct on 
the sun, Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (DeMon.), 5 (40, M. 2. 218). It is interesting to note 
that Orig. De Orat. Lib. 9 explains 2 Cor. 3. 8 as meaning that the soul, when 
reflecting God, partakes of a " more divine " VOTJTOS d-n-oppoia. 

z Chrysippus ap. Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 216. 14 (v. Arn. 2. 154). Normally they 
are content with the fire and the red-hot iron (e.g. Ar. Did. Epit. 28 (Dox. Gr. 463, 
1. 25)), a legacy which the Church found invaluable. 

3 Cf. p. 68, n. 2. 4 Diog. Laert. 7. 137. 

B In combination with Pythagorean arithmetic it could prove that God was the 
beginning and end of all things, for He is the monad from whom all numbers start as He 
is the myriad with which they end, for the monad runs through all numbers (Philo, De 
Plant. 1 8 (76, M.I. 341)). For the monad and hebdomad in astral gnosticism cf. p. 42. 

Clem. Alex. Protr. 5. 66 (58 P). Clement's pious horror is characteristic; 
Plut. De Stoic. Rep. 34 (1050 d) (Chrysippus). 


was prepared to make this one of his many solutions of the problem. 1 
This, however, was open to the same objection as the original view 
of Zeno ; if reason is a divine gift, specially vouchsafed to man, it is 
present in the wicked, who use the divine gift of reason for bad ends, 
just as the good use it for good ends. 2 The position was further 
complicated by the desire of Posidonius to amalgamate Stoicism with 
Platonism. In Plato the soul of man was an independent spiritual 
being, which had descended from the heavenly spheres to be im- 
prisoned in the material body, and was doomed to a perpetual round of 
reincarnations from which it could escape only by serious devotion to 
philosophy. 3 The strict Stoic view of Zeno and Chrysippus held that 
the soul, as part of the divine fire, returned to it at death, though the 
righteous were allowed a relative survival until the next conflagration; 
but by an inexorable necessity each soul reappeared in each world-age. 4 
Posidonius modified this belief by holding that the element of "soul" 
present in all things as "life" was present in the beasts as sense as well 
as life, while in man it was present as "mind" and became an inde- 
pendent "genius". 5 These souls dwelt in the air, which was full of 
souls; it was absurd to suppose that the rest of the cosmos was full 
of living beings, but that the air, the most lively of all elements, was 
empty. 6 Apparently it was possible for this to take place because the 
substance of mind was drawn from the aether, the material of the 
"mind" of gods and men, 7 which by a further piece of eclecticism 
could be equated with the Aristotelian quintessence of which the stars 
and firmament were made. 8 This view had obvious advantages. It 
could be adapted to the Orphic tradition, 9 which believed in a round 

1 Diog. Laert. 7. 139. In Corp. Herm. 13. 18 the Aoyoy of God praises Him 
through the worshipper "through" the various elements, i.e. the divine element 
present in Him by a special grace is continuous with the deity present in the 
cosmos (Scott, p. 252, but without his rearrangements). 

2 Alex. Aphr. De Anima Libri Mantissa 113. 12 (v. Arn. 2. 307); Cicero, De Nat, 
Dear. 3. 26. 66; 27. 69, 70; 28. 71. 

3 Phaedo 690 and 1140; Phaedrus 2493. 

* Ar. Did. Epit. 39. 6 (Dox. Gr. 471); Diog. Laert. 7. 156; in Seneca, ad Marc, 
de Cons. 26. 6, the belief is retained but the next conflagration is deferred to a date 
so remote as to secure the practical advantages of immortality. Verg. Aen. 6. 744; 
cf. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics 108. 

B I.e. dat/j.6viov : Varro ap. Aug. De Civ. Dei 7. 13 and 23. 

6 Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 15. 42 and 44, following Aristotle; the argument 
appears in Philo, De Gigant. 3 (12, M. i. 264) and De Somn. i. 22 (137, M. i. 641), 
with obvious reference to the Platonic passages quoted in n. 3 ; it seems that we 
have independent redactions of Posidonius. Cf. Ar. Did. Epit. 39. 4 (Dox. Gr. 471) ; 
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 9. 86. Rohde, Psyche 499 seqq. 

7 Macrob. Sat. i. 23. 7, quoting Posidonius "On heroes and demons". 

8 Philo, Q.R.D.H. 57 (283, M. i. 514). 
Orpheus 186. 


of reincarnation but allowed the initiate a possibility of escape. It 
could be accepted by Judaism, which could simply omit the doctrine 
of reincarnation, as it omitted any serious belief in a cycle of world- 
ages ; Judaism might divide history into such ages, but it had no belief 
in them as recurring cycles. 1 It could retain the Platonic tradition of 
reincarnation as the punishment of the lowest class of "earth-bound" 
souls. 2 On the other hand, it had the advantage of offering a hope of 
immortality by its introduction of the belief that some particular souls 
are of divine origin and return at death to the gods. 3 Such divine 
souls were not reincarnated; it was a great advantage for an age which 
was seriously concerned with the task of flattering its rulers that it 
could hold before them the prospect of being translated at death from 
earth to heaven, while it was easy to explain that others of a similar 
quality would be sent from heaven for the benefit of mankind and for 
the fulfilment of that exact correspondence between each successive 
world-age which was a necessity both of Stoic physics and Chaldean 
astrology. 4 If a soul was withdrawn from the round of reincarnation, 
it was logically necessary that it should be replaced ; the loss of a single 
soul would be as fatal to the order of fate as a grain of sand in a 
delicate machine; in Christian thought it was urged that the Incarna- 
tion, and the new star which announced it, had overthrown the power 
of fate and the stars and abolished all magic for ever. 5 

This divinity of the souls of the great and good may have been 

1 Varro ap. Aug. De Civ. Dei 22. 28. ascribes to some genethliaci the belief that 
the same soul is joined to the same body in recurring periods of 440 years. This is 
impossible astrology ; it might represent a curiosity from the collections of Posidonius, 
taken from a Jewish system which allowed 400 or 440 years to the world-age (cf. 
p. 7) ; it is possible that there were unorthodox Jewish speculations which recog- 
nised reincarnation for the wicked in each Jewish world-age of this very brief 

a Cf. Servius on Verg. Aen. 6. 127, Cicero, De Rep. 6 (Somn. Scip.). 26. 29. 

3 Cicero, De Rep. 6 (Somn. Scip.), 24. 26 ; De Legg. z. i i . 27 ; Philodemus, De Piet. 
7b (Dox. Gr. 539). In Philo the belief is adapted to Judaism; De Somn. 2. 34 (229, 
M. i. 689) represents the good man as midway between God and man, while 
De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacerd.), 12 (116, M. 2. 230) applies this conception to the 
High Priest. Origen, In Ev. jfo. 13. 43, applies Ps. 126. 5 seqq. to the descent of the 
nobler souls to earth in sorrow and their return to heaven in joy. 

4 In Cicero, De Rep. 6 (Somn. Scip.), 13. 13, the great men of all time come from 
heaven and return there. Cf. Horace, Odes i . 2. 45 seqq. ; Lucan, Pharsalia i . 46 seqq., 
where however flattery has become too extravagant for any possible meaning; quis 
deus esse velis is meaningless. But Antony as a " new Dionysus " (cf. Tarn, J.R.S. 
22. 2. 149) is entirely logical ; if there was a Dionysus in a past world-age, there must 
be one in the rest; cf. the "men from heaven" of the first century B.C. (p. 20). 
Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Sterndeutung 203, is inclined to accept the view that 
Zeno was influenced by astrology in accepting the belief in the reappearance of the 
individual in each world-age. This may be right; but it was a necessity of Stoic 
physics, and Zeno was logical. 

5 Ignatius, ad Eph. 19. z seqq., and cf. below, p. 93. 


derived from the Oriental belief in the divinity of kings and the 
practices by which they were immortalised after death; but it found 
plenty of support in the traditions of classical Greece. 1 It was not far 
removed from the Orphic view, which may have believed in a divine 
element present in all men and capable of being nourished until it 
dominated the nature of the individual, but could easily be repre- 
sented as a doctrine of the divinity of particular souls, which enabled 
them to recognise the truth. 2 This conception seems to have been 
dictated by the practical necessities of the ethical teaching of Stoicism, 
which was on the one hand concerned to urge the necessity of living 
in accordance with the dictates of the highest element in man's nature, 
because it was the divine element; yet experience showed that many 
men had so little care for that element that it was useless to appeal to 
it. One solution of the difficulty was to hold that not all men possessed 
a Saiiioviov of divine origin, but that only the Segovia of the best 
came from the gods and that others came from some lower stage in the 
celestial spheres. 3 Yet another explanation was that there is some 
special divine afflatus, which enables the great and good to be great and 
good, a view which was apparently conflated with the view that they 
are also great and good in virtue of a special divine character already 
present in them. 4 

It was from this range of conceptions that it was possible to combine 
the Spirit of God with the "mind" of Hellenistic philosophy, the 
divine element which was given to those of mankind, who either by 

1 Cf. Rel. Or. 117 and 265 n. 91. 

2 Cf. Orpheus 156; for deliverance at death the tablets from Southern Italy 
translated ib. 172 (texts in Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta 32 (pp. 104 seqq.)). Philo, 
De Gigant. 13 (58, M. i. 270), explains that Moses did not intend the myth of the 
giants to be taken literally ; it is an allegory of three types of men, the man of earth, 
the man of heaven and the man of God. Abraham is the man of heaven who rises 
to be the man of God, Nimrod the man of heaven who " deserts " and becomes a 
man of earth. Here Philo seems to be working on a Stoic-Orphic allegorisation of 
the giant myth. But De Vit. Mays. i. 50 (279, M. 2. 124), the LXX version of 
Num. 23. 10 ("may my seed be like his ") is interpreted as meaning that the bodies 
of the Israelites are fashioned from mortal seed, but their souls are divine ; therefore 
they are ayxicnropoi 0eoC, i.e. analogous to the heroes of Aeschylus Fr. 162 ap. 
Plato, Rep. 391 e, which has an Orphic ring (cf. Timaeus 40 d). 

3 Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 10. 4153, suggests a hierarchy of gods, demons, heroes 
and men, the last three being able to rise or sink in the scale. Cf. Max. Tyr. 
9. i. 4gb, Corp. Herm. 10. 193 (Scott 200), Exc. 23 (K-oprj Kdo-fiou), 16 (ib. 466), 24. 2 
(ib. 496) ; in the last, souls of kings are divine, others from lower spheres. On the 
other hand the Gnostic Julius Cassianus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. 13. 93 (553 P) 
regards the incarnation of the soul as a punishment for yielding to desire in the 
heavenly state. 

4 For a combination of the views cf. Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 13. 34 and 66. 165 
and 167; Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 22 (Scott 126); mind is given to the pure in 
heart to make them capable of deification (263, Scott's omission has no justification). 
For the possibility of O.T. influence here cf. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks 170. 


nature or their own efforts were worthy of it. The power which made 
men great was a divine afflatus? it was easy to identify this divine 
inspiration with that peculiar gift of inspiration which enabled certain 
men to foretell the future under the influence of divine frenzy. That 
power, like the power of foreseeing the future in dreams, was derived 
from the kinship between the soul of man and God, and consequently 
the capacity for foreseeing the future was only found in that rare class 
of men who abandoned the cares of the world and devoted themselves 
to the knowledge of divine things. 2 The argument, which was intended 
to justify the possibility of foretelling the future, furnished an excellent 
proof of the inspiration of the great prophets of the Old Testament; 
for prophecy of the frenzied form associated with the oracles of 
Apollo and the worship of Dionysus was not easy to distinguish from 
the early forms of Hebrew prophecy. 3 The introduction of the ascetic 
and contemplative state as a necessary condition of prophecy increased 
the resemblance between the Greek and the later Hebrew tradition; 
the need of purity and detachment for veridical dreams was recog- 
nised by pagan tradition, and even extended as far as the true 
interpretation of the signs of the stars, the flight of birds and the 
entrails of the sacrifices. 4 It was an easy thing for Judaism to reject 
all other kinds of divination as untrue, or, if true, as the work of evil 
spirits, and to claim that the only true form of divination was that 
power to foresee the future and to guide the destinies of the nation 
which God had vouchsafed to His servants the prophets. 5 

1 The word is used by Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 66. 167; cf. Philo, O.R.D.H. 
iijeqq. (56 seqq., M. i. 481). 

i 2 /Cicero, De Div. i. 49. in. The mind is divine and all things are filled with a 
divine mind ; hence mind, when free, can be influenced by divine minds ; but men 
who turn away from the body to devote themselves to divine things are rare ; hence 
as a rule divination only occurs in sleep or frenzy. Judaism could ask no better 
account of the prophets. Cf. Plut. De Def. Orac. 40. 432 b; De Gen. Socr. 20. 588 d. 
Josephus puts a long exposition of this view into the last speech of Eleazar 
(B.J. 7. 8. 7 (345 seqq.)). 

8 For the connection between Apollo and Dionysus cf. Orpheus 41 seqq. ; Rohde, 
Psyche 287 seqq. Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 51. 4383, deals with the necessity of the 
"spirit of enthusiasm" for the giving of oracles. Oesterley and Robinson, History 
of Israeli. 179, suggest that the resemblance between such "prophesying" as that of 
i Sam. 10. 10 and 19. 24 is due to a common Phrygian element in Hebrew and Greek 
religions. (For Dionysiac enthusiasm cf. Rohde, op. cit. 255. But this kind of pro- 
phetic enthusiasm is a widespread feature of primitive religion, cf. James, Origins 
of Sacrifice 23 1 seqq.) 

4 Cicero, De Div. i. 53. 121. 

5 Cf. Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Mon.), 9 (60, M. 2. 221), for Moses" prohibition 
of the artificiosa divinatio of Cicero as against the true prophecy promised in Deut. 
18. 15, and ib. 4. 8 (49, M. 2. 343) for "enthusiastic" prophecy as the only means for 
predicting the future. Cf. also Q.R.D.H. 53 (264, M. i. 511) and De Migr. Abr. 34 
(190 seqq., M. i. 466); here prophecy by dreams is equated with the contemplation 
induced by "philosophy" in the waking state; "prophecy" has been transformed 


Thus Wisdom is the divine element of inspiration which enters into 
men who are already holy, 1 and makes them friends of God and 
prophets. The language is covered by the tradition of the Old Testa- 
ment (Exod. 33. ii and 2 Chron. 20. 7); but the reference is to the 
Stoic wise man, if not to the man who is made divine by a supernatural 
gift of Wisdom. For none but those who possess Wisdom are beloved 
of God, since Wisdom is fairer than the sun and higher than the stars ; 
she is found to be prior to the light, which is succeeded by the 
darkness, whereas vice cannot prevail against Wisdom. 2 The language 
suggests that Wisdom, as the pre-cosmic light, is also that divine 
power which is the rjye^oviKov of the cosmos, concentrated either in 
the sun, according to Cleanthes and the tradition of Syrian religion, 3 
or in the sphere of the fixed stars in the firmament, according to the 
more usual Stoic view. 4 It is natural that God should only love those 
who dwell with Wisdom, if Wisdom is the power that raises them up to 
Himself. 5 The description closes (8. i) with an identification of 
Wisdom with the orthodox Stoic reason, the divine element of fire, 
aether or intelligence which pervades and orders the cosmos. Thus the 
identity of the divine power which inspired and sanctified the 
prophets and great men of Israel with the divine reason of philosophy 
is placed beyond a doubt. 6 

The purpose of the verse appears to be to lead up to the brief outline 
of the history of the world, as adapted to the traditional Jewish 

into mysticism. So of the Therapeutae in De Vit. Cont. 2 (12, M. 2. 473), 
where the language of Dionysiac religion is applied to the "heavenly love" of the 

1 The ambiguity is characteristic of the Hellenistic tradition. For the wise man 
as the friend of God cf. Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 7 (42, M. 2. 452), where 
Philo has forgotten to delete the " Olympian gods " from his source, and Epictetus' 
epitaph on himself as <j)i\os aOavarois (Macr. Sat. i. u. 45). Cf. also Polybius 10. 
2. 7 for wise men as 6ei.ora.Tovs KOI 7rpo<T<pi\earrdrovs rails deals, and 21. 23. 9. 

2 7. 28-30. 

8 For Cleanthes cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 139; for Syrian religion cf. Rel. Or. 123 and 
p. 270, n. 116. 

* For the normal Stoic view cf. Diog. Laert. loc. cit. In Cicero, De Rep. 6 
(Somn. Scip.) 17. 17, the sphere of the fixed stars is summits ipse deus, and the 
sun is dux et princeps et moderator luminum reliqttorum, mens mundi et temperatio. 
Apparently here the firmament takes the place of the supreme deity of the Timaeus 
and the sun of the divine pattern ; is this another of Posidonius' methods of recon- 
ciling the divisions of philosophy? Or is his attempt to find a place for the sun a 
mark of his Syrian origin? 

B Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. 1.13 (38, M. 1.51). If man is to rise to God, three factors 
are needed, God, the mind which receives inspiration, and the spirit which is 

8 Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ed. i. 79 (v. Arn. 2. 264); Diog. Laert. 7. 138: rbv 
Koo~ft,ov SiOLKflffdai Kara vovv . . .els airav avrav /J.epos SifjKOVTos rov vov Kadairep e<' 
i)nS>v rfjs fax!)? (Chrysippus and Posidonius); Philodemus, De Piet. n. (Dox. 
Gr. 545). 


kerygma form ; but at this point the main thread of the argument is 
broken by the panegyric on Wisdom. It is a remarkable testimony to 
the strength of the Isis-convention that the writer should feel it 
necessary to insert this chapter, which is simply a fresh version of the 
conventional Jewish revision of the aretalogy. The origin of the con- 
vention has been so far forgotten that the first person singular has 
been dropped. But Wisdom's habit of praising herself remains j 1 while 
her character, as the spouse of God, who was with Him when He 
created the world, 2 and as initiating men into the mysteries of the 
knowledge of God, 3 can only be derived from the same source as the 
Wisdom of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. Here, too; Wisdom is the 
source of virtue, though as against the aretalogy and Proverbs she is 
the source of virtue in general, rather than of those virtues which are 
indispensable for social life. 4 Wisdom is now the source of the cori^ 
ventional quaternion of Stoic virtues (v. 7). and the teacher of divina- 
tion (v. 8) ; Solomon's reputation for magic harmonised well with the 
recent rehabilitation of this aspect of religion. 5 She is naturally the 
source of honour and reputation in society and government, and also 
of immortality; 6 for it is by the union of the element of mind with the 
divine afflatus that man attains to the sphere of heaven. 7 Realising her 
attractions Solomon sought her; he was a child of noble birth and 
endowed with a good soul, or rather he was a spiritual being of the 
highest order and entered into a body which had no defects to impair 
his natural goodness (w. 19 seqq.). Thus Solomon belongs to the order 
of divine beings from which Oriental kings and the noblest of man- 
kind were supposed to come. 8 His bodily perfection would seem to be 

1 8. 3. a 8.3 b implies this. 

3 For 8. 4 cf. the aretalogy of Isis, clauses 19-22; and cf. 9. 8. 

4 In the aretalogy clauses 16, 28, 35, 37 and 38 deal with "justice", as does 
Prov. 8. 20. But the Jewish version suggests " righteousness " in general rather than 
social justice. The remaining virtues of the aretalogy except for clause 32, e'-yco TO 
Ka\6v /cm alaxpov diayeivoKTKeirdai inro rrjs (fivcrfois eirolrjira, are all the virtues 
essential for social life ; and clause 32 bears a suspiciously Stoic colouring and may 
be a comparatively late insertion into the story of the triumphs of Isis. 

6 Philo's rejection of artificial divination is true to the tradition of the O.T., and 
Solomon's power of discerning the future is somewhat unorthodox. 

8 V. 13 a might mean no more than an eternal reputation, but v. 17 b must refer 
to immortality in the proper sense. 

7 Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 25 seqq. (Scott 128), where there may be Jewish 
influence, is clear on this point ; Mind is given to raise the soul to heaven ; it leaves 
the bad psychic qualities behind as it ascends. Jewish writers are as obscure as 
Gentiles on the question of whether (a) the highest element in the soul is naturally 
immortal because divine (Philo, De Mund. Op. 46 (135, M. i. 32); cf. Cicero, Tusc. 
Disp. i. 17. 40), or (b) it attains to immortality by piety (Philo, op. cit. 55 (154, 
M. i. 37), where the "tree of life" may imply a Jewish source, which equated the 
tree of life with Wisdom, cf. above, p. 59). 

8 Cf. above, p. 74. 


a Jewish feature, since Philo insists strongly on the physical perfection 
of Moses in accordance with the general midrashic exposition of the 
narrative of Exodus. 1 The change from being endowed with a good 
soul to being naturally good suggests that the writer feels he is in 
danger of unorthodoxy ; the former implies the distinction of "mind" 
as a more or less divine element from, the soul, the latter the more 
usual division of soul and body, which replaces the former here and in 
v. 15. Yet it was only by a divine inspiration that he knew that it was 
wisdom which he needed; since he needed it, he prayed that it might 
be granted to him ; Hellenistic thought has reached a stage in which 
the prayer of i Kings 3. 6 seqq. is perfectly respectable from the 
intellectual point of view; prayer is no longer confined to such natural 
blessings as man may need. 

Solomon's prayer (9. i seqq.) is influenced by the Isis-tradition, 
since Wisdom helped to teach him to build the Temple after the 
pattern of the eternal tabernacle. For Isis revealed to mankind the 
right method of building temples to the gods ; but here again Moses 
had preserved the truth of the matter; God had showed the pattern of 
the tabernacle to Moses on Mount Sinai. 2 But the real purpose of 
the prayer appears at the close. Man is made up of soul and body, and 
the corruptible body weighs down the soul and mind (which is here 
identical with soul). Thus the old tradition of the crcD/ia-ar^a of Plato 
and the Pythagoreans 3 replaces the newer conceptions ; the writer shows 
his fidelity to Hellenistic tradition and midrashic Judaism by the 
complete indifference with which he employs entirely different systems 
as though they were identical. The change enables him to revert to 
the standpoint of orthodox Judaism. None can know the mind of God, 
unless He sends His Holy Spirit from on high; for it was only through 
it that men learnt the will of God, and so were saved by Wisdom. 

This leads up to the kerygma of the Old Testament ; but Solomon 
has made it clear by his reversion to the old distinction of soul and 
body that it is not only the king who needs wisdom in order to rule 
justly, but the ordinary man who needs it in order to be delivered 

1 De Vit. Mays. i. 3 (9), 4 (15) and 5 (18) (M. z. 82-83), but cf. Plato, Rep. 402 a. 

2 Exod. 25. 9 and 40. In Philo, De Vit. Mays, z (3), 3 (74, M. 2. 146), the pattern 
of the Tabernacle as shown to Moses has a distinct flavour of the Timaeus, but after 
all the Tabernacle is a type of the cosmos; in Q.R.D.H. 23 (112, M. i. 488) it is a 
copy of Wisdom (from a source which equated Wisdom with the divine pattern of the 
Timaeus and the world of ideas). For the rabbinical views cf. Str.-B. on Heb. 8. 5. 
Cf. pp. 65 and 112. For Isis and Osiris as teachers of the correct method of 
building temples cf. Corp. Herm. Exc. 23 (Kd/w? Kcitr^ou), 65 (Scott 492) ; here the 
rites they reveal are copies of the mysteries of heaven, though the temples are not. 

3 Gorgias 4933. In Cratylus 4000 it is ascribed to Orpheus: in Clem. Alex. 
Strom. 3. 3. 17 (518 P) to Philolaus. 


from the burden of the body which crushes down the soul. Wisdom 
is not a manual for kings but a book of devotion for the intellectual 
Jew of Alexandria, who needs the divine gift of the spirit of God not 
as a special gift of government but as the means of attaining to 
immortality. The fiction of the manual for kings is carried out in c. 10 ; 
but any reader would know that the kerygma is intended to describe 
the history of Israel as the story of man's salvation through the Torah. 
Thus Wisdom is revealed as the power of God which has saved 
mankind in history, and continues to do so now. It was she who 
delivered mankind from the three great world-catastrophes of the 
Fall, 1 the Deluge 2 and the destruction of the cities of the Plain, 3 and 
carried them safely through the perils of murder and perverted 
"homonoia", the forms of barbarism which naturally beset mankind 
during the recovery from the catastrophes which from time to time 
obliterate civilisation. It was she who delivered the father of the chosen 
people from his perils and finally established his righteous son in 
the kingship. 4 Thus allowing for the somewhat refractory character of 
the Old Testament narrative we have a description of the growth of 
civilisation from a world-catastrophe up to the establishment of the 
ideal form of government, a righteous monarchy. The only difference 
between this narrative and the philosophical convention for such 
narratives is that we have a summary based on what the author regards 
as real history; consequently Wisdom plays an active part, whereas in 
the Hellenistic convention, although in theory God, providence or fate 
is the power at work in history no less than in the physical universe, 
yet history is not regarded seriously as a field of divine activity ; men 
act for themselves, or as the puppets of fate, governed at best by an 
entirely impersonal power of reason. 5 Moreover, the early chapters of 
Greek History are confused with a mythology in which the author 
hardly believes; consequently the professional historians rarely give 

1 Rom. 8. 20, and cf. Str.-B. ad lac. Philo, De Conf. Ling. 3 (6, M. i. 405), is 
aware of a fable that men and beasts understood one another's language before the 
fall: cf. Jos. Antt. i. i. 4 (41). The end of the state of innocence is an end of the 
golden age. 

2 For Sieo-axrev of deliverance at sea cf. Pap. Par. 29 (UPZ. 41. 4), Acts 27. 44, 
i Pet. 3. 20. 

8 Cf. above, p. 5. The author's purpose appears from the space of three verses 
devoted to Lot out of fifteen for the whole of Genesis. 

4 Polybius 6.5.4 seqq. after Plato, Laws 677 a. History culminates in constitutional 
monarchy (ib. 6. 6, 12), which explains the position of Joseph as a king in v. 14. 

8 In Polybius, loc. cit., we have no divine government, only a growth in \oyi<rp,os. 
But Isis furnished a precedent for a more personal supervision of history, as in the 
euhemerised version of her story in Diod. Sic. i . 22. i . The large space devoted to 
Jacob is partly due to the fact that he received a revelation of the true religion at 
Bethel, partly to the fact that he is the victim of vrXeoce&'a ; cf. below, p. 173. 


us such a philosophy of history; the Jewish writer was able to 
represent the story of Genesis not merely as history, but as edifying 
history, without an undue strain on his sources. 1 With the establish- 
ment of the "kingdom" of Joseph over the "tyrants" 2 a point is 
reached at which serious history begins, and we proceed with the 
story of the Exodus, only to meet with a disappointment; the book 
breaks off suddenly and a new document of far less interest and 
importance begins. We are left to speculate as to the relation of 
Wisdom to the Torah, a matter which should have been settled in a 
few verses ; it is possible that the suppression of the rest of the book 
was deliberate ; the synagogues of the Dispersion seem at this time to 
have disapproved of the publication of the words of the decalogue. 3 
It is, however, clear that the Torah must in some sense have been the 
work of Wisdom, though it is hardly possible that the writer could 
have equated the two absolutely after the manner of Ecclesiasticus 
and the rabbis. 

In Philo Wisdom has no real place at all. The divine power at work 
in the cosmos, 4 which is also the living pattern after which the cosmos 
was created according to the Timaeus, 5 the image of God after which 
man was created, 6 the spiritual man who was created after that image 7 
(except indeed when the spiritual being is identical with Adam and 
the fall is a fall into matter), 8 the immanent reason which governs 
and holds together the cosmos, 9 are all included among the various 
titles of the Logos. In himself the Logos is merely a substitute for 
Wisdom. Wisdom herself had been transformed from her original 
character of Isis into the divine reason immanent in the cosmos. The 

1 Apart from Joseph's "kingdom" the only serious departure is Abraham's 
association with the tower of Babel, drawn from the cycle of Abraham legends (cf. 
Alexander Polyhistor ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 18. 3; for his authenticity cf. Schurer, 
G.y.V. 3. ^6gseqq.); he is known to Jos. Antt. i. 15. i (240). The association of 
Abraham with Nimrod in Philo, DeGigant. 15 (65, M. 1.272), implies the same legends. 

2 Cf. Polybius, 6. 6. 12, for the distinction here. 

3 Cf. above, p. 29. 

4 De Mund. Op. 6 (24, M. i. 5), where it is also the intelligible world, and passim. 
The remaining explanations are also found frequently. 

5 Ib. 5 (20, M. i. 4). " Leg. Alleg. 3. 31 (96, M. i. 106). 

7 Ib. i. 12 (32, M. i. 49). 

8 Quaest. in Gen. i. 53 and by implication in Leg. Alleg. 3. 22 (69, M. i. 100); 
cf. Orig. Horn, in Gen. i. 13 (following Philo), De Princ. 2. 3. 3; c. Cels. 4. 40; In 
Ev. Jo. i. 17 (of the serpent in the first instance; cf. his exegesis of the mill-stone of 
Mt. 1 8. 6 as a material body into which a spiritual "power" may be put as a 
punishment (In Ev. Matt. 13. 17)). In Philo, De Op. Mund. 46 (134, M. i. 
32), we are told that the man who is formed of the dust in Gen. 2. 7 is far inferior 
to the ideal man whom God made in His own image (ib. 23 (69, M. i. 16)). Unfortu- 
nately at this point the fall is omitted and we do not hear how the spiritual man is 
related to the material. The fault is really that of Plato in the Timaeus. 

De Plant. 2 (8, M. i. 330), which might be a paraphrase of Wisd. 8. i. 



change of terminology simply substituted one of the common ,words 
for describing the divine reason for an unusual one. 1 At the same timfe 
it harmonised with the narrative of the book of Genesis and the 
general Jewish conception of creation as due to the word of God, a 
concept which had no doubt once been understood in the most; literal 
sense of primitive mythology but had long since been transmuted into 
the conception of creation as dependent simply on an act of thq divine 
will. The figure of the Logos in Philo is in general distinctly les> 
personal than Wisdom even in her latest manifestation; the decline of 
"personality" renders it unlikely that Philo, or his source, \yas in- 
fluenced by Hellenistic religion. 2 He has followed Posidonius in con- 
flating the Stoic reason with the divine pattern and the Platonic ide&, 
adding the image of God from Hebrew cosmogony. 3 Yet the conception 
has so little real importance that his summary of the various values 
of the cosmogony of Genesis 4 forgets to mention the existence of the 
Logos at all. The variety of functions represents the variety 0f 
sources, the book of Genesis, the Timaeus, the earlier Stoicism and its 
later harmonisation with Plato, which have all contributed) to this 
inclusive figure. But Philo's only real interest in the Logos is jto show 
that the true cosmogony of the Timaeus, as interpreted by Posidoni|is 
in terms of Stoicism, is really to be found in Genesis ; 5 in consequence 
the divine pattern of the Timaeus takes the form of the precosmic light 
as the image of God in accordance with the Jewish Wisdom-traditi0n. 
But since man was made in the image of God, that image was| also an 
ideal man; the pattern of the Timaeus was a living being and divine. 
This conflation was made easier by the two accounts of the creation 
of man in Genesis, where only the second mentions the earth; but 
the lack of consistency or importance of these speculations appears 
from the fact that the first creation in Gen. i . 26, in which God says 

1 For Logos in this sense cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 88, 134; Placita i. 28. i' (ascribed 
to Heraclitus) and 3 (Chrysippus) (Dox. Gr. 323 ; the use is commonplace). 

2 The "holy word" of Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 53 (Scott 116) is the Jewish 
word of creation, not the Philonic Logos (Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks 115 seqq.). 

8 The extent, if any, to which the Logos in Philo is connected with the Memra 
of the Targums is discussed in Judaism i. 416 seqq. Moore is entirely negative, but 
does not consider the possibility that the Memra of the Targums is a survival from 
an earlier stage of speculation which was abandoned with the growth of CHristianiity. 
In any case the Memra as it survives in the Targums has no relation to the Logos 
of Philo except in so far as both are used as circumlocutions to avoid awkward 
anthropomorphisms. But Alexandrine speculation may have left a trace of its 
influence in this survival: cf. pp. 50 and 52. 

4 De Mund. Op. 61 (170 seqq., M. i. 41). ' 

6 Reinhardt's view that Posidonius did not produce a commentary on the 
Timaeus, or expound his views in language which professed to be an exposition of 
that work, seems entirely untenable in view of the explicit statement of Sextus 
Empiricus (adv. Math. 7. 93). 


"Let us make man in our image", is normally not the creation of 
the ideal man, but of actual man; the plural is an address to the 
powers or the Logos, as sharing in the creation of man, the only being 
capable of sin. 1 The image of God is again the divine element of mind, 
the specific quality of the divine element present in all things in that 
special form in which, according to the later Stoics, it manifested itself 
in man. 2 In Quaest. in Gen. i. 53 this element of Mind is symbolised 
by Adam, whose union with Eve (".life" or "soul") results in the fall 
into the material body, symbolised by the coats of skin; again in 
Leg. Alleg. 3. 22 (69, M. i. 100) the statement of Gen. 38. 7 that "Er 
was wicked in the sight of the Lord and the Lord slew him" is ex- 
plained to mean that "Er", whose name means "skin", symbolises 
the fall into the body not of the mind but of the soul. 3 The passage 
shows how little Philo is really concerned to distinguish between the 
highest element of "mind" and the "soul"; he is only concerned to 
show that the Old Testament contains the truths of philosophy, and 
the source which he is following here was following the normal 
distinction of soul and body and ignored the distinction of the higher 
element of mind from the lower element of psyche. It is also in- 
teresting to note here as elsewhere the habit of reading the deepest 
truths of philosophy into the more difficult passages of the Old 
Testament; the Lord's apparently arbitrary dislike of Er clamoured 
for explanation. 

Here we have a line of exegesis which is of interest as recalling the 
widespread myth of an "original man" of heavenly origin and purely 
spiritual character, whose fall into the material world is the explana- 
tion of man's double character. The general conception has many 
parallels in ancient mythologies ; it can be found in varying forms in 
Indian and Norse folk-lore. It is an essential element in the system 
of the Mandeans and Manichees. But it was also an essential element 
of Orphism ; 4 the devouring of Dionysus by the Titans explained .the 

1 So in De Mund. Op. 46 (134, M. i. 32) and Leg. Alleg. i. 12 (31, M. i. 49) the 
man who is made of earth is contrasted with an ideal man. Yet in De Mund. Op. 24 
(72, M. i. 1 6) God says " Let us make" in order that others may bear the blame of 
man's sin. These are the powers in most cases, but in De Migr. Abr. i (6, M. i. 437) 
the Logos is employed npos rfjv awrrninov T&V a7roreXou/ieV<ui> o-vaTacnv. 

8 De Mund. Op. 23 (69, M. i. 16). 

3 For the raiment of skin cf. Od. Sol. 25. 8 and the parallels quoted by Bernard, 
ad loc. (Texts and Studies 8. 3. 107); Ir. Haer. i. 5. 5. "Er" is a mysterious figure; 
Philo interprets his name as "skin" (1117); properly it seems to mean "watcher". 
The giants of Gen. 6. 4 are "watchers" (i En. i. 5 and passim). Does the name go 
back to a primitive demon of Semitic mythology? 

4 Orpheus 82, 156. This element of Orphism belongs to its oldest stratum, or at 
least to a period earlier than Plato. 



presence of the divine spark in man ; it could be read into the Narcissus 
myth by the author of the Hermetic tract Poimandres or into the 
Attis myth by the Emperor Julian; it was found before him by the 
Naassene Gnostics in all the myths on which the various mysteries 
were based. 1 It was possible to read it into the received mythologies 
just as Philo reads it into the mythology of Genesis; Mani introduced 
it by means of inventing a new mythology; Valentinus combined the 
methods, introducing a fall into the heavenly places as a parallel to the 
fall of Eve and so explaining the descent of a heavenly being into the 
material world. In all these cases the purpose was the same, to 
explain the presence of the divine element in man in the material 
cosmos, which was evil in virtue of its material character. It is 
possible that the dualism was of Oriental origin; it was certainly 
intensified by the influence of Chaldean astrology. But in itself it is 
no more than the Platonic view of the material as the source of evil, 
intensified by the despair of the natural world which was characteristic 
of the first century B.C. This was the common property of all religions ; 
it was natural to read the imprisonment of a heavenly being in the 
material body into the narrative of the fall of Adam, but it was equally 
possible to attach it to the giants of Gen. 6; 2 this impartiality shows 
how little importance attached to the myth. The same experience 
expressed itself in terms of any mythology that was available and could 
be forced into symbolising the fact. 3 

An ancillary duty of the Logos, which it shares with the divine 
"powers" or attributes of goodness and justice, is to avoid the awk- 
ward anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament. 4 The fact that the 
Logos and the powers are practically duplicated shows how little 
Philo really means by either. Both can be incorporated and equated 
with the Platonic and Stoic conceptions, for the simple reason that 
none have any real value as compared with the faith and practice of the 

The real effect of the introduction of the Logos was to make the 
divine Wisdom unnecessary; the fact that Logos is masculine made it 

1 A full discussion of the "Original Man" is to be found in Professor J. M. 
Creed's article "The Heavenly Man" in J.T.S. 26. 102. 113 seqq., on which the 
above is largely based. For the Mandeans see Note III. 

2 Cf. p. 75, n. 2 and Orig. In Ev. Jo. 6. 25. 

s In Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 24. 130, Satan is the ruler of matter and the 
" forms " in it. The fall of the angels entrusted with the firmament and the spheres 
below it is as described in Gen. 6 and Enoch : Satan's fall is the result of his culpable 
negligence in governing his charge. Here the fall of a spiritual being into matter and 
the sin of the watchers are combined. 

4 De Cher, n (35, M. i. 145), the angel of Num. 22. 31; De Fug. et Inv. i (5, 
M. i. 547), as God speaking to Hagar. Cf. above, p. 50. 


a convenient substitute for the awkward feminine figure. None the 
less Wisdom has survived in Philo's writings; it is a testimony to the 
tenacity and wide diffusion of this type of exegesis that it cannot be 
eliminated. Philo has indeed preserved one reminiscence of the origin 
of Wisdom which has vanished from the earlier literature. Wisdom 
appears as "many-named". 1 To this title she has no right whatsoever, 
but it was a standing title of Isis, won by her capacity to absorb any 
and all of her rival goddesses ; she was not merely many-named but 
"myriad-named". 2 She could be at the same time the Virgin-goddess 
of the Parthenon and the many-breasted mother-goddess of Ephesus. 3 
She could so far forget her original history that she could cease to be 
equated with the questing mother Demeter, who was her natural 
counterpart, 4 and become the lost daughter, Persephone. 5 Lists of her 
titles show that she could be equated as a matter of form with any 
goddess; 6 after all, it was easy to explain that just as different races of 
mankind had different names for the sun and moon, yet referred to the 
same luminaries, so they might have different names for Osiris and 
Isis, yet refer to the same deities. 7 

But apart from this incidental survival Wisdom has no real function 
to differentiate her from the Logos. Her sex enables her to appear 
as the cosmic reality symbolised by the virtuous women of the 
Pentateuch, sometimes with rather surprising results. In De Cher. 
12 seqg. (42, M. i. 146) we have an elaborate imitation of the philo- 
sophical tract, expounding the mysteries of pagan religion as a cosmic 
allegory, applied to the wives of the patriarchs. 8 The profane are 
solemnly warned to withdraw; 9 the "mystery" to be revealed is that 
the virtues, of which Sarah, Rebekah and Leah are types, are fertilised 
by God but bear children to men; this is the great "mystery" into 
which Philo has been initiated by Moses; but he has learnt another 
from the lesser hierophant Jeremiah, who writes : "hast thou not called 
me as it were the house and the father and the husband of thy 

1 Leg. Alleg. i. 14 (43, M. i. 51). z Plut. De Is. et Os. 53. 3720. 

3 Apuleius, Metam. n. 5. r j6zseqq. 

4 Demeter appears as "many-named" in a papyrus of about 300 B.C. (Roberts in 
Aegyptus (1934), 447 seqq.). This looks like an attempt on the part of Demeter to 
hold her own. 

6 Apuleius, loc. cit. 6 Cf. Conversion 151 for such a list. 

7 Plut. op. cit. 67. 377 f. 

8 For allegories of this type cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 2. 24. 63 seqq. ; Dio Chrys. 
36- 55 (v. Arn. 2. 189). Cf. Dion. Halic. Antt. Rom. 2. 20 for a grudging admission 
of allegory attached to a condemnation of Greek mythology borrowed from Plato, 
Rep. 377 e. Plut. De Is. et Os. is simply a tract of this kind. Cf. Macr. Sat. i. 23. 
9 for Adad and Atargatis in this allegory. 

For the general imitation of this Eleusinian demand cf. Lucian, Alexander 38, 
244 ; Apuleius, Metam. n. 23. 803. 


virginity?" 1 The words show that God is the "holuse" of the ideas, 
the father of all things and the husband of Wisdoni ; union with God 
produces virginity, for all the virtues are virgins. 2 This is a rather 
extreme specimen, but similar uses of Wisdom for the mothers of 
Israel or for women mentioned in the Torah are not uncommon. One 
of them indeed is of considerable value as a means for estimating the 
importance to be attached to Philo's use of tjhe cosmic Wisdom. In 
De Fug. et Inv. 20 (109, M. i. 562) the High Priest may not defile 
himself for his father or mother; for the High Priest represents the 
Logos, whose robe is the cosmos, while his mother is the cosmic 
Wisdom. 3 Here we have an exact reproduction of the symbolism of 
the Egyptian triad, Osiris, Isis and Horus-Harpdcrates. 4 Unfortu- 
nately a few sections before, ib. 18 (97, M. i. 560), the Logos has 
appeared as "the source of wisdom". This shows that the whole 
conception of the sacred marriage of God and Wisdom with the Logos 
as their child is not to be taken seriously; its function is to provide a 
meaning for the families of the Old Testament and particularly where 
they are at first sight hard to explain or explain away. 5 At best they 
are to be regarded as attempts to provide a picture of the true Holy 
Family to preserve restive young Jews from succumbing to the attrac- 
tions of Osiris, Isis and Harpocrates (or any other triad of Hellenistic 
religion). Hellenistic religion was defending and rehabilitating its 
triads by finding a cosmic meaning in the myth which would justify 
the retention of the cult; 6 Plutarch used this means for defending Isis 
and Osiris, and Varro for defending the Cabeiri of Samothrace. 7 On 
the other hand Judaism could also use them to appeal to the Gentile 

1 Jer. 3. 4 in LXX, but with avbpa for apx^yov of received text. 

2 Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes 78, sees here an allusion to the belief that 
Re visits the queen of Egypt, so that each new Pharaoh is a son of the God. This 
seems to imply a reality in the allegory which it has no claim to possess. It is simply 
an imitation of any Stoic tract about any "sacred marriage". Cf. Quod Deus Imm. 
i seqq. (4, M. i. 273) for a similar treatment of i Sam. i. 28. The allusions to 
Jeremiah and i Samuel suggest that Philo is working on material taken from an 
earlier Jewish source. For "sacred marriages" cf. p. 201. 

3 Cf. De Ebr. 8 seqq. (30, M. i. 361), where the nbn-Pentateuchal references to 
Prov. 8. 22 and Ecclus. 24. 30 suggest a non-Philonic source. In a similar vein is 
De Fug. et Inv. 9 (51, M. i. 553). 

4 Plut. De Is. et Os. 54. 373 a and De Anim. Procr. in Tim. 27, 10260. 

B De Ebr. 8 (30) deals with the well-known crux of the stubborn and rebellious 
son. For rabbinical attempts to avoid the necessity of punishing him in accordance 
with Deut. 21. 18 seqq., cf. Mishnah, Sank. 8. i (Danby 394). Possibly it seemed 
hard that the High Priest might not mourn for his family. 
. 8 Plut. De Is. et Os. 8. 3530 and n. 3550. Cf. p. 68. I 

7 Varro ap. Aug. De Civ. Dei 7. 28 ; the Cabeiri as " Jupiter, Juno and Minerva " 
stand for the firmament, earth and the realm of ideas or the divine pattern of the 


world on the principle of "Whom then ye ignorantly worship, him we 
declare unto you". 

In the case of the "sacred marriage" the retention of Wisdom is 
necessary. If the stories of the patriarchs are to be a cosmic allegory, 
there is no other figure to represent the mothers of Israel. But the 
strength of Wisdom appears from the retention of her figure as a piece 
of conventional symbolism in a number of cases where she is not 
necessary. Any allusion to the Temple, Tabernacle, house or city of 
God is liable to introduce an allusion to Wisdom, usually in a cosmic 
sense (the distinction between the cosmic Wisdom and wisdom as a 
quality of God or an ideal for man is more obvious to the 'modern 
reader than to the ancient writer, who was not concerned with such 
niceties). This symbolism appears to rest on the philosophic common- 
place of the cosmos as the house of the gods, 1 or the temple of God. 2 
In virtue of the analogy between macrocosm and microcosm this can 
be extended to the soul of the righteous; but it seems that the tradition 
of Judaism was too strong to allow the soul of man to be the house of 
Wisdom; it is always the house of God. 3 This symbolism is almost 
invariably associated with Wisdom, rarely with the Logos. 4 Wisdom 
as a city is normally associated with the soul of the righteous, which 
dwells in Wisdom. 5 

A further convention is that which equates Wisdom with the famous 
waters of the Old Testament. Only once is a river used for this 
equation. 6 Normally the convention that a spring is feminine but a 
river masculine is strictly observed; thus we find a surprising accuracy 
in describing Wisdom as the spring from which the river of the Logos 
flows. 7 Any other famous water, whether a well, a spring, or the 

1 Chrysippus ap. Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 3. 10. z6. 

2 Cicero, De Rep. 6 (Somn. Sdp.), 15. 15 : Deus cuius hoc templum est omne quod 
conspicis ; Plut. De Tranq. Anim. 20. 477 c. 

8 Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Templo), i (66, M. z. 222), attempts to combine the 
Stoic view that the cosmos is the true temple of God with the Temple at Jerusalem. 

4 For the association of the Temple or Tabernacle with Wisdom cf. D.C.E.R. 21 
(116, M. i. 536); the Logos appears as the house of God in De Migr. Abr. i (3, 
M.I. 437), but with no allusion to the Tabernacle ; the " house " here is " thy father's 
house" in Gen. 12. i. Cf. Q.R.D.H. 14 (69, M. i. 482). 

5 E.g. Leg. Alleg. 3. i (3, M. i. 88). For the curious use of the Logos of the cities 
of refuge cf. above, p. 54. 

Cf, above, p. 60. 

7 Cf. especially De Somn. 2. 36 (241 seqq., M. i. 690), another instance of 
the association of Wisdom with a non-pentateuchal reference (Ps. 37. 4). In Leg. 
Alleg. i. 19 (63, M. i. 56) the introduction of generic virtue leaves a confusion of this 
concept with Wisdom and the Logos which makes it difficult to see which is the 
garden of Eden, which the river and which the spring from which the river flows. 
Philo is less careful than his Jewish sources. The two passages seem to have a 
common source: yavv^ai (Leg. Alleg. i. 19 (64) and De Somn. z. 37 (248)) is rare 


miraculous rock in the desert, is liable to introduce an allusion to the 
Wisdom of God. 1 For this convention there are several possible 
sources; the equation of the Torah with the rivers of Eden in Ecclus. 
24. 25 and its rather clumsy attachment to Astarte-Sophia may have 
led to the equation of Wisdom with the fountain of Eden and so to 
springs in general. On the other hand it is a regular Stoic view that 
"the good" is the "source" of goodness, the term for source being 
7777777' ; 2 this may have suggested the equation of springs with Wisdom 
as the quality of divine goodness. Another Stoic use of the term, to 
describe the r/ye^oviKov 5 in man, appears in Philo, drawn apparently 
from a source which had greater scruples than Philo naturally displays 
in the matter of verbosity. 4 The same passage treats God as a source, 
or fountain, reinforcing the argument with a reference to Jer. 2. 13 ; 
again the reference outside the Pentateuch suggests that Philo is 
incorporating earlier Jewish exegesis, while a reference to "Olympian 
and heavenly actions" 5 suggests careless incorporation from the same 
source as De Somn. 2. 36 (242). This equation between God, as the 
source of being or goodness, and the rj-yefJioviKov in man, as the source 
of sensation, falls within the normal Stoic convention of macrocosm 
and microcosm. Since, however, there does not appear to be any 
direct evidence for the use of the word 7777777 in precisely this applica- 
tion of the analogy, it is possible that it was first used by the Jewish 
exegetes of Alexandria, who were compelled to find a mystical meaning 
for the numerous water-supplies, which the needs of their Bedouin 
ancestors had caused to be written large on the religious literature of 
their race. More probably they found the word 7777777 used in this sense 
on a larger scale than we can trace, though it is possible that they read 
into the word a more definite reference to "sources" of water than it 
naturally bore in the Hellenistic age. In any case the Jewish writers 
normally transfer the character of the "source" from God, as the 
riyepoviKov of the firmament, to Wisdom, which really corresponds 
to the divine principle immanent in the cosmos : this is merely another 

and common to both. In De Somn. the " Olympian and heavenly shoots " of virtuous 
souls show a contact with heathen sources, while the midrash on Pss. 65. 9 and 
46. 4 (where again the Logos is filled with the flow of Wisdom) shows a Jewish 
source behind Philo. 

1 E.g. Rebecca's well, De Post. Cain. 41 (136, M. i. 251) ; De Fug. et Inv. 35 (195, 
M. i. 575) ; for the rock in the desert cf. Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 31 (115 seqq., M. i. 213). 
On this cf. next page, n. 3. 

z Stob. Eel. 2. 69. 17 (v. Arn. 3. 18), and Sext. Emp. adv. Math. n. 25. 

3 Chalcidius, ad Timaeum 220 (v. Arn. 2. 235). 

4 Philo, De Fug. et Inv. 32 (181 seqq., M. i. 573). Philo can hardly be responsible 
for crro-^aareov yap TOV p 

6 Ib. 36 (199)- 


proof of the fact that Judaism had no real need of the concept and 
attached no serious importance to it. Wisdom had a general association 
with wells and springs, and springs had an association with the mind 
of man and with God in contemporary Stoicism, and no Jew could 
ask for better proof that the Pentateuch contained all the mysteries of 
Greek philosophy. 1 

Among the famous sources of the Old Testament the greatest of all 
was the rock that miraculously followed the children of Israel through 
the desert. It appeared in the early days of their wanderings (Exod. 
17. 6) and continued with them until they were on the edge of Sihon's 
country (Num. 21. 17). Since there was no water in the desert, it was 
obvious that the rock accompanied them. 2 Consequently it was in- 
evitable that it should receive considerable attention from the exegesis 
of Alexandrine Judaism. In two passages we find the rock equated with 
the divine Wisdom ; in the later of the two we have an equation of the 
water from the rock with the manna, which again is equated with the 
Logos; 3 we could need no clearer evidence that here the Logos and 
Wisdom are merely different names for the same thing, the divine 
element diffused throughout the cosmos. Since this conception is 
merely introduced to reconcile Judaism with Hellenistic thought, it 
can be described by either term and symbolised by anything that needs 
a symbolic explanation; it does not bear any serious reference to 
Jewish thought or religion. 

1 Springs appear to be associated with temples of Astarte in Syrian religion 
(Lagrange, fitudes sur les Religions semitiques 158), as with nymphs in classical 
Hellas. But it is doubtful whether post-exilic Judaism or Alexandrine philosophy 
took any serious interest in such aspects of religion. 

z Cf. Str.-B. on i Cor. 10. 4. In Mishnah, Aboth 5. 6 (Danby 456), it appears 
among the things created on the eve of the first sabbath ; it has no cosmic significance 
in rabbinical literature and does not symbolise the Torah. Since the Torah is often 
a well in this literature it is probable that the equation of it with the rock in the desert 
was common in the pre-Christian era but abandoned under the stress of controversy 
with the Church. 

3 Leg. Alleg. 2. 21 (86, M. i. 82) and Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 31 (115, M. i. 213). 
Cf. further De Fug. et Inv. 25 (137, M. i. 566), where the manna "rained down" 
from heaven is not the Logos but Wisdom, as again in 30 (166, M. i. 571) wisdom 
is "rained down" from heaven. The convention of wisdom as drink is the older and 
stronger; the Manna-Logos convention represents Philo's attempt to fit his own 
concept into an existing symbolism. 



PAUL was entirely at home in the apocalyptic convention of the 
primitive community. He accepted it as a matter of course, and 
was prepared to insert into his letters prophecies of the return 
of Jesus in glory which, in virtue of their position in the tradition of the 
primitive community, he regarded as part of the Gospel, "the word of 
the Lord". 1 Or such prophecies could be "mysteries", part of the 
divine plan hitherto concealed but now made known to those who had 
eyes to see. 2 He incorporated in his teaching a prophecy of the return 
of Caligula in the character of anti-Christ. 3 Yet he was perfectly well 
aware that the second coming was only to be the consummation of a 
state which was already in existence; so much had been done that he 
could use language which seemed to leave no room for that further 
completion, the necessity of which he realised in actual practice. 4 

Consequently he was perfectly willing to express the Gospel in any 
other terms which might seem likely to be more effective in the work 
of saving mankind. The wisdom of the world might indeed be 
foolishness, but he was quite ready to use it to glorify Jesus, just as 
Judaism was ready to use it to glorify the Torah. Of philosophy in its 
proper sense he was entirely ignorant; the wisdom of the Greeks 
meant for him a collection of fragments, in part forgeries, from 
Greek writers, whose unconscious admission of the unity of God and 
the supremacy of the Torah provided missionary propaganda for the 
synagogues of the Dispersion. 5 He had also a slight and superficial 
acquaintance with the conceptions of popular philosophy of the type 

1 i Thess. 4. 15. The phrase "word of the Lord " may imply that it was ascribed 
by tradition to Jesus, but it need be no more than part of the general "word of the 
Lord " in the sense of the Gospel as Paul had received it. For an actual quotation 
prjp-a would be more natural than \6yos, as in Acts n. 16. 

2 i Cor. 15. 51. 3 Cf. Jerusalem 187, n. 9. 
4 Rom. 8. i seqq., Gal. 2. 20; contrast Rom. 8. 23, Phil. 3. 13. 

6 Paul's two quotations from the classics are from Aratus in Acts 17. 28 and 
Menander in i Cor. 15. 33. Of these the former figures in the collection of Aristo- 
bulus (cf. p. 26). The latter does not appear, but Menander was a popular figure 
in Jewish propaganda literature ; he figures in the similar collection of Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. 5. 14. 99 seqq., 707 P), at 119 (720 P), 120 (ib.) and 130 (727 P). 
I suspect that Paul's quotation also figured in such a collection ; it was important to 
prove that the provisions of the Torah with regard to intercourse with Gentiles were 
recognised by the best pagan writers. In Ps.-Just. De Mon. 5 (107 b) he figures with 
twelve fragments, again in a collection which shows no trace of Christian interest as 
against Jewish. 


which was commonly employed in expounding the religions of the age 
to more or less educated circles; it is at least probable that Judaism had 
at its disposal a doxographic selection of the views of the chief schools 
of philosophy, which purported to show how all that was true in Greek 
thought was borrowed from Moses and the rest an aimless and in- 
coherent statement of conflicting errors. 1 Paul himself may have been 
acquainted with such a collection, though again it is possible that he 
was acquainted with the Book of Wisdom ; this work, together with the 
smattering of philosophical language which was the common property 
of the Hellenistic synagogue, would have provided all the background 
of his theology. 2 It is possible, as will be seen later, that speculations 
of a "Hermetic" type combining popular philosophy with a smat- 
tering of astrology were current in the circle of Gamaliel, and that it 
was in part to these that Paul owed his knowledge of the learning and 
wisdom of the Greeks. 3 In any case that knowledge was of the most 
superficial kind. 4 

Moreover, any value which it might have possessed vanished with his 
conversion. Thenceforward all that mattered was the fact of his 
deliverance. That deliverance could be stated in terms of the Messianic 
kingdom of God already established on earth. Later Paul was to state 
it in the language of Hellenistic cosmogony as understood by the 
synagogues of the Dispersion. Between these two extremes there 
were, however, various forms in which the truth could be expressed, 
which involved a less absolute breach with the whole tradition of 
Jewish monotheism than that which Paul adopted in his later writings. 

The adoption of a different terminology from that of Palestinian 
Christianity was in any case rendered necessary by the danger of 
speaking of the kingdom of God to the Greek-speaking world ; that 
world "had no king but Caesar". 5 The conception was not even 

1 Cf. p. 35 for the Jewish use of "Orpheus". Jos. c. Ap. z. 16 (167 seqq.) shows 
the influence of such summaries; the summary incorporated by Cicero, De Nat. 
Dear. i. 10. 25 seqq., reappears in various forms in Clem. Alex. Protr. 5. 64 seqq. 
(55 P) > Minucius Felix, Octavius 19. 4 seqq. ; Ps.-Just. Cohort, ad Gent. 3 seqq. (40). 
A collection of this kind underlies Philo, De Somn. i. 4 seqq. (21, M. i. 623); cf. 
Wendland in Sitzungsberichte der K. Pr. Akad. 1897, pp. 1074 seqq., where the 
collection is identified with the Placita of Aetius. The wide distribution of the col- 
lection of Cicero in Christian literature suggests that these writers are all using a 
common Jewish compilation. 

a It is to this tradition that the resemblances between Paul and Philo are to be 
traced ; there is no means of deciding how far it was committed to writing or how 
far it was simply a general convention of the pulpit. 

3 Cf. pp. 54 and 113. 

4 Cf. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings 107 (perhaps slightly underrating his Greek 

6 See Jerusalem, 271, n. 7, for the reasons for the abandonment of the "kingdom 
of God" after Paul's disastrous use of it at Thessalonica. 


particularly intelligible to the Greeks, for the kingship of a god4 as 
against the deification of a king belonged to Semitic rather than to 
Greek religion. 1 But there were many other conceptions ready for use 
in the Greek world. 

A natural equivalent for the kingdom of God, familiar botty to Jew 
and to Gentile, was that of the new world-age. Palestinian Judaism 
only knew of the present age and the age to come at the end of the 
world-process; 2 there was no precedent in Jewish thought for the 
inauguration of a Messianic world-age in which the Messiah was not 
visibly triumphant, an age in which sinners existed on equal tbrms by 
the side of the redeemed. Apart from a possible reign of the Messiah 
in glory on earth, Judaism adhered to a single ending to the present 
age. But the apocalyptic hope as such was entirely fluid. In the 
Hellenistic world the thought of a new age continuous with the present 
was familiar. Some fifteen years before Paul's visit to Athens the 
accession of Caligula had been acclaimed by the world in general as 
the establishment of a golden age; Judaism outside Palestine had been 
prepared to adopt the language with which the world acclaimed "the 
best of aeons" though meaning by its language even less than the 
world in general; it expressed no more than a profound relief at the 
removal of Tiberius and the end of an anti-Jewish policy. 3 Judaism 
had indeed suffered a greater disillusionment under Caligula than the 
rest of mankind; he might be mad, but his madness did not injure the 
ordinary provincial. It was another matter for the Jew when he 
threatened to desecrate the Temple; the peril had been so narrowly 
averted that in Palestine he could be regarded as the great enemy of 
God, the anti-Christ who must yet return. 4 Neither Judaism nor 
Christianity in Palestine had ever used language which implied that 

1 Kyrios 2. 286 seqq. and 3. 634 seqq. 

2 The normal Jewish conception is that of the parable of the Tares (Mi. 13. 
24 seqq.); cf. Mishnah, Sank. 10. i. (Danby 347). The Gospel shows that the 
Mishnah here preserves the dominant view. Jewish speculation imagined vrorldfages 
on the stage of history (cf. p. 6) ; but the Messianic kingdom on earth seems always 
to be preceded by the triumph of the Messiah and the defeat or annihilation of 
the Gentiles. 

3 For the accession of Caligula as a new world-age in Jewish circles 'cf. above, 
p. 23. For such language elsewhere cf. the inscription of Assos (Dittenberger 
Sylloge 797. 9) and Seneca, De Morte Claudii 1. 1 : anno novo initio saeculi felicissimi, 
a passage which is of interest as showing that such language was still a common- 
place at the time when Paul used it. For aeon in the sense above cf, Ps-Arist. De 
Mund. 5. 3973. 9. 

4 Anti-Christ appears to be developed from a conflation of the Jewish enemies of 
the Messiah, kings, empires or their supernatural rulers (cf. Str.-B. on 2 Thess. 2. 3) 
with Satan, whose part in the final conflict is taken over from the Zoroastrian 
tradition (Lommel, Die Rel. Zarath. 209, 218). For the development of the Christian 
myth cf. Charles, Int. Crit. Contm. Revelation 2. 76 seqq. 


his accession was a new world-age ; Judaism was too near to an attempt 
to establish the kingdom of God on earth by the appeal to arms to 
trifle with such conceptions. The Church was concerned with a new 
age of a different sort. But Paul was perfectly prepared to adopt the 
language of the Hellenistic world. The only difference was that the 
new age was not that of Caligula or any other Caesar but that of 
Jesus. The age of Caligula, whether new or not, was not an age 
of gold; it was an age of evil, and the god who dominated it was 
Satan. 1 

From this age of evil the Christian was delivered into the new age 
inaugurated by the death of Jesus. This was simply a means of 
expressing the fact of which the Christian was conscious, that he lived 
in a new order in which the whole system of values of the old life had 
been reversed. The next generation of Christian thought was to 
associate the new age with astral portents of a suitable character, 
though with some doubt as to whether the decisive moment was the 
birth or death of the Lord. A new age could hardly be ushered in 
without a portent; on the other hand the appearance of a new sign in 
heaven must inevitably upset the whole of the order which would 
otherwise have been determined by the stars in their courses. Yet the 
appearance of such astral portents was more an invention of pious 
fancy, and an expression of the Christian's freedom from the powers 
that ruled the fate of mankind outside the Church, than an expression 
of a serious belief either in the power of the stars or in the portents 
which were supposed to have overthrown their domination. 2 The new 
life in Christ was the certain fact; it was perfectly legitimate to use any 
language that could come near to expressing it. Paul himself was not 
concerned to embroider his acceptance of the plain and obvious facts 

1 Gal. i . 4 and z Cor. 4. 4, where " the god of this age " as a description of Satan 
is quite inexplicable as a part of the ordinary Jewish-Christian vocabulary. The 
phrase appears to be an echo of Test. XII Pair. (Symeon) z. 7. But the substitution 
of "god" for "ruler" apparently is intended as a satire on the fact that the kind of 
being whom this age worships is Satan, as embodied in such emissaries as some of the 

2 Cf. above, p. 7. In Ignatius, adEph. 19. i seqq., the star of Mt. z. 2 (possibly 
of a different version of the story) is associated both with the birth and death of 
Jesus. This is absurd astrology; obviously Ignatius does not really understand it. 
The new star overthrows astrology; for payeia in this sense cf. Orig. c. Cels. i. 58, 
where Celsus regards the Magi as astrologers. Origen, loc. cit., quotes Chaeremon 
for comets as portending new world-ages ; cf. the eclipse of Lk. 23. 45, if the eclipse 
of the sun represents the genuine text. (Cf. Creed's note ad loc. in The Gospel 
according to St Luke for the text here.) For the star of the Magi as the end of astrology 
cf. also Tert. De Idol. 9 ; Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 74. z (Casey 650 seqq.). For the 
birth of Augustus as a new creation cf. the inscription of Priene, Dittenberger, 
Or. Gr. Inscr. Sel. 458 (11. 5 seqq.). Normally the Augustan age was initiated by the 
Julium sidus (Horace, Odes i. 12. 46; Pliny, N.H. z. 24. 93). 


with midrashic legends, which could not enhance the certainty of the 

Thus in describing the Christian dispensation as a new age, Paul 
was on ground familiar to Judaism. He was on equally familiar 
ground in describing it as a new creation (Gal. 6. 15; 2 Cor. 5. ly). 1 
Rabbinical Judaism was quite prepared to explain the Messianic 
language of Ps. 2. 7 ("this day have I begotten thee") as implying that 
the appearance of the Messiah was accompanied by a return to the 
beginning of all things. Even the Scriptures of the Old Testament had 
accepted the widespread belief that the end of all things must corre- 
spond to the beginning. The belief belonged naturally to a system 
which believed in a series of world-ages, each corresponding to its 
predecessor. 2 Judaism was under no obligation to expect that the 
beginning of the new age would resemble the beginning of the old. 
Yet the beginning of man had been a divine creation and it was 
reasonable to hold that the ideal was a return to the original perfection 
that man had lost. It was sometimes held by pious fancy that the 
original garden of Eden had been removed to the heavens as the abode 
of the righteous. 3 It was tenable that it would be restored to earth, 
possibly in an improved form. 4 Again, the first Adam was created in 
a state of perfection; here Judaism could join hands with one school 
of Stoicism and hold that subsequent ages represented a degeneration 
from the ideal man made by God Himself, 5 a belief which seems to 
have been widely held until Christian emphasis on the fall led to a 

1 For the Messianic age as a new creation cf. Midr. Teh. z. 9 (ed. Buber, p. 28), 
where the view is ascribed to R. Huna (d. 297). For the association of the new 
creation in 2 Cor. 5. 17 with the Day of Atonement see below, p. 144. It is probable 
enough that the conception came to Judaism from Iranian or Hellenistic religion ; 
but Paul would seem to have adopted it from the general background of Judaism, as 
a thought which suited the ideas of Hellenistic hearers. 

2 Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos 367 ; Is. xi. 6 seqq. repeated 65. 25, which suggests 
that the theme was popular. Box, The Book of Isaiah, ad loc., ascribes the prophecy 
to Isaiah, while Kennett, Composition of the Book of Isaiah 75, places it in the 
Hellenistic age. 

3 Jubilees 4. 23; 4 Esdr. 8. 52. Cf. Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 324 seqq. 

* Test. XII Pair. (Levi) 18. 10: it is simply opened to the righteous; it has been 
glorified in Rev. 21, but retains the Tree of Life (22. 2). 

6 For rabbinical views cf. Judaism i . 45 1 seqq. The Stoics varied between Panaetius, 
who held that the life of primitive man was "nasty, brutish and short" (Schmekel, 
Phil, der mittleren Stoa 65 ; cf. Polybius 6. 5. 5 seqq.) and Posidonius, who held to the 
Saturnia regna of mythology and the Platonic tradition (Philebus i6c; Rep. 3910). 
Plato's view appears in Philo, De Mund. Op. 47 (136, M. i. 32), with a curious 
allusion to the suitable (eVi/3aXXovras) numbers employed in his composition, a 
Pythagorean conception which suggests that Philo is drawing on Posidonius. For 
Posidonius' view of the virtue of the first men see Seneca, Ep. 14. 2 (90). 5 ; cf. N.Q. 
3. 30. 8. For the belief in apocryphal writers cf. Vit. Ad. et Ev. 13. 14 (where the 
fall of Satan is due to his refusal to obey God's command to worship Adam at his 
first creation), 2 En. 30. n. Cf. Heb. 2. 7. 


tendency to minimise it in rabbinical Judaism. It was possible that if 
Adam, like the angels, had stood fast in the first moment of temptation, 
he would never have known death; it was his failure, which was 
shared by the rest of the animals, that had brought death on all, 
except the phoenix, which had refused to yield and remained im- 
mortal. 1 On the other hand if it was desired to glorify the Torah, it 
could be held that all evil inclinations were from the first present in 
man, but that the Jews were delivered from them on Mount Sinai; 2 
God could not be accused of injustice, since the rest of the nations 
had heard the Law; it was Israel's merit to have accepted it, while the 
rest did not. In any case death was due to Adam and deliverance from 
sin came by the Torah. 

These conceptions were all familiar to Judaism. Romans is Paul's 
apologia to his own nation and seeks to conciliate Jewish-Christian 
readers so far as it is possible to do so. The human origin of Jesus from 
the house of David appears in the preface; 3 His Messianic office is 
established by the power of God in raising Him from the dead. 4 The 
normal Pauline phraseology of "Christ in us" is kept in the back- 
ground; it appears, perhaps by a calculated indiscretion, in 8. 10 and 
is immediately equated with the harmless "spirit of Christ dwelling 
in you". 5 Thus the general conceptions with which Paul works in this 
Epistle may be presumed to be such as Christians drawn from a 
normal Jewish synagogue would regard as tolerable; he would not 
damage his case by using arguments which his readers would reject 
from the outset, or arguments which they would entirely fail to 
understand. This remains true even if it was not originally addressed 
to the Church of Rome, but was a general letter to the world; it 
remains an apologia as against the Jewish nation with a postscript 

1 Gen. R. 19. 6 on Gen. 3. 6, where the insertion of "also" implies that she gave 
it to the rest of the beasts ; the immortality of the phoenix proves that it did not eat. 
So the Clementine Homilies 2. 52 hold that Adam, who was made by the hands of 
God, did not sin. For Adam's sin as the cause of death cf. 4 Esdr. 3.752 Bar. 17. 3 
and Str.-B. on .Rom. 5. 15. For the reference to Gen. R. I am indebted to Dr D. 
Daube of Caius College, Cambridge. 

2 Talmud, Abodah Zara 22 b. All evil inclinations, including the desire for sodomy, 
were naturally present in the Jews, but the Torah delivered them (R. Johanan, 
c. 250 A.D.). For the general promulgation of the Torah and its rejection by the 
Gentiles cf. Judaism i. 277 seqq. A similar view seems to be implied in Rom. 5. 13, 
since sin is presumably imputed to the Gentiles. In Rom. 2. 15, however, we have 
the Stoic explanation of the unwritten law of conscience or nature. Cf. Philo, 
De Abr. i (5, M. 2. 2). 

3 Rom. i. 3. 4 i. 4; cf. above, p. 81. 

8 The spirit of Christ, properly the spirit of God as manifested in Christ, could 
be transferred to others as easily as the spirit of Elijah could rest on Elisha. Christ 
could not be " in others " except as being more than a Messianic king. 


(u. 13 seqq.) to the Gentiles. 1 It possesses therefore, with Galatians, 
a claim to consideration here as being logically prior to the develop- 
ment of Paul's thought in the Corinthian Epistles, which are earlier in 
date. None the less there is one element in the Epistle which appears 
to be entirely alien to Judaism, and to the rest of the New Testament, 
in Rom. 7 with its insistence on the utter corruption of human nature 
and its incapacity to achieve its own salvation. Yet even this was 
merely an extension to all mankind of the doom which the Torah 
brought on all who rejected it. 2 Paul's own experience had convinced 
him that the truth was not that the Torah brought life to Israel and to 
the proselyte, but that it could not bring life even to them; conse- 
quently man's last hope was gone, unless some new intervention on the 
part of God came to his rescue. This was a rationalisation of his own 
experience of conversion and a logical inference from his rejection of 
the Torah. Naturally this belief was a complete contradiction of 
Judaism; but the terminology and the method of exegesis were both 
familiar. There was indeed a revolutionary element in the teaching 
which substituted Jesus for the Torah as the centre of the Christian 
life, but this was not specifically Pauline ; even those Christians who 
observed the Torah with the utmost strictness recognised that Jesus 
had superseded the Torah as the centre of the whole of the Christian 
life : 3 the question as between Paul and his Jewish-Christian opponents 
was whether the Torah still remained necessary as a safeguard against 
the sins of the Gentile world. 

Thus for Jewish or Jewish-Christian readers there was nothing 
strange in the argument that the sin of Adam had brought death on all 
mankind. The Torah revealed the nature of the righteousness which 
God demanded. This was common ground to Paul and the strictest 
rabbi. Paul went beyond them by denying that it was possible to 
attain to that righteousness, except in virtue of the one act of righteous- 
ness, the life and death of Jesus, which was the exact reversal of the 

1 That it is a genuine letter to the Church of Rome seems to me quite certain. 
Cf. Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 3. 4.65 seqq. ; Dodd, Epistle to the Romans, intr. pp. 
xvii seqq. A letter to Rome, as the centre of the world, would suggest itself naturally ; 
the position of Rome was a commonplace; cf. Diod. Sic. i. 4. 3 and the variation on 
the theme in Ir. Haer. 3. 3. 2, Dion. Halic. De Oral. Ant. Prol. 5. 

2 Cf. Str.-B. on Rom. 7. 10 and 2 Cor. a. 16. 

3 For the Sermon on the Mount as the proclamation of a new Torah cf. Windisch, 
Der Sinn der Bergpredigt (2), 97 seqq. The same writer (ib. 94) notes that Rom. 7 is 
unique in the Bible in its expression of man's inability to obey the will of God ; he 
fails to notice that the whole theology of this part of Romans is far more an expression 
of Paul's experience and an argument against Judaism than a system of dogmatic 
theology. Paul would have seen no incompatibility between his own teaching and 
the thought of the Sermon on the Mount as a new Law, cf. Rom. 13. 9. 


sin of Adam (Rom. 5. 15-21). However much Jews might reject such 
an argument, and however hard Jewish-Christians might find it to 
accept, it was cast in a form of thought with which the Jews were 
entirely familiar. 

The argument might be stated in various forms, based on the 
midrashic exegesis of the Old Testament as expounded by the tradition 
of the synagogue. In Rom. 6 it is stated in terms of the Christian 
revision of the kerygma of Judaism, in which the death and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus replace the Exodus from Egypt. The proselyte through 
circumcision and the proselyte's bath was enabled to come out of 
Egypt and pass through the Red Sea into the promised land of Israel. 1 
This original salvation of the people was re-enacted in every Gentile 
who was prepared to come out of Egypt, the natural type of evil in a 
religion whose literature was dominated by the utterances of the 
prophets who had counselled submission to Babylon. Paul transfers 
the argument to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Those who share 
in it through faith and pass through the waters of baptism are delivered 
from the old Egyptian bondage to sin and pass instead into a new 
slavery to righteousness which results in sanctification. 2 Here the 
union of the Christian with Jesus is stated in terms of an exchange from 
one slavery to another, on the strength of the Christian conception of 
the passion and resurrection as the new Passover. The fact that the 
Christian kerygma dealt with recent facts of history, and that the risen 
Lord was the centre of the faith and devotion of the Church, gave a 
life and reality to the conception of deliverance, which was wanting in 
Judaism. Judaism was centred on the Torah, and the preaching of the 
deliverance of the proselyte by a mystical sharing in the Exodus was 
a devout play of fancy, which enhanced the Israelite's sense of 
gratitude to God; it also provided a note of "deliverance" which 

1 Cf. p. 28. For Egypt as a permanent type of evil cf. Q.R.D.H. 62 (315, M. i. 
518), where the Nile stands for the body and its passions, Euphrates for the wisdom 
of God, an interesting survival of the pro-Babylonian policy of the prophets. The 
association of Egypt with the evil and the material is a standing convention in Philo ; 
cf. the appearance of Egypt as a convention for evil among the Peratae, and 
Euphrates and Babylon as relatively good among the Naassenes (Hipp. El. 5. 16 
(131) and 9 (121)). In the Hymn of the Soul in the Acts of Thomas (108, Apocr. 
N. T. 41 1) Egypt and Babylon are both evil ; apparently this reflects the Persian view, 
cf. Reitzenstein, Erlosungsmysterium 71 seqq. 

2 Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 3. 472, regards this as referring to the practice of volun- 
tarily entering into slavery to secure a living. It is, however, possible that it is 
simply a reference to the practice of the devotee who brands himself as a mark of 
slavery to his god. Philo quotes this (De Spec. Legg. i (De MOM.), 8 (58, M. i. 221)) 
but regards it as folly, on the assumption that it is done in the service of an idol ; 
Paul refers to the scars of his persecutions as such stigmata (Gal. 6. 17). Such 
voluntary " slavery " would be reprehensible or laudable according to whether it was 
offered to idols or to the one true God. 



might attract the Gentile who sought for a religion of salvation. But 
it was not the central and most vital element of his faith, as it was for 
Paul. None the less the method of argument was the same; a past 
event of history (or mythology), embodied in a ritual action, became 
an "effective symbol" for producing a change in the character of the 
believer. 1 This conception had passed from Hellenistic religion into the 
devotional language of the synagogue; Paul transferred it to the faith 
of the Church. The essential difference was that Paul really believed 
in salvation by an act of God wrought in the person of Jesus, while 
Judaism believed in salvation through the observance of the Torah; 
deliverance by an act of God was not the foundation of Judaism, but 
only a devotional accessory. The result was a complete revolution; the 
Lord had said that the new wine could not be put into old bottles and 
the Christian was conscious that he walked in an entirely new life. 2 

Rom. 6 represents an exposition of salvation in terms of the liturgical 
practice of the Church as contrasted with that of the synagogue. It 
could also be expressed in reference to the experience of deliverance 
by faith as a result of conversion in the form of a revised version of the 
story of Abraham, in which sonship by adoption was contrasted with 
physical descent. This argument 3 was necessary in order to vindicate 
God's fulfilment of His promises, and as a means of answering the 
natural Jewish claim that if salvation was promised to the Jews it must 
find its fulfilment within the traditional system of Judaism. From this 
point of view the Torah was the means by which God preserved the 
chosen people from the sins of the Gentiles, and consequently it must 
still hold good if the Christian was not to relapse into them. This 
Paul denied on the basis of his own experience. The Torah had failed 
in practice to produce that righteousness which God demanded. 
Rom. 7 is an impressive statement of Paul's experience of failure before 
his conversion. It introduces his whole conception of the relation of 
the old dispensation of the Torah to the new dispensation of the 
Spirit, which is set forth in a midrashic exposition of the fall of 
Adam, as it had already been interpreted by the Judaism of the 
Dispersion in its attempt to read the philosophy of the Gentile world 
into the writings of Moses. 

Judaism had already interpreted the fall of Adam as the fall of a 

1 Cf. p. 29. The Hellenistic influence lies in the conception of "salvation" as a 
divine gift; both Judaism and Christianity offer primarily "salvation" from sin, 
not from fate, though fate is liable to be thrown in as an accessory. 

2 Mk. 2. 22; cf. Rom. 6. 4. The thought of the Gospel as a revolutionary novelty 
appears to belong to the earliest stratum of the N.T. 

3 Rom. 9. I seqq.; Gal. 3. 7 seqq. 


spiritual being into the sphere of matter. 1 Paul accepted this con- 
ception; 2 if the fall of Adam represented a fall into matter, the triumph 
of Jesus over death restored man to the sphere of the Spirit. The 
Spirit might be a divine gift which liberated the "soul" or it might be 
the highest element in the nature of man and of a divine origin, yet 
needing a special divine afflatus to enable it to obtain deliverance from 
its association with soul and body. 3 In either case the "new creation" 
could be expressed as a divine reversal of the old disaster; the effect of 
the gift of the Spirit was to restore man to his original condition of 
eternal life. The misery of man under the Law lay in the fact that he 
desired to serve God, but was unable to resist the lusts which resulted 
from his association with the flesh. His mind might serve the law of 
God, but his flesh served the law of sin. Unless a gift of the spirit 
reinforced the spiritual element of "mind", man was unable to over- 
come the natural "disposition" which was allied to the flesh. 4 It was 
only in virtue of the union of the mind of man with the Spirit of God 
that it was possible for man to hope so to die to the sins of the body 
that his spirit alone remained alive through the righteousness resulting 
from union with the Spirit of Christ 5 . Once man had achieved that 
union with the Spirit of God, he could hope that as the Spirit had 
raised Jesus from the dead, so it would even raise his mortal and 
material body to eternal life. Man must die to the flesh, if he hoped 
to attain to life: the last thought adjusted Paul's argument to the 
tradition of Heraclitus as current in the Hellenistic synagogues. 6 

At this point Paul anticipates his argument; the Christian has 
received a spirit of adoption in virtue of which he is once again the 
son of God and a fellow-heir with Christ; he must share His sufferings, 

1 Cf. p. 83. 

2 For this implication in Rom. 8. 18 seqq. cf. p. 107. See also i Cor. 15. 45. 

3 Rom. 7. 23 and 25 distinguish fairly clearly between "mind" as the spiritual or 
divine element in man, imprisoned by the sin of Adam, and the divine afflatus of the 
Spirit of God, which appears in 8. 2. 

4 (ppovTjua is used in 8. 6 instead of tyvxi] because the "soul", although it ought 
logically to be neutral and capable of following the Spirit no less than the flesh, is 
in practice always quasi-material and allied to flesh. Cf. Corp. Herm. 13.1 (Scott 238) 
for a similar use of the word, and Plut. De Ser. Num. Vind. 23 (5636), ro (ppovovv. 

8 The antithesis of the body as being dead 81 a^aprlav and the spirit as alive Sia 
biKaiocrvv^v (8. 10) is hopelessly obscure, as a result of the confusion of the spirit of 
man with the Spirit of God ; I am inclined to interpret it as in the text, the body of 
man being dead on account of sin, while his spirit is alive because of the righteous- 
ness imparted by the Spirit of Christ. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, ad loc. 

6 For 8. 13 cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. i. 33 (108, M. i. 65) and Str.-B. on Mt. 10. 39, 
where the saying of Talmud, Tamid 66 a, "What must a man do to live? He must 
put himself to death. What must a man do to die? He must bring himself to life" 
appears as a rabbinical answer to Alexander the Great; does this betray a remini- 
scence of its Hellenistic origin? Cf. also De Vit. Cant. 2 (13, M. 2. 473). 



but through doing so he will share His glory. The argument as to 
sonship through the Spirit as against sonship through physical descent 
from Abraham is however diverted by the allusion to suffering, in a 
passage which shows the willingness both of Judaism and Christianity 
to borrow the ideas of the world around them. The sufferings of the 
Christian are expounded in language which reflects the attitude of the 
age to the stars which ruled the fate of man in the theologies which 
offered him deliverance from their dominion. Alexandrine Judaism 
was indeed afraid to admit this dominion, for the peril of idolatry was 
close at hand. 1 But the Pharisees of Palestine had no such hesitation. 
They were sufficiently sure of their hold on the Torah to be perfectly 
willing to admit that the heathen might be right, so far as they them- 
selves were concerned. But Israel was free from the stars; by a rather 
courageous interpretation of Gen. 15. 5 it could be shown that God 
had raised Abraham "forth abroad" to the firmament of heaven, so 
that he might look "down" upon the stars and learn to despise them 
both for himself and for his descendants. 2 But there was no objection 
to identifying the gods of the nations with the angels to whom they 
were originally entrusted by God. These angels had rebelled against 
God; it was quite reasonable to suppose that they were the lords of 
the planets and determined the fate of those who were subject to 
them. 3 This was indeed the natural meaning of Deut. 4. 19, and of the 
"angels of God" in the LXX version of Deut. 32. 8. 4 It was only 
natural that eclipses of the sun and moon should portend evil to the 
nations of the world, for it was right that if a nation was punished, its 
gods should be punished as well; was it not written that "on the gods 
of the Egyptians will I do judgment" ? 5 

Naturally, again, Israel was free from the power of the stars; at any 
rate if it studied the Torah devoutly it was free from them; in this way 

1 Cf. above, p. 52, and Q.R.D.H. 60 (300, M. i. 516) for an allusion to "weaker 
people", who read fate into Gen. 15. 16. 

z Gen. Rabba 45. 12, ad loc. Cf. Jos. Antt. i. 7. i (156) for Abraham as the 
discoverer of that " sympathy " of which the stars are a symptom ; Philo, De Abr. 15 
(69, M. z. u), gives the same story in a partly allegorised form. In Eupolemus and 
Artabanus (Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 17. 2 and 18. 2 and in the aSeu-Trdra quoted ib.), Abraham 
is the inventor of astrology, but learns to rise above it. 

3 Judaism i. 227; there were properly seventy such rulers, cf. i En. 89. 59; the 
Jewish tradition preserved by Origen, In Ev. Jo. 2. 3, holds that the heavenly bodies 
were given as gods to the Gentiles to preserve them from serving idols and demons. 

4 Judaism i. 226 and 403 seqq. It seems probable that the LXX preserves the 
original reading of Deut. 32. 8 (ib.). 

6 R. Meir in Tosefta, Sukkah 2. 6. It is possible that Josephus has this in mind 
in Antt. 18. i. 3 (13), where he describes the Pharisees as believing that the universe 
is partly ruled by fate. More probably, however, it is only Nicolas of Damascus' 
way of explaining the Pharisaic belief in providence. 


belief in the power of the heavenly bodies could be given a definitely 
homiletic value; 1 the Christian Gnostics later were uncertain whether 
it was baptism that delivered man from fate and the power of the 
stars, or whether Gnosis was needed as well. 2 Judaism was not alone 
in believing that it possessed the secret of delivering man from their 
dominion. At the lowest stage magic offered to the adept the power to 
raise himself from earth to heaven, so that from that superior eminence 
he might control the stars themselves, precisely as Abraham had been 
able to tread them under foot. 3 More commonly the initiate into a 
mystery was offered in this life deliverance from the hostile powers, 
together with the knowledge of the methods which would enable him 
after death to pass through their spheres to the firmament of heaven; 4 
the systems which offered these forms of deliverance varied almost 
indefinitely between genuine religion and the cruder forms of magic, 
largely in accordance with the individual believer's interpretation. 
They could rise to a mysticism which attained the heights of con- 
templation or they might remain at a level of ecstatic emotion; in 
either case the experience was to the believer coloured with details 
drawn from the pictorial cosmography of the age, so that he appeared 
. to be conscious of himself as passing through the heavenly spheres. 5 
The language is used by those who are aware that it is not necessary 

1 Tosefta, loc. cit. 

2 Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 76. i seqq. (Casey 661 seqq.). 

3 Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 537 seqq., a document which has sunk from religion into 
magic (cf. 514 seqq.). See also the repudiation of magic as a means of obtaining 
deliverance from fate in Corp. Herm. Fr. 21 (Scott 540). Deliverance from 
fate is included among the forms of deliverance to be obtained by the spell in 
Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 197 seqq., where there is a strong Jewish colouring. In Talmud, 
Sank. 676, R. Johanan (c. 250 A.D.) holds that magic interferes with the "upper 
family", i.e. the fate decided by God in the court of the angels (so Rashi, 
ad loc.). 

4 Cf. Ir. Haer. 1.21.5 (Marcus) ; Orig. c. Cels. 6. 27 and 31 (Ophite) ; Epiphanius, 
Panar. Haer. 36. 3 (Heracleon). Cf. pp. 154 seqq. The followers of Marcus are on 
high and above every power even in this life (Ir. Haer. i. 13. 6) ; if brought to trial 
they can make themselves invisible to the judge (cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 102 seqq.). 
The same result can be achieved by a descent of the god with a name of seven letters 
to correspond to the seven vowels, etc. (ib. 13. 762 seqq.). For a specimen of the 
"ascent" to heaven in this life see also the "Mithras-Liturgy" (ib. 4. 510 seqq.). 
Here the adept prays for a itpbv irvevpa to replace his own ^u^tic)) Swa/Lur, which he 
arranges to receive again after his ascent. He then proceeds to a quite literal ascent ; 
the planets which seek to oppose him are silenced by the " symbol of the living and 
incorruptible god". The formulae in Marcus and Heracleon may have been in- 
fluenced by the Orphic tradition. 

6 De Mund. Op. 23 (71, M. i. 16); De Spec. Legg. i (DeMon.), i (17, M. 2. 214). 
The same conception appears in Corp. Herm. n (2). 19 (Scott 220), where it is 
really irrelevant, since the author is concerned with God as present everywhere for 
those who have the courage to seek for him, but the commonplace is really concerned 
with a God who is in heaven for those who have the courage to ascend to Him. For 
the literal ascent cf. Corp. Herm. 4. 5 and 8 (b) (Scott 152 and 154). 


to ascend to heaven in order to know God, 1 but it was natural for those 
interested in mystical religion to picture their union with God in the 
form of an ascent to heaven, though it was equally possible to think 
of it as due to a descent on the part of God. 2 The tradition of con- 
templative mysticism seems to have made itself felt originally in 
Egyptian religion. 3 In Hellenistic literature it was naturally coloured 
by the belief that the abode of God is in the firmament in a literal 
sense. But it could be identified with the flight from this world and the 
assimilation to God, which Plato had canonised as the highest ideal. 4 
It could be held that it was the desire to attain to contemplation which 
was the object of the silences of the Pythagoreans. 5 Posidonius, whose 
views dominated the world of philosophical religion, had taught that 
it was the true end of man. 6 It could easily be introduced into 
Hellenistic Judaism, which claimed to be the true philosophy; it could 
be offered as the true meaning of the visions of the prophets. Judaism 
indeed tended to visions of a definitely pictorial type, rather than to 
mystical contemplation which transcended all visual imagery; but this 
difference could be overlooked in adapting Judaism to philosophy. 
Paul himself was conscious of having been caught up to the third 
heaven; 7 it was natural to suppose that Moses was raised to heaven 
when he received the revelation of the Torah, which was nothing less 
than the music of the spheres. 8 Rabbinical Judaism was aware of such 
ascents to heaven, but later regarded them with suspicion. Mysticism 
was associated with an interest in cosmogony which might easily lead 
to theosophy or even to Christianity. 9 

1 Corp. Herm. n. (2). 19 (Scott 220); but we need courage, as if to rise to 
heaven or cross the sea, to know God; this is based onDeut. 30. n seqq., which is a 
favourite text with Philo, who however always uses it to prove that virtue of thought, 
word and deed is easy, not with reference to the mystical vision of God (e.g. De Post. 
Cain. 24 (84, M. i. 241). Its frequency in him and its appearance in Rom. 10. 6 seqq. 
prove that it is a recognised synagogue argument in favour of the simplicity of 
Judaism. Cf. also 4 Esdr. 4. 8; Baruch 3. 29. 

2 Philo, De Sobr. 13 (64, M. i. 402); man must pray that God will dwell in him 
and raise the little dwelling of his mind to heaven. 

3 Rel. Or. 89 and 242, n. 89. But Livy's story of Scipio Africanus (p. n above) 
suggests that the search of an "origin" for contemplative prayer is dangerous. The 
practice may simply be a natural result of taking religion seriously. For solitude in 
Egyptian religion cf. Nock, "A Vision of Mandulis-Aion ", Harvard Theological 
Review 27. i. 59. 

4 Theaet. i76b, quoted by Philo, De Fug. et Inv. 12 (.63, M. i. 555). 
6 Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. u. 67 (686 P). 

8 Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. 21. 129 (497?). Cf. Epictetus, Diss. i. 3. 3. It is the 
common view of the Hermetica, cf. Corp. Herm. 7. 2a (Scott 172) and Ascl. Epil. 
41 b (ib. 376). 7 2 Cor. 12. 2. 

8 De Sowm. 1.6 (36,M. 1.626), where Moses is taken outof the body for the purpose. 
Paul seems aware of controversies on the point, and to dismiss them as unimportant. 

9 Judaism i. 413. Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums 590, regards such "ascents of the 


From yet another point of view this power to rise to heaven and so 
to attain to superiority over fate was the prerogative of the philosopher 
or the philosophic theologian. For he was not concerned with the 
material world j 1 mind, in virtue of its divine affinity, raised man above 
all things, even if it could also lower him to the depths. 2 The stricter 
Stoic tradition might indeed hold that all things were determined by 
fate, and that the value of philosophy lay in its power to enable man to 
face the decrees of fate nobly ; 3 but it might equally be held that it was 
only the material side of man that was subject to the power of the stars ; 
the sympathy that pervaded the whole world need not apply to the 
divine element which was above the material ; it was a variation of this 
that the lower psychic qualities were derived by the soul from the 
stars as it descended through them. In so far as it was dominated by 
these qualities, the soul was at the mercy of the stars; in so far as it 
made itself superior to them, it was able to attain to a freedom which 
they could not affect; it could pass at death to its eternal home above 
the spheres which were subject to their control. 4 

There were indeed various views as to the precise relation of man 
to the planets as the powers which affected man with evil. It might be 
held that they were themselves evil powers ; this was the Zoroastrian 
tradition : the five planets, with two imaginary ones added to make the 
conventional seven, could be regarded as creatures of Ahriman; in this 
case the sun and moon were good. 5 This view could be accommodated 
to the widely held belief that the moon was the place of purification 
for the soul, before its final passage to the sun or to the aether. 6 

soul " as due to Iranian influence. But they are a necessary corollary of the belief 
that God is "in heaven". 

1 Corp. Herm. Fr. 20 (Scott 540). Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. 25. 159 (636 P). 

2 Corp. Herm. 12 (i), 9 (Scott 228): the view that mind is responsible for evil is 
quite inconsistent with the general outlook of the Hermetica, including this tract. 

3 Seneca, Quare aliqua 5. 7; Ep. Mor. 2. 4 (16), 5. 

4 Cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 40 (117, M. i. 28), where the sympathy of macrocosm 
and microcosm is proved by the correspondence between the seven planets and the 
seven lower parts of the soul; Servius ap. Aen. 6. 714; Corp. Herm. Exc. 29 (Scott 
530); Macrob. Somn. Scrip, i. 12. 13. In Mandean literature the planets each con- 
tribute part of their respective "mysteries" to Adam, G.R. 241, Lidzb. 242. 28. Cf. 
above, p. 46, for the whole conception of the two celestial spheres and the descent of 
the world-soul between them in Mithraism and in the unorthodox Jewish- Iranian 
speculations condemned by Philo ; also Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), i . 13 b (Scott 120). 

5 Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 86. The distinction of the sun and moon from the other 
five planets, the latter alone determining the fate of man, appears in Seneca, ad Marc, 
de Cons. 18. 2, and in the consistent association of" the five " no less than " the seven " 
with Ruha in the Mandean religion (G.R. n, Lidzb. 13. 27). 

Cf. p. 18 and the (rva-racris irpos rj\tov of Papp. Mag. Gr. 3. 495 seqq. ending in 
the prayer which also appears in Corp. Herm. (Ascl.). Epil. 41 b (Scott 376 seqq.). 
The rite belongs to religion, not to magic (cf. 585 seqq.). Cf. also Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. 9. 73 for souls as e/co-Kiji'oi ^Xi'ou and Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos 
103 seqq., for this belief in Syrian religion. 


Frequently, again, the seven planets of orthodox astronomy were 
included together as the source of evil by those who refused to 
recognise the power of the stars to control the fate of man, or who 
offered to mankind a deliverance from the material world. 1 Alexandrine 
Judaism of the orthodox type, as represented by Philo, refused to 
recognise fate and astrology at all ; yet it was perfectly ready to adapt 
itself to the language and thought of the age that the essential thing 
was to escape from the domination of the material world, and even 
to use this view as a means of avoiding standing problems of the 
exegesis of the Old Testament. 2 Rabbinical Judaism, as has been 
noticed, was less careful; it was perfectly willing to recognise the 
supremacy of the stars over man, but not their supremacy over the 
Torah. Paul was perfectly ready to use not merely the cosmography 
which was the common form of his age, but also those implications of 
it which the Alexandrines rejected. He had been brought up to boast 
that the Torah delivered mankind from the power of the stars which 
rule the material world ; he was perfectly ready to hold that, while the 
Pharisees were wrong in attributing this salvation to the Torah, their 
error lay not in their conception of salvation, but in their ascribing to 
the Torah what could only be found in Jesus. In Rom. 8. 15 seqq. he 
expounds the relation of the Christian to the fate determined by the 
celestial bodies. 3 As a result of the condemnation of sin by Jesus in 
the flesh, he is now able to live after the spirit and not after the flesh. 
He has received a spirit of adoption in virtue of which he is a son; 
he has not received, as he did from the Torah, a spirit of bondage, 
which works only by fear. The Spirit of God testifies to his own spirit 
that he is the son of God and therefore an heir to a future glory, as 
compared with which his present sufferings are merely trivial. 4 The 

1 Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 25 (Scott 128). Normally fate only rules the 
sublunar sphere (Placita 2. 4. 12, Dox. Gr. 332, of Aristotle; Hipp. El. i. 4 (10), of 
Empedocles; Epiph. Haer. 3. 8, Dox. Gr. 590, of Pythagoras). Cf. Cicero, De 
Rep. 6 (Somn. Scip.), 17. 17. In the Ophite system of Orig. c. Cels. 6. 31 the soul on 
reaching the lowest sphere is already " part of the light of the Father and of the Son " 
but needs a proper outfit of spells to pass through the spheres of the planets. 

2 The story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10. 2 appears in this light in Leg. Alleg. 
2. 15 (57, M. i. 76) ; Q.R.D.H. 61 (309, M. 1.51?) 5 De Fug. et Inv. 1 1 (59, M. i. 555) ; 
De Somn. 2. 9 (67, M. i. 667). The reason for the frequency appears to be that it was 
an obvious difficulty ; but rightly understood it showed that Moses recognised the 
true nature of the soul as pure and ethereal fire. Cf. p. 83. 

3 This passage is of crucial importance for the interpretation of Gal. 4. 3 and 9 
(see below p. 108), where it is the Torah that is "weak and beggarly". The stars 
can be described as "vanity" in virtue of the O.T. language as to the gods of the 
heathen: but I doubt if Paul regarded the planets as either "weak" or "beggarly". 

4 The "spirit" in v. 16 shows clearly the double character of the divine element 
of "spirit "of "mind". 


Christian (w. 19 seqq.), in common with the whole of creation, has 
indeed, as a result of Adam's sin, been made subject to "vanity" ; yet 
he has a hope of being delivered from the bondage of corruption into 
that glorious liberty which awaits the children of God. At present the 
creation groans and travails, just as the Christian does, who possesses 
indeed the first-fruits of the Spirit, but is compelled still to wait in 
hope for the full redemption that awaits him. In this period of waiting 
( w. 23 seqq.) the Spirit is present to assist him ; the Spirit even shares 
in the groaning of the creation, for the Christian's wrestlings in prayer 
are not merely the groanings of his own "spirit", but the groanings of 
the divine Spirit within him ; this experience of prayer as an agony of 
unutterable yearning, which is unintelligible to the human mind, does 
not mean that the prayer so offered is mere vanity; it is offered by the 
Spirit, and God knows that the "mind" of the Spirit (here we have a 
noticeable ambiguity, as between the mind which is governed by the 
Spirit of God and the mind which is dominated by the spiritual as 
against the fleshly element as in v. 6) always prays in accordance with 
His own will. 1 

The allusion to the work of the Spirit was in the nature of a digres- 
sion ; Paul returns at v. 28 to his main theme. Although creation as a 
whole may groan in its subjection to vanity, those who love God are 
subject not to a fate dominated by the stars but to a loving providence, 
in which all things co-operate in order to enable those who love God 
to attain to that likeness of the Son for which they were predestined 
(or with the reading 6 Oeos in which God co-operates in all things 
with those who love Him). 2 This was the whole purpose of God in 
calling the Christian; He had foreknown and foreordained him, thus 

1 Cf. Kirk in The Epistle to the Romans (Clarendon Bible), ad loc. 

a With the reading rots dyairSxri. TOV deov iravra o-vvtpyet els dyadov the 
meaning must be that all things work together for them that love God; I cannot 
believe that it is possible to extract 6 6t6s understood as the subject of the sentence. 
iravTa as the subject makes perfectly good sense, though with a formal inconsistency 
in so far as here all things help, whereas in v. 38 we find that they are unable to 
hinder. Dodd in Moffatt's commentary, ad loc., objects that the traditional reading 
finds in Paul an evolutionary optimism, which he rightly sees is no part of the 
Pauline outlook. But it is not a question of evolutionary optimism but of the powers 
of evil being conquered. The variant 6 deos seems extremely difficult in view of TOV 
6eov preceding. Sanday and Headlam, ad loc., prefer 6 6e6s as the harder reading; 
it should be noted that while Origen appears to imply the reading a deos (In Ev. Jo. 
20. 20, Lommatzsch 2. 250), he follows the traditional reading in his commentary 
on Romans (In Ep. ad Rom. Comm. 7. 7, where even the Spirit of God is reckoned 
among "all things", and 9); but this may represent a revision by Rufinus. Is it 
possible that the reading of the Chester-Beatty papyrus TOV debv irav avvepyei 6 
6e6s represents an original TOV deov TO irav o-vvepyel" the universe co-operates with 
those who love God "? ro irav in this sense is not found in the N.T. but is common 
in Philo. 


transferring him from the sphere of fate to the sphere of providence, 
which carried with it predestination to the attainment of the likeness 
of Jesus; God's purpose in sending Him was that He should be the 
first-born among many brethren; 1 the calling of the Christian was a 
predestination to righteousness and glory. The traditional privileges 
of Israel were thus transferred to the Church; the emphasis of the 
whole passage is not on predestination as such, which was taken over 
from the commonplace language of rabbinical theology, but on the 
fact that the Christian is subject to a divine providence, not to a blind 
fate, ruled by the stars. 2 Thus the Christian is sure of final victory, for 
God is on his side, and has proved His willingness to save by giving 
His own Son; naturally He will give with Him everything else that can 
be needed. Christ Jesus, who has died and been raised from the dead, 
is present in heaven to be his advocate. 3 Consequently no affliction 
that he may suffer can separate the Christian from the love of Christ; 
he merely sees in his sufferings the fulfilment of prophecy. In all these 
things he conquers through the love of Christ, knowing that neither 
death nor life nor angels nor the rulers of the heavenly spheres, 
neither the present position of the stars in their courses 4 by which the 
future is determined, nor those future positions by which all the future 
thereafter is determined, 5 nor the powers which hold them in their 
courses, 6 nor the exaltation of the planets in the heavens, the moment 
at which the hostile planets are most potent for harm, nor their 
declension when the friendly are least powerful to save, nor yet any 
other created thing can separate the Christian from the love of God 
revealed to him in Jesus. It is doubtful perhaps whether Paul was 
very clearly conscious of the precise meaning of the terms vifjco^a and 
, but there can be no doubt that he is borrowing his rhetoric 

1 Normally neither the Messiah nor the Logos can be regarded as merely an 
elder brother; Heb. 2. n suggests that there is something unusual in describing 
the sanctifier and sanctified as " brethren 1 ". Possibly the language originated with the 
Logion of Mk. 3. 34; it would be assisted by the words of Ps. 22. 22, a Psalm 
inevitably associated with the Passion knd Resurrection. In the N.T. it survives 
only in the passages noted with the parallels to Mk (in Mt. 25. 40 and 28. 10 = Jno. 
20. 17). Its use here suits the general caution of the Epistle in regard to Christology. 

2 Cf. above, p. 100. 

3 Cf. Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Teimplo), 12 (116, M. 2. 230), where the High 
Priest is halfway between God and man.. It his is function to intercede for the whole 
cosmos (ib. De Sacerd. 6 (97)). He is also a symbol of the Logos, cf. p. 49. In De 
Vit. Mays. 2 (3) 14. (134 M. 2. 155) he. symbolises the cosmos which is the advocate 
of man in approaching God. 

4 For the importance of the "present" mdment cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. 7. 506; the 
point is obvious in astrology. 

5 The phrase is rhetorical ; obviously the position of the stars at any given moment 
determines everything else. For a parallel cf.j Bardaisan ap. Bus. Pr. Ev. 6. n. 41. 

8 Cf. Philo, De Migr. Abr. 32 (181, M. i. 464); Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 
69 seqq. (Casey 618). 


from the language of astrology in which "height" and "depth" are 
the apogee and perigee of the planets, the decisive moments of their 
courses. 1 

In view of this use of astrological terms, there can be no doubt as to 
the meaning of vanity. It is not the general sense of futility of 
Ecclesiastes, nor yet the imperfection which replaced the original 
perfection in which God created the world. 2 Vanity is a "bondage of 
corruption" because with the fall of Adam there came either a fall of 
the ideal first man created in the image of God into the material, or 
a fall which involved the whole ideal world of God's creation, with 
the result that man, who was by his proper nature entirely above the 
stars and fate, put himself beneath them and into their power. 3 
"Vanity" is another name for the gods of the heathen, the rulers of 
the angels, into whose power man fell when he sinned. These rebel 
angels are at once the rulers of the stars and the gods of the heathen, 
for whom the adjective /iarato? is a standing term in the Greek 
version of the O.T. 4 It has become so firmly fixed that it can be used, 
as here, to describe the rebel angels who rule the planets and are 
worshipped by the heathen, though their power to inflict persecution 
and nakedness and famine and peril and sword suggests that they are 
scarcely "vanity", but rather very real and potent lords of evil. Yet 
they are unable in the last resort to separate the Christian from the love 
of God, just as for the rabbis they were unable to inflict more than 
external harm on the Israelite who was faithful in the study of the 

The question as to the reason why Jesus was able to deliver man 
in this way Paul does not discuss at this point. Rom. 8. 18 seqq. 
is a profession of faith based on immediate experience; it is the 

1 I cannot believe that it is merely by accident that Paul has hit on four technicali- 
ties and a fifth possible technicality (Sui/a/wr) in five terms. For {tyco/m and ftddos or 
TaTrei'vto/ia cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 5. 35, Theo. Smyrn. 179 ap. Bouche- 
Leclercq, L'Astrol. Or. 194; v\f/os re KOI fiddos ore p.ev airoytiorepaore 8e Trpoa-yeiorepa 
dftopovpeva. Cf. Reitzenstein and Schaeder, Stud. z. Ant. Syncr. 224, where 
Gayomard cannot die until Jupiter is in Tcnrfivtofia and Saturn in u^co/ia. 

2 For this view cf. Gen. R. 12 on Gen. 2. 4. 

3 Cf. above, p. 83. It is hardly likely that Paul was sufficiently acquainted with 
philosophy to think of the first man as falling into the material and carrying the world 
of ideas with him. Probably he is merely thinking of Adam's fall as having enslaved 
him to the planets, without exactly asking how this was done. For the whole passage 
cf. Origen, In Ep. ad Rom. 7. 4. Cf. above, p. 100. There is a curious variant in 
Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 8. 35 seqq. The rebel angels brought man into the dominion of 
fate by revealing to him the courses of the stars ; but the Christian is above fate, for 
he worships one unwandering master instead of the wandering planets. 

4 Cf. i Kings 16. 2 and 13; in Jeremiah passim as a translation of *P3n, e.g. 8. 19. 
For the same thought in the Jewish Liturgy, cf. Singer's Authorised Jewish Prayer- 
book, intr. p. Ixxxvii, Abraham's note on Alenu prayer. 


quintessence of Paulinism, cast in terms of a particular conception of 
the cosmos. For an exposition of the reason for this power of Jesus 
to triumph over the stars in their courses we must turn to the equally 
Jewish Epistle to the Galatians, a letter which is somewhat earlier than 
Romans. Here (3 . 7 seqq.) we read that the promises made to Abraham 
were given in virtue of his faith. The Torah brought a curse on all 
who disobeyed it; since no man could obey it, it brought a curse on 
all men. Jesus had redeemed man from it, "being made a curse for 
us; for it is written 'cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree'". 
The reason is obscure until it is recognised that the tabu of Deut. 21. 
23, an obvious crux of Old Testament exegesis, since it appeared to 
sanction the punishment of crucifixion and yet to regard it with horror, 
was explained by the conventional exegesis of the synagogues of the 
Dispersion as meaning "cursed is the man who clings to corruptible 
matter instead of to God". 1 Thus Jesus, being a denizen of the 
spiritual world, had accepted of His own free will the curse of a 
material nature, and so liberated from that curse, and the consequent 
subjection to the Torah, those who had been plunged into matter by 
the sin of their first parent. The Torah was indeed divine in its origin ; 
but it was merely a check on the sins of mankind, not a means of 
delivering them from the power of the "elements", the material 
world, which in virtue of its material character was subject to the 
power of the stars under which it lay. 2 Man was compelled to serve 
them while he was still in the state of childhood, before he passed by 
adoption into the proper enjoyment of his rights as a son. 3 The Torah 
itself was not the work of the elements; the angels who delivered it on 
Mount Sinai were the righteous angels who serve God, not the rebels 
who rule the world ; but it did not deliver man from the power of the 
stars, and any attempt to insist on the observance of the Torah 
represented a foolish desire to return to the power of the elements, 
which represented an "elementary" stage of religion. 4 The fact that 

1 De Post. Cain. 8 (26, M. i. 231) and 17 (61, M. i. 236); cf. De Spec. Legg. 3. 
28 (151, M. 2. 324). 

2 For "elements" as the celestial bodies cf. Voc. Gr. N.T. s.v. and Dibelius in 
H.z.N.T. on Col. 2. 8. See also Clem. Horn. 10. 9. The Kerygma Petri ap. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. 6. 6. 41 (760 P) entirely misses the sense in saying that the Jews 
"worship" the elements. The Torah is not a worship of the elements, but a partial 
check on the power of the elements over the fate of man. 

3 Gal. 4. 3 and 9. 

* The reference to childhood suggests that the thought of the ABC of religion is 
present to Paul's mind; nlN means properly a "sign", hence a letter of the alphabet. 
It is hard to see what word Paul could have used for the "elementary" stages of 
learning other than o-r(HxeIoi>. There is a curious parallel to his ambiguity in Philo, 
Q.R.D.H. 46 (226, M. i . 505), where the furniture of the Temple symbolises that all 
things in the cosmos ought to render thanks to God, not only the oroi^eia but also 


the same Hebrew word, properly meaning a "sign", could be used 
both for the letters of the alphabet and for the signs written on the 
face of the heavens enabled Paul to dispose of the Torah on the double 
ground that it was "weak and beggarly" and a childish stage of 
religion, and also that it was merely a check on man's tendency to sin, 
not a means of deliverance from his bondage to the planets. 

In this exegesis the Torah, in spite of its divine origin, assumes 
almost the position accorded in the later Pauline writings 1 to the rulers 
of the heavens, who fail to recognise Jesus and so attack His material 
nature, which alone is subject to them; but owing to His celestial 
origin and His freedom from sin they have no jurisdiction over Him, 
and by asserting a wrongful claim against Him they forfeit a legitimate 
claim against those of mankind who are "in Him". Here there is an 
obvious approximation to the typical redemption-myth of Hellenistic 
theology : that myth expresses the thought that the element of "spirit" 
in man derives its "psychic" and material qualities from the planets, 
and is justly bound to restore them as it ascends to its home in heaven; 
in Pauline literature the drama centres on the Cross and the "psychic" 
nature of Jesus is ignored, only His material body being considered. 
The material body is thus the price which Jesus pays to those who 
really have no claim against Him. In paying this price He not only 
liberates His own spirit (as the adept of a Gnostic tradition might do), 
but also all those who, being in Him, are no longer "material" or 
psychic but spiritual. But in the more Jewish letters the mythology 
is not worked out. The Torah had a just claim on man, but that 
claim had been met by Jesus, who had Himself paid the price of man's 
redemption; the recipient of the price is not considered. 2 

All this exegesis was cast in a form which was derived from 
Hellenistic religion. But in the form which it assumes in the Galatian 

the an-oreXeVfiara. The latter word can mean either the "finished product" 
(Artemidorus, Oneiroc. i. 9. 15; Plutarch, Lycurgus 30, 583) or the position of the 
stars (Plutarch, Romulus 12. 24 c). In Philo the candlestick symbolises the heavenly 
bodies (cf. p. 54). Cf. Jer. 10. 2 for the celestial bodies as " signs of the heavens" : 
in the Targum in Is. 44. 25 the " tokens of liars " (LXX, ventriloquists) are "signs 
of astrologers" (for niN cf. Jastrow, Diet. s.v.). For oroi^eia as "letters" in 
grammar cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 42 (126, M. i. 30), where they are associated with 
the sympathy of the universe, as revealed by its predilection for the hebdomad 
manifested in the vowels and the stars (seep. 42). Thus the association of "letters" 
as the ABC of religion and as the planets suggested itself both from the Jewish 
and from the Hellenistic side. 

1 i Cor. 2. 8; Col. 2. 15; cf. Jno. 14. 30 and cf. p. 220. 

2 Cf. the slavery metaphors of Rom. 6. 15 seqq., 7. 14, 8. 21. The recipient of the 
price could only be the Torah, an obvious absurdity. The angels of Gal. 3. 19 are 
of course not the rebel rulers of the planets, but the virtuous angels of rabbinical 


and Roman letters it does not pass beyond the capacities of the Jewish 
Messiah. The Messiah could be regarded as the "Son of God" in a 
sense which might seem to imply that He was a being of a celestial 
order. 1 But Jewish exegesis was willing to use a line of argument as far 
as it would serve without any thought of pressing it to its logical 
conclusion; and Paul was perfectly prepared to follow rabbinical 
precedent. In the same way he could, like the Jewish preachers of the 
Dispersion, proclaim a deliverance from sin in terms which were 
borrowed from the promises of salvation held out to the initiate in 
Hellenistic religion. 2 But the promise was not one of deliverance from 
fate; the lords who ruled the world could still subject the Christian to 
such trifling inconveniences as persecution and nakedness and famine 
and peril and the sword. But the Christian was delivered from all 
dangers that were really serious, for nothing could separate him from 
the love of God which was in Christ Jesus the Lord. The form might 
be Hellenistic; the faith was the Jewish faith in the Torah transferred 
to Jesus as the Lord who had conquered death on the stage of history. 
But if Jesus was thus superior in the order of creation to the Torah, 
and if He were able, as the Torah was not, to deliver mankind from 
the power of the lords of the planetary spheres, it was difficult to 
avoid the logical conclusion that He was superior to them in the order 
of space, a denizen by right of the sphere of the fixed stars, and prior 
to them in the order of time. 3 Judaism might care little for logical 
conclusions, and Paul might be equally willing to ignore them. But 
he was the Apostle of the Gentiles: and the Greek world demanded a 
consistent scheme of thought; and if Paul was pressed to provide one, 
he could only do so by assigning to Jesus a position in the order of 
reality which could scarcely be made acceptable to the Unitarian 
monotheism of Judaism. 

1 Cf. Str.-B. on Rom. 1.3. The Messiah appears as the son of God in the Marcan 
tradition, as also in 4 Esdras and in rabbinical literature, where it is necessitated by 
such passages of the O.T. as Ps. z. 7. It seems probable that it was avoided else- 
where as being likely to furnish a handle to Christian controversialists. 

2 Cf. Apuleius, Metam. n. 15. 783 : In tutelam iam receptus esfortunae sedvidentis. 

3 In cosmic matters " superiority " in space implies general superiority : cf . Cicero, 
De Nat. Dear. 2. 6. 17; Philo, De Mund. Op. 7 (27, M. 1.6); Clem. Recog. z. 53 and 



IN his first visit to Corinth Paul would seem to have been content 
to confine himself to the ordinary eschatological tradition of 
Palestinian Christianity; he was mainly concerned with Jews, 
proselytes and adherents of the synagogue. But his visit to Athens 
had shown that the emphasis must be transferred from the end of all 
things to the beginning if the educated Greek world was to be won for 
the Gospel, and he was perfectly aware of the necessity when he 
arrived in Corinth; when at a later stage the Corinthians began to 
display an excessive pride in their intellectual gifts, he was able to 
point out that he had merely preached to them an elementary version 
of the Gospel, not the deeper mysteries reserved for the more ad- 
vanced Christian; he had given them milk and not meat. 1 He had 
already realised the need of a presentation more suited to the learned 
world, and had already worked it out. 

The change of system involved no serious difficulty. The figure of 
the Messiah was drawn from circles of Jewish thought which were 
concerned not with the beginning of all things but with the end. But 
the apocalyptic hope of Israel had been fitted into the general scheme 
of Judaism by the rabbis. If the Messiah was destined to appear as 
a full-grown man in a future so near at hand that it was worth while 
endeavouring to compute the times and seasons, it followed that he 

1 i Cor. 3. 2; cf. Philo, De Agric. 2 (9, M. i. 301), where "the man" in each of 
us is mind; the lower "soul" must be fed with the ordinary studies, represented by 
milk ; instruction in the Stoic virtues is the perfect teaching reserved for men ; so also 
inQuodOmn.Prob. Lib. 22 (i 60, M. 2. 470). Macrobius,/iSoz. Scip. 1. 12. 3,ascribes 
to Pythagoras the view that souls are fed on milk because they come from the 
Milky Way. Reitzenstein (Hell. Myst. Rel. (3), 329) derives Paul's language from 
the practice of the mysteries of Attis (Sallustius, irepi QeS>v 4) ; of course such prac- 
tices as feeding on milk are part of the regular stock-in-trade of initiation rites 
(Nock, Sallustius p. Iv; James, Origins of Sacrifice 114 seqq.). But Paul is using the 
philosophic commonplace, as Philo does ; it is possible that the commonplace was 
derived from initiation rites, but it is equally possible that both the commonplace 
and the rites were derived from independent observation of the same phenomenon. 
Similarly the conception of the teacher as the " father" of his pupil is a commonplace 
of primitive initiations (Frazer, The Magic Art i. 74 seqq.) ; it appears in Corp. Herm. 
13.2 (Scott 238, and cf. his note ad loc.) ; it also appears in the Mishnah (Bab. Metz 
2. ii, Danby 350) and Gal. 4. 19, cf. Mt. 23. 9; for the mysteries cf. Apuleius, 
Metam, n. 25. 808. Here again we have a commonplace; for the various con- 
ceptions cf. Epict. Diss. 2. 16. 39, 3. 22. 81, and 24. 9. 


must already exist in the scheme of things. 1 It might be held that he 
had already been born and was waiting until the time when Elijah 
should reveal to him the knowledge of his vocation, or that he had been 
caught away to a place prepared by God until the time for his mani- 
festation should come. 2 If he were already in existence, it could do 
no harm to put his origin back to the beginning of all things; if he 
were part of God's eternal purpose, he must always have had a kind of 
existence. It was generally agreed that the Torah had existed from all 
eternity, and if the Torah had existed from all eternity, it followed that 
Moses had existed in the same way, for it was hard to suppose that the 
Torah could be dissociated from him. 3 But such beliefs were mere 
expressions of midrashic piety, analogous to those in which Judaism 
was prepared to glorify the heroes of the Old Testament, to whom it 
attributed exploits suspiciously similar to those of the divine heroes of 
the Hellenistic world. 4 In the same way the Temple might have pre- 
existed from all eternity; the view may have been derived from the 
Oriental belief that earthly sanctuaries are a copy of heaven, which 
seems to underlie the language of Exod. 25. Q. 5 Naturally Hellenistic 
Jewish writers associated this view with Plato's doctrine of ideas; here 
again he had borrowed from Moses. 6 All this was a mere glorification 
of the religion of Judaism ; it was not intended to be taken seriously, 
except in so far as it implied the unique character of God's revelation 
to Israel; or in the case of the Messiah it was a fanciful attempt to 
explain the problem of his sudden appearance as a full-grown man. 7 

. 1 Cf. p. 17, n. 2. The speculations referred to appear to imply that the end of all 
things is near; so in Ass. Mays. 9. i the martyrdom of Eleazar and his seven sons is 
a sign of its imminence and must have been regarded as a recent incident. (Cf. 
Charles' note ad loc. in Ap, and Ps. for this passage.) The attitude of Zadok the 
Pharisee to Judas of Galilee (Antt. 18. 1. 1. (4)) and of Akiba to Bar-Cochba (jforfaism 
i . 89) shows that Pharisaical circles were quite liable to accept Messianic pretenders, 
though many Pharisees discouraged them. 2 For these views cf. above, p. 19. 

8 Ass. Mays. i. 14, with an obvious allusion to Prov. 8. 22. 

4 For Abraham cf. the stories which I have collected in Harvard Theological 
Review 28. i. 55 seqq. For Moses cf. Artabanus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 9. 27. For their 
relation to the Egyptian figure of Hermes-Thoth cf. Dieterich, Abraxas 70, but they 
appear to be part of a general convention of Hellenistic literature; cf. Osiris ap. 
Diod. Sic. i. 14 seqq., and Heracles ap. Dion. Halic. i. 41. For Philo and Josephus 
cf. the passages referred to p. 19, n. i. 

6 Judaism i. 526, Wisd. 9. 8, with Holmes' note ad loc. in Ap. and Ps. For the 
Babylonian belief cf. Burrows in The Labyrinth 59, and for Egypt Cook in Rel. Anc. 
Pal. 54 ; it appears that the original belief was that the temple on earth was an 
earthly heaven rather than a copy of a heavenly sanctuary. The belief reappears 
in 2 Bar. 4. 2 and Rev. 21. 2 seqq. ; cf. Odes of Solomon 4. 3, Hermas, Vis. 2. 4. i. 

Cf. above, p. 79. 

7 For the pre-existent Messiah cf. i En. 46. i and 4 Esdr. 13. 26 seqq., Judaism i. 
526 and 2. 344, where however Moore exaggerates the difference between the pre- 
existence of the Messiah and of the name of the Messiah. But he rightly insists that 
the importance of his pre-existence only arises with Christianity. 


It could never have led to an association of the Messiah with the work 
of creation, for this belonged to an entirely different aspect of Jewish 
thought. The unimportance of his pre-existence is shown by the ease 
with which the celestial pre-existences were at a later stage, perhaps in 
answer to Christianity, increased to seven by the addition to the 
Torah, the Temple and the Messiah, of heaven, hell, repentance and 
the throne of God. 1 By himself the pre-existent Messiah could never 
have obtained a role in the cosmogony of Judaism. 

But it was easy for Paul to find a terminology in which he could 
adapt the figure of Jesus, regarded as the centre of the life of the 
Church, to the fashionable cosmogony of the Hellenistic world. The 
speculations of Alexandrine Judaism had accommodated the book of 
Genesis to the syncretised system of philosophy in vogue at Alexandria; 
and these speculations would seem to have been fairly well known 
in Jerusalem itself. The later rabbinical writings, recognise the 
existence of a cosmic "beginning" which is at once the Wisdom of 
Proverbs 8. 22 and the Torah; it seems likely that they are survivals of 
an earlier time when speculation on these matters was less hampered 
by the necessity of avoiding the danger of Christian arguments that 
the cosmic " beginning", in which God had made the world, was Jesus 
the divine Logos. 2 In any case this "beginning " was equated with the 
Torah. There is some evidence that speculations of an Alexandrine 
type, associated with the name of "Hermes", had been known to 
rabbinical Judaism at a time when it was sufficiently sure of its position 
to admit the speculations of the Egyptian sage, presumably in view 
of his unconscious testimony to the truth of the divine revelation given 
to Moses. 3 Such speculations, however, were never concerned with 
the Messiah, who belonged to a circle of ideas which had no contact 
with cosmogony; by the middle of the second century A.D. they were 

1 Judaism, loc. cit. 

2 For the Torah as the "beginning" of Gen. 1. 1 cf. Gen. R. i. i, where we may 
have fragments of earlier speculations as to the cosmic role of the divine Wisdom 
reduced to a harmless form as a reply to Christian identifications of the " beginning" 
with Jesus (cf. Orig. In Ev. Jo. i. 22). 

3 In Mishnah, Yadaim 4. 6 (Danby 784), the Sadducees object to the Pharisees 
for not saying that the books of " Hamiram" render the hands unclean. The phrase 
implies that the books in question might conceivably have been regarded as sacred 
by somebody, hence such conjectures as "Homeros", "ha-Minim" and ^epr^a-ia 
do not seem to meet the case; Kohler inJ.E. 6. 354 conjectures "Hermes", which 
gives excellent sense ; the Sadducees mean that the Pharisees take so much interest 
in this literature that they ought to include it in the Scriptures. There is a confirma- 
tion in the incident of the cleaning of the candlestick referred to on p. 54, which 
suggests that the rabbis were fond of speculations of the Philonic type; Philo's 
failure to mention Hermes may reflect the fear of Alexandrine Judaism of anything 
that might tend to syncretism between Judaism and heathenism: the rabbis of 
Palestine were less cautious, cf. p. 100. 



too closely identified with Christianity to be familiar to the Judaism 
of Palestine; 1 they were regarded as the property of the Alexandrines, 
in whose speculations the Messiah had little or no place. For at 
Alexandria the Messiah was relegated to the background or even 
explained away as a prophetic type of the Logos; 2 he had no real 
reason for existence in that sphere of Jewish thought, which was quite 
without interest in the end of the world-process and only concerned 
with its beginning. Thus it is possible that Paul was acquainted even 
before his conversion with Jewish speculations which substituted for 
the Messiah the divine reason immanent in the cosmlos and identified 
it with the Spirit of God which inspired Moses and the prophets, and 
regarded it as possessing some special affinity with the element of mind 
or spirit which was the highest element in the soul of man, ori at any 
rate in the soul of the righteous. In any case he was bound to meet 
them in the synagogues of the Dispersion, where the popular philo- 
sophy of the age was the common property of educated Jews, 

Since Jesus, as the Messiah, raised man above the power of the 
planets, it was natural to suppose that He came from the sphere above 
them, which was eternal ; consequently He was not merely superior to 
them in space, but also before them in the order of time, or rather 
eternal, whereas they were temporal. 3 It was therefore an easy matter 
for Paul in writing his first letter to Corinth to transfer the person of 
the historical Jesus from the category of the heavenly Messiah of 
Palestinian Judaism and Christianity into that of thje divine Wisdom 
which was the centre of Hellenistic-Jewish speculation, where the 
term Logos had not yet ousted it under the influence of Philo. 4 The 
panegyric of the wisdom of God, as manifested in the Cross, shows the 
ease with which the Messianic and the cosmic lines of thought could 
be conflated ; it is possible that they show the process by which Paul 

1 Gen. i ranks with Ezek. i in the Mishnah, cf. p. 307. Aristo of Pella in his 
Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus represented Papiscus as a Jew of Alexandria (see 
the preface of Celsus to the dialogue, Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. 97) ; according to Jerome, 
Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. 305, Migne 2. 937, Aristo read Gen. i. i as In filio fecit deus 
caelum et terram. 

2 Philo, De Conf. Ling. 14 (62, M. i. 414), where the "man from the East" of 
Zech. 6. 12 (LXX) becomes the Logos in order to support the explanation of 
Gen. n. 2 as a journey away from virtue. See p. 118. 

3 Cosmogonies based on the Timaeus had to regard the celekial bodies as coming 
into being with the creation of time (37 d). This suited Judaism very well, for the 
heavenly bodies were not created till the fourth day (to show the folly oif astrology 
Philo, De Mimd. Op. 14 (.45, M. i. 9)). ' 

1 It is interesting as showing the gradual diffusion of language in the synagogues 
of the Dispersion that Paul is not acquainted with Philo's far more convenient word, 
while the author of the Fourth Gospel is. The latter writer has even less r^al contact 
with Philo's outlook than Paul himself, but Philo's term has become by ( his time a 
commonplace of the synagogues. 


arrived at his conflation. Formally he is concerned to contrast the 
wisdom of God with the wisdom on which the Corinthians pride 
themselves (i Cor. i. 18 seqq.). The Cross might appear foolishness to 
the Greeks and be a stumbling-block to the Jews; but it was Christ, 
the power and wisdom of God; the quarrels of the Corinthians and 
their love for the manifestation of the spiritual gifts on which they 
prided themselves were examples of the foolishness and weakness of 
the world, which wrongly regarded itself as wisdom and power. The 
contrast was dictated by the circumstances in which the letter was 
written. The description of Jesus as the power and wisdom of God 
might simply describe the Messiah, 1 who could be associated with the 
wisdom of God's purpose as easily as with the more normal thought of 
His power. 2 In particular. Paul used the outpouring of the power 
of God in Jesus as the Messiah to point out the contrast between the 
fear and weakness of his own preaching at Corinth and the outpouring 
of the Spirit and the signs and wonders which accompanied that 
preaching. 3 He still retained the Messianic category, when he de- 
scribed Jesus as the wisdom of God, which had been hidden even from 
the spiritual rulers of the universe, who in their ignorance had crucified 
the Lord of glory, but was now made manifest by the revelation of 
the secret purposes of God: the word "mystery" here retained its 
proper JewishT?sense of a divine secret, hitherto concealed, but now 
revealed. 4 

1 For Wisdom as a mark of the Messianic age cf. i En. 48. i and 49. i ; 4 Esdr. 8. 
52. The "Wisdom of God" in Lk. n. 49 may refer to a lost apocalyptic work; if 
the language is intended to refer to a written work it was clearly of an eschatological 
character. Creed in The Gospel according to St Luke, ad loc., quotes Bultmann as still 
holding this view, which he rejects while recognising the difficulty of the passage. 
I am inclined to suggest that the passage is a quotation from such a work which was 
incorporated by Q into the sayings of Jesus and that Luke recognised it, while 
Matthew did not. In i Cor. i. 30 wisdom is still the result of the Messianic work of 
Jesus, as are righteousness (Rom. 5. 18), sanctification (Rom. 6. 22) and redemption 
(Rom. 3. 24). 

2 For the natural association of the "power" of God with the Messiah cf. Mk. 14. 
62, where the rabbinical substitution of ha-gebhurah for the tetragrammaton is used 
to describe Him as manifested with the Messiah. (For the use cf. Jastrow's Diet. 
s.v. Lk. 22. 69 adds "of God", as he does not understand the usage.) The Gospel 
of Peter, 5. 19 (Akhmin Fr., Apocr. N.T. 91), substitutes fj fj.ov for the 
Eloi, Eloi of Mk. 15. 34 in a docetic sense, "power" being the divinity of Jesus. 
"Power" would naturally be attributed to Jesus as the Messiah in virtue of His 
miracles (Mk. 6. 14) and those associated with theministry of the Apostles (i Cor. 2. 4). 
Cf. the title !/ Otov fj Ka\ovfj.evi) /leydXij adopted by Simon Magus (Acts 8. 10). 

3 2. 3. There is no reason to suppose that Paul is referring to his disappoint- 
ment at Athens. He is anxious to discredit worldly "wisdom", so he emphasises 
his own weakness. There is no need to look for any motive beyond homiletic 
necessity and the natural fear which Paul would feel in approaching an audience, 
which from past experience he would expect to find hostile. 

4 2. 6 seqq.; for the whole passage cf. Notes IV and V. 



Up to this point the exposition had not necessarily implied that 
Jesus was the "power" and "wisdom" of God in any sense in which 
these terms might not be used of the Messiah as the revelation of 
God's purpose and the means of its fulfilment. But at 2. 10 Paul turned 
abruptly from Jesus as the Messianic revelation of the Wisdom and the 
power of God to the apparently irrelevant spirit by which the Christian 
was able to understand the deep things of God. The "spirit" is the 
highest element in man, in virtue of which he knows his own affairs. 
In the same way man could not know the things of God except by the 
Spirit of God. 

The "spiritual" man had received that gift; the man who possessed 
only the natural soul had not received it and therefore could not 
understand the things of God. Paul claimed for himself, and for all 
other Christians who like himself were "spiritual", that they had 
received a gift of the Spirit, which enabled them to understand the 
gifts which God had bestowed on man and to teach with a wisdom 
higher than human wisdom, a wisdom that was taught them by the 
Spirit. 1 The ordinary man, having a soul but not the Spirit, could not 
receive such teaching, which needed the Spirit if it was to be under- 
stood. No man knows the mind of the Lord, so as to be able to 
instruct Him ; but the natural man who criticises the spiritual man is in 
effect trying to do so, for he is criticising the mind of Christ, as 
possessed by the spiritual Christian. 

The force of the argument depended on the conception by which 
the prophetic spirit of God in the Old Testament was equated with the 
divine Mind or Spirit permeating the cosmos, and also with that divine 
afflatus which was present in the best and wisest of mankind. 2 Thus 
Paul and those like him possessed that immunity from criticism which 
was the prerogative of the Stoic wise man, 3 but they possessed a far 

1 " We " here is vague, as normally in Pauline writings ; presumably it covers all 
Christians who like Paul are " spiritual ". 

z Cf. p. 75. The extent to which this thought of the highest element of mind in 
man, or the good man, as divine is a commonplace of philosophy appears from 
Seneca (presumably following Posidonius, one of those qui plurimum philosophiae 
contulerunt, Ep, 14. 2 (90). 20) ; thus Ep. 4. 12 (41). 2 : sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, 
ib. 5 : animus magnus ac sacer et in hoc demissus, ut propius quidem divina nossemus, 
conversatur quidem nobiscum, sed haeret origini suae, and 9. 2 (73). 16: deus. . .in 
homines venit; nulla sine deo mens bona est. Seneca is at least as confused as Paul over 
the question whether "mind" is a divine element present in the good man or a 
divine inspiration which assists the mind to become good. It is possible that the 
Pauline language as to " Christ in us " is drawn from this kind of philosophic common- 
place. But it is used to express an immediate experience and it seems more likely 
that the phrase is his own independent coinage, to express a fact of his own con- 
sciousness which could hardly be put more simply or directly. 

3 Diog. Laert. 7. 125 ; cf. v. Arn. 3. 148 (557 seqq.). 


higher right to it. For the divine element in the Stoic wise man was 
with difficulty differentiated from the divine element present in human 
nature as such; the distinction was made, but not very clearly main- 
tained, except where the divine element was a special prerogative of 
those exalted souls whose powers or virtues seemed to raise them 
above normal humanity. Paul's equation of the Spirit with the mind 
of Christ made it abundantly clear that the Spirit was a special gift 
of God, not a property of the soul of man as such. The further question 
of the relation of the historical Jesus to the divine power immanent 
in the cosmos and specially manifested as a divine gift in the highest 
type of Christian was one which Paul did not raise, any more than he 
asked how it was possible to relate the element of "spirit" which 
was an essential part of human nature (2. n ascribes a "spirit" 
of some kind to all men who are capable of managing their own 
affairs) to the Spirit of God, or how it was possible to describe 
the Corinthians as merely psychic, if they actually possessed a 
human "spirit". The lack of clarity was characteristic of Hellenistic 
Judaism, which was bound to retain the Spirit of God, which 
inspired the prophets, as something separate from human nature 
as such, but yet was quite ready to accept the idea of a divine 
element in man representing the "image of God" in which man was 
created. Paul, if pressed for an answer, would probably have re- 
torted that the question was one which only concerned the wisdom 
of the world, and that the wisdom of the world was foolish- 
ness with God. He would at least have had the justification that the 
wisdom of the world was entirely chaotic in its attempt to answer 
precisely these questions. 1 

Thus Paul's claim for immunity from criticism was based on the 
possession of a divine gift of the Spirit, which was nothing less than 
the mind of the Lord (2. 16). The words of Is. 40. 13 proved the folly 
of trying to teach God; His purpose in creation was entirely above 

1 For a satirical account of the confusion of philosophy on the point cf. Orig. 
c. Cels. 8. 49. The "Mithras-Liturgy" of Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 510 is quite consistent; 
a "sacred spirit" replaces the ^u^ixi? Suva/its (524) of the adept for the period of his 
ascent to heaven. In Wisd. 7. 23 Wisdom is a spirit which penetrates all spirits, 
however subtle. In Philo, Leg. Alleg. r. 12 (32, M. r. 50), man has an earthy "mind" 
in virtue of which he has a soul ; he would have no more, if God did not inspire him. 
In Q.R.D.H. 13 (64, M. i. 482) divine mind is inspired from heaven, but in ib. 53 
(265, M. i. 511) mind is expelled by the entry of a divine spirit in ecstasy or 
prophecy; in De Mimd. Op. 46 (135, M. i. 32) the " soul " given to Adam is a spirit 
which is the divine element of reason which makes him immortal; in De Gigant. 6 
(27, M. i. 266) the spirit of God is that which is "completely and entirely filled", 
i.e. the Logos of De Somn. i. n (62, M. i. 630). The papyrus and Q.R.D.H. 13 (64) 
go back to the same tradition. 


man's comprehension. 1 But that purpose in creation was simply the 
divine Wisdom; and that Wisdom was the possession of the spiritual 
Christian, who possessed in the Spirit the mind of Christ, the Wisdom 
of God. Thus the purpose of God, His Wisdom hitherto concealed 
but now revealed in the Messianic figure of Jesus, is also the creative 
Wisdom which was with God in the first beginning of creation; the 
whole argument depends for its force on this equation of Jesus with 
the cosmic Wisdom, and the further equation of that Wisdom with 
the divine Spirit immanent in the cosmos, yet vouchsafed to the 
Christian, or at least to the spiritual Christian. The transformation of 
the Messiah into the divine Wisdom was thus complete ; it is at least 
possible that Paul had arrived at his reinterpretation of the person of 
Jesus in terms of cosmogony through an established convention, which 
equated the hidden Wisdom of God's purpose in the Messiah with the 
Wisdom which was His counsellor in the creation of the cosmos. The 
claim to a specially privileged position for the Apostle and other 
"spiritual" Christians was of course only introduced to rebuke the 
Corinthians for their spiritual pride; their "psychic" condition was a 
mark of their inferiority to the normal Christian who was "in Christ" 
and therefore possessed His "spirit" or "mind". 2 

At a later stage in the Epistle Paul made it clear that the possession 
of the gifts of the Spirit ought to be a mark of. the normal Christian 
as such. He was concerned to correct the disorders, which had grown 
up at Corinth as a result of an excessive concern with the abnormal 
spiritual manifestations familiar to primitive Christianity. Such mani- 

1 The passage reappears in Rom. n. 34 in combination with Job 41. u 
( = 41. z LXX). The variation from LXX noted by Sanday and Headlam ad loc. 
appears to be an allusion to the Targum rendering : " Who hath been before me on 
the day of creation that I should repay him? " Thus Is. 40. 13 appears to be quoted 
with a reference to its original context ; it would naturally be useful as a Christian 
proof-text, implying that God had a counsellor in creation, namely Wisdom. 

2 The confusion of the passage shows that Paul is here operating with conceptions 
which he has taken over without troubling to rationalise them ; we are dealing with a 
midrashic exposition of the divine Wisdom in relation to the gifts of the Spirit, not 
with a consistent theology. The Poimandres appears to be secondary, since it tries 
to work out a consistent scheme analogous to those of the Christian Gnostics, and 
represents mind as given to the good. Cf. above, p. 75, n. 4. In Ir. Haer. i . 7. 5 we seem 
to have two accounts, one recognising three classes of spiritual, psychic and material, 
the other distinguishing between those who are naturally good and capable of 
receiving the spirit, and those who are naturally bad and incapable of doing so. 
Heracleon seems to have been equally inconsistent, cf. Foerster, Von Valent. zu 
Heracl. 75. In Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 56. z (528 Casey) the spiritual element 
is present in very few, the psychic are not many and most men are material. The 
inconsistency is inevitable in systems which try to win converts and therefore have 
to act as though all were capable of possessing the special spiritual nature. But the 
Gnostic systems appear to be trying to introduce a consistency to which Paul is 


festations had ceased to play any considerable part in the religion of 
educated circles in the Hellenistic world. Ecstatic prophecy was 
confined to a few of the less reputable cults, especially those of Syrian 
origin. 1 Prophecy as one form of the power of divining the future had 
been accepted by Posidonius and therefore was philosophically 
respectable, and Judaism naturally welcomed this confirmation of the 
Old Testament. 2 But Judaism was careful to minimise the ecstatic 
element of prophecy; mystical contemplation and piety rather than 
frenzied eloquence are the mark of the prophet as described by 
Philo. 3 In the synagogue prophecy had ceased except in so far as it 
lingered, an impressive but peculiar phenomenon, among the Essenes 
and similar sects. 4 Christianity had however revived the tradition of 
the Old Testament in this respect, though the temper and tradition 
inherited from the synagogue kept it within reasonable limits in most 
of the Churches. At Corinth, where that tradition had grown weak 
with the influx of Gentile converts and the departure of the Jewish 
refugees from Rome who had formed a large part of the original 
community, 5 such enthusiasms threatened to become a serious nuisance. 
Paul found himself compelled to work for the suppression of the more 
dramatic manifestations of the "Spirit" even at the cost of a good 
apologetic argument. The simple-minded observer in such a city as 
Corinth was hardly likely to be so deeply impressed by ethical gifts as 
by those frenzied outpourings which had in the past won classical 
Greece for the worship of Dionysus, and could not fail to attract the 
mixed Levantine population of a great port. But if the educated world 
was to be converted, the "Spirit" must be a divine power, animating 
the world in general with a divine life, and animating the virtuous man 
and raising him to a higher stage of goodness. 

Paul was perfectly prepared for such a sacrifice. The gifts of the 

1 Cf. above, p. 15, n. 7, and Orig. c. Cels. 7. 9, where Celsus mixes up the ecstatic 
prophecies of Syrian religion with the enthusiastic preaching of Christian mis- 
sionaries. (The Syrian prophets may be genuine, but the sound ante-Nicene theology 
is transferred to them from Christian missionaries by Celsus. Cf. further the 
references in Conversion 82 and note ad loc.) The story of Medea in Diod. Sic. 4. 51.2 
is illuminating as to the attitude of mind of the cultured Greek to prophetic frauds. 
See also Rel. Or. 43 seqq. for the vogue of ecstatic Phrygian and Thracian cults, and 
Dion. Halic. 2. 19 for the contempt of the educated for such cults and their popu- 
larity with the uneducated. a Cf. p. 76, n. 5. 

8 Q.R.D.H. 52 (259, M. i. 510), where prophecy is given to all good men; the 
allusion to "enthusiasm" is a reference to Plato rather than to the O.T. 

4 Josephus, B.y. 2. 8. 12 (159), credits them with power to foretell the future; 
naturally he does not refer to frenzy of the O.T. type. See also D.C.E.R. 20 
(112, M. i. 535), where enthusiasm and prophecy are sandwiched into a catalogue 
describing the true goods of the soul of which the chief is roC naropBovv e'p 

5 Cf . Jerusalem 268 and 280, n. 41 . 


Spirit which took the form of speaking with tongues and prophecy 
could not for a moment be allowed to compete with the essential gifts 
of faith in Jesus, as expounded by the Church, the hope of His return 
and love for God and man. The arrangement of the essential gifts into 
a group of three Paul borrowed from the style of the Hellenistic age; 1 
their content was strictly defined by the primitive Gospel of the 
earliest disciples and the teaching of Jesus Himself. Speaking with 
tongues, even the tongues of angels, 2 power to understand and expound 
the mysteries of the return of the Lord, 3 knowledge of the secrets of 
creation and their relation to the present position of man in the 
cosmos, 4 even the faith of which the Lord had said that it could move 
mountains, were nothing as compared with the essential virtue of 
love. 5 This was the essential Gospel as preached by Jesus; in com- 
parison with it spiritual gifts of the dramatic kind were nothing, and 
if they interfered with it they must be abandoned. On the other hand 
the conception of "the Spirit" was too firmly fixed in the tradition of 
the Church to be abandoned in the same way. Since, however, the 
synagogues of the Dispersion had already identified the Spirit, which 
inspired the prophets, with the divine Mind, which permeated the 
cosmos and had at all times entered into holy souls and made them 
friends of God as well as prophets, it was easy for Paul to follow suit. 
If Judaism could transform the prophets of Israel into intellectual 
mystics and patterns of holiness, he could equally transform the 
Christian gifts of the Spirit into faith, hope and love. It is probable 
enough that he was unaware of the extent to which the synagogue had 
paved the way for him ; Judaism and Christianity were faced with the 
obvious necessity of substituting ethics for ecstasy if they were to 
appeal to any but the least educated classes of society. 

In transforming Christian worship from an exhibition of ecstatic 

1 For i Cor. 13. 13 cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos 352 seqq. 

2 Presumably this was a proverbial expression : for its application to R. Jochanan 
b. Zakkai cf. Str.-B. ad loc. 

3 As in i Cor. 15. 51, which is a "prophecy" expounding a "mystery". The 
Apocalypse is the same on a larger scale. 

4 For Gnosis in this sense cf. Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 78. 2 (Casey 677; see 
his parallels ad loc.) and Seneca, Ep. n. 3 (82). 6. The transfer of the power to 
remove mountains from learning, to which it was applied by rabbinical Judaism, to 
faith appears to be an allusion to Mt. 17. 20; it is, however, possible that both the 
N.T. passages incorporate a popular proverbial expression, which reappears in the 
rabbinical tradition (for this cf. Str.-B. on Mt. loc. cit.). 

5 The style may show Hellenistic influences, but the substance is entirely dictated 
by the O.T., though it is probable that Paul has in mind the combination of Deut. 6. 
5 and Lev. 19. 18 in the logion of Mk. 12. 29. There is a striking contrast in the triad 
of Corp. Herm. n (2), 21 b (Scott 222), where knowledge, will and hope are the 
means of attaining to God. It is possible that this tract has been influenced by 
Pauline literature, in view of the reference to Deut. 30. i2seqq. Cf. above, p. 102, n. i. 


phenomena into an orderly system based on that of the synagogue, 
Paul was only restoring it to its normal character^ for it is clear that he 
regarded the state of affairs at Corinth as a mere parody of what 
Christian worship should be. Speaking with tongues and prophecies 
were only tolerable if they were isolated incidents in a generally orderly 
procedure. He supported his reformation by an appeal to the con- 
ventional argument of Hellenistic Judaism; the synagogue was com- 
monly represented as a meeting for the discussion of the true 
philosophy; it had been instituted by Moses in his character of the 
father of philosophy; 1 it was therefore to be desired that the meetings 
of the Church should impress the visitor with that shame and peni- 
tence which all but the most abandoned [would feel on entering a 
meeting at which a philosopher was delivering an ethical homily of 
the kind which was popular at the period. 2 

But while Paul was prepared to borrow arguments from philosophy, 
and to present Christianity in terms of the cosmogony of the age in 
which he lived, he was entirely indifferent to philosophy as such. 
Love alone was eternal; for love was the fulfilling of the Torah 
(Rom. 13. 8) and therefore could abide, when prophecies had ceased 
to have any meaning, 3 when speaking with tongues had ceased and 
when knowledge, whether in the form of [rabbinical learning or the 
mystical knowledge of God, had been done away. For all such partial 
means of knowing 4 were only intended for the present life, in which 

1 Cf. Philo, De Vit. Mays, z (3), 27 (211 seqq., M. 2. 167). 

2 i Cor. 14. 23; cf. Musonius ap. Aulus Gellius, Nftct. Alt. 5. i, apparently a 
commonplace which has been adopted by the synagogue. 

3 For the cessation of the prophecies of the O.T. in the Messianic kingdom as 
opposed to the prevalent rabbinical view of the eternity of the Torah cf. Str.-B. on 
Mt. 5. 18. 

4 Kittel in T.W.z.N.T. maintains that a mirror need not be an inferior form of 
seeing (s.v. cumyfta). But to see God even in a single mirror, as in the rabbinical 
story of Moses, is inferior to direct vision which is impossible for man (Exod. 33. 20). 
So in Leg. Alleg. 3. 33 (101 seqq., M. i. 107) Moses' prayer that he may not KCIT- 
oirTpi^ecrdai the form of God in any creature but in God Himself (a prayer that he may 
not see a reflection of God, but may see Him direbtly) js associated with the belief 
of Num. 12.6 seqq. that Moses did see God directly, not " through riddles ". Cf. De 
Decal. 21 (105, M. 2. 198), where the mind sees God in the hebdomad, which is a 
mirror of God : but He is the monad. It would appear that seeing in a mirror may 
imply either "to see as clearly as in a mirror" (so in Polybius 15. 20. 4) or "to see, 
but only as in a mirror", according to the context. Paul appears to be following the 
view that Moses himself, no less than the prophets, saw only as in a mirror. It seems 
unlikely that there is any allusion to the magic mirror in which God reveals Himself 
(Kittel, loc. cit.). Cf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 76, 3823, where God may be seen as in a 
riddle in lifeless things, and in living things as in. the "clearest" mirrors, and De 
Gen. Socr. 20. 589 b and 22. 591 e, where the relation of mind in man to a higher mind 
is that of reflection to reality, Plat. Quaest. 3. i. 1002 q. For the thought cf. Corp. 
Herm. Ascl. 3. 32b (Scott 356) and Seneca, Ep. 10. 3 (79). 12: the whole imagery 
is drawn from Hellenistic commonplace. 


man was still in the state of a child. Here, like the prophets, 1 he had 
only glimpses of God seen as in a mirror through riddles; naturally 
Moses' vision was no better. Full knowledge could only come when 
man could see God face to face and attain to that knowledge of Him 
which He possessed of man; it was only in virtue of God's cognisance 
of him that man had any knowledge of God. 2 The thought was drawn 
from popular theology, which here harmonised with the outlook of 
Judaism; for Judaism was essentially a religion which emphasised the 
divine initiative in the relations between God and man; 3 God had 
"known" Israel and the prophets, and it was natural that His "know- 
ledge" of the prophets should be extended to all Christians who 
possessed the "Spirit", for they were greater than the prophets. It 
was perhaps an advantage of the thought that it made "Gnosis" 
depend upon an act of God towards man and therefore depreciated the 
value of that knowledge on which the Corinthians prided themselves. 
The effect of i Cor. 13 was to harmonise the "Spirit" of God as 
manifested in the Church with the Wisdom of God as interpreted in 
the light of the later Stoic tradition by the author of Wisdom; there is 
no evidence that Paul was acquainted with this work, but the book of 
Wisdom was merely one specimen of a larger body of traditional 
exegesis. Paul's familiarity with this exegesis and the decisive proof 
that in writing to the Corinthians he had in mind the equation of the 
historical Jesus with the Wisdom of the Hellenistic synagogues appear 
in i Cor. 10. i seqq. The kerygma of the mighty works of God in 
delivering His people from Egypt was an established form of mis- 
sionary preaching. It could not be doubted that this deliverance was 
the work of God Himself; rash speculations which ascribed it to an 
angel could only be condemned, as they were actually condemned by 
the writer of Is. 63. 9, or at any rate by his translator in the LXX. 4 It 

1 Kittel, loc. cit., rightly sees that Paul is alluding to the comparative obscurity of 
the prophetic view. 

2 Philo, De Plant. 15 (64, M. i. 339); De Ebr. n (43 seqq., M. i. 363) and 17 
(72, M. i. 367), where not to be refused recognition by God is to be accounted 
worthy of complete salvation; cf. De Cher. 32 (115, M. i. 160), where the soul (here 
only in Philo a divine element which is reincarnated in successive "regenerations") 
knows us without being known. 

3 Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 287; he quotes Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 31 
(Scott 130), which is hardly the same (God wishes to be known and is known), and 
10. 15 (Scott 196), which is a genuine parallel, but seems to stand alone in the 
Hermetic writings. He may be right in ascribing the conception to the Hellenistic 
theology of Oriental origin, associated with Posidonius; but it was a conception 
native to Judaism (Exod. 33. 12, 17; Jer. i. 5; for Israel, Amos 3. 2); for rabbinical 
parallels cf. Judaism i. 373 seqq. 

* The LXX version " it was not a messenger or angel, but He Himself that saved 
them" may represent the true text (so Box in The Book of Isaiah, ad loc.). Meyer, 


was of course possible to ascribe the deliverance to the Wisdom 
or Logos of Alexandrine thought, for such figures had no real 
personality apart from God ; and it was at the same time possible to 
identify them with the actual manifestation of the cloud, and so 
avoid the awkward consequences of a literal interpretation of Exod. 
13. 21. 1 

With the use of the Old Testament kerygma as a means of expound- 
ing the Gospel the Church had been familiar from the beginning. 
Paul adopted it as a means qf warning the Corinthians against the 
danger that awaited those who had once been delivered; they were 
always in peril of relapsing. The fathers were delivered from Egypt; 
they were sheltered by the cloud and they passed through the Red 
Sea; the cloud and the sea represented the baptism by which they 
passed from the complete bondage to sin represented by Egypt into 
that relative freedom which was represented by Moses and the 
Torah. 2 They received the spiritual food of the manna and the 
spiritual drink of the water from the rock; 3 and the rock from which 
they drank was Christ. The equation of the rock with Christ was 
simply the equation of Jesus with the Wisdom of God, for which the 
water from the rock was a standing type in the midrashic exegesis of 
the synagogues of the Dispersion ; 4 Paul slipped into an expression of 

however (Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 99), would rea4 : " The angel of His presence saved them." 
In any case the Greek text seems to be a. controversial statement, denying the view 
that an angel was responsible for the deliverance. What the speculations rejected 
were is a doubtful matter ; they might simply represent an attempt to avoid the undue 
anthropomorphism of God's action in the Exodus. They might, however, arise from 
attempts to harmonise Judaism with Gnostic ideas of the various forms of the divine 
manifestation; different acts of God in the O.T. could be ascribed to His various 
" names". Cf. above, p. 53. Or they might be due to beliefs of Iranian origin as to 
a succession of "saviours", Moses being one; for such beliefs and their possible 
contacts with Judaism cf. Reitzenstein, Erlosungsmysterium 99 seqq. 

1 This may have been the reason for supposing that it was an angel, the view 
contradicted by Is. 63. 9. In Wisd. 10. 17 Wisdom becomes the cloud and the pillar 
of fire. In Philo, Q.R.D.H. 42 (305, M. fc. 501), we have a remarkable description of 
the Logos as symbolised by the cloud ; (he is the chief of the angels, the suppliant 
of the mortal to the incorruptible and the ambassador of the ruler to the subject ; in 
De Vit. Mays. i. 29 (166, M. 2. 10*7) the cloud is actually an archangel, but not the 
Logos. Naturally it would be entirely or|thodox to make the cloud an angel, provided 
that the deliverance was the work of God ; but in the former passage Philo seems to 
be attempting to reduce to orthodox limits a speculation in which the Logos appeared 
as an archangel, cf. p. 49. 

2 Presumably this is how Paul would have adapted this midrashic exegesis of the 
deliverance of Israel from Egypt as a type of the Christian deliverance. It must be 
remembered that to escape from Egypt is always a deliverance from sin in the 
convention of this literature. 

3 " Spiritual " here is a play on the two thoughts that the manna and the rock 
have a " spiritual " meaning, and that the true meaning is Christ, who is the Spirit, 
to which the Torah points. 

4 See above, p. 87. 


the thought which occupied his mind, 1 without remembering at the 
moment that the readers, who had only received milk and not meat, 
might be unable to follow him in his speculations as to the cosmic 
position of Jesus as equated with the Wisdom of God. 2 

1 For a similar lapse under the influence of the association of ideas cf . the com- 
pletely irrelevant allusion to the Law in i Cor. 15. 56. The thought of Jesus as the 
divine Wisdom makes itself felt with equal irrelevance in the allusion to Jesus 
followed by di' ov. . . 81 avrov of 8. 6, which has no relevance to the unity of God as 
precluding the eating of '8<aX60ura. 

2 For the easiness of the equation cf. the Kerygma Petri ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
i. 29. 182 (427?), where Jesus is both Logos and vopos, i.e. the Torah as the 
"beginning" of Genesis and the "Wisdom" of Proverbs in rabbinical convention. 



THE first Epistle to the Corinthians was written some two years 
after the end of Paul's first visit to Corinth. It would seem that 
he failed to allow for the extent to which the Jewish element in 
the Church had declined; at any rate a considerable section of it was 
sufficiently acquainted with the outlook of popular philosophy to refuse 
to believe in the resurrection of the dead in the form in which he had 
presented it. That rejection was natural. No intelligent and educated 
person believed in a subterranean Hades j 1 even the authority of Homer 
and Plato was unable to save it. Vergil had been compelled to conform 
to the classical tradition, but could only do so by placing a duplicate 
set of celestial spheres in the traditional inferno. 2 The priests of Osiris 
himself were hard put to it to maintain his traditional position as lord 
of the dead. 3 Reincarnation after the next period of incandescence, 
and purification in the stars with a possible escape to the firmament, 
was the general form in which the Stoics offered a future life to 
mankind; they were far from consistent in their presentation, but 
none believed in Hades. 4 Belief in the ancient realms of the dead 
continued to be a living force in the less educated classes; it was 
naturally a potent element in magic which was largely concerned to 
evoke demons and the souls of the dead from the lower regions. 5 But 
educated opinion, more particularly in Greece, was entirely clear on 
the point; it is perhaps significant of the social class from which the 
more important converts of the synagogue and the early Pauline mis- 
sions were drawn, that Paul was compelled to abandon the traditional 

1 Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i. 5. 10; Seneca, Ad Marc, de Cons. 19. 4; Juv. Sat. z. 149; 
the rejection is a commonplace. 

2 Aen. 6. 640, 730 seqq. ; cf. Servius on Aen. 6. 127. Lactantius, Div. Inst. 7. 
20, claims that Vergil, as the representative of Stoicism, believes in heaven or the 
Elysian fields for the righteous and eternal punishment for the wicked; but he ignores 
the extent to which the Stoic tradition has forced Vergil to conflate the beliefs of 
the classics with the astrological conception. 

3 Plut. De Is. et Os. 78, 3820. Plutarch himself transfers Osiris to the firmament. 

4 It is instructive to attempt to make a consistent view out of the passages quoted 
v. Arn. 2. 223, 812 seqq. 

5 Cf. Kroll, Gott u. Holle 466 seqq. Outside magic Hades survives mainly in Latin 
works which revise the Greek traditions under Oriental influences (op. cit. 392). 
The return of Christianity to a subterranean hell may simply reflect popular belief 
in the less Hellenised parts of the Church or it may be due to the reaction against 
Gnosticism: naturally both influences may have been at work. 


Jewish conception of Sheol, just as the synagogues at the same time 
were beginning to substitute the lower spheres of heaven for a sub- 
terranean Sheol, as the place of punishment reserved for the wicked. 1 
Here as elsewhere Judaism was not bound to any rigid system and was 
free to adapt itself to the beliefs and language of Gentile literature and 
to the tastes of potential converts. 2 

It was only natural that the more educated Corinthians should 
refuse to believe in a system which logically implied that the soul at 
death departed to Hades or Sheol, and that at the day of judgment it 
would be reunited to the body. Christianity had accepted this con- 
ception from Judaism without question, so long as it remained on the 
soil of Palestine, mainly because it was not concerned with the rather 
unimportant issue of the state of the dead during the brief period of 
world-history that had still to run. At Corinth it was otherwise. A 
section, apparently of some importance, refused to accept the tradi- 
tional view. They seem to have accepted the Gospel as the inaugura- 
tion of a new world-age, which was shortly to be consummated by the 
appearance of Jesus in glory. Those who lived to see that day would 
enjoy a life of such blessedness and of such length that they could 
afford to ignore the possibility of its coming to an end ; the age of gold 
could be regarded as being for practical purposes eternal. 3 Possibly 
Christians who died before it were supposed to suffer death on account 
of their misdeeds, on the lines suggested by Paul's own teaching in 
i Cor. ii. 30. The conception of a new age which had already begun 
and was shortly to be completed by the appearance of the Lord was 
fairly prominent in Christian preaching; apparently it commended 
itself as against the immortality of the soul, a belief which was natural 

1 In Test. Lev. 3. i the lowest heaven is gloomy because it has to behold the deeds 
of the wicked, and contains the spirits of vengeance. In 2 En. 9. i-io. 6 both 
paradise and hell are in the third heaven ; but the location of hell on the North side 
of the third heaven allows it to be described in the same terms as the subterranean 
hell of tradition; here we have the opposite of Vergil, a hell located in the heavens 
instead of heavens located below the earth. In 3 Bar. 3. 3 the builders of the Tower 
of Babel are punished in the third heaven, presumably as a type of the hopelessly 
wicked. Curiously enough there seems no instance of the use of the lower air for 
this purpose in Jewish literature. 

2 Cf. Jos. B.J. 2. 8. 1 1 (155) and 14 (163 seqq.) y where the Essene view is depicted 
as a correct classical system ; the Pharisees believe in the transfer of the righteous 
to "another body"; this may be intended to suggest that the Pharisees believe in 
transmigration (I owe this suggestion to Dr M. Braun). They believe also in hell for 
the wicked. The one thing that both Pharisees and Essenes believed in, the final 
judgment, has been dropped overboard for the benefit of Greek readers. 

3 This is the hope of Vergil, Ed. 4. 53. Behind the language of those who 
welcomed the establishment of the principate or the accession of an emperor as a 
new aeon (cf. above, pp. 23 and 92), there must have been some genuine religious 
expectation of a real age of gold, involving a practical immortality for those who 
survived into it. Cf. also the Sibylline oracle discussed on p. 13 above. 


to the Hellenistic age, but not easily to be harmonised with the 
apocalyptic version of the Gospel. 1 

Paul met this aberration by a restatement of the conventional 
apocalyptic scheme ; the most striking feature of it is the appearance 
of the Adam-myth which is used in Romans; the sin of Adam had 
brought death on mankind, since it caused him to fall from the state of 
a pure spirit into that of a mere "living soul" ; Jesus as the last Adam 
had returned from the state of a "living soul", which was His during 
His life on earth, into that of a pure spirit, which not only lived but 
had the power to give life to others (i Cor. 15. 45). It followed that the 
resurrection of the dead was a resurrection not to the material body, 
but to a body suited to its new conditions as a pure spirit, instead of a 
more or less material and fleshly soul. 2 This thought was defended on 
the lines of a common rabbinical argument : if the seed, which is sown 
naked, rises clothed, how much more would God provide raiment for 
the soulC^Yet, again, the glory of the heavenly bodies differed; so 
would the glory of the risen body differ from the body sown in corrup- 
tion; the two analogies combined the two traditions of the Old 
Testament, the Chaldean imagery used by Daniel and the Semitic 
used by Isaiah. The function of the present body was to provide a 
vehicle for the earthy and material soul into which the first Adam fell ; 
the new body was to be a suitable vehicle for the heavenly spiritual 
nature which the second Adam from heaven would confer in due course 
on those who were His. 4 From the point of view of eschatology the 
material and the psychic preceded the spiritual; the argument, how- 
ever, from the narrative of Gen. 2. 7 was only valid if the verse was 
interpreted to mean that Adam possessed a spiritual body from which 
he fell, or at any rate a body capable of becoming spiritual. 5 In any 

1 Paul shows no objection in 2 Corinthians to abandoning the resurrection of the 
dead in favour of the immortality of the soul (see below, pp. 136 seqq.). The argu- 
ments of i Cor. 15. 14 seqq. and 29 imply a view derived from the common language 
of the " new age " coupled with an intense experience of conversion and " spiritual " 
enthusiasm. A similar view seems to have been taken by Hymenaeus and Philetus 
in 2 Tim. 2. 18, or to have been taken by the author of that letter as the meaning 
of this passage. 2 Cf. above, p. 109. 

3 For i Cor. 15. 37 cf. Talmud, Sank, gob; probably the two passages are inde- 
pendent versions of a rabbinical commonplace. 

4 Is the reading Trvevp-ariKos of the Chester-Beatty Papyrus in v. 47 of the 
" second man" an Alexandrine emendation or does it preserve the original reading? 
It gives an excellent meaning: the true "spiritual man" is not Adam but Jesus. 

8 So Philo, Leg. Alleg: i. 13 (42, M. i. 51), makes the irvoi] breathed into the 
material Adam a mere emanation of the irveu^a of the ideal man ( = the Logos). In 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14. 94 (703 P) the "image" of God is the Logos, the im- 
passible man, the "likeness" is the "image of the image", the mind of man. In 
Tert. adv. Marc. 2. 9 the afflatus of God in Adam is capable of sin, but the spirit is 
not, cf. De Bapt. 5. Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 20. 89, makes man fall not, like the demons, 
from heaven but from a better earth than the present. 


case it was not the material flesh and blood that would inherit the 
kingdom of God; the resurrection of the dead would be (accompanied 
by a change to a body of radiant glory. The -final catastrophe would 
raise the dead to this state, while the living would be suddenly trans- 
formed into a similar condition. It does not appear how this trans- 
formation of the righteous (the fate of the wicked is ignored) was to be 
harmonised with the view expressed in v. 28 that the final ending will 
be one in which God is all in all, a phrase which was easily carried over 
into the theocentric religion of Judaism, in which it had mo real place, 
from the current view of popular philosophy, in which the end of eafch 
world-age resulted in the reabsorption of all things into the divine 
fire; 1 in that state even the divine element permeating the cosmos was 
to be reabsorbed in the one element of divinity ; 2 it is not to be sup- 
posed that Paul had any serious belief that Jesus and His disciples 
would cease at the end of all things to retain their individual being; 3 
but his language was drawn from a system of belief which implied jit. 
It appears that Paul's admission of the immaterial nature of the risen, 
body and his suggestion of some kind of reabsorption of all things into 
God were not enough to satisfy the difficulties of the Corinthians. The 
second Epistle is largely devoted to a complete revision of Pauline 
eschatology in a Hellenistic sense. The circumstances in which the 
Epistle was written as a vindication of his past conduct and his 
authority as an Apostle have tended to obscure the importance of this 

1 There is a close parallel in Ecclus. 43. 27, where the author, after describing 
God's works in creation in the anthropomorphic style of the ordinary Jewish 
tradition, suddenly remarks: "to sum up, He is all." At first sight we have here a 
surprising piece of pantheism ; actually we have a scrap of Greek erudition throiwn 
in to increase the praises of God by a writer to whom pantheism would have been 
entirely unintelligible. ' 

2 The "deification" at death of those who possess "mind" in such passages as 
Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 26 a (Scott 128) seems to conflate the Stoic reabsorption 
and the Oriental deification of the king (cf. p. 75) ; it is hardly the magic identification 
of the adept with the deity. It is noticeable that such language only appears in 
Christianity with the Alexandrines, in whom it has entirely lost [its meaning; cf. 
Clem. Alex. Strom, 4. 23. 149 (632 P), and note that ib. 152 it is simply the same as 
"being made as like God as possible"; Orig. De Orat. Lib. 27 (Lommatzsch 17, 
p. 220), where we also find (26, ib. p. 201) that man can "become heaven". The 
language of Hellenistic piety has been carried over into Christianity, but the meaning 
has disappeared. 

8 The rabbinical parallels quoted by Str.-B. on this verse are not parallels at all 
in the strict sense; there seems no Jewish basis for this belief in the reabsorptiorii of 
everything into the nature of God, which is drawn from popular theology, ; cf. 
Seneca, Ep. i. 9. 16, where Jupiter resoluto mundo et dis (i.e. the various manifesta- 
tions of God in the processes of nature) in unum confusis paulisper cessante nat\ura 
adquiescit cogitationibus suis traditus. There seem to be traces of a similar conception 
in Zoroastrianism (Lommel, Die Rel. Zarath. 218 and 222); but the source of the 
Pauline language is more naturally to be found in the Stoic tradition, which is not 
strictly applicable to Christian eschatology; cf. also Epict. Diss. 3. 13. 4 seqq. 


aspect of the letter; 1 it is introduced as a secondary matter, but it may 
be doubted whether it was not more important for the propagation of 
the Gospel in the Hellenistic world than any other part of the Epistle. 

Formally the subject is introduced as a digression on the nature of 
Paul's "ministry". His first letter was followed by a visit intended 
to reduce the rebellious elements of the Church of Corinth to order. 
The visit was unsuccessful ; it was followed by an angry letter, part of 
which survives in the last. four chapters of 2 Corinthians in its present 
form. 2 The result was a complete triumph; but it was still desirable 
to remove any impression of high-handedness which his conduct might 
have produced. 3 It was vital that the collection for the Saints at 
Jerusalem should succeed ; but a large part of his difficulties had been 
caused by Jewish Christians who were not Apostles in any sense, but 
were content to describe themselves as '^ministers of Christ". 4 Paul 
was ready to borrow, and almost to parody their language. 

He opened the letter with an outburst of triumphant thanksgiving 
.over his victory, and proceeded to an account of his motives and 
actions which led up to a justification of his authority as stated in terms 
of ministry, a justification which carried with it a vindication of the 
superiority of the Gospel to the Torah. His very journey to Corinth 
was a procession of triumph in Christ, which manifested the fragrance 
of the knowledge of Him wherever Paul went (2. 14 seqq.). The 
fragrance was at the same time the incense of the triumph 5 of the 
sufferings of Jesus, offered in the person of the Apostle as a sacrificial 

1 Meyer, Urspr. u, Anf. 3. 104, rightly emphasises the objection of the educated 
Greek world to the idea of the " revivification of the corpse " ; but he ignores the fact 
that this idea is thrown overboard in_2 Cor. 4. 7 seqq. 

2 For the course of events cf. Strachan in Moffatt's Commentary, pp. xvi seqq. 

3 2 Cor. i. 12, 3. i, 5. 12, 7. 2 seqq. 

4 For the Jewish element in the opposition at Corinth cf . Jerusalem 311. For their 
use of the term "ministers" see 2 Cor. n. 23 (note that there is no reference to 
"Apostles" here). But in the section 10. i end Paul is an Apostle four times; a 
minister only here and in 1 1 . 1 5 by implication ; the language is that of his opponents. 
" Ministry " appears in 1 1 . 8 but in its literal sense. In Rom. 11.13 Paul alludes to the 
apostolate as a "ministry", but not elsewhere in the earlier Epistles. Similarly he 
is an Apostle eight times in i Corinthians; he is a "minister" only once, in 3. 5, 
where he is deprecating all human authority as against that of Christ. But in 2 Corin- 
thians 1. 1-9. 15 he is an Apostle only in the formal opening verse; he introduces his 
activity as a "ministry" in the long midrash on the subject 3. 3 seqq., and has further 
allusions to his "ministry" in 5. 18 and 6. 3 and 4 quite apart from the "ministry" 
of collecting for the Saints. On the other hand his helpers become "apostles" in a 
quite indiscriminate fashion in 8. 23. 

6 Appian, Punica 66; cf. the unofficial triumph of Valerius in Dion. Halic. 
Antt. Rom. g. 35 and the reception of the Magna Mater at Rome in Livy 29. 14 for 
incense as the adjunct of a triumphal procession. For the use of incense in royal and 
religious processions in the Hellenistic age cf. Athenaeus, Deipnos. 5. 27, 1970 and 
6. 62, 253 c. These were not strictly "triumphs", but it is doubtful whether a 
Hellenistic- Jewish writer would have differentiated them. 



fragrance to God, 1 and the knowledge of God revealed in the Gospel, 
the fragrant spice which really brought life to the righteous and death 
to the wicked, as against the Torah for which the rabbis wrongly 
claimed that virtue. 2 The wealth of haggadic allusion was worthy of 
the pupil of Gamaliel; it is difficult to suppose that Paul's Corinthian 
readers were very clear as to his meaning. 

Paul had been accused of "commending himself" by claiming a 
personal authority instead of relying on the authority conferred by the 
Church of Jerusalem and established by letters of commendation. To 
this charge, which his triumphant language might seem to justify, he 
replied that for such a ministry as his no human being could be 
"sufficient". The question of "sufficiency" could not be put to those 
who like himself preached the full truth in the sight of God, and were 
not content to sell a cheap and inferior imitation for their own 
personal advantage. 3 He was not beginning to commend himself; he 
had no need of letters of commendation, such as his opponents had 
produced to justify their claims; the Church of Corinth itself was his 
letter of commendation, a letter for all to read, written not on tables 
of stone but on the tables of men's hearts. It was thus one instance 
of the fulfilment of the prophecy that a time would come when all men 
should know God because there would be a new Torah, written on the 
hearts of all men. 4 Thus he was able to speak and write with complete 
confidence, not because he had any sufficiency of his own, but because 
God had bestowed on him a measure of the "sufficiency" which was 
an essential element of His own nature. Through this divine "suffi- 
ciency" Paul was able to be a minister of the new Torah, which was 

1 Gen. R. 34. 21, where God smells the fragrance of Abraham in the furnace of 
Nimrod, of the Three Children in the fiery furnace and of the martyrs under 
Hadrian. The last item appears to be an addition to an existing scheme; it is not 
likely that any martyrs were actually burnt under Hadrian. For 607*17 ciia>8ias as a 
sacrificial fragrance, cf. Test. Lev. 3. 6. For the merits of the righteous in the 
Messianic age as a sweet savour see Str.-B. on this passage. 

2 Cf. Str.-B. ad loc. and Buxtorf, Lexicon, s.v. NOD, for the word as a trans- 
literation of 007*17. Firmicus Maternus, De Err. Prof. Rel. 22. i, describes the 
anointing of the throats of the initiates in the mysteries of Attis with fragrant 
ointment; it is possible that the Torah as the D^n Dp is derived from Hellenistic 
religion; cf. Diod. Sic. i. 25. 6 for the <j)dpp,a.Kov ddavaa-ias in Egyptian legends. 

3 Cf. Windisch in T.W.z.N.T. s.v. /caTrjjXevw. 

4 Jer. 31. 33 ; the allusion to that prophecy follows naturally on the knowledge of 
God, which was the subject of 2 Cor. 2. 14 seqq., since the new Torah of Jeremiah 
consisted in a personal knowledge of God, planted by Him in the hearts of all men. 
The description of the Gospel in terms of " knowledge " may be due to the popularity 
of gnosis of a Hellenistic type at Corinth, but Paul confines it here strictly within the 
limits of the O.T. The prophecy of Jeremiah was valuable as an anticipation of the 
Stoic idea of the unwritten law; cf. Philo, De Spec. Legg. 4 (De Just.), 3 (149, 
M. 2. 361). 


not of the letter, which led to death, but of the spirit, which led to 
life. 1 

With this apology for his apparent boasting Paul passed to the 
ministry of the new covenant. The glory of the old was such that the 
face of Moses shone when he came down from the mount, so that the 
children of Israel could not look on it. By comparison with the 
exceeding glory of the new, the glory of the old was no glory at all. 2 
For the glory of the new covenant was permanent and not transitory ; 
in virtue of this hope the ministers of the new covenant could speak 
with absolute boldness and had no need to veil their faces, as Moses did 
because the children of Israel could not look even on the lesser glory 
of the old covenant. Even to the present time they could not do so ; 
the veil which covered the ark of the Law in every synagogue 3 pre- 
served the memory of the veil over the face of Moses and symbolised 
the veil laid over the hearts of the people until it was revealed to them 
that it had been done away in Christ. As Moses removed the veil 
when he turned to the Lord, so was the veil removed from all who 
turned to Him. For the Lord was the Spirit ; consequently all who were 
converted turned from the letter to the Spirit. To turn from the letter 
to the Spirit was to find freedom, for where the Spirit was there was 
complete freedom of access to God. Thus the Christian could remove 
all veils from his face and be free to reflect the glory of the Lord ; he 
was changed from glory into glory through the power of the Spirit 
which governed the process. 4 The comparison of the transformation of 

1 6 IKOVOS as a title of God is used to translate the "Shaddai" of the O.T. as if 
it were ^K', " He who is sufficient". For the term cf. the LXX rendering of Shaddai 
in Ruth i. 20, 21 ; Job 21. 15, 31. 2, 40. 2 and Ezek. i. 24 in the A text; it is frequent 
in Aquila and Symmachus, cf. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, s.v. IKOVOS. The 
thought is common in Philo, cf. Leg. Alleg. i. 14 (44, M. i. 52); De Cher. 13 
(46, M. i. 147); De Mut. Norn. 4 (27, M. i. 582) and 5 (46, M. i. 585). A different 
explanation is given in Gen. R. 46. 3 on Gen. 17.1; here it is not God that is sufficient ; 
He says to creation "it is enough". 

3 3- 10. 

3 This appears to be intended by 3. 14; for the veil cf. Str.-B. 4 (i), 137. The veil 
of the sanctuary in the Temple was a favourite theme of the synagogues of the 
Hellenistic world, both on account of its cosmic significance (Jos. Antt. 3.7.7 (183), 
cf. above, p. 33, the symbolism being that of the High Priest's robe), and because 
it concealed the sacred things from the gaze of those who were unconsecrated 
(Philo, De Vit. Mays. 2 (3), 5 (87, M. 2. 148), cf. De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacr.), 
4 (274, M. 2. 253)). This was a motif with an obvious value; since the veil of the ark 
of the Law could obviously be regarded as a counterpart of the veil in the Temple, 
it seems likely that the symbolism was extended to the veil in the synagogue. But 
the symbolism would inevitably be abandoned in view of the opening it offered to 
Christian propaganda. 

4 The Kvpiov irvevfiaros of 3. 18 cannot mean the Spirit of the Lord ; it could only 
mean "the Lord of the Spirit", which is nonsense. If the reading Kvpiov in v. 17 
were correct, the word Kvpws would in both cases be used to mean that the Spirit 
controls or governs the process. In v. 18 the adjectival sense seems the only possible 



the soul, which reflects the glory of God without a veil, into the like- 
ness of that which it reflects, depended on the solution given by 
philosophy to the standing problem of ancient physics of the reflection 
produced in a mirror; one explanation was that it was produced by a 
series of emanations proceeding from the object and establishing the 
resemblances of themselves in the polished surface of the mirror. 1 
The conception was eminently suited to Paul's conception of the 
action of the Spirit on the soul, however doubtful the accuracy of the 
physics on which it rested. It was rendered still more easy and 
suitable by the fact that the' immanence of the divine element in the 
multiplicity of the phenomenal world could be expressed in popular 
philosophy by the analogy of the one face reflected in many mirrors. 2 
The relation of the spirit of man to that divine element could again be 
described, in view of the quite undefined nature of the relation of the 
spirit of man to the Spirit of God, as a reflection; the mind which 
withdrew from the world and contemplated itself was beholding God, 
reflected in itself as in a mirror. 3 Paul could easily adapt this metaphor 
to the Jewish-Christian thought of the Spirit of God, which had some 
kind of affinity with the spirit of man, in virtue of which it was able 

one; cf. Plut. De Ser. Num. Vind. 30, 567 b: ev TIB XoyioTHcw KOI Kvpia; Ps.-Plut. 
De Fat. 6. 57oe: TO 8' etft" fjp.iv, CDS nvpiov, xpricrBat, TG> evde^op.evm', Polybius 31. 7. iz 
and passim; Hermias, Irr. Gent. Phil. 6 (Dox. Or. 652, 1. 26), where mind is ai'no? 
KOI Kvpios T&V o\a>v ; Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 70. z (Casey 625), 'the stars have 
no power of their own, but reveal the action of Kvpioi dwdpets; Papp. Mag. Gr. 2. 78 
TO de Kvpiov, of the decisive words of a spell. In theological literature we might 
expect an avoidance of the adjectival use of the word to avoid confusion ; but in 
Philo, De Mut. Nom. z (13, M. i. 580), the 6'voju.d p.ov Kvpios of Exod. 6. 3 is inter- 
preted as meaning that God did not reveal to the patriarchs His nvpiov ovopa. He 
allows them to address Him as 6 &v, but the nvpiov ovopa is not revealed, for God 
cannot have a name. Philo here ignores the tetragrammaton. So in Papp. Mag. Gr. 
loc. cit., after three magic names, the spell proceeds Kvpie Bee. 

1 Cf. above, p. 71; for the mirror Pladta 4. 14. i seqq. (Dox. Gr. 405). For a 
variation of the theme cf. Epict. Diss. z. 23. 3 where sight is a irvevpa proceeding 
from the eye to the object. 

2 Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 14, 15. 

3 Cf. p. 76, n. 2 ; Philo, De Migr. Abr. 34 (190, M. i. 466), from the same source as 
Cicero, De Div. i. 32. 70, 49. no and 51. 115, presumably Posidonius' defence of 
divination, though Philo uses the analogy between the immaterial nature of mind in 
man and the mind of God for an attack on astrology; but his argument that the 
mind by consorting with itself sees truth as in a mirror depends for its force on the 
view that the mind is a mirror of God, though Philo cannot admit this and in 193 
denies that the mind of God, the Father, can be contained in man, the son ; but he 
has forgotten to cut out the allusion of his source to the mirror. Cf. Plutarch, 
quoted p. 1 2 1 , n. 4, for the relation of the mind of man to a higher mind as that of light 
to reflection or to the reflection of an object in a mirror. For this meaning of 
KaTOTTT/n'feo-tfai cf. Orig. c. Cels. 5. 60. In the Syrian writers who identify the 
element of "spirit" in man with the Holy Ghost the Lord becomes a mirror, Od. 
Sol. 13. i; cf. Ephraim, quoted by Bernard ad loc. in Texts and Studies 8. 3. 76. 
Kittel in T.W.z.N.T. s.v. KaroirrpiCeffdat. quotes Leg. Alleg. 3. 33 (101, M. i. 107) 
for the meaning "sees as in a mirror", but see p. 121, n. 4. 


to transform him into the resemblance of the divine nature or imprint 
the likeness of God upon the soul. 1 

This discussion of the nature of the Christian ministry, which had 
passed into a discussion of the whole Christian life, had brought Paul 
to a point at which he could vindicate himself from the charges of his 
opponents (4. i seqq.}. It was absurd to suppose that one who had such 
a ministry committed to him should be guilty of treachery or of con- 
cealing some part of the truth. 2 He was only concerned to manifest 
the truth; the only element of concealment or "veiling" in the matter 
was to be found among unbelievers, whose hearts had been veiled by 
the god of this aeon 3 so that they could not gaze on the light of the 
Gospel of the glory of Christ, who was the image of God. It was God 
who said "Light shall shine out of darkness " and thereby brought into 
being Jesus, the precosmic light and the Wisdom of God; 4 it was a 
continuation of that first illumination that He should still shine in the 
hearts of His ministers, in order that the light of the glory of God in 
the face of Christ might be made to shine in the hearts of mankind. 
The conception of the teacher as the torch, from which the divine 
flame was passed on to the hearts of others, was a commonplace; it was 
in virtue of this thought that Paul could interpolate into his argument 
the statement that it was not himself that he preached, but Jesus 
Christ; Paul was merely the servant of the Corinthians, whom he 
served for the sake of Jesus, 5 handing on to them the light which he 
had himself received. 

Thus the original light created by God in the beginning had been 
equated not with the Torah, the mere reflection of the light, which had 
been vouchsafed to Moses, but with the true knowledge of God 
revealed in the person of Jesus, who, as the divine Wisdom, was 
Himself that primal light. The relation of Jesus to God was left 
entirely undefined, for Jewish speculation was quite content to 

1 The myth in the Poimandres, Corp. Herm. 1. 14 (Scott 120), expresses the thought 
from the opposite point of view; the nature of man is due to the union of the celestial 
Man with his reflection in matter. Cf. p. 224. 

2 eyKaKovnev in 4. i =behave treacherously (Polybius 4. 19. 10). Presumably the 
charge was that he sought to commend himself by not imposing the observance of 
the Law on Gentile converts, though he really knew that they were bound to observe 

3 Cf. above, p. 93. 

4 Cf. above, pp. 45, 68; Philo, De Somn. i. 13 (75, M. i. 632); De Migr. Abr. 8 
(40, M. i. 442), where wisdom survives as the archetype of light, i.e. Philo is working 
on older material. 

B V. 5 would be clearer if it followed v. 6. The god of this world prevents the light 
from shining in men's hearts, as God intends that it should shine through the agency 
of His servants, who merely pass on the light which they have received. For the 
flame and torch cf. Philo, De Gigant. 6 (25, M. i. 266). 


describe God Himself in terms of light, taken over by the later prophets 
from the religion of Persia. 1 The glory of radiance which was the 
pictorial imagery commonly used for describing the divine nature 
might therefore be applied equally well to God Himself or to Jesus as 
the Wisdom of God. 2 The object of the argument was to prove that 
Jesus, not the Torah, was the true revelation of the divine glory and 
the divine light; 3 the relation of Jesus to the Creator and the creation 
did not need precise definition as long as the whole matter was left on 
the homiletic plane. 

Up to this point Paul had been concerned to prove the superiority 
of the Gospel to the Torah and so of his own ministry, which rejected 
the Torah, to that of his opponents, who sought to retain it, while at 
the same time proving that he was not guilty of "self-commendation" 
in making such a claim. He proceeded from this to his next purpose. 
His opponents, as orthodox Jewish Christians, were presumably 
wedded to the apocalyptic tradition in which the Gospel had been set. 
Experience had shown that it was vital to abandon the eschatological 
emphasis if the substance of the Jewish belief in eternal life, which was 
essential to Christianity, was to be maintained. Yet he was compelled 
to do so without affording his Jewish opponents an opening for 
accusing him of perverting the word of God. His approach to the 
subject was a natural continuation of his argument from the light of 
the Gospel; but it led on to a line of argument which was familiar to 
Hellenistic Judaism, and had probably begun to influence the teaching 
of the Pharisees. 

The light of the knowledge of God was already equated in Paul's 

1 This influence appears to have made itself felt in such passages as Is. 45. 7 or 
the apocalypse of Is. 5:. 4 seqq. Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 95, puts the influence later, 
but it is difficult to see how the influence of Iranian religion in these passages can be 
denied, unless it is denied that there is any such influence anywhere. 

2 For God as light in Philo cf. Quod Deus Imm. 12 (58, M. i. 281); De Praem. et 
Poen. 7 (45, M. 2. 415) and passim. Philo is quite indiscriminate in regard to the 
relation of God or the Logos to the original light. There is equal indifference in 
the Hermetica, e.g. Poimandres, 53 seqq. (Scott 116), where a (fxaretvbs Aoyn? comes 
forth from the light which is Mind (Scott's emendation here is quite unjustified). 
Cf. 3. ib (Scott 146) for light proceeding from God at the beginning; for the 
probability of Jewish influence cf. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks 210 seqq. 

3 For the Shekinah as a blaze of light on O.T. grounds, cf. Judaism i. 435. 
Kittel in T.W.z.N.T. 2. 255 rightly points out that while the idea may have been 
derived from contact with Persia, the source of the N.T. language is simply the 
O.T. Ao'a only appears to be used of the glory of God once in Philo (De Spec. 
Legg. i (De Man.), 6 (45, M. 2. 218)), where the usage is imposed by Exod. 33. 18; 
here the glory of God is equated to His " powers ". Elsewhere it is used of " belief" 
(so in De Virt. (De Fort.) 7 (35, M. 2. 381)) in a good sense (Cohn-Wendland's index 
wrongly notes this passage as meaning "glory"), or the depreciatory sense of 
"opinion" as in the Platonic tradition, or of human reputation. 


argument with Jesus as the cosmic Wisdom. Yet again it was the divine 
afflatus of the Spirit, with its unspecified relation to the highest element 
of the soul of man. It was an easy matter to equate the light of the 
knowledge of God, as revealed in Jesus, or the Spirit, as given to the 
Christian or at least to the fully developed Christian, with that divine 
element which, in accordance with the tradition of popular philosophy, 
was imprisoned in the worthless and burdensome vessel of the material 
body. It was thus (4. 7 seqq.) the light carried in an earthen vfessel, the 
essential nature of man, which might hope in the end to obtain 
deliverance from the vessel in which it was enclosed, 1 the living corpse 
which was its tomb. 2 The soul particularly felt the burden of the corpse 
which it must carry as it approached perfection; 3 the commonplace 
was adapted to the ministry of the Apostle and to the general con- 
ception of the Christian life as a death to the old life and the rising to 
the new in baptism. What the minister of Christ carried with him was 
not simply the corpse of the material body, but a body in which the 
dying of Jesus was continually being re-enacted ; for him the Christian 
life was not simply a death with Jesus and a rising to a new life, but a 
continual dying, as a result of which the new life was continually being 
made available for his hearers. He was animated by that same spirit 
of faith in which Jesus had been ready to fulfil the prophecy of the 
Psalmist, speaking in spite of the opposition of men ; 4 for he kne^V that 
God, who had raised up Jesus, would also raise up both himself and 
his hearers and bring them into His presence, where all would be 
united in offering their praise and thanksgivings to His glory. 5 

Paul thus brought (4. 16 seqq.) the life and labours of the Apostles 

into line with the sufferings of the Saints of the old covenant. Con- 

. i 

1 Cf. Servius on Aen. 6. 724; the mind, like the light in a lantern, is freed from 
stains contracted by association with the body as soon as it departs from the body. 
For the correspondence between the Torah as the lamp of God and the soul as the 
lamp of man cf. Exod. R. 36. 3. The "vessel" here may be suggested by the method 
of carrying a lamp in Judg. 7. 16, a method described as still in use in the East by 
Burney, The Book of Judges, ad loc. The body as the dyyelov of the soul appears in 
Philo, DePost. Cain. 47 (163, M. i. 257) andpassim; cf. Cicero, Tusc. Didp. i. 22. 52: 
vas animi. In the system of Heracleon, as described by Epiphanius, Panar\ Haer. 
36. 3, the initiate describes himself as a a-Kevos evripov on passing through the 
sphere of the demiurge ; but it is only after this that the " inner man " lays aside the 
"bond and the angel (a'-yyeXov (Oehler) : should this be nyyeiov ?), that is the soul". 
The Mandean use of the "vessel" (cf. G.R. 326, Lidzb. 332. 21) may be derived 
from Hellenistic commonplace. For the language of 4. 8 cf. Epict. Diss. i. 25. 28. 

2 Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. i. 33 (108, M. i. 65). 

3 Philo, Leg. Alleg. 3. 23 (74, M. i. 101). 

4 Ps. 116. 10 ( = LXX, Ps. 115. i). The allusion is to the whole Psalm, which is 
traditionally interpreted of the death of the Saints ; cf. Midr. Teh. on the Psalm ; 
Orig. In Ev. Matt. 16. 6; Sel. in Ps. ad loc.; Exh. ad Mart. 28; Tert. adv.i Marc. 
4. 39. 5 Ps. 116. 17 seqq. 


sequently he did not yield to cowardice ; he was content that his "outer 
man" should be destroyed by this gradual martyrdom in which he 
shared the death of Jesus, for the more the outer man was destroyed, 
the more the new "inner man" was formed in him. 1 His present light 
afflictions were transmuting the burden of the earthly body into an 
eternal burden of glory, a phrase suggested by an atrocious Hebrew 
pun which may have been a commonplace of the rabbinical schools in 
discussing the glory of the martyrs. 2 He looked not on the temporal 
world that could be seen with the eyes of the body, but on the eternal 
and invisible. 3 

Up to this point Paul had ostensibly written of the Apostles, as 
sharing in the dying and resurrection of Jesus, not of all converts as 
such. But Judaism regarded the sufferings of the martyr not merely 
as accomplishing his transformation from the mortal to immortality ; 4 
they were also a manifestation of the truth of the Torah to the nation 
as a whole. 5 Further, they were available for the redemption of the 
whole nation. 6 Much more were the sufferings of Jesus, as manifested 
in His Apostles, a means of transforming not only themselves but their 
converts from mortality to immortality. Paul passed over these steps 
in the argument, merely using the term "we know" 7 (5. i seqq.) as a 
means of passing from the position of certain privileged souls to the 
position of all Christians as such. With the single phrase he proceeded 
to develop a substitution of an accepted Hellenistic view of the life to 
come for the eschatology of Jewish Christianity. 

The earthen vessel which contained the treasure of the knowledge of 
God was explicitly equated with the body as the house or tabernacle 8 

1 The "inner man" comes from Plato (Rep. 5893) through the commonplace of 
Hellenistic theology; cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 8 (23, M. i. 196); Quod Omn. 
Prob. Lib. 17 (in, M. 2. 462). With an elaborate mystification it appears in Corp. 
Herm. 13. 3 (Scott 240). 

2 The weight of the body as the burden which it has to bear is a commonplace of 
the contrast between body and soul; cf. Jos. B.J. 7. 8. 7 (346), Wisd. 9. 15; with a 
pseudo-scientific colouring in Corp. Herm. 10; 13 (Scott 196), Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. 7. 290. The "weight of glory" is a pun on "D3 (so Strachan rightly in 
Moffatt's Commentary, ad loc.). 

3 Another commonplace, cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 2 (12, M. i. 3), and again with 
a pseudo-scientific explanation, Corp. Herm. 6. 4b (Scott 168); the eye can only see 
"images", therefore it cannot see God or the good. " Images" here are interpreted 
as phantoms, but properly in this connection mean the " images " projected from the 
object which impinge on the eye and produce sight (Placita 4. 13. i, Dox. Gr. 403). 

4 4 Mace. 9. 22, and see below, p. 142. 

6 4 Mace. 1 6. 1 6. 6 Judaism i. 547 seqq. 

7 Rom. 2. 2, 3. 19; ironically in i Cor. 8. i and 4. 

8 Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. loc. cit. n. i above, where the "true man" (the 
"inner man" of this passage) is the unseen mind, which has to carry about the 
perceptible form as its house; Quod Deus Imm. 32 (150, M. i. 295), the body is the 
house or tomb, or whatever else it may be called, of the soul. For the " tabernacle " 


of the soul, the garment which it was anxious to cast aside, 1 the burden 
from which it longed to be delivered. 2 Paul was too good a Jew and 
too poor a Hellenist to describe the soul as being delivered from the 
clothing of the body so that it might ascend to heaven naked. The Jews 
had an intense dislike of nakedness, which made it seem improper for 
a man even to pray in private until he had clothed himself. 3 Con- 
sequently he adopted the conception that the soul did not simply lay 
aside the body, but put on a new and glorious one, the eternal habita- 
tion prepared for the soul in its true home in heaven. The language 
was drawn from the conventional Jewish picture of the righteous soul 
raised to heaven as a radiant and glorious body. The origin of that 
belief was the Chaldean conception of the divine monarch translated 
to the stars at death, 4 but it had long since been acclimatised in 
Judaism; Paul treated it as entirely equivalent to the .thought of the 
heavenly counterpart of the soul, which awaited it in heaven; the 
conception properly belonged to Zoroastrianism, but had been adopted 
by Judaism in the form of a celestial robe awaiting the righteous; 5 
Paul transformed it into a dwelling in order to make a suitable 
antithesis to the earthly habitation of the body. But the thought of 
the "garment" remained in the somewhat grotesque language in 
which he described the dwelling as something to be "put on" as 
a robe; in imaginative language the glorified state of the righteous 
was more naturally pictured as a "robe" of celestial glory than as a 

cf. 2 Pet. 1. 13 ; Wisd. 9. 15 ; Timaeus Locrus looa. According to Taylor's commen- 
tary on the Timaeus a-K^vos is a Pythagorean term (660, 661). It appears in Corp. 
Herm. 13. 15 (Scott 248). Philo does not use it, presumably because he avoids using 
the word in a bad sense, when it has also to be used of the idealised tabernacle of the 
Pentateuch. For "house" cf. Seneca, Ep. 7. 3 (65). 21. 

1 Corp. Herm. 7. 2 b (Scott 172). Cf. the treatment of Nadab and Abihu in 
Philo (see above, p. 104). The command to bury them in their coats is interpreted 
to mean that they have left the body behind. 

a In Leg. Alleg. 3. 22 (69, M. i. 100) Philo describes Er (meaning skin with an 
obvious reference to the coats of Adam and Eve) as the " burden of skin ", which is 
also a corpse (cf. above, p. 83, for this passage). 

3 Mishnah, Berakhoth 3. 5 (Danby 4). Philo is sufficiently Hellenised to have no 
such objection, e.g. De Virt. (De Human.), 4 (76, M. 2. 388) ; here the body of Moses 
is stripped off him like a shell that has grown about the soul, which is thus left naked. 
The thought of the soul as being stripped naked and set free to ascend to heaven is 
common in Philo. * Cf. p. 30. 

6 For the celestial robes cf. p. 127 and Str.-B. on Mt. 17. 2 and this passage ; Od. 
Sol. 7. 6, n. 9 and 20. 7. For the fravashi or celestial counterpart of the soul see 
Lommel, Die Rel. Zarath. 152 and Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism 254 seqq. The 
celestial original, which is also the counterpart of the soul, appears as a garment in 
the Hymn of the Soul in the Acts of Thomas 108. 9, no. 46 and 112. 76 (Apocr. N.T. 
411). In the last passage the soul beholds itself in the garment "as it had been in 
a mirror". It seems natural to see here a conflation of the thought of the fravashi 
as the "true self" with the Hellenistic view of the mind as a mirror in which man 
sees God, because he sees the divine element in himself (p. 132). 


house ; moreover, the practice of Hellenistic mysteries had accustomed 
the world to the thought of a change of garments as a symbol of the 
change of the spiritual status of the initiate. It was therefore easy and 
natural to describe the inward and spiritual change in terms of the 
outward and visible symbol of the change of garments. The thought 
was at least as naturally at home in Christianity as in any other 
religion, since the practice of adult baptism by immersion involved a 
literal "putting-off " of the garments as a preliminary to the lay ing aside 
of the old evil and material nature, and a subsequent "putting-on" 
of garments, whether the same or new, simultaneously with the 
assumption of the new Christian nature. 1 The practice of wearing 
special robes for religious purposes was common in ancient religions, 
including those of Syria, 2 and formed part of the mysteries of Isis. 3 
The similarity .of the later practice of clothing the Christian neophyte 
in a baptismal robe to that of the mysteries was sufficiently obvious 
to allow later Christian writers to compare Christian baptism to 
initiation into the mysteries, when the latter were no longer serious 
rivals of the Church. 4 Some years before this Epistle Paul had been 
able to assume that the conception of baptism as the "putting-off" of 
the old sin and the "putting-on" of Christ was so familiar in circles 
which were largely influenced by the Jewish tradition that he could 
describe baptism as the "putting-on" of Christ without any further 
explanation. 5 The whole use of metaphors of clothing was so familiar 
in the conventional language of Judaism that it could be adapted 
without any thought of its origin; and the need of "putting-off" the 
robe of the material body and ' ' putting-on ' ' a new one was a common- 
place in Jewish writers. The Christian emphasis on baptism with its 
inevitable "putting-on" and " putting-off" of garments naturally gave 
a fresh reality to the language; later the metaphor was carried over 
into the ritual practice of the Church. 

1 The practice of clothing the neophyte in a special baptismal robe cannot be esta- 
blished as a certainty before the fourth century A.D. (see De Puniet in Diet. d'Arch. 
Chret. i. z. 3118 seqq., where patristic references are given). To the early language 
of baptism as putting on a new robe given there may be added the Odes of Solomon 
quoted above. For pagan usage cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 33, Herodian, Vita Gallieni 8. 

2 Lagrange, J?i. Rel. sent. 148. Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos 61 seqq. 

3 Apuleius, Metam. 1 1 . 24. 804. 

4 Cf. the interesting extract from Athanasius, Vita Antonii 14, quoted in Con- 
version 278. For such assimilation cf. Clem. Recog. 6. 15, where Clement's baptism 
is followed by cumque. . .feriati laeti egissemus; for such a celebration cf. Apuleius, 
Metam. n. 24. 806. 

5 Gal. 3. 27 implies either that Paul's Jewish opponents will see nothing ob- 
jectionable in the language or else that he is so familiar with language of this kind 
that he uses it without realising the possibility of such objections from those who are 
less Hellenistic in their outlook than himself. 


Thus it was an easy matter for Paul to adopt the language of 
"putting-on" a new robe to express the change of the soul at death 
into a state of glory. The change may have been rendered easier by 
the fact that Hellenistic theology had already conflated this idea of the 
robe with that of the soul as an element of the divine fire to which it 
returned at death except in so far as it had achieved immortality. 1 
The strict Stoic view had indeed been so far forgotten that the 
character of the soul as fire could be divorced from the thought of its 
necessary reabsorption in that element at stated periods, and used as 
an argument in favour of its inherent immortality. 2 Judaism was 
ready to adopt any of these conceptions and to conflate them as it 
thought fit; it could not indeed adopt the belief that the soul became a 
star or that it was translated to the sun, but it could use language which 
approximated to such beliefs, and was ultimately derived from 
them. 3 

Thus up to this point Paul had followed a recognisable convention 
of the Hellenistic synagogue in his description of the immortality 
which the soul would enjoy in its future state of radiant glory, and the 
arguments by which he had supported it were a Christian version of 
the traditional arguments of Judaism, with the substitution of Jesus as 
the living Lord, whose life and death were re-enacted in His Apostles, 
for the Saints of the Old Testament. Naturally (5. 5 seqq.) the trans- 
formation of the soul into its state of glory was the work of God ; its 
full accomplishment in the future was guaranteed to the Christian by 
his present possession of a preliminary instalment of the Spirit of God. 
The possession of that instalment was a fact of Christian experience ; 
the Christian was aware of a deliverance which was the work of the 
Spirit, and yet was conscious that his present state was only a partial 
realisation of the full deliverance that awaited him hereafter. But its 

1 Corp. Herm. 10. 18 (Scott 198) ; the soul exchanges its coat of earth for its proper 
coat of fire ; here the conflation of Iranian and Stoic ideas may be later than Paul, but 
shows the ease with which the conflation suggested itself. 

2 Cf. above, p. 125. For a combination of the immortality of the soul with its 
nature as fire cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i. 17. 40. In Philo, De Mut. Nom. 33 (180, 
M. i. 605), Siavoin, in virtue of its inherent nature as fire, can rise to the aether and 
the sphere of the fixed stars and enter the world of ideas. This is during life, but 
these ascents to heaven, are an anticipation of the fate of the soul or mind at death. 
The thought is identical with Cicero, loc. cit. ; both probably go back to Posidonius. 

8 r Cor. 15. 40 may in the last resort go back to that belief; cf. Philo, De Somn. i. 
22 (137, M. i. 641), where the number of souls is equal to that of the stars, a belief 
presumably drawn from Posidonius on the Timaeus (41 d); Plato's language could 
be adapted to astrology, if it was not drawn from it; cf. p. 73, n. 6. In De Vit. 
Mays. 2 (3), 39 (288, M. 2. 179) Moses is changed at death from a duad into a 
monad and becomes vovs ^XioeifieWaros, a phrase which suggests the influence of 
solar religion (cf. p. 31, n. 2). 


relevance to Paul's argument at this point lay in the fact that the 
divine afflatus of Hellenistic belief could itself be regarded as "life" 
and "light " ; consequently the Spirit as given to man could be equated 
with the light of the knowledge of God and with the risen life of 
Jesus, and again the heavenly dwelling of glory prepared for the soul 
could be regarded as the transformation of it into "light and life" 
by the work of the Spirit. 1 Although the ordinary Hellenistic writer 
would more naturally have described the change as the work of ' ' mind ' ' , 
he would not have found the term "spirit" particularly unusual; the 
Jewish Hellenist would have regarded it as natural, in view of the 
conventional equation of the element of "mind" or "spirit" with the 
prophetic spirit of the Old Testament. The innovation lay not in the 
language or thought but in the reality which the conception of the 
Spirit had derived from the burning enthusiasm of the primitive 
Christian community. 

By a further adoption of Hellenistic ideas Paul described the present 
state of the Christian life as one in which the soul was an exile from its 
true home in heaven; it was content to wait until it should be restored. 
It is possible that the language was already little more than a con- 
vention T)f homiletic rhetoric, which had forgotten that the only real 
reason why the soul was an exile in this life was that it, or the highest 
part of it, was of divine origin and, although a celestial being, im- 
prisoned in the material world. 2 

There was indeed one essential difference between the Jewish 
conception, at any rate in its Pauline form, and the Hellenistic. The 

1 Jno. i. 4; Philo, De Mund. Op. 8 (30, M. i. 6); Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 
17 and 21 (Scott 122 and 126), 13. 9 and 18 (Scott 246 and 252). In the last 
passage "life and light" in man praise "life and light", i.e. God. Cf. also Philo, 
Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. i (5, M. 2. 446). The terms are drawn from a common stock 
of Hellenistic religion, which would seem to have drawn " life " from the Semitic 
thought of life as the specific attribute of the dying and rising god, properly the 
vegetation-god (Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun 403 seqq.), and "light" from Zoro- 
astrianism. But Judaism had adopted them long before the close of the O.T. canon. 
In any case the terms are such as would naturally commend themselves to any 
religion which looked for personal salvation through knowledge of or union with 
God, to whom the terms are obviously appropriate. 

2 The thought appears frequently in Philo, normally because the soul or mind of 
the righteous is an exile from its irarpis in heaven. Cf. De Con/. Ling. 17 (77, 
M. i. 416); Q.R.D.H. 55 (274, M. i. 512). Cf. also Q.R.D.H. 16 (82, M. i. 484), 
where niritftrHiia occurs. But it shows signs of becoming a commonplace in him as 
in De Agric. 14 (65, M. i. 310). The original thought has entirely vanished in 
Heb. n. 13 seqq. In Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 21 (Scott, 126) the power of the 
soul to enter into life and light depends on its recognition of its nature as light and 
life, which are also soul and mind, in spite of the fact that " mind " is a divine power 
coming to the righteous (cf. above, p. 75). The writer of Poimandres is as confused as 
Paul, without the excuse that he has to accommodate himself to a revealed 


latter tended to confine immortality in its proper sense to the best and 
noblest of mankind. 1 Judaism had originally reserved immortality for 
the saints and heroes of the nation ; and the tendency of Jewish writers 
of the Dispersion to borrow the language of Greek thinkers leaves it 
obscure whether they believe in the immortality of the soul as such, 
or only in the immortality of some special souls; their choice of lan- 
guage is dictated by the source which they happen to follow. 2 Paul left 
no such uncertainty. He was ready to abandon the apocalyptic tradi- 
tion in favour of the ascent of the soul or spirit of man to the firmament 
which was the abode of God, and its transmutation into a radiant state 
of glory by the work of the Spirit ; he was not prepared to abandon the 
eternal responsibility of man for his deeds. His discussion of the 
destiny of the soul of man ended with the statement that all must 
stand before the judgment seat of Christ (5. 10), a phrase borrowed 
from the traditional picture of the final judgment of mankind. This 
judgment, as in the book of Wisdom, retained a formal position in the 
scheme of things, though it had ceased to possess any real significance 
when the thought of the gradual transformation of the soul from the 
material to the spiritual during life, and the completion of the process 
at death, had been substituted for the final assize at the end of the 
world-process. Paul was at one with Judaism and the first generation 
of Christian writers in being indifferent to consistency in regard to 
matters as uncertain as the details of the life of the world to come. 3 He 
had succeeded in meeting the objection of the Corinthians to the 
Jewish scheme of eschatology by substituting for the final judgment of 
all men the transformation of the soul or spirit of man into a state of 
radiant glory beginning in this life but awaiting its completion in 

1 Cf. pp. 73 seqq. In Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 19 (Scott 124) the soul forfeits 
immortality by refusing knowledge. 

8 Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 2. 302; the language of Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 18 
(117, M. 2. 463); Leg. ad Gaium 16 (117, M. 2. 562) may imply a belief that 
martyrdom secures immortality. The book of Wisdom preserves a general judgment 
in 3. 7, which probably represents the writer's real view; i. 12 seqq., 2. 24, 4. 15 seqq. 
leave it hard to say .whether he believes in anything but the immortality of the 
righteous. Philo treats the soul as immortal in the passages quoted p. 140, n. 2 : in 
De Mund. Op. 46 (135, M. i. 32) man, in virtue of the divine element in him, is 
capable of immortality. In De Mut. Nom. 38 (210, M. i. 610) the prayer of Deut. 
33. 6 that Reuben may live cannot be a prayer for his incorruption and immortality, 
for this is impossible for man. But the allusions to Moses (above, pp. 137, n. 3 
and 139, n. 2) make it clear that he believes in the immortality of some peculiarly 
righteous souls, and probably includes all pious Israelites. He incorporates others 
so freely that it is hard to say more; in De Somn. i. 23 (151, M. i. 643) he retains 
Hades for the wicked and Olympian and heavenly rewards for the righteous, but 
this is a description of their present life. 

3 Cf. the inconsistency of Jno. 5. 28 with the general scheme of the fourth Gospel 
(e.g. 3. 16 seqq.). 


heaven. 1 Henceforward apocalyptic was to be relegated, so far as 
Pauline Christianity was concerned, to an entirely secondary position; 
it was only the Jewish tradition that preserved it as an element of 
Christianity which found its way into the Creeds. 2 

The nature of the passage raises an interesting probability. Paul 
was writing to conciliate Hellenistic Christians who rejected the idea 
of a bodily resurrection at the second coming, and his method was to 
substitute the immortality of the soul, with the second coming left as 
a possibility, suggested though not necessarily implied by his reference 
to the judgment-seat of Christ. Yet he was writing with Jewish 
opponents in view who would be swift to seize on any opening for 
accusing him of unorthodoxy. His argument seems to reflect a 
Jewish justification of the resurrection of the dead or the immortality 
of the soul, beliefs which from the Jewish point of view did not need 
to be distinguished. If the martyr, who in the earthen vessel of his 
body was afflicted for the sake of the Torah, the lamp and treasure of 
Israel, was by his sufferings a testimony to all the nation, to save it no 
less than himself, 3 how could any Israelite refuse to share in the light 
affliction, which brought so great a weight of glory? And if the martyr 
were so transformed, it must follow that the same transformation 
awaited all righteous Israelites, while on the other hand there would be 
a fearful judgment on the sinners of Israel and the Gentiles. Such a 
scheme, whether in the form of homiletic tradition or a written docu- 
ment, seems to be the foundation of Paul's argument from the 
sufferings of the Apostles to the immortality of the soul and his 
abrupt transition from one to the other; the substitution of the risen 
life of Jesus for the Torah as the centre of the scheme is of course his 

1 The beginning of the transformation during the earthly life in 2 Cor. 4. 16 is 
a striking instance of Paul's method of adapting current ideas to his purpose. We 
have (a) the "mind" as the inner man, (b) the thought of true life as being death to 
the present world and life to a better one (going back to Plato and Heraclitus) and 
(c) the thought of the martyr as being "transformed into immortality". In Paul the 
true " inner man " in virtue of his affinity to Jesus gradually " dies " to this world and 
in doing so re-enacts the death of Jesus. Through this process of dying he is renewed 
daily. The association of the labours of the Apostle with the death of Jesus on the 
Cross has given an entirely new life to the commonplaces of philosophy and the 
rather stilted glorification of the martyr. Paul is not likely to have read 4 Maccabees, 
and is probably drawing on traditional material; see next page, n. 2. 

2 The second coming survives in Phil. i. 6 and 10, and 2. 16; cf. 4. 5. But 
Philippians represents the older Pauline point of view. i. 23 represents the later 
development. In Col. 3. 4 we have a formal appearance of Christ with His Saints, 
but the whole emphasis is on the new life, which is of immortal quality and a present 
fact. Phil. 3. 20 combines the two views in a manner which shows how little Paul 
is concerned to be consistent in such matters. 

3 Cf. pp. 135 seqq. Cf. Prov. 6. 23, 8. 19, Mekilta, Tr, Beshallah i. 65 (ed. 
Lauterbach, i. 174). 


own, as is the enthusiasm which distinguishes his writings from the 
stilted pedantry of most Jewish excursions into Hellenistic ideas. 1 It 
may also explain the large number of words and phrases which occur in 
this section and nowhere else in Pauline literature. 2 It seems probable 
that Paul was employing a traditional argument, which would be recog- 
nised as entirely orthodox from the point of view of rabbinical learning, 
in which he had a solid advantage over his Jewish-Christian opponents. 
From his excursion into Hellenistic eschatology Paul returned to 
defend himself (5. u seqq.). He was concerned with the judgment of 
God, but he trusted that he had cleared himself in the judgment of his 
readers. His object was not to commend himself, but to give the 
Corinthians a chance of boasting that in their Apostle they had one 
who was of a higher authority than those who relied on external 
qualifications. He had been described as mad, but he was only mad 
in his enthusiasm for the service of God; in his dealings with the 
Corinthians he had acted with absolute sanity. In all his actions he 
was constrained by the love of Christ. Since He had died for all, all 
had shared in His death; and He had died for all in order that all might 
live not for themselves but for Him who had died and risen for them. 
In consequence of this the ordinary standards of human qualifications 
had ceased to be of importance; even personal acquaintance with the 
Lord in His human life (5. 16) had ceased to be of decisive value. 3 All 
that mattered was to be in Christ, and so to be a new creation in that 
new age, in which the old had come to an end and all things were 
made new. This was a bold statement of the doctrine of the "new 
age" inaugurated by Jesus; the importance of it at this point lay in 

1 Wisd. i-i i . 4 is an honourable exception. 

2 The argument from aira Xe-yd/iei/a is hazardous as a test of authenticity, but 
less so as a test of the possibility of the use of sources. In this section the phrase 
"weight of glory" must be drawn from a Hebrew original, even if the original be 
found in Paul's own Hebrew thought. The words Trpocncaipa, oiKrjrrjpiov, o-Krjvof, 
evdrj^ftv and endr/pelv appear only here in Paul. The same applies to the double 
compound fTrev8v<ra<r6ai, but this cannot be pressed. Of the words which can be 
pressed, the first is only found in 4 Maccabees; a-Kfjvos once in Wisdom; eVSq/nfui 
and eKbrffielv do not appear in the LXX. They thus do not belong to the Greek 
translation of the Hebrew Bible with which Paul would naturally be familiar. Nor 
is it easy to parallel Paul's reference to Ps. 1 16. 10 in 4. 13, where the reference is to 
the whole of the rest of the Psalm, the reader being left to complete the passage for 
himself in accordance with common rabbinical usage. It seems probable that we have 
here a rabbinical exposition of immortality current in Hellenistic circles before the 
time of Paul's mission to the Gentiles. 

3 It is clear from n. 22 and 12. i that Paul could not claim to have "seen the 
Lord ", except in visions. His claim to be an Apostle on the strength of having seen 
the Lord in i Cor. 9. i does not distinguish between "seeing the Lord" in the flesh 
and in visions; it would seem that his opponents had fixed on the language of the 
last passage to discredit his authority. 


the charge of innovation brought against Paul by his opponents, not 
without a considerable measure of justice; Paul defended his innova- 
tions by an appeal to that teaching as to the "new age" which had 
proved attractive to some of the Corinthians. 1 Yet Paul was prepared 
to justify his doctrine by an appeal to approved rabbinical methods, 
If orthodox Jewish teachers held that God could be reconciled to man 
by the sacrifices of the old covenant, it was obviously far truer to hold 
that He had reconciled man to Himself through Christ, and that 
Paul's preaching was the announcement of this reconciliation. That 
reconciliation could be summed up by saying that God was in Christ 
as the divine Wisdom in whom God dwelt, and whom He filled, 
reconciling the world to Himself by a free act of forgiveness, the 
announcement of which He had entrusted to the Apostle. So Paul 
as Christ's ambassador, through whom God appealed to man, called 
on them to accept the offer of reconciliation. It was not the Day of 
Atonement, recently past, 2 which brought the forgiveness that 
amounted to a new creation or the beginning of the new age. 3 The 
scapegoat could not bear away the sins which were transferred to it, 
while it remained innocent itself. 4 The true bearing of sin was to be 
found in Christ, whom God had made to be sin, in order that those 
who accepted reconciliation to God through Him might be raised to 
the righteousness of God through the atonement effected by the death 

1 Cf. above, p. 126. 

2 "The fast" of the Day of Atonement marked the end of the safe season for 
sailing (Acts 27. 9; cf. Ramsay in Hastings' D.B., Art. " Roads and Travel in N.T.", 
extra vol. p. 376). Paul left Troas when he failed to find Titus there, and travelled 
overland to meet him (2 Cor. 2. 13). This means that Titus was too late to reach 
Troas by sea, and would necessarily travel overland, and that Paul on the other hand 
could not risk sailing to Athens to meet him. Paul must have left Troas, in spite of 
the "open door", when he realised that Titus had missed the last boat and would 
have to come through Macedonia. Presumably this letter was written soon after. 

3 Judaism i. 533; cf. Str.-B. on Jno. 3. 3; for forgiveness as a "new creation" 
cf. also on z Cor. 5.17. The Day of Atonement (Tishri 10) fell soon after the New 
Year for the starting of the Jubilees and for the judgment of mankind (Mishnah, 
Rosh-ha-Shanah i. i, Danby 188). It seems that there is some evidence that the 
New Year had at one time begun with the Day of Atonement, not with Tishri i 
(Driver and White in Hastings' D.B., Art. "Atonement, Day of", i. 199). It was 
held by some that Tishri 10 was the day of Creation (Judaism 2. 64; cf. the quotation 
from the Liturgy to that effect). Philo has little to say of the Day of Atonement and 
makes creation begin with the vernal equinox and the Passover (cf. above, p. 30). 
Paul, having been educated at Jerusalem, would attach more importance to the Day 
of Atonement than Philo, since the solemnities of the day were primarily concerned 
with the Temple. Naturally Christianity was more concerned to read its teaching 
into the cult of Judaism during this period when the breach between the two was not 
complete. For the call of Abraham as a "new creation" cf. Gen. R. 39. n. 

4 Judaism i. 464 and 498; cf. Heb. 9. 7 and Orig. In Ev.Jo. 28. 14, where this 
passage is explained as meaning that Jesus became the irtpiKadapfiu. of the world, 
though Origen does not notice the scapegoat typology. 


of Jesus. As the herald of such a message Paul was content to bear 
anything that might befall him. The misrepresentations of his oppo- 
nents were merely one of the incidental sufferings that must be 
expected by those who were privileged to be the ambassadors of Jesus. 
The remainder of the Epistle was devoted to Paul's personal rela- 
tions to his converts and to the preparations for the collection for the 
Saints. He had asserted his claim to interpret the Gospel as a new 
revelation from God to man, which could not be confined to the 
beliefs and outlook of the primitive communities of Palestine. Paul 
himself was far too good a Jew and too thoroughly trained in the 
highest ethics of Judaism to realise the perils that might arise from his 
repudiation of a knowledge of Christ after the flesh as a decisive factor 
in the teaching of the Gospel. 





IN the Roman and Corinthian Epistles Paul had been perfectly 
content with expositions of doctrine of a homiletic type. Judaism 
had never felt the need ( of drawing up a dogmatic statement of its 
beliefs, which were sufficiently safeguarded by the Torah and the 
cultus and liturgy of Judaism. Anything that glorified the one true 
God and expressed the supreme authority of His one revelation of 
Himself was to be welcomed. Hellenistic Judaism had been entirely 
ready to adopt any philosophical speculation that might serve this end ; 
Paul had been quite ready to follow the general practice. 

But orthodox Judaism could only maintain its orthodoxy by an 
observance of the Torah which constituted a barrier against close 
social intercourse with the surrounding world. There was always a 
temptation to abandon its literal sense in favour of a "spiritual" 
observance which would impose no restraint on social conduct and 
would deliver the pious Jew from the necessity of believing the more 
improbable stories of the Old Testament. 1 The wealthy and influential 
Jew was tempted to accept so much of the external practice of the 
cultus of the Emperor as might b$ regarded as no more than an 
external expression of loyalty, to whicih no serious religious importance 
could be attached. In Phrygia such lapses from strict orthodoxy are 
known from the inscriptions ; the Jews of these regions were largely 
descended from colonist^ established in the cities of Asia early in the 
Seleucid era before the reforms of Ezra had taken full effect. 2 In this 
region the wife of a ruler of the synagogue appears as a High Priestess 
of the imperial cult and as a-yiovoOens, an office scarcely compatible 
with a strictly Jewish altitude to idolatry; it is possible that other 
members of this Jewish family he|ld equally ambiguous positions. 3 
The Talmud records the fact that the luxuries of Phrygia separated the 
Jews of that region from their brethren, 4 a statement which suggests 
rather a worldly wisdom, avoiding too much stiffness in refusing to 

1 Cf. above, p. 62. 

2 For the Seleucid colonies in Asia cf. Schiirer, G.J.V. 3.12 segq. 

3 Julia Severa, wife of G. Tyrrhonius Cladus ; see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 
of Phrygia, Inscrr.' 550, 559 and pp. 674 seqq. Some of Ramsay's identifications are 
distinctly temerarious. For CSentile gamesias idolatrous cf. Mishnah, Abodah Zarah 
i. 7 (Danby 438), and i Mace. i. 14. 

* Neubauer, G&ogr. du Talmud 315. ; 


share the public life of the Gentiles, than a serious adoption of heathen 
religion. Elsewhere we find a considerable resemblance between 
Jewish and Gentile practice in regard to the manumission of slaves, 
a fictitious gift to the synagogue taking the place of a gift to the 
Temple ; in one case we have a suspicious mixture of language, but it is 
uncertain whether we have Jewish adoption of a heathen cult or a 
heathen approximation to Jewish language, which may be due to 
chance or to the influence of the language of the Greek Bible on 
loosely attached adherents of the synagogue. 1 Yet again we find 
pictorial representations on Jewish monuments, which show that 
Judaism of the first century A.D. was not entirely dominated by the 
rabbinical tradition; but the full ascendancy of that tradition was not 
established until after the end of that century, and the Mishnah is 
silent as to the extent to which pictorial representations are permissible ; 
in no case do the pictures appear to show more than a willingness to 
adopt conventional motifs from pagan art; we do not find the God of 
Israel represented in a pictorial form, nor does He appear to be in any 
way identified or amalgamated with any of the deities of the Hellenistic 
pantheon. 2 

On the other hand there was, as has been noticed, a tendency to 

1 The evidence here is derived from the inscriptions of the Bosporus (texts in 
The Beginnings of Christianity 5. 90 seqq.). Two allude to the synagogue of the Jews 
but show no trace of syncretism. The third begins with a dedication to 6le<3 vfyicrra 
TTcivTOKparopi. and ends with a reference to Zeus, Earth and Sun; the fourth opens in 
the same way but has no mention of heathen deities : the end of the text however is 
missing; the fifth and sixth reveal a body of eio-rroiTjrot d8eX0oi who reverence 
the most High God, with no heathen features. Thus only the third reveals any 
syncretism; and this only if Beta u^iartf TravTOKpdropi is necessarily Jewish. There is 
ample evidence that the title of u^ioros is not necessarily Jewish (Roberts, Skeat 
and Nock, "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos", Harvard Theol. Rev. 29. i. 39 seqq. 
(Jan. 1936)). TravTOKparwp appears to be uncommon in texts which are not under 
Jewish influence, while evXoyqros "has no chance of being Greek" (ib. 65). It 
must, however, be noted that we have an inscription of Palmyra about A.D. 150 
containing the words SOS? "pni!?, which is not Jewish (Rep. d'Epigr. Sent. 4. 2143, 
and cf. Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 216). Judaism was not the only Semitic religion which 
was affecting the Hellenistic world. A further influence was that of magic, with its 
fondness for phrases from the LXX, as in Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 967 (iravroKpiiTcap), 
998 (eiiXoyrjTos). Jewish language need not imply the presence of Jewish religion. 
It is indeed possible that here we have an isolated community of a syncretistic type ; 
but it must be noted that we have only one clear case of syncretism, and this only if 
the assumption that TravTOKparaip and evXoyrjros are Jewish is correct. Professor 
Nock in a private letter suggests that in any case the form of manumission need 
mean no more than D.M. in Jewish epitaphs. 

2 Cook, Rel. Anc. Pal. 210 seqq.; Mishnah, Abodah Zarah 4. 5 (Danby 442); cf. 
Elmslie's note ad loc. (Texts and Studies 8. 2), and the excursus, p. 74. The opposi- 
tion at Jerusalem described by Josephus appears to represent a determination to 
suspect idolatry in an unpopular ruler rather than an entire abhorrence of sculptured 
figures as such (Antt. 17. 6. 2 (151); B.J. i. 33. 2 (650) for Herod's eagle, where the 
fact that it was on the Temple may have been the real gravamen; Antt. 18. 3. i (55); 
B.J. 2. 9. 2 (169) for the Roman standards). 



adapt Judaism to the speculations by means of which popular theology 
sought to accommodate a theoretical monotheism with the con- 
ventional pantheon of Hellenistic religion. The one God in the 
firmament remained the supreme source and centre of divinity, but 
His reason was diffused through the various elements of the cosmos; 
in particular it was manifested in the movements of the celestial 
bodies. It was easy for Judaism to adapt itself to this outlook by seeing 
in the divine Wisdom, or in the "powers" of God, the activity of the 
one God in the realm of matter. The procedure avoided the awkward 
anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament, and brought Judaism into 
line with popular thought. 1 These activities might again be ascribed 
to the angels, who could again be identified with the heavenly bodies 
or alternatively represented as a hierarchy of good, opposed to the 
planets as a hierarchy of evil; the result was something dangerously 
near to the popular theology of the age, and the tendency to syncretism 
in this direction has left its traces on the artistic monuments, in which 
Judaism makes use of types closely resembling those of the pagan 
world. 2 

In another direction already noticed Judaism was in contact with 
Gentile religion. The claim that the God of Israel was above all gods 
was one which no practitioner of magic could afford to ignore ; it was 
possible that the claim might be true. Jewish Gnosticism, of the kind 
outlined above, would seem to have declined into magic, though it is 
difficult to be certain of the extent to which it had declined in this way 
at the period of the Pauline missions. But the boundary between 
religion and magic is never easy to fix; in particular astrology stood in 
an ambiguous position on the borders of religion, magic and science. 
Paul himself had been in contact with the Ephesian practitioners of 
the art, who were presumably drawn from the synagogue, but had left 
it in favour of Christianity as a more potent system of magic, whose 
efficacy was vindicated by its results. 3 

1 Cf. pp. 44 seqq. 

2 Cf. the Jewish coffin with pictures of the infant Bacchus and the four seasons 
(i.e. the deified aeon), found at Shiloh and dating from the Antonine age, described 
by Reitzenstein, Hell. Myst. Rel. 147, cf. plates I and II. 

3 Acts 19. 11-20, where St Luke's source seems to have associated Paul's re- 
markable cures with the interest of the magical world. It is unfortunate that he is 
here following a secondary and inferior source and that the text of 14 is in consider- 
able confusion. For the whole passage cf. notes in The Beginnings of Christianity 
4. 239 seqq., especially Burkitt's explanation of Sceva as a "rascally Levantine" who 
knew that "the High Priest of the Jews alone knew the name of God". Even the 
50,000 drachmae, however exaggerated, are in some touch with reality (as are the 
figures of 2. 41 and 4. 4 as compared with the fantastic figures usually given by 
Josephus). Cf. p. 43. 


The synagogues of Phrygia, 1 with a tendency to laxity in other 
directions, would be particularly disposed to come into contact with 
the types of speculation which were coming into vogue in the Hellenistic 
world and were beginning to have a certain influence on orthodox 
Judaism. Where Judaism was already unorthodox it would naturally 
be disposed to admit such speculations to a degree which the stricter 
synagogues would at once reject. We have no account of the mission 
of Epaphras to Colossae ; but it appears that after the lapse of some 
years from Paul's mission to Ephesus, apparently after his arrival in 
Rome, 2 Colossae was the scene of an attempt to fit the Gospel into the 
fashionable scheme of Hellenistic religion, as interpreted by circles 
which had a definitely Jewish character. 

From the point of view of the exponents of this scheme Paul was 
perfectly right in proclaiming Jesus as a being of the cosmic order who 
had brought to mankind "the remission of sins". The desire for 
liberation from sin and initiation into the mysteries of the divine 
nature as the means of obtaining it were conceptions which would 
appear natural and normal in such circles. 3 Baptism was obviously a 
suitable form of lustration for the laying aside of the sins of the past. 4 
But the convert must not be content to stop short at conversion ; there 
were higher mysteries to attain and higher realms to conquer. 
Baptism was merely a first step ; from it he must go forward "increas- 
ing and bearing fruit". 5 Full redemption could not be a mere forgive- 

1 Phrygia was a peculiarly favourable soil for enthusiastic religions (Rel. Or. 47 ; 
Rohde, Psyche 257), but there is no evidence that the Church at Colossae was 
particularly addicted to such outbursts. The speculations which Paul condemns 
are common property of the age. 

2 Col. 4. 10 implies a reconciliation with Mark, which can hardly have taken place 
except at Rome. Cf. below, p. 178. 

3 Cf. Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 27 seqq., 7. i seqq.; see Conversion ijgseqq. 

4 Cf. Rel. Or. 35, and for "cleansing" in Philo see above, p. 30. The con- 
ception of such a cleansing as a "new birth" or regeneration appears in Judaism 
(cf. Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, Art. " Birth, The New"), but there is no evidence 
that it was current in the N.T. period; Jno. 3. 3 suggests that it made its way from 
Hellenistic religion into Christianity before it gained a similar acceptance in 
Judaism to meet the same need of accommodation to popular views. 

5 The phrase Kap'irotpopelv (-ela-dai) KOI avt-dvea-dai appears in Col. i. 6 and 10 
and nowhere else in Paul. In i. 6 it is brought in very awkwardly (note the repeated 
Katfcos), apparently to show that the true "bearing of fruit" is to be seen in the 
extensive increase of the Gospel in the world as well as its intensive increase within 
the individual character. But the phrase is a regular Gnostic catchword; advance in 
knowledge appears as a "bearing of fruit" in Ir. Haer. i. i. 3, 4. 4, 18. i, 21. 5; cf. 
13. 7 for a parody of Gnostic usage by Irenaeus. The phrase may be derived from the 
parable of the sower (Mk. 4. 8 and parallels). But it does not follow that the phrase 
was so derived from Paul; it would seem that his opponents either invented the 
phrase or borrowed it from the parable, and used it for their purpose. It is interesting 
that Luke modifies the parable by making all the seed on good ground bear a hundred- 
fold, not "some thirty, some sixty and some a hundredfold", and omits 


ness which left man free from sin, but otherwise where he was before; 1 
it must be a gradual attainment to perfection which was only possible 
for those who had achieved the full knowledge of God. 

This knowledge, however, was not as in the tradition of classical 
philosophy a knowledge of the nature of God, the divine origin of the 
soul, the true nature and end of man and the distinction of virtue and 
vice. It dealt with the method by which the nature of the one invisible 
God had expanded itself by "increasing and bearing fruit" in the 
creation of a spiritual realm of being, some part of which had been 
subordinated by the sin of man to the planets who ruled the material 
world. A man must understand these mysteries and the hierarchy of 
powers which ruled the destinies of the world, and the means by which 
he must liberate himself from their authority, if he was to achieve full 
redemption and ascend to his true home in the firmament of heaven. 
The orders of angels and archangels, with which Judaism was familiar, 
were pressed into service in order to provide assistants for the 
deliverance of man; the rebel angels were identified with the celestial 
rulers of the conventional scheme of astrology in accordance with the 
current Jewish view. 2 But instead of being confined to their orthodox 
role of obedient ministers of God or rebels doomed to eternal punish- 
ment in a cosmos divided according to the simple Pauline antithesis 
of the realm of light, where Jesus was King, and the realm of darkness 
opposed to Him, 3 they became the more or less independent rulers of 

(8. 8 and 15); note that they bear fruit "in patience", cf. Col.i.n. The parable is used 
in a Gnostic sense by the Naassenes, Hipp. El. 5. 8 (114). Luke has also modified 
the parable of the five, three and one talents into one of ten pounds. (For the 
identity of the parable of the pounds in Lk. 19. 12 seqq. with the talents of Mt. 25. 
14 seqq. cf. Creed, The Gospel according to St Luke, ad loc.) He thus avoids coun- 
tenancing the three types of mankind of Gnosticism in both parables. 

1 Col. i. 14. From i. 9 and 10 it seems that eiriyvaxris was the catchword of 
Paul's opponents as against Gnosis; the term appears to be drawn from popular 
philosophy, cf. Voc. Gr. N.T. s.v. For the conception of redemption implied cf. 
below, p. 158. 

2 For " thrones, lordships, rules and dominations " as titles of Jewish angels cf . 
Str.-B. on Eph. i. 21; for angelic rulers of the nations cf. p. 100. It is of course 
possible that the words are due to Paul himself (cf. " rules " in an astrological setting 
in Rom. 8. 38). In Philo the planets appear as "rulers", e.g. De Spec. Legg. i 
(De Man.), i (13, M. 2. 213). For similar terms in an astrological sense in post- 
Christian Gnosticism cf. Behm in T.W.z.N.T. 2. 569. Here, however, we are 
dealing with language coloured by the N.T. 

3 The antithesis of Col. i. 12-14 suggests Iranian influences, but the contrast 
goes back to the O.T. (cf. above, p. 134). It is a commonplace in Philo, e.g. De 
Mund. Op. 9 (33, M. i. 7), where the retreat of the rival darkness before the newly 
created vnrjTov <j>S>s is striking, and may be due to contact with Zoroastrianism. In 
the tract De Spec. Legg. 4 (De Just.), 4 (166, M. 2. 363), 7 (187, M. 2. 367) and 
1 4 (23 1 , M. 2. 373) we have a standing equation of light with the virtue of equality as 
manifested in the cosmos and of darkness with inequality; thus light represents 
order, darkness chaos; in the last passage we have an allusion to a "source of 


the higher regions of the heavens. Jesus was apparently a messenger 
sent from God, with a considerable measure of authority; it would be 
natural in this type of theology to suppose that He could deliver men 
from the sphere of the lower air and Satan and raise them to the moon 
where eternity begins; 1 but beyond that there were realms which 
could only be passed by those who had access to knowledge which He 
had not revealed, and powers which mere initiation into Him in the 
Church could not convey. He might well be the Messiah of Judaism, 
and possibly the "spirit" of God which had been manifested in Adam 
and had appeared to the patriarchs. 2 Paul's own distinction between 
"psychic" and "spiritual" Christians recognised the actual inequality 
of spiritual attainments among Christians, which was too patent to be 
ignored, while his theology, presupposing as it did a sudden con- 
version, which carried with it righteousness, provided no real expla- 
nation of the possibility of spiritual progress or the means of making 
it. His opponents in maintaining that there were higher stages to be 
achieved could trade on a real weakness in Pauline theology. It 
appears from Paul's reply that his opponents did not regard Jesus as 
a mere prophet of the human order, 3 nor do they seem to have claimed 
to be His equals after the manner of several of the earlier heresiarchs. 4 
On the other hand they do not appear to have allowed to Jesus that 
prominence in the scheme of redemption by which the Gnostics from 
the time of Cerinthus and Satornilus endeavoured to preserve, at 
least in theory, the position held by Jesus in the teaching of the 
Church. 5 It seems that they allowed Him an important position in the 

darkness " as opposed to the VOTJTOS f)\ios. Possibly here we have Iranian influences ; 
but they may have come through the Jewish devil. They have been attached to a 
panegyric on equality from a "Pythagorean" source (cf. p. 39). In De Somn. i. 13 
(75, M. i. 632) God Himself is light or rather older than light and superior to it, as 
its source. This may reflect Iranian influences. (Dodd, The First Epistle of John and 
the Fourth Gospel, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 21. i. 23 (April 1937), derives 
it from current Hellenistic thought as an amalgam of Platonism and Zoroastrianism. 
But it must be remembered that light as a symbol of all goodness is natural and would 
never have excited suspicion in Philo if it had not been for the use made of the 
conception by Valentinus and Mani.) 

1 So Heracleon ap. Orig. In Ev. Jo. 2. 8 limits His creation to the material, 
a For this Ebionite view cf. Epiph. Panar. 30. 3. The Peratae (Hipp. El. 5.16. 
131), whose O.T. symbolism suggests a system of some antiquity, place both the 
God of salvation and the gods of destruction outside the realm of becoming; the 
system implied in Colossians might have regarded Jesus as delivering from the 
material, but leaving other gods of destruction to be faced. 

3 The Ebionites in Ir. Haer. i. 26. 2 make Him a mere man; cf. Epiph. Panar. 
30. 14 and 18. 

4 Simon Magus (Ir. Haer. i. 23. i) and Menander (ib, 5) did so, as did Dositheus 
according to Origen, who however appears to confuse Dositheus and Simon (see 
c. Cels. i. 57 and 6. n). 

6 Ir. Haer. i. 24. 2, 26. i. 


scheme of redemption, but held that there were higher stages to be 
attained in the knowledge of the one true God. 

Nor were Paul's opponents without an impressive argument. 
Obviously Jesus had in fact been unable to deliver Himself from the 
power of the planets to determine His fate, and He was equally unable 
to deliver His messengers. Paul's persecutions were proof that he had 
no power to overcome the hostility of the lords of the heavenly spheres ; 
it would seem that both he and Jesus only offered a partial and 
preliminary salvation, which must be completed by a knowledge of 
those higher forms which a more fully developed system was in a 
position to offer. Those who knew only the forms of deliverance 
revealed by Jesus and taught by Paul would continue to be liable to the 
persecutions which they had suffered. 1 

The methods by which this salvation was to be attained were part 
of the common stock of the religion of the time. There were mysteries, 
in which secret wisdom was revealed, and philosophy to expound the 
esoteric meaning of external rites. 2 Through these the adept learnt to 
control the." elements" which rule the world and attain to the utmost 
"fullness" of which he was capable; baptism was a beginning, but 
other measures of " fulfilment" or completion were needed. 3 Possibly 
it was urged that baptism was no better than circumcision; both 
availed for a preliminary putting off of the body and the planets which 

1 The Crucifixion was more easily explained on these lines than on those of 
i Cor. 2. 8 and Col. 2. 14, even when the conception was reinforced by the thought 
of a reconciliation through blood, drawn from Jewish sacrificial ideas (Col. i. 20, 
cf. above, p. 144). The language of Colossians is not primarily an assertion of the 
reality of the death of Jesus on the Cross, but an attempt to explain why a being of 
so high an order as Jesus could and must suffer death. The normal Hellenistic view 
was docetic: He did not really suffer (Ir. Haer. i. 24. 4 (Basilides), 26. i (Cerinthus); 
cf. Acts of John 98 (Apocr. N.T. 254); Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. i. 2 (ed. Casey 5 
and see Casey's note ad loc.) and 62. 2 (Casey 584)). (In this passage the prophecy 
"a bone of him shall not be broken" (Exod. 13. 46) as applied to the soul of Jesus 
implies that the writer knows enough Hebrew to regard D 1y as meaning either ' ' bone ' ' 
or "self". It is interesting to find this knowledge of Hebrew in the Gnostic tradi- 
tion.) Col. i. 24 carries on the thought. Paul's sufferings have been treated, like 
those of Jesus, as a proof of his inferiority. Normally divine protection should 
deliver the adept from persecution; cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 197 seqq., 4. 2163 seqq., 
13. 289 (the "Eighth Book of Moses"; the prayer is addressed to Christ, as creator 
of necessity, for deliverance from prison). For Gnostic views cf. Ir. Haer. i. 13. 6 
(Marcus), 24. 6 (Basilides; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. 12. 81 (599 P) for his view that 
a Christian could only suffer persecution for past sins), 25. z (Carpocrates). 23. 3 
and 5 may imply that Simon and Menander held similar views. Cf. the escape of 
Apollonius of Tyana from Domitian (Vit. 8. 8 seqq. ; cf. 8. 3 for the prohibition of 
" books " and amulets in trials before the Emperor), and the heathen question 
"Where is their God?" in the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons 60 
(Eus. H.E. 5. i (2 10)). Porphyry ap. Bus. Pr. Ev. 3. 4. 3 describes popular religion as 
a search for deliverers from fate; cf. Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. r. 66. 

3 Col. 2. 3 and 8, and see below, p. 170. 3 Col. 2. 10. 


ruled it, but neither could do more. 1 A system based on or similar to 
the practice of Judaism was advocated as the preliminary means of 
delivering man from the power of the planets ; 2 in particular fasts were 
advocated as a means of preparation for initiations, which were to be 
accompanied by visible revelations of the higher orders of cosmic 
powers which completed the work of redemption begun by Jesus. It 
is probably safe to assume that abstinence from sexual intercourse was 
also required; Paul does not allude to it specifically, but such abstinence 
was a normal preparation in the Gentile world for initiations, revela- 
tions and the successful performance of magical rites; since it was also, 
a normal accompaniment of Jewish fasts, it would naturally suggest 
itself to the exponents of such a system. 3 Fasting was represented not 
simply as a means for subduing the power of the flesh over the 
spirit, 4 a view which Paul was prepared to recognise as possessing at 

any rate a measure of justification. It was intended as a preparation for 


1 The reference to circumcision, Col. z. n, appears to be forced on Paul, yet he 
is not concerned to argue that it is not "necessary to salvation". It is possible that 
his opponents had already abandoned it, and retained only the proselyte's bath. For 
circumcision as the cleansing of the soul in traditional Jewish exegesis cf. Philo, De 
Somn. z. 4 (25, M. i. 662) one of Philo's rare allusions to the subject. 

2 Col. 2. 16 and 20 seqq. Jewish practice naturally had many parallels in Gentile 
religion; cf. those recorded by Alexander Polyhistor ap. Diog. Laert. 8. 33, which 
may show Orphic influence ; if Orphic sects were influential at the period, they may 
have affected Paul's opponents. For Orphic practice cf. Orpheus 196. For the 
resemblance of Pythagoras and Moses cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. 18. 92 (477 P). For 
fasts of idolaters and Magi who serve demons cf. ib. 3. 6. 48 (533 P). For Gnostic 
practice cf. Ir. Haer. i. 24. 2; see also Corp. Herm. Ascl. 3. 41 b (Scott 376); 
Porphyry ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 5. 10. i. If the reading 6e\cov eV raTretvo^poo-uj/?/ in Col. 
2. 1 8 and the translation "take pleasure in condemning you in respect of fasting" 
be correct (so Dibelius in H.H.z.N.T. ad loc.), we have a reference to fasting in 
preparation for visions'./ For this sense of the word cf. Hermas, Vis. 3. 10. 6; Sim. 
5. 3. 7. The word is a literal translation of the Hebrew Ta'anith; Paul normally 
prefers vrjareia (2 Cor. 6. 5 and n. 27). It is likely that Paul borrowed the word 
from the vocabulary of his opponents, who would naturally emphasise the spiritual 
significance of the practice. Cf. Philo, De Post. Cain. 13 (48, M. i. 234), with 
reference to the account of the Day of Atonement in Lev. 23. 27, where the fast is 
a "humbling of your souls" (cf. Is. 58. 3). For Jewish fasting in preparation for 
visions cf. Dan. 10. 3; 2 Bar. 5. 7; 4 Esdr. 5. 13. For Hellenistic usage cf. Plut. 
De Gen. Socr. 20, 388 d; Philostr. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 2. 37; Conversion 108 and 
Reitzenstein, Hell. Myst. Rel. 131 ; Apul. Metam. u. 23. 803. According to Orig. 
c. Cels. 3. 36 inquirers in Egyptian temples were liable to be examined on their 
observance of the prescribed rules of abstinence, etc. 

3 For continence as a preparation for initiation cf. Conversion 72 (Dionysus), 
Plut. De Is. et Os. 2. 351 f, and the magical papyri, passim; in 13. 5 (the Eighth 
Book of Moses) a period of forty-one days is demanded. For an ethical interpreta- 
tion of the requirement in Roman religion, cf. Cicero, De Legg. 2. 10. 24; for Jewish 
fasts as involving continence, Mishnah, Ta'anith i. 6, Yoma 8. i (Danby 195 and 

4 De Spec. Legg. 4 (De Cone.), 4 (101, M. 2. 352); Nock, " Vision of Mandulis- 
Aion", Harvard Theol. Rev. 27. i. 63 and 73; Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 73, i 
(Casey 640) ascribes the power of the adversaries to the body, as is inevitable in 


the visions which were part of the system; fasting as a preparation for 
visions could claim venerable Jewish authority and was a prominent 
feature in the literature of apocalyptic Judaism, no less than in the 
general tradition of Hellenistic religion. In such visions the neophyte 
was privileged to behold the angels who were to conduct him through 
the spheres of the rulers, and was initiated into full union with God or 
assured of such union in the life to come. 1 There is no evidence to show 
whether the "angels" were regarded as angels in the conventional 
Jewish sense or as the "powers" or names of God in which His 
activity in the cosmos was manifested ; either system would formally 
preserve its continuity with Jewish monotheism. 2 

An account of this teaching reached Paul from his friends at 
Colossae, and this report, whether written or oral, underlies Paul's 
letter in reply, and explains its apparent lack of order. We may 
reconstruct it thus: "They tell us that we must learn to grow in 
'wisdom and knowledge', thus 'increasing and bearing fruit'. Only 
so shall we gain the power and strength we need to attain to our full 
portion in the light. In Jesus we have forgiveness, but not full 
redemption, which is reserved for those who know how to triumph 
over the rulers of the higher spheres of the cosmos ; Jesus was inferior 
to them, as is shown by the fact that they were able to cause Him to be 
crucified and are able to persecute Paul now. To attain to ' the fullness 
of wisdom' we must know the 'hidden mysteries' revealed by 
'philosophy', which bring us to that 'completion' to which baptism 
is a preliminary stage, as circumcision was under the old covenant (and 
perhaps still is). It confers the first measure of the new life; but we 
must attain to its fullness by a complete putting off of the material. 
This can only be achieved by the observance of those sacred seasons 

. * The insistence on the fact that Jesus is the head and on the Christian's present 
union with Him is a reply to those who offer other means of ascending to heaven. 
For such ascents cf. p. 101 . Here we seem to have an ascent in the form of a mystery 
which is a guarantee of immortality, as in the "Mithras-Liturgy" ofPapp. Mag. Gr. 
4. 485 seqq. In the Isis-mysteries (Apul. Metam. u. 23. 804) this is replaced by a 
descent through the underworld. The angels are not the hostile rulers of the planets 
as in Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 557 (here they are "gods"); nor does Paul object that they 
are being worshipped. They seem to be the "angels of the right" who protect the 
soul in its ascent against the hostile "powers of the left". Cf. Clem. Alex. Exc. ex 
Theod. 73. i (Casey 640); Acts of John 114 (Apocr. N.T. 269); Orig. c. Cels. 6. 27 
(angels of light opposed to archontic angels) and the homily of Macarius of Egypt, 
quoted by James in The Testament of Abraham (Texts and Studies 2. z. 19). 

2 Cf. pp. 46 seqq. In Philo we have the Logos subdivided into seven forms; 
in Orig. c. Cels. 6. 31 seven planetary spheres each described by one of the names 
of God. In the magical papyri the names of God and the archangels are used in- 
discriminately (Papp. Mag. Gr. 3. 146 seqq., 210 seqq. and passim). In the Ophite 
system of Origen the rulers, though described by the names of God, are hostile; 
this represents the later Gnostic tradition. 


and those ritual abstinences from food and material pleasures which 
will enable us to be initiated successfully into the higher orders of 
truth, where angels will reveal to us the secrets by which we can pass 
safely from the material world to the heights of heaven. When we have 
done this, we shall be fully equipped with the fivefold spiritual equip- 
ment, which must replace the five senses through which we live in the 
material world." 1 

The whole system is a relatively simple type of Gnosis of the earlier 
type before Valentinus had introduced the complication which was 
bound to result from the attempt at a complete duplication of things 
celestial and things terrestrial. The heavenly and Christian ogdoad, 
i.e. the Christian Trinity, expanded into a counterpart of the Stoic 
division of the soul into eight parts, and set above the real planets, 
identified with the Jewish hebdomad, the celestial fall of Sophia- 
Achamoth and the transformation of the orthodox symbolism of the 
Cross, as the boundary between good and evil or heaven and earth, 
into a celestial barrier preserving the pleroma of heaven from contact 
with the material world, appear to be Valentinus' contribution to 
Gnosticism. 2 His scheme duplicates the commonplaces of Hellenistic 

1 Reitzenstein (Hell. Myst. Rel. 265 and Erl.-Myst. 161, n. 2) derives the scheme 
of pentads, which are also units in Col. 3. 5, 8 and 12, from Iranian and Indian 
religion; so Prajapati is made up of five mortal and five immortal parts. The grouping 
into pentads figures largely in Manicheanism ; cf. Acts of Thomas 27 (Apocr. N.T. 
376 and Burkitt's note ad loc.); Burkitt, Religion of the Manichees 19, 24 and 107, 
and Polotsky in P.R.E. Supp. 6. 249, who finds in Mani borrowings from Paul (ib. 
251). It seems probable that Paul himself is borrowing from his opponents' language, 
since the scheme of pentads does not appear elsewhere in his writings. But the 
convention of groups of five which make up a single whole is so widespread that it 
has lost any connection with possible Iranian origins, cf. Cicero, Acad. Post. i. 10. 42 
(probably a purely fortuitous case), and a whole mass of pentadic mysticism in 
Plut. De Def. Orac. 36, 42gd; De Eiap. Delph. 7 seqq., 3870. In Col. 3. 14 the good 
pentad has a Pythagorean colouring, for friendship is the truvSetr/ios of all the 
virtues in this system (cf. Voc. Gr. N.T. s.v.). Naturally the five senses would lead 
to the use of such groupings, which in later Christian literature are made still more 
popular by the pentads of the Gospel tradition ; in Epist . Apost. 5 (Apocr. N. T. 487) 
the five loaves of Mk. 6. 38 represent the " Lord of the Christians ", the conven- 
tional Trinity being expanded by the addition of the Church and the forgiveness of 
sins. Cf. ib. 42 for the five wise virgins as the supernatural virtues, the five foolish 
being natural virtues which "slumber" in the careless. The parable was a favourite 
one in Gnostic circles (Tert. De Anim. 18, and cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. 12. 72 
(875 P)). The grouping by pentads was also natural in view of the five books of 
Moses making up the one Torah; in Orig. c. Cels. 6. 31 the soul claims to pass the 
sphere of Sabaoth, because his law has been conquered by a more powerful pentad, 
whose nature is not specified. For the pentad in place of the Trinity cf. Aphraates, 
Dem. 23. 60 (Patr. Syr. z. 123). Paul's source is his opponents' language, while 
their source is the pentadic convention in popular theology. 

2 For Horos, the boundary, who is also the Cross in Ir. Haer. 1.2.2 and 4 and 
3. i , cf . the liturgy of Hippolytus, 1.4.8 (The Apostolic Tradition, ed. Easton, 36), and 
that of Testamentiim Domini (ed. Rahmanni, p. 41, 1. 27). Irenaeus himself (Haer. 5. 
17. 4) sees in the Cross a manifestation of the "length, height, depth and breadth", 


religion of the type preserved in Philo and the Hermetic literature and 
forces them into the Christian scheme by means of a Philonic inter- 
pretation of the New Testament, as in the case of his elaborate expla- 
nation of the "perfect fruit" of the pleroma, Jesus; He is simply 
introduced as an explanation of Col. 2. 9. 

Valentinus, however, was only complicating a scheme which was 
originally simple and had the comparatively reasonable purpose of 
adapting Christianity to astrology. But naturally J^aul could make no 
compromise with it. He was quite prepared to recognise the power of 
the rulers of the planets. But his whole system was based on the belief 
that Jesus was the full revelation of God's purpose; he was not for a 
moment prepared to admit the existence of other powers of redemption 
or other methods of attaining to God than those provided by the 
worship of the Church. Consequently his answer to the report of the 
new teaching was a direct and emphatic negative (Col. i. 1-15). The 
initial thanksgiving and prayer contained potentially the whole of his 
answer. Paul thanked God for the faith, love and hope of his readers, 
which made them a striking example of that "increase and bearing of 
fruit" which was being manifested by the Gospel throughout the 
world, as it had been manifested in them from the time of the first 
mission of Epaphras. He prayed, with language which would be 
bombastic if it were not a parody of his opponents' phrases, that they 

and quotes " one of the elders " for the outstretched hands as a symbol of the drawing 
together of the two peoples. The " stretching out of the hands " of Moses in Exod. 17. 
ii and of God in Is. 65. 2 typifies the Cross in Ep. Barn. 12. 2; cf. Didache 16. 6. 
In the interpretation of the Targum on Gen. 8. i ascribed to Hippolytus (ed. 
Bonwetsch and Achelis 2. 91), the ark travels to the four quarters of the world and 
then returns to the East. Cf. also Origen's exegesis of Eph. 3. 18, In Gen. Horn. z. 5 . 
The symbolism is explained by Firmicus Maternus, De Err. Prof. Rel. 21. 4 and 
27. 3 ; the upright beam keeps heaven and earth in place, while the two arms touch 
the East and raise up the West; here again we have the allusion to Moses holding 
up his hands against Amalek. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 55 (gob), reads a grotesque 
Cross-symbolism into the whole of nature, including the Stoic commonplace of the 
erect position of man as against the beasts; he does not here read it into the celestial 
regions, but this would be out of place in a tract addressed to the heathen ; for the 
O.T. symbolism cf. Dial. c. Tryph. go seqq. (3170), where the arms of Moses, the 
serpent in the wilderness and the horns of the unicorns from Deut. 33. 17 are pressed 
into service. For less orthodox specimens cf. Acts of John 99 (Apocr. N. T. 255) ; Acts 
of Andrew, Martyrdom i. 14 (ib. 359). The Cross as the means of establishing order 
in the chaos of the material world has been transferred in Hippolytus and Test. Dom. 
to Sheol: in itself it appears to be an adaptation of Christianity to the common 
motif of the divine redeemer, as in Hipp. El. 5.8(111), where the Naassenes interpret 
Attis' name Papas as meaning TraCe, Traiie, applied to the disorder of the world. 
The Cross as a principle of order in chaos appears to have been accepted by the old- 
fashioned Roman orthodoxy of about A.D. 200, represented by the liturgy of the 
Apostolic Tradition. It would scarcely have been so accepted if it had not been 
orthodox before Valentinus; for his views see further Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 
22. 4 (Casey 244) and 42. i (ib. 406). 


might be filled with the knowledge of the will of God in every form 
of wisdom and spiritual understanding, so that they might walk 
worthily of the Lord to please Him in all things, "bearing fruit" in all 
good works and "increasing" in the knowledge of God. Thus their 
own "fruitbearing and increase", as the counterpart of the general 
" fruitbearing and increase" of the triumphant march of the Gospel 
through the world, would manifest the true version of that corre- 
spondence between the inward "fruitbearing and increase" of the 
Gnostic and the "fruitbearing and increase" manifested within the 
nature of God, which was a central feature in the system of Paul's 
rivals. They would thus be strengthened with all power, in virtue of 
the might of the glory of God, to show forth all endurance and long- 
suffering; for suffering, it was implied, was a mark of the glory of God, 
not of lack of support in the heavenly places. Thus their life would be 
one of continuous thanksgiving to the Father, who had given them a 
share of His own ' ' sufficiency " l to enable them to attain already to the 
inheritance of the Saints in the light, and had saved them from the 
realm of darkness by transferring them to the kingdom of the son of 
His love, the human Jesus, whom Paul had preached to them. 2 The 
words were an allusion to the voice at the Baptism which had identified 
Jesus with the promised Messiah of Ps. 2. 7, and to His proclamation 
of the kingdom of God, a phrase from the terminology of the Gospels 
which had been relegated to the background on account of the 
dangers attaching to its indiscriminate use in the Hellenistic world. 
By implication the phrase restated the whole of the traditional message 

1 Cf. above, p. 131. There may be an allusion to some use of the name "Shaddai" 
in the sense of 6 inavos here ; the verb is rare, but its use may be merely an unconscious 
reminiscence ; KaAeernim is an obvious attempt to emend the text. 

2 " Son of His love " only appears here and in the Ephesian continuator (Eph. i . 6) 
in Pauline writings. In the Synoptists it appears in Mk. 1. 1 1, 9. 7 and by implication 
in 12. 6 and the parallel accounts. The first incident was of vital importance; cf. Justin 
Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 49 (2683) and 88 (sisb), which prove at length that Elijah 
had appeared as the forerunner of Jesus in the person of the Baptist. Justin records 
the blazing forth of fire in Jordan at the time, a feature which appears in the Gospel 
of the Ebionites (Apocr. N.T. g). The importance of the Baptism appears from Ign. 
ad Eph. 18. 2 and ad Smyrn. i. i ; it would seem that it came near to inclusion in the 
Creed; cf. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching 107. Later mythology represented the 
Baptism as the bringing of the oil from the Tree of Life for the anointing of Adam, 
Vit. Ad. et Ev. 36. i, for the Jewish form; for its application to the Baptism of Jesus 
cf. Acta Pilati (Latin A and Greek 3 (19); Apocr. N.T. 127); it appears from Ign. 
ad Eph. 17. i that He was Himself anointed with it. A heretical version of the story 
is known to Celsus, though curiously enough it is unknown to Origen (c. Cels. 6. 27). 
The story of the Baptist's recognition of Jesus had the further advantage that it 
could be adapted to the distinction of the "voice" and the "word" of popular 
philosophy ;cf. Ign. ad Rom. 2. i ; Orig. In Ev.Jo. z. 26, and the distinction of r)\a> and 
(frOoyyof in the Gnostic cosmogony of Papp. Mag. Gr. 13. 546. But this is post- 
Pauline, since Paul does not use the term Logos of Jesus. 


of the earthly ministry of Jesus and was thus an emphatic reminder 
of the historical character of the Gospel and the position of Jesus in it 
as against attempts to belittle His place in the scheme of redemption; 
the call for thanksgiving, though the thought of thanksgiving as the 
natural response to a divine revelation bringing salvation was a 
commonplace of Hellenistic religion, was essentially part of the 
Jewish-Christian religious life, with its use of the Psalter and prayers 
of thanksgiving, coloured by the intense spiritual fervour of the early 
disciples. 1 Even the contrast between the portion of the Saints in 
light and the power of darkness, however strongly coloured by the 
language derived by Judaism from its contact with Zoroastrianism, 
was drawn from the language of the Old Testament and strictly in 
keeping with its tradition. 2 The opening section of the letter concluded 
with an emphatic statement of the completeness of the redemption 
wrought by Jesus as the Messiah; the forgiveness of sins which 
resulted from conversion was the whole of redemption. Paul made no 
attempt to harmonise the statement with his recognition elsewhere 
that the work of redemption needed completion and that the gift of 
the Holy Spirit was only a preliminary instalment of the final state 
of glory into which man was to be transformed: the admission 
might have been used by his opponents as a dangerous handle 
for their doctrine that the redemption obtained in Jesus was only 
a preliminary step, which had to be completed by the full know- 
ledge of the other powers, through whose realms the soul must pass. 3 

1 evxapia-Te'iv appears not very frequently in the Greek books of the O.T., as 
against the ev\oyflv and e^op.o\oyel.a-6ai of the LXX translators. In Philo the 
word is frequent, with a tendency to be associated with liturgical reference to hymns, 
sacrifices, etc. (whether literal or allegorical), as against fvXoyelv ; eop.o\oyia-6ai is 
comparatively rare. (For the ritual associations of the word see the references in 
Cohn-Wendland, index.) Here Paul's thought is coloured by the parallel with the 
deliverance from Egypt, which is especially connected with eu^apttrria (Philo, De 
Agric. 17 (80, M. i. 312); De Migr. Abr. 5 (25, M. i. 440)). In the Synoptic 1 Gospels 
the word is used only in the eucharistic or quasi-eucharistic sense except by Luke, 
who allows it to appear in 17. 16 and 18. n (both peculiar to himself) without 
noticing the Hellenistic colouring. It may be noted that in the Logion 10. 21 ( = Mt. 
ii. 25) the ultra-Hebraic form et-opoXoyelvdai ( = n~p) appears. Norden, 
Agnostos Theos 284, has to assume the influence of the LXX use here and in Ecclus. 
51.1 seqq, in tracing the Logion to Hellenistic Gnosis. It is curious that the thanks- 
givings after revelation in the Hermetica (see p. 176) are always ev\nyiai. In 
Aquila's version evxapio-relv appears nine times with a tendency to association 
with ritual and liturgical thanksgiving. 

2 "Realm of darkness" may be drawn from the opposition; there appear to be 
no rabbinical parallels, and the material world as " darkness " is common in 
Gnosticism (e.g. Ir. Haer. i. 30. i seqq.). But the phrase might easily occur inde- 
pendently; cf. p. 150. The phrase here seems to have made its way into Lk. 22. 53 
from Pauline usage. (Creed, ad loc., regards it as having a Johannine ring; but the 
Pauline parallel here is closer, and the " hour " is the converse of that of Rom. 13.11.) 

8 Col. i. 14 replies to views similar to those of Marcus in Ir. Haer. i. 21. 2; 


The reason (1.15 seqq.) for the fullness of the redemption wrought 
by Jesus lay in the fact that He was nothing less than the divine 
Wisdom. It was perfectly true that the one true God, the God of 
Israel, was invisible, and that no words could exaggerate His infinite 
greatness. 1 But He had seen fit to reveal Himself by making His 
image, the Wisdom created from the beginning, visible to mankind in 
the person of Jesus. 2 That the divine Wisdom was the "image" of 
God was part of the regular Jewish-Hellenistic tradition; the divine 
Wisdom was also the first-born of all creation; 3 ' the divine pattern of 
the world in which all things were potentially present before they were 
created in a material form. 4 It was an advantage of this conception 
that the Wisdom of God or the ideal cosmos was also the "beloved" 
of God, and thus could be clearly identified with the historical Jesus, 
of whom God had testified that He was His "beloved Son". The 
coincidence of the Messianic and cosmogonic titles could not have 
been more appropriate to Paul's argument. It followed from the 
position of Jesus as the divine pattern, in whom all things whether 
seen or unseen were potentially present from the beginning, that even 

but it was essential to any system of Gnosticism that it should claim to offer a fuller 
redemption than that obtained merely by baptism. The references to e IT iy voter is imply 
that the fuller redemption offered was described by this term. 

1 For 'law as doparos cf. p. 44. The term is only applied to God here in the 
Pauline writings apart from the imitation in i Tim. i. 17. It is associated with the 
tendencies to unorthodox speculation noted above, loc. cit. (For the possibility that 
it represents contact with the deified Helios-Aion derived by Hellenistic speculation 
from Zoroastrian sources, cf. Peterson, Eis Qeos 2,4.1 seqq. and 267.) It seems likely 
that it represents a deliberate adoption by Paul of a phrase of his opponents' use of 
the terminology of Jewish Gnosticism. 

2 Cf. pp. 65 seqq. Paul perhaps intends the phrase et/ccov doparov to represent the 
fact that Jesus is not merely an "image" as is the conventional Wisdom, but a 
visibly manifested image. Of course the Wisdom or Logos could not be manifested 
any more than God Himself; but since Jesus had been made visible, the general 
conventions of the Jewish figure of Wisdom had to be changed to meet the facts of 
the case. flK<ov, Trporrdroicoy and dpxrj may all come from Paul's opponents, cf. 

P- 49- 

3 This is a commonplace of the Hellenistic synagogue. Wisdom was present with 
God before the creation and therefore could be the living and divine pattern of the 
Timaeus, For the Logos as the ideal world, the oldest and first-born son of God, see 
Philo, De Conf. Ling. 14 (63, M. i. 414); the cosmos is the one and beloved son in 
De Ebr. 8 (30, M. i. 361), and the younger in Quod Deus Imm. 6 (32, M. i. 277). In 
De Agric. 12 (51, M. i. 308), "The Lord is my shepherd" in Ps. 23. i refers to the 
cosmos, whose elements and natural phenomena, including the heavenly bodies, are 
guided by God as a flock, over which He has set His " tipdbs \6yos ", who is also 
His first-born son. The reference to the Psalm suggests a non-Philonic source. The 
confusion of thought reflects the obscurity of the Timaeus, which is also the source 
of the "only-begotten" (31 b and gac). For the addition of "beloved" to "only- 
begotten" cf. Plut. De Def. Orac. 23. 4233. 

1 Timaeus 30 c; Philo, De Mund. Op. 4 (17, M. 1.4); the plan was present in God 
and transferred by Him to the intellectual world. For all things as present in the 
Creator cf. Corp. Herm. Ascl. i. 2 (Scott 288). 


the unseen rulers of the planetary spheres were inferior to Him in the 
scale of being. 1 For whatever their character as thrones, lordships, 
rules and authorities might be, they were created by Him ; the divine 
pattern of the cosmos was also the agent of God in creation. 2 It was 
a simple matter to add that, as the Messiah, Jesus was the end to 
which all things were created, for in current Stoic speculation Zeus, as 
the one divine power manifested in the cosmos, was the beginning, 
the sustaining force and the end of the recurring world-ages, which 
made up the eternal circle of revolving time; Jesus, as the Messiah, 
was not the end of one such age in a recurring system, but the end of 
the present age, as the close of history, and therefore the object which 
all creation had in view. 3 Rabbinical speculation was quite ready to 
adopt such conceptions of God as first and last, and it was a matter of 
course to apply them to Jesus as the climax of creation. 4 He was before 
all things, and therefore the best of all things, 5 and it was through 
Him that all things came into and remained in being. 6 

Yet again He was the head of the body. The Church, the purely 
human society of Rom. 12. 5 and i Cor. 12. 12, was thus raised to the 
cosmic order, so that the position of Jesus in relation to the lords of 
the planets might be the same as His relation to mankind ; whatever the 
position of such beings might be as regards the rest of the universe, 
they were still subordinate to Jesus, for He was the head of all existing 
things and all were merely members of the Church of which He was 
the head, deriving from Him their salvation, just as in the first instance 

1 Cf. above, p. 51 seqq. 

2 For the divine pattern as the agent of creation cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 6 
(24, M. i. 5). 

3 It was an old saying in the time of Plato (Laws 7150) that God was the beginning 
and end and middle of all things ; the thought could be read into the hymn of the 
priestesses of Dodona (Pausanias 10. 12. 10); but though this hymn appears to be 
accepted as genuine by Cook (Zeus 2. 350) of Zan, the Illyrian Zeus, and by Frazer 
(Pausanias' Description of Greece, ad loc.), its appearance in a list of famous prophet- 
esses, including the Jewish Sibyl, suggests that it is derived from a tract on prophecy 
of the later Stoic type; hence it may be doubted whether the hymn really taught 
that Zeus was and is and shall be; later Stoics could read almost anything they 
wished into religious practices of antiquity. For the commonplace cf. Pacuvius 
ap. Cicero, De Div. i. 57. 131 and the "Orphic" verses of Aristobulus ap. Eus. 
Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 9 and of Porphyry, ib. 3. 9. 2; also Plut. De Ei ap. Delph. 20, 3933. 
The view is implied in the correspondence of the end to the beginning in Philo, 
De Mund. Op. 27 (82, M. i. 19): Jos. c. Ap. z. zz. 190 quotes Plato. There is no 
need to find Indian and Mandean parallels (Reitzenstein, Erl.-Myst. 242). 

4 Gen. R.&i.z, where J1DN (truth) is the " seal " of God as the beginning, middle 
and end of all things; cf. Rev. i. 8 and Midr. Teh. on Ps. 72. i (Buber, p. 324, 1. 9). 

5 Cf. pp. 94 and 112. 

For o-ui/eoTT/Kfi/ cf. Philo, De Migr. Abr. i (6, M. i. 437) and Q.R.D.H. 57 
(280, M. i. 513), where the genesis of all things "consists" through the planets 
and the Stoic commonplace artifici sensu universa constare, Clem. Recog. 8. 28. The 
phrase has found its way into Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 1769. 


they derived from Him their existence. The Church as a body, of 
which the individuals were members, was derived from the Stoic 
commonplace of the state as a body in which each member had his 
part to play; in this form Paul had already worked out the parallelism 
in the same way in which it is worked out in the later rabbinical 
literature, no less than in the classical writers. 1 Naturally it was also 
a commonplace of -Hellenistic Judaism; the Stoic commonplace was 
the more easily adapted in view of the metaphors from the body found 
in such passages as Deut. 28. 13. 2 But the political developments of 
the Hellenistic age had changed the conception of the state from a body 
in which each member played its part into a body in which the head 
was the all-important matter; it is likely enough that the transition 
was accomplished in Alexandria in favour of the Ptolemies before it 
became a convenient method of flattering the Roman Emperors ; it is 
possible that the headship descended from the wise man of the 
Stoics 3 to the more or less deified ruler and from him to the High 
Priest at Jerusalem. 4 The transference of the conception of the 
"headship" of the state to the "headship" of the cosmos was an easy 
matter for Paul, since the cosmic headship of the Lord was a headship 
not so much over the planets as over the living beings who ruled 
them; but in any case the transference was already a commonplace of 
popular theology. On the one hand the firmament or the sun was the 
"head" of the universe in Oriental religion; 6 on the other the cosmos 
was animated by a divine mind, which also was concentrated in the 
firmament; thus the cosmos was a "body" and the divine mind either 

1 For the elaborate Stoic simile cf. Seneca, De Ira 2. 31. 7; Zeno ap. Maximus, 
Florilegium 6 (v. Am. i. 56. 236); Livy 2. 32; Dion. Halic. Antt. Rom. 3. n and 
6. 86. For rabbinical usage cf. Str.=B.._on i Cor. 12. 12 and 26. 

2 Philo, De Spec. Legg. 3. 23 (131, M. 2. 321); cf. De Virt. 12 (103, M. 2. 392); 
for the association of the conception with Deut. 28. 13 cf. De Praem. et Poen. 20 
(125, M. 2. 428). 

3 In Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 19 (114, M. 2. 426), the good man or nation 
dominates the surroundings for their own good, as the head does the body ; in De Vit. 
Mays. 2. 5 (30, M. 2. 139) Ptolemy is the "head" of kings, as is the dominant 
principle (mind) in a living creature. Here the mind has replaced the head, as it 
does in Seneca (see n. 3 next page). It is safe to assume that this correspondence 
represents the Alexandrine tradition ( ? Posidonius). 

4 For the High Priest cf. reference to Philo, De Spec. Legg., in n. 2. 

6 Manetho ap. Diod. Sic. i. n. 6; cf. Peterson, Els eos 262. In Philo, De Sown. 
i. 22 (144 seqq., M. i. 642), Jacob's ladder represents the macrocosm where heaven 
is the head and earth the base, and also man, the microcosm, where mind is the 
heavenly and sense the earthy element; Philo's exegesis is really pointless, since he 
cannot equate heaven with God as his source did. The conception may go back to 
Iranian sources (Reitzenstein, Hell. Myst. Rel. 224), but it has become a common- 
place. The extent to which this theme has become generally current appears in 
De Vit. Cont. 10 (78, M. 2. 483), where the O.T. is the " body" of Scripture, and the 
hidden meaning is the "unseen soul" as in a living creature. 



its "head" or the spirit which animated it& This conception was 
popular in the Stoic-Orphic tradition which was generally accepted 
in Hellenistic-Jewish circles; 2 the extent to which the two ideas were 
conflated appears from the fact that they are treated as identical by 
Seneca. 3 It is an interesting irony of history that the ex officio High 
Priest, who was probably Caiaphas, 4 and the Emperor Nero are the 
rivals of Jesus for the "headship" of the "body" in the literature of 
the first century A.D. 

It is of course possible that the thought of a cosmic Church origi- 
nated with Paul's opponents. It could easily originate in Jewish circles, 
as is evident from the fact that the angels appear as the "upper" and 
Israel as the "lower" family of God, 5 a correspondence which seems 
to represent the influence of the conventional fondness for finding 
heavenly counterparts of earthly things on orthodox Judaism. In any 
case the thought would naturally suggest itself to the teachers whom 
Paul is answering, if they were sufficiently interested in the Church or 
the "congregation of Israel" to feel the need of a heavenly counterpart 
for those institutions. The allusion to the Church provided Paul with 
a suitable transition from the cosmic to the historical; the position of 
Jesus as first in the order of creation corresponded to His position as 
"the beginning" in the order of resurrection. 6 The argument from 
such a parallel was calculated to be eminently convincing to Hellenistic 
readers ; 7 Paul was not concerned to prove the fact of the resurrection 
of Jesus, which would seem to have been admitted by his opponents: 
they presumably regarded it as true, but only interpreted it to mean 
that He had achieved for Himself and His followers a preliminary 

1 Verg. Aen. 6. 727; the thought goes back to Timaeus 30 b. 

a Cf. pp. 36 seqq. 

3 Seneca, De Clem. 2. 2. i, represents Nero as the head from which the body 
derives its health; but ib. i. 5. i : tu animus reipublicae tuae es t ilia corpus tuum. For 
the universe as a corpus of which we are members cf. Ep, 14. 4 (92), 30. 

* There is no means for dating Philo's works, but it is reasonably probable that 
most of them were written between A.D. 18 and 36. 

6 Cf. Str.-B. on Mt. 16. 19 (p. 7440) and Eph. 3. 14; see also 4. 1117. Orig. In 
Num. Horn. 3. 3 treats the Church of the first-born of Heb. 12. 23 as an angelic 
Church, but in c. Cels. 6. 35 the Gnostic conception of a heavenly Church of which 
the Church on earth is an emanation is heretical; for the Gnostic view cf. Clem. 
Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 41. 2 (Casey 396). 

6 Paul appears to have transferred the title of Wisdom as "the beginning" of 
Gen. i. i to the historical Jesus as "the beginning" in the order of resurrection. For 
the Logos as "the beginning" cf. Philo, De Mund. Op. 7 (26, M. i. 5); the title 
appears in the seven titles of the Logos (p. 49); cf. Kerygma Petri ap. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. 6. 7. 58 (769 P) and the speculations of Orig. In Ev. Jo. i. 22. 

7 Conversion 251 . For such correspondences in philosophy cf. Plut. De Def. Orac. 
34. 428 e; in an entirely different sphere cf. the elaborate parallel between John the 
Baptist and Jesus in Hippolytus, De Antichristo 44 seqq. ; for an abbreviated version 
see Orig. In Ev. Jo. 2. 30. 


deliverance from sin and the material world, which needed further 
completion both in His own case and in that of His disciples. Their 
view could easily be read into the view implied in i Cor. 15. 45, where 
Paul had only been concerned with the position of Jesus in eschatology, 
and therefore had only proved that the resurrection of Jesus had 
restored man to that spiritual condition which he had possessed before 
the fall of Adam; it did not necessarily follow that Adam had been 
perfect and without need of "completion" before his fall. 

The supremacy of Jesus was due to His character as the divine 
Wisdom in whom the whole "fullness" (pier onto) of the godhead 
dwelt (i. 19 seqq.). It was again a general conception of the age that 
the whole cosmos was completely "full" ; there was no vacuum in it. 1 
But the material world was always giving out and taking in ; fullness was 
properly a quality that belonged to God alone. 2 His fullness pervaded 
the whole cosmos in the form of reason, the divine element present in 
the material world, and present in every part of it. 3 But with the 
later Stoic distinction between God as the divine element concentrated 
in the firmament and God as the divine element permeating the 
material, it became necessary to distinguish between God in His own 
nature and God as filling the world, God in his latter character being 
identified with the deities of the pantheon. Thus the cosmos could 
itself be regarded as eternal and divine, in so far as it was the embodi- 
ment of the divine reason; it could also be regarded as the dwelling- 
place of gods and men and the various things created for their benefit. 4 
In this sense the cosmos was the pleroma of gods and men : the sphere 
which they filled completely. 5 More commonly the cosmos was a 
"system" (own^a) of Gods and men; 6 this phrase, however, was 
impossible for Jews or Christians, and even the description of the 
cosmos as a "system" of God and mankind implied a parity in degree 
between God and man, which was impossible for either. But it 
remained true for Jewish thought that God filled the world; the 

1 Placita 1. 18 (Dox. Gr. 316) ; Ar. Did. Epit. 29. i (ib. 464) ; Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 
2- 13- 375 Plut. De Def. Orac..2S, 4343. 

2 Macrob. In Somn. Scip. i. 5. 3. 

3 Diog. Laert. 7. 138; Seneca, De Benef. 4. 8. 2; Corp. Herm. n (r), 4b (Scott 
208), 12 (a), 15 b (Scott 232); Ascl. 3. 17 a (Scott 316). 

4 Ar. Did. Epit. 29. 3 (Dox. Gr. 464). Cf. Timaeus Locrus, De Anima Mundi 

6 Cf. Achilles' summary of the teaching of Diodorus of Alexandria in Diels' 
introduction to Dox. Gr. 20; according to Diels Diodorus' system was based on that 
of Posidonius as given in Diog. Laert. 7. 138. It is therefore possible that the use of 
pleroma in this sense goes back to Posidonius. 

So Posidonius ap. Diog. Laert. 7. 138; Chrysippus ap. Ar. Did. Epit. 31 
(Dox. Gr. 465), and commonly. In Epict. Diss. i. 9. 4 we have a crvorq/xa e' 
dv0po)iro)if teal 



conception was found in the Bible, 1 and could be used to explain one 
of its difficult passages. "The place" which Jacob "met" was 
interpreted to mean that God Himself was "the place" which he 
"met" (Gen. 28. u). For God was Himself "the place" in which all 
things existed, since He filled all things completely with His own 
"sufficiency". 2 The curious language of Genesis, according to which 
the patriarch "met a place", suggested the term "the Place" as a 
name of God to rabbinical Judaism; in Hellenistic Judaism it was 
combined with the thought of Him as "filling the world". 3 With the 
growth of the figure of Wisdom in Jewish speculation it was natural 
to regard the Wisdom or Spirit of God as that which filled the world. 4 
But that Wisdom again was itself "filled" by God, since it was only a 
periphrasis for God as "filling" the universe and could not be 
regarded as seriously different from Him without introducing a 
plurality into the divine nature or a secondary order of divinity. 5 Thus 
Wisdom was the house of God, just as the cosmos itself was the 
house of God or the gods in pagan thought. 6 Again, the analogy of 
macrocosm and microcosm could be used to show that the soul of 
man was the house of God and that it must be "filled" with God or 
the virtues ; the thought was naturally valuable for homiletic purposes 
and could be used with edifying effect. 7 
Thus the whole pleroma of the godhead dwelt in Jesus. as the divine 

1 Is. 6. 3, Jer. 23. 24, Ps. 72. 19, etc. 

2 Philo, Leg. Alleg. i. 14 (44, M. i. 52); De Somn. i. n (62, M. i. 630). In both 
places the thought of God as "the place" is combined with the thought of His 
sufficiency, for which see above, p. 131 ; Leg. Alleg. 3. 2 (4, M. i. 88). 

8 The usage of "the Place" as a periphrasis for the name of God appears to be 
derived from this passage; its curious language is preserved in LXX. 

* Wisd. 8. i ; Philo, De Plant. 2 (9, M. i. 331), with an obvious affinity to Cicero, 
De Nat. Dear. z. 45. 1 1 5, of " nature ", i.e. the nature, fate, reason or Zeus of Stoicism. 
Cf. also Wisd. 1.7. 

6 For God as filling the Logos cf. Philo, De Somn. i, quoted above, n. 2, and for 
the "spirit" of God De Gigant, 6 (27, M. i. 266). Cf. also the "second god" in 
Corp. Herm. Ascl. i. 8 (Scott 300). 

6 De Migr. Abr. i (^.seqq., M. i. 437); cf, De Aet. Mund. 21 (112, M. 2. 509), 
where, if the tract is Philonic or Jewish, the " gods " have been allowed to pass the 

7 Cf. the conventional exegesis of Lev. 26. 12 in Philo, De Somn. i. 23 (148, 
M. i. 643) and 2. 37 (248, M. i. 691), and 2 Cor. 6. 16. The thought is a common- 
place in Philo. For the soul as a pleroma of the virtues cf. Philo, De Spec. Legg. i 
(De Sacr.), 3 (272, M. 2. 253), where God prefers the soul as & pleroma of virtue to 
sacrifices, and De Praem. et Poen. n (65, M. 2. 418), where the twelve sons of 
Jacob represent the perfect number produced by the perfect soul, to correspond to 
the signs of the zodiac. The passages suggest that the word is taken from Alexandrine 
Pythagoreanism; elsewhere Philo uses it literally except Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 7 
(41, M. 2. 451), where it is in a colourless Stoic setting, and De Abr. 46 (268, M. 2. 
39) (of faith as the fulfilment of hope). In Heracleon ap. Orig. In Ev. Jo. 13. n the 
celestial counterpart of the spirit sunk in the material is its pleroma, apparently a 
conflation of the fravashi with the Pauline pleroma dwelling in Jesus. 


Wisdom and therefore His sacrificial death upon the Cross was able 
to effect a complete reconciliation of all things in the universe. In so 
far as there were powers in the world which were hostile to man, they 
needed, no less than man, to be reconciled to God. But Jesus, in 
virtue of His supremacy in the whole sphere of creation and resurrec- 
tion, could extend His work of reconciliation to the whole universe, 
not merely to the sublunar sphere, or whatever other lower stage His 
opponents may have assigned to the efficacy of His work. The con- 
ception was not Paul's own, but forced upon him by the arguments 
of his opponents. Even in orthodox Judaism the cosmic symbolism of 
the High Priest's robe showed that part of his function was to make 
propitiation not only for all the races of mankind but also for the 
cosmos; for his robe symbolised the elements of earth, air, fire and 
water. 1 It was easy and natural to combine the planets with the elements 
in this type of symbolism, especially in its less orthodox forms. From 
Paul's point of view the extension of it to the heavens presented no 
difficulty for it was possible that the heavenly beings themselves had 
been imprisoned in the material world as the result of Adam's sin, and 
needed, like man, to be delivered from that punishment. 2 Of this 
cosmic redemption the Colossians were themselves an instance; 3 they, 
like the heavenly rulers, were once alienated by sin, but had now been 
reconciled to God to be presented to Him in that state of perfect 
holiness, which would leave no adversary any opening for accusing 
them. 4 Holiness, accompanied by steadfastness in the faith and 
perseverance in the hope of eternal life, as revealed in the Gospel, was 
the means for conquering all the powers of evil, both for the Colossians 

1 Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacerd.), 6 (97, M. 2. 227). It is not far from this to 
the planets as the angels who rule the nations as rulers of the material world; it is 
possible that Philo has inserted an orthodox form of a more temerarious speculation. 
For the sacrifices of the Temple as offered for all nations cf. Judaism z. 43. 

2 Ign. ad Smyrn. 6. .1 may be simply a correct interpretation of this passage, or 
may reflect independent speculations. Ignatius is a better astrologer than Paul; cf. 
ad Trail. 5. 2. Cf. also Orig. In Lev. Horn. i. 3, where we have speculations as to 
the sprinkling of the heavenly altar with the blood of Jesus and the " church of the 
firstborn " as an angelic Church, and In Ev. Jo. 13.58 for the possibility of repentance 
for the "archons". 

3 The redemption of the heavenly bodies on the one hand and the Colossians on 
the other is perhaps contrasted to the parallel drawn by the opponents between the 
"bearing fruit and increase" of the heavenly powers, and the "bearing fruit and 
increase " of the individual Gnostic. 

4 dveyK\r)Tovs may be intended in its strict sense of "free from accusation". 
If so, it is a direct assertion that holiness is the only key by which man can pass 
through the spheres of the rulers ; for Gnostic methods of doing so cf . Ir. Haer. 1.21. 
5 and the Gnostic literature passim. But in i Cor. i . 8 the word scarcely means 
more than "irreproachable" in its conventional English sense; cf. Voc. Gr. N.T. 


and for every other creature under the heaven. To all such creatures 
the Gospel had been preached, and of that Gospel Paul was a minister. 
The implication of the allusion to "faith" and "hope" was that it 
was through them, not through admission to higher forms of secret 
knowledge, that the Christian could attain to heaven; heaven, which 
in v. 1 6 had included all the spheres of being above the moon, was 
here (v. 23) used of the firmament, as the abode of God and the future 
abode of the righteous. 1 

Paul therefore (i. 24 seqq.) was not ashamed of the sufferings which 
he had to endure on behalf of his converts; rather he rejoiced in them. 
Jesus had reconciled man to God in His fleshly body through death; 
but this work of reconciliation had to be completed by the sufferings 
of His ministers on behalf of the Church, which was nowthe "body" of 
Christ, in which He, through His servants, must continue to suffer 
until the whole quantity of suffering needed for the redemption of the 
world was completed. Here again Paul was adapting Christianity to 
the accepted outlook of the age. It was a dogma of conventional 
theology that the quantity of matter in the cosmos was definitely fixed; 
Plato himself had said so. 2 Since matter was the cause of evil, it 
followed that the quantity of evil was also fixed. 3 The duration of the 
period from one world-conflagration to the next was a fixed number of 
years determined by the stars. The number of souls was fixed, for it 
corresponded to the number of the stars. 4 In Judaism this view found 
a ready welcome, especially in the sphere of eschatology ; apart from 
the numerical schemes for determining the total duration of the world, 
the coming of the Messiah and the end of the world-process, it might 
be held that the duration of history depended on the divine decree that 
a fixed number of souls should be created and a fixed number saved. 5 
Among such quantities Scripture included the sins of the Amorites, 
whose fulfilment up to the predestined limit had determined the date 
at which the chosen people could enter the land of Israel; the passage 

1 "Heaven" is always ambiguous where astrology is not taken seriously; here 
the point is that the rulers of the heavens have heard the Gospel, no less than the 
Colossians ; Paul is superior even to the " rulers " in so far as he is a minister of the 

2 Timaeus 33 a; how the statement is to be reconciled with 493 is a matter which 
does not concern the Hellenistic period, which preferred the simple view; cf. Philo 
ap. Eus. Pr. Ev.f.zi. i ; Plut. De Is. et Os. 56, 374b. 

3 Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. 4. 62. 

* Cf. above, p. 139, and cf. Gregory of Nyssa i. 205 d for a pleroma of souls. So 
Orig. De Princ. z. 9. i ; the number of souls and the quantity of matter are fixed in 
due proportion. 

6 2 Bar. 23. 4 and 4 Esdr. 4. 36 ; cf. Box's note on the latter passage in Ap. and Ps. 
Rev. 7. 4, Clem. Recog. 3. 26. 


possessed a certain importance since it allowed incautious speculators 
to find in it an excuse for believing that Moses had taught belief in 
fate on the lines of Hellenistic thought. 1 Another fixed quantity was 
the sufferings of the Saints; and their sufferings might be part of a 
still larger mass of suffering, the rest of which was to be borne by the 
Messiah. 2 

Thus Paul's sufferings were part of the divine dispensation, not a 
proof of his inferiority to his rivals, or evidence that he was only the 
minister of an inferior order of redemption. 3 In them he was fulfilling 
the divine purpose, a mystery hitherto concealed from all eternity. 4 
But God had now revealed to the Saints the full riches of its glory, 
that to Gentiles, no less than to Jews (it was here in particular that 
Paul was a minister of the "mystery"), was offered that power of 
union with the indwelling Christ, which constituted man's hope of 
glory. It was for no less a hope than this that he laboured through the 
power of Christ working in him, to train all men in all wisdom so that 
he might present them to God, made perfect in Christ (as against 
some supposedly "higher" form of perfection). No labours were too 
great for him to endure on behalf of the Churches which he had never 
seen in the flesh, in order that he might build up in them the cha- 
racter of love, which was the only means by which the Christian could 
attain to that complete wealth of the fullness of wisdom which would 
enable him to understand the mystery of God, namely Christ, in 
whom were all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The 
language again was coloured by a rhetoric which reflected the style 
of Paul's opponents; it was forced upon him by the singular poverty 
of Christianity in respect of the complicated mysteries of theosophical 
knowledge which had a potent appeal to the Hellenistic world. Paul 
had to present Christianity in the light of a supreme cosmic revelation, 
without sacrificing its essential insistence on love as the one thing 

1 Gen. 15. 16; cf. above, p. 100. 

2 Cf.Midr. Sam. 19..!. 51 a, quoted by Str.-B. on Mt. 8. 17 (i. 481 ad fin.) (the 
authority quoted is R. Acha (c. A.D. 320), but the view of a fixed quantity of the 
sufferings of the Saints appears in Rev. 6. n); it is interesting that the conception is 
associated with Is. 53. 5, in view of the fondness of the Church for that prophecy. 
Paul may have arrived at the conception of the fixed quantity of the sufferings of the 
Saints independently, but it is quite possible that he was using traditional Jewish 
material. Rabbinical exegesis may have avoided it during the height of the contro- 
versies with the Church. 

3 Cf. above, p. 152. 

4 For "mystery" see below, Note V. It is possible that the "aeons" are to be 
regarded as personal and borrowed from the language of the opposition, but the 
purely temporal sense is perfectly satisfactory. 


Since all the hidden mysteries of God were to be found in Jesus as 
the Christ (2. 2 seqq.), 1 the Colossians must not allow themselves to bej 
led astray by strange teachers, however persuasive they might be; 
although Paul was unable to be present with them in the flesh, he was 
with them in the spirit, contemplating the steadfastness of their faith, 
the only real ground for congratulation (there was by implication no ( 
cause for pride or for congratulation in progress in "knowledge"). 
They had received the knowledge of Christ Jesus as Lord, the essential 
Christian Gospel; they must stand fast in Him in accordance with the 
faith which they were taught, and abound in thanksgiving for so 
great a revelation and so great a deliverance. They must not allow 
themselves to be carried away captive by philosophy and deceit and 
the tradition of men (as opposed to the "tradition" of Christ Jesus as 
Lord) into following the " elements" of the world rather than Christ; 8 
for the "elements" which ruled the material world, whatever their 
power might be, were nothing as compared with the fullness of th^ 
godhead which dwelt in Jesus in visible bodily form. 3 

Since the pleroma of the godhead was in Jesus, it followed that the 
Christian attained to his fullness by being "in Hun" ; the phrase was 
a conflation of the normal Pauline usage of being "in Christ" and the 
thought that as God "fills" His Wisdom, so His Wisdom fills the soul 
of the righteous, which is thus brought to the "fullness" of its being.* 
There was no room left for any further progress; for Jesus wa|s the 
head of all the rulers and authorities; consequently they were inferior 
to Him, and any power which they might possess was derived from 
Him. The convert therefore could stand in no need of any further 
initiation. Under the old covenant circumcision had symbolised the 
putting off of the material body, though it could not actually effect it. 5 

1 " Christ" in 2. 2 and i. 24 has almost its correct sense of Messiah; elsewhere, ^s 
usually in Paul, it is simply a name for Jesus which carries no particular implications. 

2 For the "elements" cf. above, p. 108. 

3 a-tanaTiKois is not a reply to a docetic view of the humanity of Jesus, since there 
is no sign that the Colossian teachers took a docetic view; Docetism exaggerated His 
divine nature, whereas they seem to have depreciated it. It seems to be a summary 
reply to the argument that Jesus could not have been divine, for He had a real body 
and was really crucified, which is impossible for a divine being. Paul, however, may 
be simply asserting that although Jesus as the divine Wisdom is dirto/iaror, yet He 
could assume and has assumed a real body. For the Logos as dcrd)p.aros cf. Philo, 
Q. D. Imm. 18 (83, M. i. 285); and De Conf. Ling. 14 (62, M. i. 414). 

4 For Wisdom as filling the soul cf. Philo, De Post. Cain. 41 (136, M. i. 251), 
cf. 39 (132). Dibelius, H.z.N.T. ad loc., suggests that TrfTrXj/pw/ne'voi is drawn 
from the language of the opposition. 

6 Cf. pp. 30 and 153. It is conceivable that Paul's opponents retained Baptism 
as the equivalent of the proselyte's bath, and described some other initiatory rite of 
admission to a higher degree as a "spiritual circumcision" (cf. Orig. c. Cels. 6. 35 


But baptism was the true circumcision, a divine and not a human 
ordinance ; in baptism the Christian put off the fleshly body in virtue 
of a circumcision of which Christ was the minister; in baptism he 
shared in the burial of Jesus and, through faith in the power of God 
who raised Jesus from the dead, rose himself to a new life, 1 in which 
he was no longer subject to the old conditions of the material world. 
The Gentile convert (2. 13 seqq.) thus received a completely new life 
when he was raised with Jesus, for his previous condition was simply 
one of ^leath, in which he had not even circumcision to reveal to him 
the sins which the Law made known, though it gave no power to 
overcome them. 2 The Jew was in a different position, since there 
stood against him the bond of the written ordinances of the Law. 3 
These bound him to avoid sin by obedience to the letter, so long as he 
remained in the material world. Since, however, the Law gave him no 
power to obey, and therefore no deliverance from the dominion of the 
material world and the powers that ruled it, the Jew too was hopelessly 
indebted; he too needed that free gift of grace by which God had 
cancelled the written bond that subjected him to slavery; Christ had 
taken it out of the way and nailed it to the Cross. 4 He had descended 
secretly through the spheres of the rulers, and assumed a body that was 
subject to them in so far as it was of a material character, but exempt 
from them in so far as He was free from sin; thus Jesus reversed the 
fall of Adam, who was by nature free from the rulers but subjected 
himself to them by sinning. Having thus allowed Himself to be 
subject to them, Jesus had on the Cross put aside His material body, 
nailing it to the Cross and allowing them to claim it as their own. By 

where the association of a " heavenly Church " and a " true circumcision " appears to 
be drawn from a fairly early Gnostic tradition, which may however have been drawn 
from Colossians). 

1 For these conceptions in contemporary religion cf. Rel. Or. 64. The symbolism 
here is drawn from the Exodus-symbolism of Judaism, cf. pp. 28 seqq. The point of 
contact lies in the common conception of the age that religion and religious rites are 
a means of obtaining "salvation". 

2 KOI vnas is addressed to Gentile converts as opposed to Jews. For once Paul 
gives a fairly clear explanation of the relative position of Jews and Gentiles ; the 
Gentile is "dead", the Jew merely "in bondage". 

3 Cf. above, p. 109. For sin as a debt, which God registers against man, cf. 
Str.-B. on this passage; Paul adapts this view to his belief that the Torah revealed 
sin but gave man no power to overcome it. 

4 The subject changes from God to Jesus at the beginning of v. 14; Lightfoot, 
ad loc., is certainly right against Dibelius in understanding eV avra at the end of 
v. 15 as "in it", i.e. in the Cross. The meaning of the passage depends on Christ 
having "put off" the material body at His death; the middle aTreicSuo-a^evos could 
not be used of God "putting off" the rulers in Christ. In Orig. c. Cels. 2. 64 the 
body of Jesus which had " put off the rulers " was invisible to all but the disciples ; 
this (cf. 3. 42) is a fair statement of Paul's thought that Jesus at death " put off" the 


this compensation He satisfied their claims over man ; He proceeded to 
put them to open shame 1 by triumphing over them in His resurrection 
from the dead; in virtue of this triumph the claims of the rulers 
against mankind, whether Jew or Gentile, were henceforth cancelled. 
The argument depended for its validity on the belief that Adam's fall 
carried with it subjection to the rulers of the material world, while the 
death of Jesus carried with it deliverance. Jesus thus assumes the 
place of the divine element of "mind" in popular gnosis; "mind", 
which was one of the conceptions which went to make up the Jewish 
figure of the divine Wisdom, was subject to fate in virtue of its 
assumption of a psychic and material character borrowed from the 
planets, but was able to deliver itself if it recognised its character as 
mind, and by knowledge or by suitable rites obtained the power to 
rise again to its celestial home. It is not, however, clear how far Paul 
was simply adapting this conception or how far he was influenced by 
his opponents' use of a myth intended to explain the method of 
subjection and the means of deliverance. In any case the ' ' mythology ' ' 
here is of secondary importance. His exposition of the method by 
which Jesus conquered the powers of the material spheres is simply his 
conception of the Cross as the reversal of Adam's fall into sin and death 
and the material world; it represents the Christian experience of 
"salvation" fitted into a setting, taken over from his opponents, in 
which Jesus delivers man once and for all, instead of merely initiating 
a system from which man can go forward to full "redemption". 2 

It followed from the argument (Col. 2. 16 seqq.) that the Colossians 
must not allow themselves to be impressed by the assumed superiority 
of those who sought to impose on them a system of ordinances, of 
rules as to eating and drinking and the observance of special days as 
sacred. Under the old covenant such observances were a shadow of 
things to come; in Jesus the reality had appeared. Nor must they let 
themselves be impressed by those who sought to impose on them 
higher standards of special fasts, enjoined as a means of propitiating 
the angels, whose appearances to them in vision would mark the stages 
of their progress to higher things. 3 Those who claimed such special 

1 The " open triumph " is contrasted with the secret descent through the spheres 
of the rulers; there is possibly also an allusion to secret rites practised by the 
opposition. For irapprjaia of a public ceremony as opposed to a mystery cf. Heb. 10. 
19; Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Sacr.), 12 (321, M. 2. 260); Ep. adDiogn. u. 2. For 
fbeiyiiaruTfv cf. Traptdei-yfiaTia-ev, Polyb. 2. 60. 7, 27. i. 5, and for the rabbinical 
use of NDWPD see references op. Krauss, Lehnworter in Talmud. 

* See Note III. 

3 In v. 18 read de\tai> ev Tcnrcivo<ppocrvvfl . . .n topaitev ffiftarevtav , where Tinrfivo- 
(ppo<rvvr) refers to special fasts ; cf. above, p. 153. For fypaTfuw cf. Dibelius, ad loc. t 


prerogatives were merely inflated with that vanity which came from 
the "mind of the flesh"; this implied that their claim to a fuller 
possession of "mind" or "spirit" was the direct opposite of the truth; 
they were more than ever plunged into the material world. Access to 
the heavens was only to be obtained by union with Christ, who, as 
head of the Church and the cosmos, provided to everything in it that 
life which enabled it to grow with a divine increase. The Colossians 
having already died with Christ to the material world had no need to 
observte ordinances as if they still lived in the world. All the taboos of 
Judaism, as preserved in the system of the opposition, came to an end 
in the moment when they were practised, since they represented the 
commandments and teachings of men. Such practices might have 
some rational justification as a form of voluntary piety and humility, 
produced by mortifying the body in which the Christian was for the 
time being still forced to dwell, but not as practices which were valued 
because they gratified the vanity of those who practised them. 1 The 
death of the Christian to this world prevented him from attaching 

and Preisker in s.v. The latter points out the difficulty of supposing a 
formal initiation in a temple, which the word implies in its technical sense of a formal 
entry into a temple after initiation, since Paul would deal otherwise with definite 
participation in heathen rites. He suggests the meaning " enquiring fully into " in 
the sense of trying to elaborate a doctrinal interpretation of such visions, comparing 
z Mace. 2. 30 and Philo, De Plant, 19 (80, M. i. 341). But in the former passage the 
sense is rather "covering the ground". In the latter Cohn-Wendland read tpPa- 
QvvovTfs, which is a regular cliche 1 in this connection, cf. De Mund. Op. 25 (77, M. i. 
1 8), and almost certainly right. The papyri use the word frequently of "entering 
into possession of" as in Josh. 19. 49 (cf. Voc. Gr. N,T. s.v.). Such a progressive 
entering into possession might suggest the use of the term for a progress in a series 
of initiations into higher mysteries, similar to that described by Apuleius ; the convert 
would be told that he must " enter into " or " take possession of" a new stage in his 
spiritual growth (note the reference to "increase" of the true kind in v. 19, perhaps 
in contrast to the spurious kind involved in the initiations, cf. above, p. 149). 

1 The passage 2. 20-23 is comparatively easy when it is remembered that Paul 
has to face the fact that the Christian although already "in heaven" is none the less 
in the body. He does not mean to deny that the mortifying of the body may have 
some value as a means of liberating the soul from its power (i Cor. 9. 26 seqq., where 
the "enslaving" of the body is the opposite of the normal state in which the spirit 
is "enslaved"). But he does not value such means and the word e#eAo#pjj<r/a'a 
looks like a sarcastic borrowing from his opponents' language. On the other hand 
they have no rational justification if they are used for the gratifying of vanity or as 
a means for inducing visions which convey a sense of spiritual pride ; if so regarded, 
they are not a means for destroying the influence of the body over the sou), but a 
positive means of gratifying the flesh and increasing its influence. (For the inclusion 
of such attitudes of mind under the flesh cf. Gal. 5. 20.) The grammatical confusion 
would be avoided if the clause oinc ev rinfj ic.r.X. had been replaced by one beginning 
/iupia 8e ear iv or some similar phrase. But this would involve too definite a sanction 
of such practices and Paul is not willing to make quite so large a concession. In itself 
the phrase Xdyoi/ e^etv may mean either "to possess a reasonable justification" or 
"to have a pretence of justification". Here as often Paul is handicapped by the 
difficulty of admitting any value in external practices without appearing to justify 
the claims of his opponents. 


more than the most trivial and temporary value to such things, even if 
they possessed any value at all. For he had not only died with 
Christ; he had also risen with Him. He must therefore seek the 
things which were above, where Christ was seated at the right hand of 
God ; he must let his mind be occupied with things which were in 
heaven, not with things which were on earth. The Colossians had died 
and their true life was one which was hidden with Christ in God ; when 
Christ, who was the Christian's true life, should appear, they too 
would be manifested with Him in glory. The passage was a remarkable 
conflation of the Hellenistic thought of the true life as an incorruptible 
heavenly life in which the body had already been put to death 1 with 
the pictorial eschatology of Judaism. The Jewish tradition was still 
too strong to be eliminated completely, but it could be relegated to a 
parenthetical clause. 

At the same time the thought of the true life enabled Paul to pass to 
the thought of the true "mortification" (3. 5 seqq.). His opponents 
had justified their system as a means of mortifying the five senses 
which made up the earthly body; 2 Paul replied with a demand for a 
complete and immediate mortification of the earthly "members". It 
was a commonplace that the body was the source of evil ; it must be put 
to death not merely in the form of the flagrant vices of impurity, 
lust 3 (or desire as the source of evil) and covetousness, 4 the desire of 
unjust acquisition, which in a widespread Stoic convention was re- 

1 The thought in Philo is normally associated with the more grotesque problems 
of O.T. exegesis, such as Nadab and Abihu (cf. p. 104) and leprosy (cf. p. 198). Cf. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14. 106 (712 P), where the command to watch is interpreted 
as meaning to learn to live and separate the soul from the body, an interesting attempt 
to allegorise the apocalyptic element in the N.T. 

3 The duplication of the pentads of vice is peculiar; it seems that Paul, having set 
down the first, thinks it well to go on from vices in which his readers had once 
walked (v. 7), which are largely sins of action, to the second list, mainly consisting of 
sins of speech. 

3 The Chester-Beatty codex here has simply eiridvp-ia for eTriOvfiia KOK^. 
H. C. Hbskierin^.T.S. 38. 150, pp. 158 seqq. sees a parallel with Indian religion; but 
firiBv\i'ia has already appeared as a summary of the Law in Rom. 7. 7, the last 
commandment of the decalogue being put for the whole, presumably in order to 
find in it the commonplace of the evil of desire as such. Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. 3. 38 
(i 1 5, M. i . 1 10), going back to the ordinary Platonic physiology of Timaeus 7oe seqq., 
and De Decal. 28 (142, M. 2. 204); note especially the closing section 153. See also 
Diog. Laert. 7. 113; Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 23 (Scott 126). Paul's source is, 
if fTn.6vfji.ia be correct, the commonplace of Stoicism, as read into the Decalogue, 
rather than the Brahmins, unless it is supposed that they were the ultimate source of 
Zeno's teaching. 

4 For 7r\eovf!-ia as a source of all evils cf. Diod. Sic. 21. 1.4 (Exc. Hoeschl. p. 480) 
and 21. 10 (as I] TOV ir\eiovos firi8vp.ia) and passim. For the end of it as the source 
of evil in the new golden age, cf. Philo, De Vit. Mays. 2 (3), 22 (186, M. 2. 163). For 
avarice in the narrower sense of the word as spiritual idolatry cf. Philo, De Spec. 
Legg. i (De Man.), 2 (23, M. 2. 214), where however fyikapyvpia is used; 
Test.Jud. 19. i. 


garded as the main source of human evils : as such it was equated by 
Judaism with the idolatry of the Old Testament, in order to find a 
value and meaning for the warnings of Scripture on the subject, 
idolatry in the literal sense being regarded as out of the question for^a 
Jew or a proselyte. 1 It must also be mortified from all sins against 
charity. Against two pentads of vice, making up the "old man", Paul 
set the "putting-on" of the "new man" by the Christian through the 
knowledge of God which conformed him to the image of the Creator. 
TtTe "^ngw-man" was possibly drawn with the scheme of pentads 
from the language of Paul's opponents. In itself it expressed very 
adequately the experience of conversion; Paul was conscious of a 
change which could be described as the substitution of a "new man" 
for the old. 2 It was associated with the conception of the new age, and 
the new race of men which was to appear with it. But already 
Gnostic speculations had associated the language with the highest 
type of mankind, the true Gnostic who enjoyed the vision of God; 3 
such men were the true "new race" from heaven; and Judaism had 
boldly identified the "new race" of those who "saw God" with Israel, 
who enjoyed that vision in virtue of the Torah, and whose very name 
showed that they enjoyed the vision of the one true God. 4 The thought 
of the "new man" produced by the vision of God would seem to have 
been drawn ultimately from the conception of the identification of the 
votary with the deity in Egyptian and Eastern religion. 5 But it had 
passed thence into theology on the one hand^ and magic on the other. 7 

1 For the metaphor of "putting-on" Christ at baptism cf. above, pp. 137 seqq. 
For "putting-on" in rabbinical Judaism cf. Gen. R. 49. 2: the "men" of Gen. 
18. 16 "put on" angels at 19. i when the Shekinah has left them. 

2 For the new age cf. above, pp. 92 seqq. The new age is characterised by a new 
race from heaven (Verg. Ed. 4. 7), without prejudice to the poet's chance of living 
in it (ib. 53). 

3 In Philo, De Abr. 12 (56 seqq., M. 2. 9), Israel as the new race represents the 
third stage in a scheme of world-ages, the first two beginning with Adam and Noah. 
This entirely artificial introduction of a scheme of world-ages, in which the new 
race consists of those who see God because He draws them up to Himself, suggests 
that Philo is aware of a scheme in which the Zoroastrian system of three stages of 
redemption (p. 21) was adapted to justify the belief that those who possessed a 
higher degree of knowledge were the true Israel. Here again it is possible that Philo 
has preserved in a harmless form a less orthodox speculation. Cf. the Israel-Uriel 
speculation (p. 49): the association of Israel as against Abraham with the beginning 
of the .-'new race" is perhaps significant. 

* Philo, Q.R.D.H. 56 (278 seqq., M. i. 513)- 

5 For a full treatment of the subject cf. Kirk, The Vision of God 23 seqq. 

6 So in the "conversion" ofCorp.Herm. 13. 8b seqq. (Scott 244): the "new man" 
as such does not appear except in Scott's ingenious conjecture in na: the trans- 
formation into voepa yeve<ns is however the same thought. 

7 So in Papp. Mag. Gr. 7. 561, 8. 2 seqq. the god is to enter into the soul of the 
worker of the spell and transform him to his own likeness; this seems to represent 
religion which has decayed into magic. 


It may have been assisted by the thought that the latest saviour of the 
world was a "new Heracles" or whatever other deity he might con- 
sider himself to represent. 1 But it was also associated with the thought 
of Judaism that God created man anew by His forgiveness; 2 the 
thought itself may have been derived from Hellenistic religion but 
had acclimatised itself in the religious life of Israel, which could easily 
adopt the outlook of the age and express it in terms of a "new man", 
who was implanted by God in the soul in virtue of the prophetic 
promise of a "new Torah" and a "new heart". 3 

Thus Paul was following an existing convention of popular theology 
when he described the ethical growth which must result from con- 
version as the "putting-on" of a "new man". He was equally 
following those conventions when he described (3. 10) that renewal as 
leading to a knowledge in virtue of which the Christian would conform 
to the image of the Creator. It was a commonplace of the age that 
knowledge implied a "likeness" between the knower and the thing 
known: thus in astrological physics man could only know the secrets 
of the universe because all the elements of it entered into his compo- 
sition, and the thought harmonised well with the Stoic analogy of 
macrocosm and microcosm. 4 Again, mystical theology held that only 
"life and light" could enter into "life and light". 5 The belief might 
again be stated in the form of an axiom of metaphysics ; "only the like 
can know the like" sounded reasonable and convincing, so long as its 
meaning was left unexplored^' But the language could be used to 
express the ethical truth that the knowledge of God was only possible 
in so far as man resembled Him in holiness, and it was in this sense 
that Paul used it. 7 The "image of the Creator" was the pattern after 
which the new man must be formed and also the means by which the 
new man, so formed, was made capable of the knowledge of God. That 

1 For the conception cf. above, pp. 20 and 74. The subject has become a 
standing joke in Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 12 (89, M. 2. 558) and 13 (97). 

2 Cf. above, p. 144. So far as I can see the language of the "new man" in this 
connection is Jewish, though it is drawn from a Judaism which is entirely Hellenistic 
in its general outlook. 

3 Jer. 31. 31 seqq.; Ezek. n. 19, 36. 25 seqq.; cf. p. 130. 

4 Firm. Mat. Math. 3, Proem. 3 ; Manilius, Astron. 4. 893 ; Philo, De Mund. Op. 51 
(i^6seqq., M. i. 35); Hipparchus ap. Pliny, N.H. 2. 24. 95; Corp. Herm. Exc. 2a, 2 
(Scott 382). 6 Cf. above, p. 140. 

6 Philo, De Gigant. 2 (9, M. i . 263) ; there are souls in the air, but they can only 
be known by Mind, in order that the like may be known by the like; cf. Corp. 
Herm. 5. 2 (Scott 158). In Q.D.P.I. 45 (164, M. i. 222) we get the final futility 
that that which is found must be found either by the like in virtue of its likeness or by 
the unlike in virtue of its contrast. The classical expression is Posidonius ap. Sext. 
Emp. adv. Math. 7. 93, following Philolaus. 

7 i Jno. 3. 2; Corp. Herm. 4. 9 (Scott 154), Exc. 6. 18 (Scott 418). Naturally the 
mystical and ethical shade into one another. 


image was of course Jesus the divine Wisdom, not a divine element 
present in some particular class of men in spite of the fall of Adam 
and constituting them the "new race". Those who were really in the 
image of the Creator were in the image of Jesus, in whom all distinc- 
tions of race or class had been done away; 1 for Christ was all things 
and present in all men. The diversities of mankind might indeed be 
due to the fall; 2 but the original unity was restored to. all those who 
were in Christ; it was not a special prerogative of a chosen few who 
possessed some higher knowledge of God. For those who were in 
Him there was no difference of Greek or Jew, 3 of cultured barbarian 
or pure savage 4 (the distinction between two classes of barbarians 
may allude to some claim on the part of Paul's opponents that their 
system contained the truth not only of Judaism but of the ancient 
wisdom of the barbarians ; the claim was certainly true in so far as it 
attempted to substitute for the main Christian tradition a system 
dominated by the Oriental influences at work in Hellenistic religion). 
Christ was all things and present in all men, so that in Him the ancient 
unity of mankind was restored. Here again Paul used a rhetorical 

1 3. ii appears to be entirely irrelevant and its introduction here may be due to 
the association of it with the thought of "putting-on Christ" at baptism, as in 
Gal. 3. 27. So Dibelius, ad loc., perhaps rightly. The thought may have been taken 
over from the preaching of the synagogue; cf. Seder Eliahu Rabba, quoted by 
Dibelius. But the element of " mind " as a divine emanation in man is the image of 
God and the source of the kinship of all men in spite of their diversities (Philo, 
De Mund. Op. 51 (145 seqq., M. i. 35); cf. Seneca, Ep. 4. 2 (31), n). Yet again it is 
the element which enables man to ascend to heaven (De Mund. Op. 16 (70, M. i . 16) ; 
cf. Seneca, N.Q. Prol. 12). The element of "mind" or "spirit" is in the Gnostic- 
Hermetic tradition the prerogative of a special class. Consequently it is possible 
that Paul's language here is not irrelevant but a claim that the reversal of the fall and 
the restoration of unity are not the prerogative of a special class, who have somehow 
preserved the divine spark in spite of the fall, but of all who are " in Christ ". It must 
be admitted that this is only a conjecture. 

a For the fall of Adam as producing the diversity of mankind cf. the fable that 
men and beasts understood one another's language before the fall (p. 80) and 
Orig. De Princ. 1.6. 2, and Plutarch's account of the Zoroastrian belief that men will 
have one TroAireia and one speech at the end of all things (De Is. et Os. 47, 37ob), 

3 "Greek" for "Gentile" may reflect a Greek version of the Morning Bene- 
dictions which seem to be the source of Paul's language (Authorized Jewish 
Prayerbook 5 seqq.). 

4 The distinction between barbarian and Scythian seems to imply some such 
conception. For the wisdom of the barbarians cf. Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 1 1 
(74, M. 2. 456) and 14 (94, M. 2. 460); cf. also p. 206; Jos. c. Ap. i. 2 (6 seqq.), where 
Josephus avoids the word "barbarians", substituting "Egyptians and Babylonians" 
as recognised instances of non-Hellenic learning; Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 14. 59 seqq. 
(350 P) for the barbarians as the inventors of all culture, following Tatian, Or. adv. 
Gr. i. 3, or employing the same source, which may well have been a Jewish apologia 
against the Greeks; it must be remembered that the Jews were "barbarians". For 
Scythians as a type of the wildest savagery cf. Jos. c. Ap. z. 37 (269); Philo, Leg. ad 
Gaium 2 (10, M. 2. 547); Cicero, De Nat. Dear. 2. 34. 88; Seneca, De Ira 2. 15. i ; 
Orig. c. Ceh. i. i. 


phrase which formally applied better to the divine Mind or reason of 
Stoicism, which was potentially all things, as working itself out in the 
cosmos and present in them, than to the historical Jesus, but was 
admirably suited to express Paul's consciousness that in Him was to 
be found the answer to all the problems of the universe. 1 

Thus the Christian's task (3. 12 seqq.) was to put on the nature that 
suited those whom God had chosen, the various forms of charity 
united by charity itself. The list was artificially arranged to form a 
group of five corresponding to the pentads of Paul's opponents, but 
roughly covering the account of charity in i Cor. 13. 4-7; Paul made 
no real attempt to provide an exhaustive list of the various forms of 
Christian virtue. The effect of putting on the new man would be to 
produce in the hearts of the readers the domination of peace, which 
was the purpose to which they were called in the one body of Christ; 
they must always be thankful for such a privilege. The word of Christ 2 
must dwell in them abundantly, expressing itself in wisdom, which 
would enable them to teach and advise one another, and in the out- 
pouring of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, which would express 
the inward thanksgiving of their hearts. All their actions would be 
done in the name of the Lord Jesus and would express their offering of 
thanks to the Father through Him. The whole passage reflected the 
spiritual enthusiasm of the primitive Christian community, though 
there was no mention of the outpourings of incoherent glossolalies. 
But while the description of the Christian attitude was entirely 
Pauline, the mention of the duty of enthusiastic thanksgiving at this 
point reflected the methods of propaganda favoured by Hellenistic 
religion, and was very probably suggested to Paul by his opponents' 
claim that the revelation of the true knowledge must express itself in 
a spontaneous outburst of thanksgiving. 3 It was only right that the 
Christian revelation of the true cosmogony should end with a call to 
such an outburst. 

1 Cf. p. 128. 

2 The "word of Christ" seems to be a conflation of the Gospel expressing itself 
in utterance as in i Cor. 12. 8 with the thought of Christ as dwelling in the Christian. 

3 There is no apparent relevance in the passage 3. 15 seqq. But the Hermetic 
tradition represents spontaneous thanksgiving as the result of a revelation (Corp. 
Herm. i (Poimandres), 31 (Scott 130), 5. lob (Scott 164), 13. 17 (Scott 250), Ascl. 3. 
41 b (Scott 374). For this conventional form cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos 295 seqq., 
who finds the same form in the concluding chapters of Romans (n. 25 seqq.). The 
thanksgiving there, as in Colossians, leads on to moral exhortation. The same 
convention may underlie such a passage as Philo, De Migr. Abr. 5 (25, M. i. 440). 
But the convention has become so commonplace that its origin has been lost; it is 
merely a regular form of exposition, in which revelation or teaching leads to 
thanksgiving, which must express itself in a life of suitable conduct. Cf. Epict. Diss. 
i. 1 6. 6 seqq. 


Thus it is possible that the sequence of revelation and thanksgiving 
was derived from a current literary convention; this sequence again 
was expected to lead on to an exhortation to a life of virtue in accord- 
ance with the revelation given. On the other hand there were 
philosophers who held that the function of philosophy was not to 
reveal the mysteries of the universe, but to advise mankind as to their 
conduct in the relations of domestic life. 1 Paul himself may have felt 
no little sympathy with this point of view; for him the position of 
Jesus as the centre of the life of the cosmos was not a matter of 
philosophy but an obvious and indisputable fact. The short and 
pedestrian summary of domestic duties which he appended to his 
exhortation to thanksgiving (3. 18 seqq.) stood in marked contrast to 
the exalted style of the earlier part of the letter and was intended to 
contrast the simplicity of the practice of the Christian life with the 
"mysteries" on which it might depend; for the Christian life was more 
important than all mysteries. Only in dealing with the duties of slaves 
did he expand his treatment beyond the briefest injunctions ; the normal 
type of such exhortations would hardly envisage a philosophical slave. 
There were, however, many slaves among the primitive Churches, and 
the abandonment of the apocalyptic message that the time was short 
made it necessary to find some other grounds for comforting the de- 
pressed classes. A general upheaval of the slave-world as a result of 
the Gospel was not to be thought of; but the recent affair of Onesimus 
had shown that the problem of the Christian slave demanded serious 
consideration. Paul's message to them was expanded in order to give 
some measure of consolation to those who needed something more 
than a mere injunction to good conduct. 2 The rest of the Epistle was 
occupied with personal messages. 

Such was Paul's reply to the first serious aberration from the 
received tradition of the Church. The danger which he was called to 

1 Seneca, Ep. 15. 2 (94). i: Earn partem philosophiae quae. . .marito suadet 
quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, patri quomodo educet liberos, domino quomodo servos 
regat, quidam solam receperunt. For the regular forms of moral exhortation of this 
type cf. Dibelius in H.z.N.T. ad loc. The baldness and brevity of the injunctions 
seems explicable only on the grounds suggested in the text. It may be contrasted 
with more exalted language used by his opponents to the effect that a correct 
cosmogony was a necessary basis for true virtue, cf. Chrysippus ap. Plut. De Stoic. 
Rep. 9. 1035 c. 

2 This would seem to be the explanation of the greater length with which the 
duties of slaves are set out and the typically Pauline association of them with the 
ultimate principles of Christianity. The Ephesian continuator does not realise the 
model on which Paul is working and expands the short list into a general homily on 
Christian duties, extending to forms of vice which the philosopher would hardly 
regard as possible for his hearers (Eph. 4. 25 seqq.; a philosopher would hardly warn 
his readers not to steal). 

KSPC 12 


meet was one which threatened the whole structure of Christianity, 
for it involved the replacement of Jesus by personifications of the 
powers or names of God, identified with or set above the lords of the 
planets, as man's only hope of escaping from the fate to which 
astrology condemned him. 1 The system would have resulted in the 
conflation of Christianity with its heathen and Jewish competitors, in 
a form which substituted the knowledge of such secrets [combined in 
a few rare souls with the mystical contemplation of God, in the majo- 
rity with a cult of visions artificially induced, and regarded as the end 
of religion], for the Gospel of the love of God and man, achieved by 
personal union with the historical Jesus accepted as the risen Lord of 
the Church. In meeting the danger Paul had been compelled to make 
a profound and far-reaching change in his method of presenting the 
Gospel. In his earlier letters he had substituted cosmogony for 
apocalyptic as a means of converting the Gentile world. The change 
meant nothing to him, for he was not concerned with philosophy, and 
any system of thought and language that expressed the position of 
Jesus as the Lord was equally acceptable. But the effect of the 
Colossian controversy, whether Paul realised it or not, was to 
substitute philosophy for homiletic as the basis of Christian preaching. 
The divine Wisdom, the pattern and agent of creation and the divine 
Mind permeating the cosmos, was identified with Jesus not as a matter 
of midrashic exposition which could be used and thrown aside, but as 
an eternal truth in the realm of metaphysics; for only so could the 
supremacy of Jesus be asserted as against such potent beings as the 
rulers of die stars in their courses. It is probable that Paul was entirely 
unaware that his letter would produce this effect: whether he realised 
it or not, he had committed the Church to the theology of Nicaea. 

1 The best product of this typeof Gnosis is represented bythe Hermetica, the worst 
by the magical papyri. The ease with which such systems could be merged in one 
another appears from a comparison of the closely related systems of Valentinus and 
Marcus, as described by Irenaeus. 



COLOSSIANS marks the completion of Paul's theology. One 
other genuine letter remains, the Epistle to the Philippians. 
This letter appears to have been written from Rome, when he 
was faced with the prospect of death. It has been suggested in recent 
years that the letter may have been written from a captivity at 
Ephesus. 1 It cannot be denied that Paul was imprisoned on various 
occasions which are not mentioned in the Acts. But it must be 
remembered that Acts makes no pretence of narrating Paul's adventures 
between his first departure from the Syrian Antioch to Tarsus and his 
visit to Jerusalem during the famine; we know that he returned to 
Antioch to help Barnabas, and proceeded to Jerusalem, and we also 
know that this information covers a period of nine years. 2 Conse- 
quently the discrepancy between the account of Paul's adventures in 
Acts and his own narrative in 2 Cor. n. 23 seqq. cannot be urged to 
prove that he may have been imprisoned during his stay at Ephesus, 
any more than the silence of Acts can be used to prove the contrary. 
On the other hand the hypothesis involves a more than doubtful 
interpretation of Paul's allusion to the itpa.vr<i>piov (Phil. i. 13); 
traditionally it has been held that this refers to the praetorian guard. 3 
It has been maintained that it can refer to the official residence of any 
provincial governor; but there is a remarkable lack of evidence for 
this in the case of the senatorial provinces, including Asia. 4 Further, 
it involves the view that "Caesar's household" in 4. 22 refers not to 

1 For a statement of the argument on the other side cf. Duncan, St Paul's Ephesian 
Ministry. Michael in Moffatt's commentary xii seqq. gives both sides. 

2 Cf. Jerusalem 179. 

3 Lightfoot. The Epistle to the Philippians 99 seqq. 

4 Mommsen, Hermes xxxv, 1900, 437 seqq., inclines to this view. But apart from 
a general reference to official residences of travelling judges in Julian, the authorities 
he quotes are inscriptions from imperial provinces and Tac. Ann. 3. 33. The last 
passage, however, seems highly doubtful ; the complaint is made that if a magistrate 
takes his wife to his province duorum egressus coli, duo esse praetoria ; the speaker who 
makes the complaint is considering both classes of province, as the reference to the 
interference of women in military matters shows. The sense is at least as good if it 

' means " There are two general headquarters " as if it means " There are two Govern- 
ment Houses". The references in Moulton and Milligan, Voc. Gr. N.T. s.v., come 
from Egypt, as is natural, except for the inscription Sylloge 932 ( = 880), 63, which 
comes from Thrace, an imperial province. It does not appear that there is evidence 
for praetoria in the senatorial provinces ; Michael loc. cit. suggests a detachment 
of praetorian guards at Ephesus; but could they be "the whole" rrpairupiovJ 



the imperial household in Rome but to the staff which managed the 
imperial estates and revenues in Ephesus and Asia. It cannot be said 
that this interpretation is impossible ini itself; but it involves the sup- 
position that Paul had friends both in the proconsular staff and in the 
imperial. Considering the friction which normally prevailed between 
the two sides of the administration the supposition is highly improb- 
able, especially when it is remembered that the Pauline mission at its 
Ephesian period was only just making itself felt outside the synagogue. 
Finally it is very difficult to interpret "the beginning of the Gospel" 
as referring to the period only three years before Paul's mission at 
Ephesus, when the Philippians appear to have sent some financial help 
to Paul at Corinth or Athens; it suggests a period some long time 
ago, since Paul is now able, in retrospect, to see that his first visit to 
Macedonia was in some sense a new departure, which marked a first 
step in his progress towards Rome. It seems hardly likely that he 
would have written "the beginning of the Gospel" unless he was 
looking back on a longer period than the interval between Philippi 
and Ephesus both in space and time. 1 

Consequently the traditional dating of Philippians from Rome 
appears to be far more natural than the attempt to predate it to an 
otherwise unrecorded imprisonment at Ephesus. In itself the letter 
contains no further development of Paul's theology; the much 
discussed passage, 2. 5 seqq., cannot be pressed to mean that Jesus was 
God in the sense of Nicene theology, just as it cannot mean less than 
that He was the pre-existing pattern and agent of creation, the Wisdom 
of the Old Testament and Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. The in- 
compatibility of the figure of Wisdom with the historical Jesus 
remains; Paul was entirely indifferent to the need of philosophical 
consistency as against the recognition of Jesus as the centre of the 
universe and its history. In the same way he combines the Jewish 
thought of the "day of Christ", implying a catastrophic second coming 
of the Lord, with the Hellenistic thought that the Christian is already 
living in heaven and is "with Christ" at his death. 2 It would seem 

1 I cannot help feeling that the attempt to date Philippians from Ephesus is due 
to a desire to vindicate the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles or some fragments of 
them. I see nothing in favour of the view that the personal fragments are genuine 
insertions into otherwise spurious compilations ; in particular z Tim. 4. 9 seqq. is 
condemned by the phrase eirovpdvios /3acrt/Wa (v. 18), which is the language of a 
conventional piety which has forgotten that apocalyptic and astrology are different. 

2 Cf. p. 141. The language of 3. 20 is a remarkable conflation, since the Hellenistic 
thought of the soul's true home in heaven (p. 140; Str.-B. give no real rabbinical 
parallels) is immediately combined with the hope ofva second coming. Here, as 
elsewhere, Paul was perfectly prepared to use any conceptions which enabled him to 
express what he regarded as the essential truth. 


that the Christians at Philippi were quite content with the earlier form 
in which he had preached the Gospel, and Paul uses either his earlier 
or later methods of expressing his message with complete certainty 
that they will not be misunderstood in the most faithful of all his 
Churches, even if there is a certain tendency to quarrelling among 
some of its leading members. As an expression of Paul's personality 
with its glowing love for his converts the letter is the most attractive 
of all his writings. His last word from prison is " Rejoice in the Lord " ; 
there we may leave him. 

Of the greatness of his achievement there can be no doubt. In one 
sense he had turned Christianity into a mystery-religion, for he had 
not hesitated to express it in terms of that Hellenistic cosmogony 
which was the general form in which the cults of his time were adjusting 
themselves to the needs of the age. But the essential difference re- 
mained that for him, in spite of the incautious outburst of 2 Cor. 5.16, 
Jesus, as the risen Lord of the Church, remained the concrete figure 
of the Gospels; however much the Jewish Christians may have 
quarrelled with his attitude to the Torah, there is no scrap of evidence 
to hint that they disagreed with his conception of the person of the 
Lord ; both to Paul and his Jewish-Christian opponents Jesus was the 
centre of their life and their religion. The essential difference between 
Pauline Christianity and Hellenistic religion remains: Pauline 
Christianity is a religion which centres on the historical Jesus expressed 
in terms of popular theology; the central figures of Hellenistic cults, 
where they rise above the level of heathen religion, dissolve into vague 
abstractions symbolising a deity projected into the cosmos from the 
mind of man. 

His transformation of Christianity from a system of Jewish 
apocalyptic, with a purely local and temporary appeal, into a religion 
of salvation by faith in the historical Jesus as the first-born of all 
creation was essential if Christianity was to survive and to conquer 
the world. Whether he was right or wrong in his faith that Jesus was 
the author of creation and the meaning of history is a matter which 
the study of Christian origins cannot fail to raise; it cannot within its 
own limits provide the answer. 




IT is scarcely possible to maintain the view that the Epistle to the 
Ephesians is a genuine Pauline document. The difference between 
the long sentences and involved clauses; of Ephesians and Paul's 
ordinary style might conceivably be explained by the theory that it 
represents a set piece of doctrinal exposition, 1 not a document written 
in the heat of controversy. 2 This, however^ fails to account for the 
obscurity of the letter. Paul might well have thought it desirable to 
expound his theology in the form of a general exposition. Elsewhere, 
however, although his language may be obscure, his general purpose 
is clear.. Here the language is clear but the occasion and purpose are 
at first sight a mystery. Moreover, the leading ideas of other Epistles 
reappear in Ephesians not because they are relevant to the theme, but 
as if they were part of a system which has to be expounded as some- 
thing given; the mere fact of their irrelevance is not a sufficient reason 
for omitting them. 3 i 

There is a further difficulty in regard to the historical situation. 
Judaism and judaising Christianity are no longer serious rivals to the 
Church. It is possible that this complete separation of Church and 
synagogue was achieved in Paul's lifetime in some of the Churches of 
his foundation; it is highly doubtful whether he would have realised 
it so completely as to confine his allusions to that controversy to the 
parenthesis of 2. 5 and its resumption in 2. 8. It is still more difficult 
to explain the allusions to idolatry. In the genuine Pauline letters it is 

1 So Armitage Robinson, The Epistle to the Ephesians, intr. p. 12, where however 
the extraordinary difference of style is not noted. ; 

2 Rom. i. 1 8 is somewhat similar. Paul's apologia to his owra people is set out in 
long sentences. But compare the opening words with airoKfiTas, yap irapa deaiv p^vis 
in Pap. Par. 63 col. ix (UPZ 144. 47), a school-copy of a pattern essay (ib. p. 622). 
It seems that the whole passage is a deliberate imitation of a conventional style, 
leading to the dramatic turning of the tables on Judaism in 2. i, where three brief 
clauses demolish the elaborate structure of the previous chapter. 

3 Note the insertion of " By grace are ye saved " in 2. 5 and the expansion of the 
thought in v. 8. The whole thought belongs to the Jewish-Christian controversy, not 
to the theme of the Christian "ascent to heaven". There is a certain parallel in 
i Cor. 15. 56, where the reference to the Law is qiiite irrelevant. Here, however, 
there is a clear association with the thought of sin and death, which forms the theme 
of Rom. 7, a theme which was still fresh in Paul's mind, and no expansion of the 
associated thought as here. But it is typical of a continuator to feel that grace and 
works must be dragged in at all costs. 


assumed that there is no danger that the Christian will relapse into 
idolatry; no doubt the assumption was justified by the large number of 
Jews, proselytes and adherents of the synagogue to be found in the 
earliest communities. In Rom. i. 18 seqq, the conventional Jewish 
argument against idolatry is turned into an attack on Judaism. In 
i Cor. 8. 5 and 10. 14 there is no question of the readers lapsing into 
idolatry ; the danger is that they may seem to countenance it, or that 
they may bring themselves into the power of the demons who lurk 
behind the idols of the heathen by an undue self-confidence. In 
Col. 3. 5 idolatry is explained to be the same as covetousness in 
accordance with the Jewish-Hellenistic convention. In Ephesians, 
however, we have two warnings against idolatry. The first of these 
(4. 17 seqq.) is a variation on the conventional Jewish argument based 
on Rom. i. 21 seqq., of which it is a recapitulation. But the second 
(5. 5 seqq.), while introduced by the conventional equation of covetous- 
ness with idolatry found in Col. 3. 5, abandons the thought of 
covetousness in favour of an apparently serious warning against the 
belief that it is possible to combine Christianity with secret heathen 
rites. The warning (5. 6-14) is noticeably lacking in the reminiscences 
of Pauline writing which are found elsewhere in the Epistle; it would 
seem that the writer thinks it necessary, as Paul did not, to warn his 
readers against the danger of syncretising Christianity with pagan 
cults and has to rely on himself for this passage for lack of a Pauline 

Yet another objection is the word "mystery" in 5. 32. The terni is 
employed of a natural action which is to the initiate a symbol of a 
spiritual truth. It is drawn from the theology of "mystery" cults. 
These were compelled to expound the rites, which were the essential 
feature of their systems, in terms of the popular philosophy aind 
theology of the age. Thus the "mystery" ceased to be the actual rite, 
and became the spiritual meaning which its exponents imported from 
that theology in order to justify the crude and primitive practices of 
barbarous religion, in this case the ' ' sacred marriage " .* Paul, however, 
does not use the term in this sense ; he uses it in its strictly Palestinian- 
Jewish sense of a divine secret, hitherto concealed but now revealed, 
or else revealed to Israel but concealed from the rest of mankind; 

1 For the universality of the practice of reading a mystic symbolism into cult- 
practice at this period cf. Orig. c. Cels. i. 12. The use of the term "mystery" in this 
sense goes back to Plato, Theaet. 1563; Rep. 3783; cf. Varro ap. Aug. De Civ. 1 Dei 
7. 5, where those qui adissent mysteria recognise the soul of the world and its parts in 
the images of the gods. Properly the "mystery" is not the theology, which is 
common property, but the rite, which may not be divulged to the uninitiated. 


nowhere else does he use it in its secondary Hellenistic sense of a rite 
with a "mystical" meaning. It cannot of course be denied that he 
might have used the term here in a different sense from that in which 
he uses it elsewhere; but the variation in meaning is suspicious. 1 

Other objections sometimes raised are less serious. In particular 
the change from the "body of Christ" as a cosmic entity in Col. i. 18 
and 2. 19 to the Church on earth in Eph. i. 22 seqq. and 4. 16 involves 
no real difficulty. 2 The cosmic Church was forced on Paul by his 
opponents; his own interest lay entirely in the Church on earth. If 
there were spiritual beings in the higher spheres, they too needed 
redemption in Christ, if they were to be saved from the material state 
into which they had fallen. Paul probably believed that they existed, 
but his arguments cannot be pressed even to prove that he believed in 
them, still less to prove that he regarded them with any serious interest. 

On the whole, however, the difficulties seem fatal to the tradition of 
Pauline authorship. This must not be taken as depreciating the value 
of the letter. The writer combines a real measure of originality with a 
deep understanding of Paulinism and a thorough loyalty to it; he has 
no ulterior motive of the kind usually found in pseudepigraphic 
writings. The best explanation of the Epistle seems to be that it is 
intended as an introduction to the genuine Pauline letters ; it is possible 
that the writer is their first collector. His object is to make them known 
to the Church as a statement of Paul's message; his further object is 
to warn his readers against disunity and a general lowering of the 
Christian standard. His understanding of Paulinism is remarkably 
clear; and his familiarity with Jewish methods of expounding the 
Scriptures and traditional Jewish explanations of them 3 suggests that 
he may have been one of Paul's personal companions?, the general 
Hellenistic outlook makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that he 
had a personal knowledge of the rabbinical exegesis of Palestinian 
Judaism. 4 

1 See Note IV. He uses in Phil. 4. 12, but the religious meaning of the 
word there has almost entirely vanished. 

2 As urged by Bousset, Kyrios Christos 286, followed by Dibelius in H.z.N.T. 
on the latter passage. 3 Cf. p. 195. 

4 The solution put forward above is that of Goodspeed in The Meaning of 
Ephesians. His statement of the difficulties of accepting its authenticity and his 
suggested solution appear entirely convincing. I am not clear that it is necessary 
to suppose, as he does, that the author wrote after the publication of Luke-Acts or 
that Luke-Acts is as late as he holds. But his general view of the author's intention 
and the occasion of writing appears to offer a convincing solution both of the author- 
ship of the Epistle and of its great value and importance as a statement of Paulinism. 
A full discussion of the difficulties of the traditional authorship is given by Good- 
speed, op. cit.; the foregoing summary is largely based on his statement of the 
problem and that of Dibelius in H.z.N.T. 


Thus Ephesians, like the Pastorals, is a product of a time when the 
veneration attached to Apostolic authorship made it necessary to 
borrow a name in order to give sanction to documents, whose purpose 
was to expound the Christian message in a manner suited to the 
changing conditions of the Church, but before there was a canon of 
the New Testament to which it would be sacrilege to make any 
addition. The difference between Ephesians and the Pastorals is 
that the author of the former really understands the meaning of 
Paulinism and is only concerned to expound it; the writers of the 
Pastorals are concerned to supply Paulinism with a system of regula- 
tion and discipline for the life of the Church. It was an obvious 
weakness of Paulinism as expounded by Paul that it made no such 
provision. Paul could hardly have admitted its necessity without 
offering an opening to those who held that the element of regulation 
would be best supplied by commanding the Gentiles to observe the 
Torah, while in his own lifetime he was able to substitute a personal 
autocracy for a system of regulation. The result is that Ephesians is an 
accurate exposition of Paulinism; the Pastorals are concerned to 
accommodate Paulinism to the practical needs of the Church after 
Paul's death. 1 

The Epistle opens with a thanksgiving after the Pauline fashion, but 
the thanksgiving is unrelated to any particular circumstances. It is 
simply a statement of the combination of cosmogony and eschatology 
at which Paul had arrived in Colossians. God has elected the Christian 
(i. 3 seqq.) from before the foundation of the world for adoption 
through Jesus Christ for the praise of the glory of that grace which He 
bestowed on him in the Beloved, in whom we have received redemp- 
tion, that is the forgiveness of sins. (Col. i. izseqq. adapted to the 
general Pauline insistence on grace; the point of Paul's identification 
of redemption with forgiveness has been lost.) Through the abundance 
of this grace the Christian has received wisdom (i. 8 is modelled on 
the pleonasm of Col. i. 9 without the excuse that it is a counterblast 
to the rhetoric of Gnosticism) to understand the mystery of God's 
purpose in summing up in Christ all things, whether in heaven or on 
earth, when the duly appointed time is fulfilled (Gal. 4. 4). For in 
Christ the Jew received that portion, to which he had been fore- 
ordained by God's purpose in virtue of the hope in the Messiah that 
was given him (here "Christ" has its proper sense), while the Gentile 

1 Cf. Scott in Moffatt's Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, intr. pp. xxiv seqq., 
perhaps with an insufficient recognition of the necessity of providing Paulinism with 
a system of regulation to replace Paul's personal influence. 


by believing in the Gospel obtained a preliminary sealing with the 
Holy Spirit of promise (2 Cor. i . 22) ; that preliminary gift was a pledge 
both to Jews and Gentiles that they would one day receive the full 
inheritance (Rom. 8. 23). The term avaK<f>a\cutaaaadai, was admirably 
chosen to cover the position of the divine pattern in whom all things 
were potentially created (Col. i. 16), the beginning of the new age and 
presumably the end of all things, 1 though the abandonment of 
eschatology in this Epistle goes even further than in the later Pauline 
writings. The allusion to "sealing" was drawn from Pauline usage, 
though it seems likely that the writer is aware of the transference of the 
metaphor from circumcision to baptism as a more or less technical 
term. 2 

The prayer which follows (1.15 seqq.) is only a prayer in form, just 
as the thanksgiving is not really a thanksgiving but a general doctrinal 
exposition. The prayer asks that the readers may receive a spirit of 
wisdom and revelation which will enlighten the eyes of their hearts 
(the reverse of 2 Cor. 4. 4), so that they may understand the full 
meaning of the Christian hope, the glory that awaits them and the 
power with which God works towards those who believe (Col. 1.5, 
27 and 1 1). The great manifestation of that power was the raising up of 
Christ from the dead and His exaltation to heaven above all the powers 
of the lower spheres of the heavens and every name that can be named 
both in the present age and in that which is to come. (Vv. 20-22 
conflate Phil. 2. 9, where Jesus has already been exalted to heaven, 
with a formal tribute to eschatology in the allusion to some possible 
further triumph in a future age drawn from i Cor. 15. 24 seqq.) This 
supremacy of Jesus in the cosmos carries with it supremacy in the 
Church, the body which He continually fills with Himself just as He 
is Himself continually being filled with God ; the double conception 
of the Wisdom-Logos as filling the Church and being filled Himself 
is a consistent application of the commonplace which underlies 
Col. i. 1 8 and 2. g; 3 if the writer was a member of the Pauline circle 
he would no doubt be familiar with a full exposition of the double 

1 Cf. (rvyKf<fia\(iiaxra(r0ai. . .olKeiaxravres rrjv ap)(fjv TO> reXet, Polyb. 39. 19. 3. 

z In Rom. 4. n the rabbinical usage of "sealing" for circumcision is implied; 
for this cf. Sanday and Headlam, ad loc. Since baptism is the true circumcision 
(Col. 2. 1 1), it follows that it is a " seal ", which marks the person sealed as belonging 
to God, though the term is obviously less suitable for baptism than for circumcision. 
Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen, 120, is probably right in holding that the term is 
drawn from Jewish usage ; though the conception of the believer as the property of 
his god is natural to the Hellenistic outlook, it is of Semitic origin. 

3 Cf. p. 164. The sense of v. 23 is "that which is filled by Him who is always 
being filled". 


aspect of the "filling" of the Wisdom of God. If not, he is) merely 
interpreting those passages in the light of the ordinary convention of 
Hellenistic thought. The cosmic aspect of the pl^roma has been 
allowed to drop out of sight; the writer correctly interprets! Paul as 
being entirely concerned with the Church on earth as the sphere of 
redemption and "filling" with the spirit of Jesus. 

In this pleroma " life " is given to the Gentiles, who were in; the past 
subject to the "aeon of this world", 1 the ruler of the lower air, and of 
the. spirit that works in the children of disobedience. The traditional 
Satan of Judaism was thus recognised as lord of the sublunar sphere, 
the only place left to him if the planetary spheres possessed their own 
lords of evil; Paul had not been sufficiently concerned with the working 
out. of a consistent scheme to relate the Jewish to the Hellenistic view; 
the writer of Ephesians shows more concern for a harmonious system. 2 
The Jews too had been subject to the desires of the flesh and the natural 
mind, and were like the rest of mankind children of wrath (a summary 
of Rom. 7). But God in the riches of His mercy ha4 raised them to a 
new life with Christ and established them with Him? in the celestial 
sphere of the firmament in Christ (Col. 3. 1-4), as a standing proof to 
the future ages of the world of the abundant riches of the grace of God. 4 
They must always remember that they are saved by grace} through 

1 The sense is easier if the "aeon" is a personal being. Sasse in T.W.z.N.T. 
accepts the personal sense here alone in the N.T. ; Dibelius, H.z.N.T. q.v., under- 
stands a personal " aeon " in the Iranian sense. The writer probably had some vague 
knowledge of personal "aeons" and used the "aeon of this wdrld" as equated with 
the " ruler of the realm of the air " as a periphrasis for the " god. of this wbrld " in his 
model (2 Cor. 4. 4) ; naturally the original phrase was too startling to be reproduced. 

2 The only early Jewish parallels for Satan as lord of the lower air seem to be 
Test. Benj. 3. 4, where however Charles rejects dtpinv, and z En. 29. 5, where Satan 
after his fall flies below the moon ; but the date of 2 Enoch' is uncertain. In the 
normal Hellenistic tradition the thicker air below the moon (Cicero, Tsc. Disp, i. 
18. 43 ; Servius, ad Aen. 6. 640) is subject to chance, fate and eVil (cf. Platcita 2. 4. 12 
(Dox. Or. 332) (the view ascribed to Aristotle) and Epiph. ad'v. Haer. 3. 8 (ib. 590) 
(to Pythagoras)). Thus it was suitable for the lower orders of Sm^ovia of the 
"Pythagorean" tradition, and it appears in this light in Philo, De Spec. Legg. i 
(De Man.), i (13, M. 2. 213); cf. Corp. Herm. Exc. 24. i (Scott 496). Normally, 
however, Philo remembers to revise his sources so as to eliminate the inferiority of 
the lower air as an abode of spiritual beings ; for the lower air is the sphere of action 
of the an gels of Jewish convention (DeConf.Ling. 34(174. i,M. 1.431)). In>e Gigant. 
4 (17, M. i. 265) he logically commits himself to evil angels in the lower air, but 
proceeds to explain them away as wicked men. 

3 The language goes beyond Paul; the nearest parallels appear to be the frankly 
astrological glorification of the mother of the Maccabean martyrs and her sons in 
4 Mace. 17.5 and the curious attack on the deification of alien rulers iin Philo, De 
Execr. 6 (152, M. i. 433), where the foreigner receives a "firrii position" in heaven. 
The passage is a paraphrase of Deut. 28. 43, but the protest against the deification of 
an alien ruler seems to be drawn from an Egyptian hatred of foreign kings (cf. p. 12). 

4 The aeons properly imply a number of future world-ages, but probably simply 
reflect the Hebrew usage, as employed by Paul in such passages as Rom. n. 36. 


faith; the gift comes from God, not from themselves, lest any man 
should boast. For all Christians are of God's making, having been 
created anew in Christ Jesus to perform those good works which God 
had prepared for them to walk in. The systematiser of Paulinism 
could hardly ignore the controversy with Judaism over faith, works and 
grace; as a preliminary to an appeal to the reader to live that life of 
good works which was the inevitable result of his translation to heaven, 
it was perhaps as apposite as it could be, in view of the fact that Paul's 
teaching on the subject had been entirely concerned with the con- 
troversy over the relation of the Gentile Christian to the Torah, a 
controversy which by this time had ceased to have any real signi- 
ficance. It is typical of the writer that he should try to make Paul's 
teaching on the subject consistent; Paul himself had been quite 
content to combine the statement that the Christian had died to sin 
(Rom. 6. 2) or had risen with Christ (Col. 3. i) and therefore pre- 
sumably could have no desire to sin, with peremptory injunctions to 
abandon what ex hypothesi he could not desire. At the same time 
the attempted harmonisation served as a means of alluding to the 
problem of predestination which was a standing puzzle of popular 
philosophy no less than of Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 1 

Thus the Gentiles (2. 1 1 seqq.} must remember that they were once 
without hope in the world, despised by the so-called but really 
spurious circumcision (Col. 2. 1 1). They were aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel, 2 to whom alone the Messianic promises had been 
given (the term "Christ" is again used in its strict Messianic sense). 
The outward symbol of their alienation was the Torah, which pro- 
fessed to serve as a barrier against sinj? but actually failed to do so and 
only served to foster enmity as between Jew and Gentile. This barrier 
had been done away in Christ, who had through His flesh abolished 
the old law of external ordinances (Col. 2. 14) and united both Jew 
and Gentile into one new man, making peace and reconciling both in 
one body to God through the Cross. He had thus slain the enmity 
which existed on the one hand between Jew and Gentile, on the other 
hand between God and man, preaching peace both to those who were 
far removed from God and those who were already near Him, but still 

1 Placita i. 27. 5 (Dox. Gr. 322); Hipp. El. i. 19. 19 (ib. 569); 4 Esdr. 7. 132 seqq.; 
Jos. B.J. 2. 8. 14 (162). 

2 Cf. Philo, De Spec. Legg. i (De Man.), 7 (51 seqq., M. 2. 219). The thought is a 
revision of the popular language of the proselytising synagogues of the Dispersion. 

3 Letter of Aristeas 139 and 142; 3 Mace. 3. 4 and 7. Note the recognition in the 
latter passage that the Torah is a cause of anti-Semitism. There may be an allusion 
to the barrier excluding Gentiles from the inner Courts of the Temple (Armitage 
Robinson, ad loc.), but there is no need to find any such reference. 


separated; for through Jesus both Jew and Gentile had free access to 
the Father in one Spirit (Rom. 5. 2). The obscurity of the passage is 
due to the writer's attempt to fit the thought of the reconciliation of 
Jew and Gentile into the language in which Paul expounded the 
reconciliation of man and the celestial powers to God through the 
death of Jesus on the Cross (Col. i. 20 and 2. 14). The parenthetic 
allusion to the difference between Jew and Gentile in Col. 2. 13 has 
here become the writer's primary concern. Gentiles are no longer 
aliens or at best mere -ndpoiKoi, who can claim only limited rights; 
they are fellow-citizens of the Saints and members of the household 
of God, possessing those privileges which the synagogues of the 
Dispersion offered to the proselyte. 1 The allusion to the household of 
God is employed to introduce the Church as the Temple of the living 
God (i Cor. 3. ii seqq.); the Christian is built into that Temple of 
which the Apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus the 
head corner-stone, an interesting allusion to the historical tradition of 
the teaching of Jesus (Mk. 12. 10 seems a more probable source than 
a direct use of Ps. 118. 22). The headship of Jesus in the building 
offers an opportunity of introducing the Pauline doctrine of His 
headship of the body as the source of its growth (Col. 2. ig); 2 the 
writer disregards the difficulty involved in the thought of a building 
which "grows" after the final stone has been set in its place. 

The writer reverts to the prayer-form at 3. i. Paul is the prisoner 
of Jesus Christ on behalf of the Gentiles; the fact is a claim to venera- 
tion, not a difficulty to be explained as in Col. i . 24. In other words the 
Church has already faced the issue of persecution and decided it 
successfully; the Jewish view of martyrdom as a title to glory has 
within the Church prevailed over the Hellenistic. His ministry 3 

1 Philo, De Cher. 34 (120, M. i. 160-1), expresses the same thought in the form 
that as against one another all men have equal rights as natives of the cosmos, though 
as against God all men are at best irapoinoi, while the wicked are exiles. Citizenship 
was a standing cause of friction between Jews and Gentiles ; the exemption of Jews 
in the Hellenistic world was a serious grievance (cf. Schiirer, G.J.V. 3. 121 seqq.; 
Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 3. i24seqq.); in Palestine the alien had no theoretical right 
to exist, since he could not rent a house or field (Mishnah, Abodah Zarah i. 8, 
Danby 438); the friction at Caesarea was one of the causes of the rebellion (B.jf. 2. 
13. 7 (266)). Naturally the standing difficulty of the position of the resident alien in 
the ancient city-state was complicated when the religion of the state claimed to be 
the only true one. 

2 The author of i Pet. 2. 4 seems to have felt the difficulty and avoided it by the 
introduction of a "living" stone from Is. 28. 16, interpreted as referring to Jesus. 
The same difficulty is reflected in the various renderings of the passage recorded by 
Armitage Robinson, ad loc. For the meaning of "corner-stone" cf. Jeremias in 
T.W.z.N.T. s.v. ynvta. 

3 "If ye have heard" is dramatically appropriate; there will not have been any 
readers of the Epistle who have not heard, but Paul is represented as introducing 
himself to a new circle of readers. 


(3. 2 seqq.) is the revelation of the great mystery hidden from all ages, 
but now revealed to the Church not merely on earth but in heaven, the 
mystery of the fellowship of Gentiles with Jews in the promises made 
through Jesus in the Gospel. To Paul, though the least of all the Saints, 
has been given the privilege of making manifest the mystery that has 
hitherto been hidden from all ages in God the Creator of the universe. 
This is the ' ' mystery ' ' (3 . 9 seqq.) to which the writer has been working. 
Paul had been content to describe the Incarnation as a "mystery" in 
the Jewish sense of a secret hitherto hidden but now revealed ; in the 
same way the present blindness of the Jews was a "mystery" whose 
meaning would be revealed at some future date in their conversion 
(Rom. ii. 25). The Pauline language was necessary as an explanation 
of the transfer to the Church of the promises made to Israel; it was 
adequate for circles which were largely concerned with the relation of 
Jews and Gentiles. But Ephesians was written for Hellenistic readers 
who were not seriously concerned with that problem, but wanted a 
"mystery" which would explain the Gospel and the practice of the 
Church in terms of the ascent of the soul to heaven. The writer has 
conflated Paul's two independent themes, the equality of Jew and 
Gentile and the soul's ascent to heaven as a result of the resurrection 
of Jesus and His position in cosmogony, and made one ' ' mystery " of a 
more Hellenistic type; the position of the Jews in relation to the 
Gentiles is not really the centre of the mystery, which is concerned 
with the ascent of the Church to heaven and its consequent triumph 
over the powers that rule the heavenly spheres. For even the rulers and 
powers learn from the Church, as it passes through their spheres, the 
manifold wisdom of God, His purpose concealed from all eternity 
(Col. i. 25 seqq.). In an astrologically conceived universe the worship- 
per has to pass those spheres if he is to ascend to heaven; here the 
Church as a body takes the place of the individual. The writer has thus 
established Christianity as a "mystery" as against other "mysteries" 
which threatened to prove more attractive. The union of the Church 
with Christ enables it to have free access to God in spite of all oppo- 
nents, just as knowledge of the celestial origin of the soul and its 
relation to the supreme godhead, coupled with the necessary formulae 
of religion or magic, enabled the Gnostic to triumph over all the 
attempts of the planets to confine him within the limits of fate and the 
material world, and to ascend to God. It seems that the rulers are not 
regarded as capable of redemption (Rom. 8. 38 as against Col. i. 20); 
they are passive spectators of an ascent which they cannot impede. 
The Church as a corporate body has grown in importance. The ascent 


of the Church as against that of individuals seems to have no parallel ; 
the congregation of Israel does not ascend in spite of the planets, 
though Judaism is familiar with ascents of the patriarchs and Moses 
to the heavenly spheres to intercede on behalf of Israel, and with the 
disapproval of the angels of the action of God in permitting Moses to 
ascend to heaven to receive the Torah. 1 The motive of the change is to 
emphasise the element of mystery and so to provide the Church with 
a more adequate counter-attraction to the mysteries of Gnosticism; it 
must be recognised that Christianity was poorly provided in this 

With such a task laid on him the writer prays that he may not play 
the coward in face of the afflictions which he must endure on behalf 
of his readers (2 Cor. 4. 16, Col. i. 24); his sufferings are their glory. 
He prays (3. 14 seqq.) to the Father, from whom every family in heaven 
and earth is named (apparently the angels of midrashic Judaism, not 
the rulers and powers in the heavenly places ; the point of the reference 
to them here is that the growth of the Church, God's family on earth, 
is to the advantage of the angelic family in heaven), that God will so 
strengthen his readers in accordance with the riches of His glory (the 
rhetoric of Colossians) in the inner man (2 Cor. 4. 16) that Christ 
may be able to dwell in their hearts by faith (the commonplace of 
2 Cor. 6. i6), 2 and that they maybe so rooted and grounded in love 
(Colv,2. 7) that they may be able to "comprehend" with all their 
fellow-saints the full dimensions of the love of God. 3 The writer's 
faithfulness to his model is responsible /for the addition to the normal 
three dimensions of Greek geometry, length, breadth and height (or 
depth), of a fourth of depth (or height). 4 His reason for the insertion was 
that he found both "height" and "depth" in Rom. 8. 39 and did not 
understand their meaning; after all the Pauline circle was not really 
interested in astrology ; Paul had used it and then let it drop after the 

1 Cf. p. 195. The Church here takes the place of the congregation of Israel in a 
heightened form; the idea of a "Church" seems alien to Hellenistic mysteries, cf. 
Conversion 135: "The supposed or desired piety of the world is no more than an 
aggregate of individual pieties." 

2 Cf. above, p. 163. 

3 Apparently the author meant originally to say " the length etc. of the love of 
Christ", but inserted yva>vai. . .yvasa-eus in order to avoid the appearance of saying 
that it is really possible to understand the fullness of the love of Christ. Possibly the 
mention of 0ados associated itself with Rom. n. 33 and so introduced the new 
thought at the expense of the grammar. 

* For the normal " dimensions " of length, breadth and height cf. Placita i. 12. i . 
(Dox. Gr. 310); Ar. Did. Epit. 19 (ib. 457); Philo, D.C.E.R. 26 (147, M. i. 540); 
Cicero, De Nat. Dear. i. 20. 54. Cf. also Sext. Emp. Pyrr. Hyp. 2. 30 for the 
argument that you cannot Kard\anJ3avfiv a three-dimensional object as against the 
Stoic Kara\ij7TTiKTi 


normal habit of midrashic exposition. The writer found it in his 
original and it suited well with his taste for a lofty style of writing; 
consequently he has inserted it here. He is not to be blamed if his 
"fourth dimension" proved an irresistible attraction to the compilers 
of magical literature as providing for a fuller control of the spirits by 
their masters. 1 

Paul had written (Phil. 3. 12) of "grasping" God as God had already 
grasped him, in language in which the thought of laying hold on God 
was coloured by the thought of "grasping" the goal in a race (i Cor. 9. 
24). The writer of Ephesians seems to have missed that colouring and 
treated the language of Philippians as if it meant "comprehending" 
God with the understanding in the sense of "knowing" Him as in 
i Cor. 13. 12. The change of meaning was natural, for the difficulty of 
finding God, of which Plato had written in the Timaeus (28 c), was one 
of the most hackneyed quotations of Hellenistic literature, 2 especially 
in Jewish literature, which used the quotation to prove the need of a 
special divine revelation, such as it alone possessed; the quotation 
usually appeared in the form that God was d/caTaA^TrTos. 3 Another 
tradition of Judaism, however, held that man could "comprehend" 
or lay hold of God, at any rate if God took the first step and laid hold 
of him. 4 In the present passage the rhetorical dimensions suggested 
the vastness of the love of God; it can indeed be "comprehended", 
yet it passes knowledge (Rom. n. 33, i Cor. 2. 9). At the same time 
the thought may have been coloured by the common belief that the 
"mind" can ascend to heaven and "comprehend" its dimensions or 

1 Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 970, where the god (lao with a strongly Jewish colouring, 
as the god of fire and the unseen creator of light) is summoned to appear in fire, so 
that the light may become breadth, depth, length, height and brightness for the god 
to show himself. Reitzenstein (Poimandres 25) regards the magical formula as the 
source of this passage. But there is no reason for such a fourth dimension in magic. 
On the other hand, if once suggested by the text of Eph. 3. 1 8 (or by its quotation 
in a Christian sermon), it would commend itself to magic, which cannot afford to 
ignore any possibility of evasion. Peterson (Els Qeos 250) associates the four dimen- 
sions with the deified aeon as a heavenly cube; but a cube is not four-dimensional in 
Greek mathematics, except in those of Pythagoras, where the unit is the point, the 
duad the straight line, so that a solid cube is represented by four (the rerpaKrvs of 
Pythagoreanism). There is no suggestion of this here. 

2 Cf. the doxographic collection embodied by Cicero, De Nat. Dear. The quota- 
tion occurs in the form that he cannot be named (i. 12. 30); cf. Jos. c. Ap. 2. 31 
(224); Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 12. 78 (692 P), and the doxographic collection in 
Minucius Felix, Octavius 19. 14. 

3 Philo, De Post. Cain. 5 (15, lii. i. 229); it is a great gain KorcAa/Seii/ ort 
aKaTaXj/TTTo? 6 6e6s; cf. De Spec. Legg. i (DeMon.), 4 (32) and 5 (36) (M. 2. 216-17) 
and passim and the doxographic collection in Hipp. El. i. 19. 3 (Dox. Gr. 567). 

* Philo, De Abr. 24 (122, M. 2. 19); De Post. Cain. 48 (167, M. i. 258); cf. 
De Plant. 15 (64, M. i. 339), where the mind ignores "becoming" and knows only 
TO ayivrjTov, to whom it approaches and by whom it is received 


the variation of the theme in the form that the full "comprehension" 
of the cosmos carries with it the "comprehension" of God. 1 

In any case the love of Christ cannot be fully understood ; it sur- 
passes knowledge and is better than Gnosis. 2 It is the only power 
which will bring the readers to a completeness in which they can 
contain all the fullness of God (Col. 2. 9). The transition from Christ 
dwelling in the heart to the "comprehension" [with a suggestion of 
occupying], the full dimensions of the divine nature, and back to the 
thought of being filled with a divine pleroma, would be abrupt if the 
passage were not largely a cento of Pauline phrases and if the transi- 
tion from the language of the soul's ascent to God to that of God's 
descent to the soul were not a common feature of popular theology. 3 

The writer has thus established the plain Pauline system of the love 
of God as manifested in Jesus as the supreme mystery and the highest 
Gnosis. To God, who can perform all this, all glory is to be given both 
in the Church on earth and in Christ Jesus in heaven ; the conjunction 
of the Church and Christ Jesus here is intended to express the 
"mystery" already established. The praise of the Church on earth is 
offered to God in heaven in the person of Jesus, who is the head of 
the Church, and the means by which the Church is able to ascend to 
heaven to offer its praises. The doxology marks the end of the 
"mystery" and leads on to an appeal for the preservation by means of 
love of the unity of the one body (4. i seqq.). The humility which is 
the essence of Christian love must make Christians anxious to preserve 
the unity of the spirit in the "bond" of peace (Col. 3. 14). Only so 
will the one spirit within the one body enable them to attain to the one 
hope of their calling. That unity is based on the unity of the Lord, of 
the faith of the Church and of the baptism by which they enter it. 
Paul had argued in Colossians from the unity of mankind in Christ 
to the need for charity ; the writer appeals for charity as a means for 
preserving the unity of the Church. Sects, it would seem, are multi- 
plying, in a manner unknown in Paul's lifetime. The writer has no 
Pauline model to follow, but the language of i Cor. 8. 6-7 has sug- 
gested the adoption of the widespread literary convention of Hellenistic- 

1 So Dibelius, perhaps rightly, in H.z.N.T. ad loc., though, if so, rt is a gram- 
matical outrage; and the expression is rather a hackneyed commonplace of popular 
theology than a piece of mystical Gnosis. To Corp. Herm, 10. 25 (Scott 204), which 
he quotes, may be added Philo, De Somn. i. 32 (186, M. i. 649); Q.R.D.H. 23 
(in, M. i. 488); Q.D.P.I. 24 (89 seqq., M. i. 208), where the mind "contains the 
cosmos in virtue of the fact that it is a fragment of the divine nature ". Cf. also Corp. 
Herm. 4. 5 (Scott 152). z Dibelius rightly, ad loc. 

3 Leg. Alleg. i. 13 (38, M. i. 51), and cf. p. 192, n. 4. In its simplest form the 
thought is simply that of Jas. 4. 8. 

KSPC 13 


Jewish literature, which saw in the unity of Torah, people and Temple 
a symbol of the unity of God. 1 The writer expands this theme; the 
unity of the Church in outward form, inward spirit and future hope, 
corresponding to the unity of Lord, faith and baptism, is a manifesta- 
tion of the one true God who is supreme above all things, present 
throughout the cosmos and in all men (an independent use of the 
commonplace which lies behind Col. i. 16). This universal divine 
presence (4. 7 seqq.) manifests itself in the grace that is given to every 
man according to the measure of the gift of Christ (Rom. 12. 3). This 
is the meaning of the prophecy of the sending of the Holy Spirit in the 
words: "Ascending up on high he captured a captivity, he gave gifts 
unto men." The argument implies that it is impossible to refer the 
words of Ps. 68. 19 to Moses in accordance with the usual rabbinical 
tradition. The word "ascended" must mean that whatever "went 
up" had on some previous occasion "come down": 2 The argument 

1 2 Bar. 48. 24; Jos. c. Ap. 2. 23 (193); Antt. 4. 8. 5 (201); Philo, De Spec. Legg. i 
(De Templo), i (67, M. 2. 223); ib. (De Sacr.) n (317, M. 2. 259); ib. 4 (Dejust.), 
3 (159, M. 2. 362); De Virt. (De Fort.), 7 (35, M. 2. 38:); Ps.-Sophocles ap. Ps.-Just. 
Coh. ad Gent. 18 (i7e) = Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14. 113 (717 P), where it is ascribed 
to (Pseudo)-Hecataeus, a Jewish forgery earlier than Josephus (Antt. i. 7. 2 (159); 
Or. Sib. Fr. i. 7 (Ap. and Ps. z. 377)). It appears in an independent version in 
Orig. c. Cels. 5, 44 from a Jewish source (note the reference to the one High Priest 
and the one Altar). Peterson, Eis 0eds 255, notes numerous Christian variations but 
fails to recognise the frequency of the theme in Jewish writings, not exclusively 
Hellenistic (note 2 Bar. above, but Hellenistic influence is possible here). The 
origin of the form is clearly based on Pseudo-Hecataeus, who associates the line 
from Pseudo-Sophocles (els rdis a\T)6eiauriv els eo-riv 0eos) closely with the 
fragment of Aeschylus, Zevs eartv aldrjp Zeus 8e yi] Zevs 8' ovpavds K.T.\. The Jewish- 
Christian usage would seem to be derived from the Jewish attempt to read mono- 
theism into the literature of Greece in the first century B.C. (It should be noticed 
that the alleged quotation from Xenophanes of Colophon in Clem. Alex. loc. dt. 109 
(714 P) is probably from a similar source. Up to the end of 107 he has been quoting 
Aristobulus, see Bus. Pr. Ev. 13. 12. 19; it is probable that the passages which inter- 
vene are borrowed from a similar Jewish compilation.) The liturgical expression of 
the unity of God in the Shema and the emphasis laid on it in the missionary pro- 
paganda of Judaism would naturally enhance the popularity of the argument and 
the form in which it finds regular expression. (Peterson, op. cit. 241, may be right 
in supposing that the "Orphic" line in Ps.-Just. Coh. ad Gent. 15 (i6a), els 
Zevs els 'A.idr)s els'IlXtos els Aiwutroff K.r.A., is inspired by Iranian theology; but its 
appearance in Pseudo-Justin is simply due to the willingness of this type of propa- 
ganda to use any superficially plausible argument to prove that Gentile theology 
really leads to monotheism. Its absence from the earlier collections suggests that it 
only came into circulation after their compilation.) In all these cases we have the use 
of a current literary convention possibly originating outside the synagogue, but taken 
over by it in the interests of Judaism and then becoming a Jewish and later a Christian 
convention. For such use of current phrases cf. Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 3. 378. 

2 Seneca, N.Q. 6. 16. i seqq. ; Corp. Herm. Exc. 26. 12 (Scott 522), both going back 
to the same theory of universal "ebb and flow" which appears in Strabo i. 3. 8 (53) 
and so presumably to Posidonius ; cf. Orig. De Orat. Lib. 23, where the Logos empties 
Himself to descend to us and returns (iTa.\iv8po[j.el) to His own pleroma, leading 
us, who, as we follow, are "filled" and freed from "emptiness"; this is the anabasis 
of Mind. 


was one which was perfectly legitimate on the principles of rabbinical 
exegesis. But it appears to have been drawn from Hellenistic conn 
ceptions, in which everything, including the souls of men, was in a 
continual state of ascending and descending between earth and 
heaven; the heavenly bodies were nourished by an element of "spirit" 
which they drew from earth and returned to it again. Here the argu4 
ment proves that the reference is not to the supposed "ascent" of 
Moses to receive the Torah. 1 The Psalm, traditionally associated with 
the day of Pentecost, is referred not to the supposed association of that 
day with the giving of the Torah, but to the descent of the Holy 
Spirit on the Church on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of 
Jesus. 2 It was of course necessary that Jesus should descend from 
heaven to the earth below and then return to heaven in order that He 
might fulfil His appointed function of filling all parts of the universe. 3 
From this midrashic parenthesis the writer returns at 4. n seqq. to 
the theme of the unity of the Church. The gifts that Jesus bestowk 
on the Church are varied in accordance with the needs of the body of 

1 Thetextof Ephesians follows the Targumin reading " he gave " for " he received *' 
of Heb. and LXX. The Targum interprets Ps. 68. 19 of Moses going up to heaven 
to receive the Torah. For rabbinical interpretations to the same effect, reading " he 
received" but applying it to Moses' receiving of the Torah, cf. Str.-B. on this 

2 For Pentecost as the feast of the Torah in rabbinical tradition cf. p. 57. Ps. 68 
is one of the Psalms of Pentecost in the Jewish Liturgy and its use is implied in Acts, 
where the language of z. 33 reflects the Targum on Ps. 68. 34, "He with His word 
(Memra) gave with His voice the spirit of prophecy to the prophets". The rather 
unorthodox theology, according to which Jesus, at His Ascension, received the Holy 
Spirit from the Father and gave it to the Church on earth, underlies both Acts and 
Ephesians. It is scarcely likely that the writer of the latter would have borrowed 
such an unorthodox piece of exegesis ; it looks more like an independent use of a 
midrashic exegesis of the Psalm, going back to the period when the association of 
the Holy Ghost with the day of Pentecost was first coming into general currency in 
Christian circles. It survives in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 87 (3153), where the 
gifts of prophecy are withdrawn from the Jews and rest on Jesus at the Incarnation, 
but are returned by Him as gifts to the Church after the Incarnation; cf. Orig. 
In Ev. Jo. 6. 37. 

3 V. 9 may simply mean " the lower parts of the earth", which is more consistent 
with the cosmography of the writer, who regards the lower air as the abode Of 
Satan. But the writer may be following Phil. 2. 10, and have introduced a reference 
to Sheol for the sake of rhetorical completeness without regard for z. z. Armita^e 
Robinson, ad loc., accepts the reference to Sheol, which is supported by the use of 
the thought of "ascent" and "descent" in Philo, Q.R.D.H. 9 (45, M. i. 479); the 
divine life never descends, the lowest never ascends but lurks in the recesses of 
Hades, while the ordinary mixed life of man sometimes goes " up " and sometimes 
" down". Here we have an independent use of the same Hellenistic convention of 
" ebb and flow " in this sense which described the material life in terms of " Hades ", 
in which Philo certainly does not believe. Philo here seems to be applying to the 
" ascent to heaven " in this life an account of the state of the soul after death, similar 
to that of Plut. De Ser. Num. Vind. 23 (5643); but Philo's source seems to have 
retained a subterranean Hades for the thoroughly wicked, perhaps only as a literary 



Christ, (i Cor. 12. 28; the expansion of "teachers" into "evangelists, 
pastors and teachers" perhaps represents the necessity of recognising 
the "evangelists" of 2 Cor. 8. 18, understood in this sense, whether 
rightly or wrongly (and Acts 21. 8 if known to the writer), and also 
the more developed Christianity of the later years of the first century 
A.D., when there were settled Churches which needed "pastors " rather 
than missionaries and teachers.) These ministries, each with its proper 
degree of authority, are all needed, in order to build up the body of 
Christ into that unity of faith and knowledge in which it is a full-grown 
man, whose adult state enables him to contain the whole pleroma of 
Christ. The full-grown man, who leads on to the warning that the 
individual Christians must not behave like children, is based on 
i Cor. 14. 20, expressed in the terminology of the Church as the body 
of Christ; the comparison of the Church to the perfect man rather 
than to the body is drawn from Hellenistic commonplaces comparing 
the state to a single person;. 1 Thus the development of each individual 
Christian will enable the whole body to grow into that perfection in 
which each member has attained to the measure of full growth in 
which he can manifest the distinctively Christian character of love.^ 

The thought of the perfect man leads (4. 17 seqq.) to a warning 
against idolatry, based on Rom. i. 21 seqq., though missing its point, 
the condemnation of Judaism, as being itself guilty of sinning no less 
than the Gentiles, in language drawn from its own conventional 
condemnation of Gentile idolatry. The warning against idolatry and 
the vices to which it leads, including sexual immorality and avarice, 
enables the writer to pass on to the theme of the new man, who is 
created after the image of God. If the readers have really learned the 
truth as it is in Jesus, they will know that they must abandon the sins 
of the old life and put on the new (Col. 3. 5 is thus attached to the 
section on idolatry in Romans). The new man is naturally associated 
with the next main section of the Epistle, the lengthy homily on 
Christian duties of 4. 25 seqq. The author did not appreciate the 
purpose of the passage on the duty of thanksgiving for the revelation 
of the "mystery" in Col. 3. I5b, while he had already anticipated the 
exhortation to love. Consequently he proceeds immediately to his 

1 Polybius 6. i. 6; cf. the cosmos as reXeo>raros av6pa>nos in Philo, De Migr. Abr. 
39 (220, M. i. 471). For ijXi/a'a cf. Schneider in T.W.z.N.T. s.v. The association 
of the word with re'Xeios in Philo, De Abr. 32 (168, M. 2. 25) and In Place. 3 (15, 
M. 2. 519), seems decisive in favour of the sense of "age" rather than "capacity to 
contain" here; in Philo the sense of age appears to be universal. 

2 Col. 2. 19, possibly with a colouring drawn from the commonplace of the 
Hellenistic synagogues as preserved in Philo; see the references on p. 161, n. 2. 


homily describing in detail the character of the "new man" (Col. 3. 
1 8 seqq.), expanding the very terse admonition of Paul in regard to the 
home life of the Christian into a complete list of moral duties. The list 
is based on pagan philosophical convention; but the low moral 
standard implied suggests that the usage of the synagogue is his 
immediate source. 1 But at 5. 5 the conventional list of warnings brings 
the writer to immorality and avarice, which he had already associated 
in accordance with his Pauline model in 4. 19. Here he suddenly 
digresses from his general list of sins to a further warning against the 
danger of deception by vain words ; the readers must not allow them- 
selves to be led astray into any dealings with the unfruitful works of 
darkness. The warning is formally far less impressive than the solemn 
protestation which introduced the denunciation of idolatry in 4. 17. 
But that denunciation was a Jewish convention adapted from a 
Pauline model which had to be included; there is no real reason to 
suppose that the original author was really concerned with the 
danger of relapsing into heathenism. Here, however, the writer 
deserts Paul, in order to introduce a warning (5. 6 seqq.) against 
"darkness". They were once darkness themselves, but now they are 
light in the Lord. They must therefore walk as children of the light, 
bringing forth the fruits of holiness. They must test all their actions 
by the pleasure of the Lord and have no share in the barren works of 
darkness. Rather must they convict these of their sinfulness. The sins 
of those who seek to deceive them are too shameful to mention, but if 
convicted by the light they will be exposed ; for that which is exposed 
to the light becomes light itself; as "it" says, "Awake, O sleeper, and 
rise from the dead, and Christ will illuminate thee". 

This is an entirely different matter from the conventional warning 
against idolatry of 4. 17. It is aimed at religions which practise their 
rites in secret, thereby proving that they are too shameful to be 
performed in the open. The argument was a popular one as against 
mystery religions, destined later to be used against Christianity. 2 But 
it can hardly be doubted that the writer is in deadly earnest. His 
distinction of good and evil as light and darkness is derived from the 
common Jewish-Hellenistic convention and immediately from Paul 
(Rom. 13. 12, Col. i. 12-13), but in a quite different application. 3 As 
children of the light the readers have light in themselves, which 

1 Cf. Dibelius on Col. 3.18 seqq. 

2 Cf. Jerusalem 120, n. 35. 

3 The " fruit of the light " appears to come from Hosea 10. 1 2. Here as elsewhere 
Iranian influences may have affected the language of the O.T. 


enables them to turn into light the darkness of those who practise such 
secret mysteries. 

The reason for this really is the presence in them of Christ, who as 
the divine Wisdom is essentially light in accordance with the general 
convention of Alexandrine exegesis which equates Wisdom with the 
first-created VOIJTO> <f>a>s: This Wisdom can be identified equally with 
Jesus Himself, with the divine element of Mind pervading the universe 
and especially the mind of man, or with the human conscience (which 
is in some sense akin to the divine). Thus the hymn which the writer 
quotes in v. 14 can be applied either to Christ as enlightening the soul 
of the believer (its proper sense), or to the divine element of mind as 
expelling darkness from his soul, 1 or to the believer as exposing and so 
turning to light the darkness in which the hideous secret rites of the 
would-be deceivers are carried on. The fragment itself presents a 
well-known problem. It is written in the Orphic-Hermetic style of 
missionary literature, 2 but this style is fairly common in Hellenistic- 
Jewish writings. It is introduced by the formula "as it says", which 
in Paul, as in rabbinical literature, implies Scriptural authority ; but 
the phrase is not Scriptural, nor, in Paul's lifetime, could it have been 
possible to suppose that so distinctively Christian a saying came from the 
literature of the O.T. 3 The fragment appears to come from a Christian 
source, perhaps a liturgical hymn current in the primitive community, 4 

1 The thought of " conviction " by light appears in Quod Deus sit Imm. 26 seqq. 
(123 seqq., M. i. 291) in a long exegesis of the law of leprosy (Lev. 13. 14 seqq.). The 
living flesh reveals leprosy just as conscience reveals sin. In 1 35 the priest (who is the 
Logos in 134) if absent from the soul leaves it clean, for there is none to reveal its 
guilt (Lev. 14. 36). It is when the true priest cXf-y^os enters, like a ray of pure light, 
that he reveals the impious thoughts stored up in the soul, and is able to have them 
removed and to cleanse it. The allusion to i Kings 17. 10 in 136 suggests that we are 
dealing here with traditional matter incorporated by Philo. Cf. also De Spec. Legg. 4 
(Dejudice), 2 (60, M. 2. 345) for light as illuminating and convicting all things, and 
De Post. Cain. 16 (58, M. i. 236) for mind as the sun which if it fails to rise leaves 
the microcosm in darkness. The thought is sufficiently commonplace for ordinary 
wisdom to be VOTJTOV (f>S>s in Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. i (5, M. 2. 446). For truth as 
light illuminating the conscience cf. De Jos. 14 (68, M. 2. 51). 

2 Cf. p. 38 for this style of addressing an audience. 

3 Paul might, like the rabbis on rare occasions, have quoted as Scripture some- 
thing that was only part of the oral tradition of Judaism (cf. Str.-B. on Rom. 12. 14 
and i Tim. 2. 8). But he could not have supposed that this fragment came from any 
O.T source, since the whole conception of the Messiah as raising the dead to life 
or rousing sinners to repentance is outside the range of the O.T. But if Ephesians 
is not genuine the difficulty does not arise, since the writer might easily confuse 
Christian liturgical writings with the O.T. or accept in good faith a Christian 

4 Cf. Severian, quoted by Armitage Robinson, ad loc. Dibelius, ad loc., rightly 
doubts the Iranian origin, in view of the frequency of the whole thought of religion 
as illumination, and suggests a baptismal hymn. For the patristic conjectures cf. 
Schurer, G.J.V. 3. 365. 


incorporated into some fairly popular apocryphal document, or in- 
serted into the canonical text of the O.T. 1 

The whole warning is important as evidence of the existence of sects 
which practised secret rites of such a character that they can, rightly 
or wrongly, be accused of the vilest secret vices, although they cannot 
be accused simply of idolatry. They are similar to those attacked by 
Paul in Colossians;,yet they are known to the writer independently, 
since the whole passage is of his own construction and not in any sense 
a reproduction of the Pauline condemnation; the whole emphasis is 
on their secrecy, which may be implied in the Pauline allusions to 
"mysteries" and "initiations", but does not figure prominently in his 
condemnation. 2 It appears that sects of a more or less Christian kind 
are a serious danger, known to the writer independently of the Pauline 
tradition, and that they make a parade of secrecy which enables him to 
attack them on the usual lines of the writers of the age; we have no 
evidence as to the extent to which his charge was justified, in view of 
the prevalence of such accusations, but his warning shows that there 
is a danger of syncretism in the Church. 

In view of the dangers that surround them (5.15 seqq.) Christians 
have no time to waste. 3 The days are "evil", and they must devote all 
their time to understanding the will of the Lord (Rom. 12. 2). It is 
worth noticing that the days are no longer short, as was the "time" of 
i Cor. 7. 29, although their "shortness" would have offered a better 
reason for "buying up the time" (Col. 4. 5) than the fact that they are 
evil; eschatology is less real than it used to be, and asceticism is 
replacing it. 4 

The drunkenness of the world must be replaced by spiritual 

1 The fragment is ascribed by Hippolytus to Isaiah (Schurer, loc. tit.) ; a Christian 
hymn might have been inserted into a Christian version of an apocryphal writing 
ascribed to Isaiah, or have been inserted into the canonical text. It is doubtful if the 
writer would have quoted in this way from anything but what he supposed to be 
Scripture. Christian interpolations into the O.T. are old enough for Justin to accuse 
the Jews of having suppressed them (Dial. c. Tryph. 72, 297 d). 

2 For the extent to which secrecy as to the rite and teaching, whether of Chris- 
tianity or the mysteries, was a fiction cf. Conversion 214 seqq. The Gnostics seem to 
have insisted more thoroughly; cf. Tert. adv. Valent. i and Ir. Haer. i. 24. 6 
(Basilides). The same accusation is made against Simon (23. 4), who is decidedly 
nearer to magic, in which secrecy is common, e.g. Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 851 and 1873. 

3 For the thought cf. Philo, De Vit. Cont. 2 (16 seqq., M. 2. 474), for worldly 
cares as a waste of time for those devoted to religion (dressed up here as " philo- 
sophy"). The Pauline phrase (Col. 4. 5) is from Dan. 2. 8. 

4 The whole passage has a close resemblance to Test. Napht. 2. 9 seqq., which 
Charles accepts as genuine. But a comparison of 2. 10 with i Cor. 13. 17 and 2 Cor. 
6. 14 (note also Beliar in Napht. 3. i and 2 Cor. 6. 16), 3. i with Eph. 5. 5-6 and 
17, and 3. 2 with Rom. i. 23 suggests that the rather pointless panegyric on "order- 
liness" is simply a cento of N.T. passages and a Christian interpolation. 


enthusiasm; the synagogues of the Dispersion were familiar with an 
enthusiastic type of religion which might easily be mistaken for 
drunkenness, and the worship of primitive Christianity was still more 
liable to such suspicions; 1 the thought of i Cor. 14. 23 and Acts 2. 13 
reappears with an entirely new implication, which suggests that the 
general level of the average convert is lower than in the Pauline period. 
The danger of enthusiasm of this kind provides an opportunity for 
incorporating a revision of Paul's exhortation to thankfulness from 
Col. 3.16 with an added emphasis on order and subjection in worship ; 
the transition to this theme enables him to return to the main line of 
thought in Colossians. At 5. 22 he proceeds to his treatment of 
marriage ; thus Paul's brief moral homily is fitted into his larger scheme 
with a corresponding expansion, based on an appeal to theological 
principles. The relation of Jesus to the Church is suggested by the 
relation of God to the restored Jerusalem (Is. 62. 5 seqq.), as applied in 
rabbinical exegesis to the relation of God to the congregation of 
Israel; 2 it is expounded in terms drawn from Jewish bridal custom. 3 
This again leads to the thought that the union of a man to his wife 
makes them one flesh; thus a man's care for his wife must be as great 
as his care for his own body, which in Stoic commonplace was in- 
evitably the first concern of man. 4 

This union of man and wife (5. 29) was itself nothing less than a 
symbol of the love of Christ for the Church. Just as a man leaves 
father and mother to cleave to his wife, so did Christ leave His Father 
and His home in heaven to join Himself to His new body the Church, 
a great mystery. 5 The writer here has followed the general practice 

1 It is possible that the substitution of drunkenness for madness reveals a know- 
ledge of Acts 2. 13, but it is also possible that both passages reproduce a common 
argument against Christianity. For " enthusiasm " in Judaism cf . Philo, De Ebr. 36 
(146 seqq., M. i. 380), where the story of Hannah is explained as referring to the 
effect of grace (Hannah = grace). It is surprising to find this type of enthusiasm in 
Judaism ; but it must be remembered that Judaism outside Palestine was a religion 
which made converts, and this type of enthusiasm goes with conversion. 

2 Cf. Str.-B. on Rev. 19. 7. 

3 Cf. Str.-B. on Mt. 9. 15 (vol. i, pp. 5050 and 506). 

4 Polybius 5. 104. 5; Seneca, Ep. 2. 2 (14). i; Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. 12. 5; 
Plut. De Stoic. Rep. 12, lotfb. 

6 Cf. p. 183, and for the myth of the descent of the redeemer in general Note IV. 
For this myth in terms of a "mystical marriage" cf. Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 
14 (Scott 120), and see p. 85 for other instances. The thought of Jesus as the husband 
of the Church and the reference to Gen. 2. 24 may be inspired by the Pauline asso- 
ciation of Jesus with Adam, though this is not necessary. There is an obvious re- 
semblance between this passage and Corp. Herm. Ascl. 3. 21 (Scott 332), where 
however the " mystical marriage " has been changed to the parallel conception of a 
bisexual creator. It is possible that the Hermetic writer is dependent on Ephesians ; 
but it is possible that both are drawing on a common tradition. For the passage as 
meaning that Jesus "left" His Father cf. Orig. In Ev. Matt. 14. 17. 


of contemporary religion in equating the central figure of any given 
cult with the divine reason emanating from the supreme deity and 
entering into the cosmos to establish order and harmony in the chaos 
of matter. The recognition of this was the secret of salvation, which 
was obtained by the knowledge of the divine origin of the soul as a 
spark or fragment of the divine nature immersed in the material. Here 
the union is not that of a divine being with the material, and the 
consequent possibility of salvation by Gnosis, but the union of the 
historical Jesus with the Church as a community whose members are 
redeemed by faith. But the language implies that the writer has the 
theme of the mystical marriage in mind ; the passage depends for its 
point on the correspondence between the action of Jesus in leaving 
His Father for the sake of the Church and of a man in leaving his 
father for the sake of his wife. But such ' ' marriages ' ' were not merely 
a commonplace of the religion of the age, in which they often figured 
as the central feature of a new cult. 1 They were also a commonplace 
of philosophy in view of the predilection of the Stoic tradition for 
reading its system into the loves of the gods in classical mythology. 2 
Judaism was quite prepared to follow suit; the words of Genesis 
were commonly employed to expound the most frigid allegories of 
conventional philosophy. Thus the author was merely applying to the 
relation of Jesus to the Church a commonplace of popular theology, 
whose ultimate association with the mythology of some of the cults 
of the Hellenistic age had long since been forgotten. 3 Jesus here as 
elsewhere assumes the character of the divine nature immanent in the 
cosmos, while the place of the element of mind which He delivers is 
taken by the Church. 

This summary is followed by a final appeal for perseverance 
(6. 10 seqq.). The armour of righteousness of i Thess. 5. 8 is fitted into 
the world-view of Rom. 8. 38. The conflation of the two Pauline 
themes enables the writer to produce a vigorous and dramatic answer 
to the fatalist outlook on life which was common in ancient religion. 
In an age familiar with mercenary armies it was natural to regard the 

1 The most obvious instance is Alexander of Abonouteichos (Lucian, Alexander 
38). But the theme appears in Simon of Samaria (Ir. Haer. i. 23. 2 seqq.) in its 
crudest form as it does in Marcus (ib. i. 13. 3 and 5). 

2 Cf. the "natural theology" of Chrysippus, Cicero, DeNat. Dear. 2. 26. 66, Sext. 
Emp. adv. Math. 9.5, De Civ. Dei 4. 10 and the predilection for " mystical marriages " 
among the Naassenes, Hipp. El. 5 . 7 (98) ; cf. Clem. Recog. 9. 3 for an orthodox instance. 

3 Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2. 14 (49, M. i. 75), where the passage is referred to mind, 
when it deserts God, its Father, and Wisdom, its Mother, and cleaves to sense, and 
De Gigant. 15 (65, M. i. 272), of "children of earth" who desert the better and go 
over to the worse; here the passage has lost all association with any thought of 
marriage and has been interwoven with a Stoic-Orphic allegory (cf. p. 75). 


service of one of the new gods as a warfare on earth under the orders 
of a divine commander. Hence the old myths of the armour of the 
gods, which had passed into the Old Testament tradition of Judaism, 
received a new life and meaning in the Hellenistic age. 1 But it was 
not only the votaries of the various religions which offered salvation 
who claimed to be the soldiers of their deity. 2 The philosophy of 
Stoicism could offer no better prospect to man than to be a good 
soldier obeying the commands of fate.? The phrase was a common- 
place which had passed into the liturgical religion of the age, from 
which it has found its way into the fragments of such cult-forms as 
were later incorporated into the literature of magics-Tile Christian 
is not in this position. He has at his disposal the armour of God, which 
will enable him to fight with the certainty of victory not against flesh 
and blood, but against Satan himself, the lord of those celestial 
spheres which are under the control of the cosmocrators who rule the 
present age of darkness. 5 

Thus the armour, while in itself going back to Pauline language and 
so to Is. 59. 17, with a possible extension from Wisd. 5. 17 seqq.f is 
drawn from a widely diffused convention of the time. But while it is 
placed in an astrological setting in which it appears with some fre- 
quency, it is used with a deliberate change of meaning; the duty of the 
Christian is not to resign himself to the decrees of fate like a good 
soldier obeying his commander, but to fight against the rulers who 
ordain them with the panoply which will enable him to conquer the 
temptations which beset him. 7 The "sword" as the word of God is 

1 For the line of development cf. Dibelius in H.z.N.T. ad loc. 

2 Dibelius, loc. cit., gives a collection of parallels from the mystery-religions. 

3 Seneca, Ep. 18.4 (107). 9, regards it as man's privilege to be a soldier of Jupiter 
( = fate); in Catal. Codd. Astral. 5. 2 (Kroll 30. 10) it is the lot of man to which the 
astrologer resigns himself. In Seneca, Ep. 20. 3 (120). 12, the good man is civis 
universi et miles. 

4 Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 193, 211 and I7b. 22; both passages are drawn from sources 
which were once religion rather than magic. 

5 "Cosmocrators" is an astrological term, cf. Test. Sal. quoted by Dibelius 
on Col. 2. 8; cf. irpvTavfis TOV Ko<rp.ov, Wisd. 13. 2, Cumont, Fouilles de Doura- 
Europos 103 and 129. It is commonly applied to human world-rulers by Jewish 
writers (Krauss, LehnwSrter 2. 502). But the distinction between more or less deified 
human world-emperors and the planets which rule the fate of a world-empire is 
easily passed. The reading inrovpavioif in this verse seems to reflect an attempt to 
fit the " rulers " into the lower air or to extend the dominion of the " prince of the 
power of the air" up to the firmament, in order to make the rulers subject to him. 

6 Cf. Holmes in Ap. and Ps. i. 527; but the picture may be due to independent 
variations on the same convention. 

7 The soul which obeys the commands of the rational element in it is able to 
receive God into itself, and is free from the demons subject to the planets and so 
from fate; the demons control only the body and the irrational soul (Corp. Herm. 16. 
1 6 (Scott 270)). 


drawn immediately from Is. 49. 2 and 11.4; Judaism was accustomed 
to interpret the swords of the O.T. as a symbol of the Torah. 1 The 
symbolism of the word as the sword was a standing convention of 
Judaism, whatever its ultimate origin may have been. 2 

With this armour to defend them (6. 18 seqq.) the readers are to 
persevere in prayer for all the Saints and for Paul himself that he may 
not fail to preach the Gospel with due courage as an "ambassador in 
bonds" (Col. 4. 2 seqq., but the thought of courage from Phil. I. 14). 
This furnishes a suitable conclusion to the writer's introduction to 
Paulinism; the allusion to Tychicus may be a thinly veiled statement 
of the author's identity. In any case his work is an impressive exposi- 
tion of the later Pauline theology. Although however he adheres 
closely to Pauline thought and language, he is by no means a mere 
imitator; he understands his subject, and where he has no model to 
guide him he shows himself capable of vigorous and original insight 
and clear expression. At times he comes nearer to the beliefs and 
language of Hellenistic religion than Paul, but without in any way 
compromising his fidelity to the main stream of Christian tradition. 
His letter, though not the work of Paul, is entirely worthy of the place 
it has always held in Christian theology and devotion by the side of the 
letters of his master. 

1 Str.-B. ad loc. and on Heb. 4. 12. 

2 Apart from Isaiah the convention seems to be implied in Hosea 6. 5. It appears 
in Philo, De Cher. 9 (28, M. i. 144); cf. Leg. Alleg. 3. 8 (26, M. i. 92). In the N.T. 
apart from Heb. 4. 12 it is common in the Apocalypse (Rev. i. 16, 2. 16, 19. 15). 
It may be derived from the slaying of the wicked "with the breath of his lips"; 
cf. p. 16. But there seems no obvious reason for the change of the fairly obvious 
breath into the rather grotesque imagery of a sword. In Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 1717 an 
incantation is described as " the sword of Dardanus ". The actual " sword " (1. 1814) 
is the formula, "One is Thuriel, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Misael, Irrael, Istrael". 
Dardanus is a peculiar figure. A set of writings said to have been discovered by 
Democritus in the tomb of Dardanus (Pliny, N.H. 30. 2. 9) were the foundation of 
alchemy (cf. Riess in E.R.E. i. 288 b). According to Dion. Halic. i. 61 Dardanus 
survived a great flood in Arcadia; he thus could claim to be a kind of Noah, and 
Noah at the instruction of the angels wrote down a book of " medicines " after the 
Flood (Jubilees 10. 10 seqq.). Oh the other hand one of the wise sons of Mahol in 
i Kings 4. 31 appears as Darda, which Josephus (Antt. 8. 2. 5 (43)) gives as 
Dardanus. Pliny's list of magicians puts Moses and Jannes immediately after 
Dardanus. This probably comes from an Alexandrine source ; Jewish magic would 
naturally identify Dardanus and Noah as predecessors of Moses. Darda could also 
be interpreted as "generation of Wisdom" (Dor Da) and taken as the generation 
which received the Torah (Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews 3. 79, 4. 130 and 6. 283), 
The " sword " of Dardanus seems to be an account of the Logos as a word com- 
posed of seven archangels; the doubling of Irrael and Istrael shows that it has 
passed through Gentile hands; an archangel (? Raphael) has been lost and replaced 
by the meaningless doublet). 


The most striking feature of classical Greek literature in its treatment of the 
religion of Persia is its lack of interest. Herodotus, who gives half a book to 
the religion of Egypt, only gives four chapters to that of Persia, and includes 
one bad blunder in his account. 1 Xenophon, in spite of his interest in Cyrus, 
tells us little; we read of a cult of Ahura-Mazda, Mithras and Anahita. 2 He 
suggests that Cyrus was fairly impartial in worshipping the gods of other 
nations ; the O.T. supports this and suggests that Xenophon had access to 
a well-informed source. This general indifference is continued in the later 
historians. Diodorus Siculus, though he describes Alexander's conquest of 
Persia, tells us nothing of Persian religion, except that Zoroaster claimed 
that his laws were revealed to him by the aya6os Saifjuav, that the Persians 
worship Artemis (Anahita), and that they extinguish the sacred fire when 
the king dies. 4 There is scarcely any system of religion and mythology 
which he treats so cavalierly. Strabo is still more remarkable; he was a 
native of Amasea in Pontus, a member of the priestly family of Comana, and 
his family had served Mithridates Eupator till they found it wiser to go over 
to Rome. 5 He must have had ample opportunities for learning the faith 
and practice of Magian religion. He had at his disposal the works of 
Posidonius and 'the numerous other authorities whom he quotes. Yet his 
account of Persian religion proper consists simply in a repetition of Hero- 
dotus with a correction of his error as to the identity of Mithras and Anahita, 
and an account of the fire-cultus. 6 He describes the Asiatic cultus of 
Anahita as Persian, 7 which it certainly was not in the proper sense. 

The Persica of Dinon in three volumes may have given an account of 
Persian religion; if so, it was not regarded as interesting enough to be 
copied; all that remains of his information is that the Persians use the 
baresman, that they regard fire and water as the only true images of the 
gods, and that they sacrifice in the open air. 8 He may have related more ; 
but he may have given as little information as Herodotus himself. 

The most important evidence is that of Plutarch, who knows of the two 
" Gods " of Zoroastrianism and the six Amhaspands together with numerous 

1 Herodotus i. 131-133 and 140. For a discussion of his evidence cf. Moulton, 
Early Zoroastrianism 36 and passim; Meyer, Gesch. des Alter thums 3. i. 122. Whether 
his account represents a decadent Zoroastrianism or primitive Iranian nature- 
worship need not concern us. 

2 Cyropaedia 7. 5. 22, 53, 57. 3 Ib. 3. 3. 21 seqq. 

4 i. 94. 2, 5. 77. 8 and 17. 114. 4. Either Ctesias said little about Persian 
religion, or Diodorus and the Greeks in general did not regard his information as 
worth repeating. 

6 Strabo 10. 4. 10 (477), 12. 3. 15 (547), and 33 (537)- 

6 Ib. 15. 3. 13 (732) and 15 (733). For the latter passage cf. Pausanias, Descr. Gr. 
5. 27. 5. The Magus seems to have found Pausanias somewhat gullible. 

7 Strabo 12. 3- 37 (SS9>- 

8 Cf. the fragments ap. Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. go. 8 seqq. 


astrological accretions ; he makes the unorthodox statement that Mithras is the 
mediator between Ahura-Mazda and Ahrinian. 1 According to his authority 
there was coming a time when Ahriman would bring an age of tribulation 
on the earth, after which he was to be destroyed ; the earth will then become 
flat, and men will live happily with one metihod of life and government and 
one language. Clearly the Iranian religion has been revised in a thoroughly 
Hellenistic sensed Plutarch proceeds to quote Theoppmpus to the effect 
that each of the two Gods will rule and be ruled in turnj for 3000 years, after 
which there will be 3000 years of conflict. At the end Hades (Ahriman) will 
perish and the golden age be established. 'The God who has devised this 
rests at present in a slumber whose duration is for a God no more than that 
of an ordinary man. To this account of the evidence of Theopompus may 
be added the statement of Diogenes Laertius, to the effect that according 
to the "Magians" all men will come to life, return and be immortal. 2 
Aeneas Gazaeus also says that according to Theopompus Zoroaster believed 
in a resurrection of the dead-. 5 ' ! 

Theopompus, as quoted by Plutarch, seems to show a knowledge of the 
Zarvanite heresy, which sought to get behind the dualism of Zoroaster to the 
one supreme deity of "Unending Time". 4 Plutarch's other source is 
Mithraic and therefore Zarvanite (Rel. Of. 139). Normally the dualism of 
Zoroaster would discredit him in the eyes of the Greek world, even though 
Plato in his old age had inclined to an ultimate dualism, perhaps under the 
influence of the Persian tradition. 5 The heretical system, to which Theo- 
pompus appears to allude, was certainly known to Eudemus of Rhodes 
about 300 B.C., 6 unless Damascius has made a mistake; but in general the 
Greeks only know of Zoroastrianism as a dualist system, which was to be 
rejected for that reason ; after all, an ultimate dualism is a counsel of despair, 
and the Greeks did not as a rule accept counsels of despair. Aristotle and 
his school took some interest in Persian thought ; 7 but again it is not clear 
that they went beyond a knowledge of its ultimate dualism. It is perhaps 
not without significance that the only two 'philosopher's credited with a close 
knowledge of the Magi and their religion were Dernocritus and Pyrrho. 8 

1 De Is. et Os. 46 seqq. 369 e. This represents Mithraism adapted to the normal 
Hellenistic view of the divine principle in the material world, cf. p. 46. 

2 i. 9- 

3 Theophr. P. G. 85. 9963: etrrat trore %povos ev & navratv veKpS>v avacrracris 
earat. This would be important if it realty meant that) Theopompus described 
Zoroaster as believing in the dvdffraarts vexptav. But Aeneas is probably using 
Christianised language. 

4 For a discussion of the question of whether this refers to the Zarvanite heresy 
or not cf. Lommel, Die Religion Zarathiistras 139. For the heresy cf. Irvin Blue in 
Anglo-Iranian Studies (Kegan Paul and Trubner, 1925) 6ji seqq. 

5 Laws 8960; Meyer, Urspr. u. Anf. 3. 651, accepts the Zoroastrian influence: 
but Plato seems to stand alone. 

6 Quoted by Damascius, Dub. et Sol. ed. Ruelle, 135 bis, i. 323. 

7 Diog. Laert. i. 8; cf. Nock in Beginnings of Christianity 5. 166. The work 
referred to entitled MayiKos may have shown closer knowledge. The other authori- 
ties quoted by Diogenes, Hermippus and Eudoxus merely confirm Aristotle and 
Theopompus. Aristotle denied that the Persians practised magic. 

8 Diog. Laert. 9. 34 and 61. 

206 NOTES 

Occasionally the later Pythagoreans appear to have appealed to Zoroaster 
in support of their belief that the unit is the ultimate good and the 
duad the ultimate evil. 1 Later writers were prepared to appeal to him in 
support of their theology, as Plutarch does in the interests of Egyptian 
religion, 2 and Clement of Alexandria in the interests of the Christian devil. 3 
But between the writers of the fourth century and those of the beginning 
of the Christian era there is little or no evidence of independent interest in 
Persian religion in spite of the conquests of Alexander. The old views are 
repeated, the only new point being the tendency to associate "magians" 
with magic, in spite of Aristotle's assertion that they did not practise it. 
Possibly this was due to the tendency of Persian colonies in Asia, isolated 
from the main stream of national religion, to adopt various elements from 
the religions of their surroundings, and to the tendency of practitioners of 
magic to claim the prestige of the ancient religion of the East for their 
practices. They were sufficiently successful to lead Pliny to regard magic as 
the invention of Zoroaster, 4 imported to Greece by Hostanes, a companion 
of Xerxes in the invasion of Greece. Thus we have two distinct traditions, 
one that the Magians practise magic, marriage with their mothers and other 
horrid rites 5 ; the other that they are a race of wise men, who will not allow 
any man to become king of the Persians until he has learnt all the wisdom of 
the Magians. 6 Zoroaster as a magician and the father of astrology reappears 
in the Clementine Homilies,' 1 where Nimrod, known to the Greeks as 
Zoroaster, destroys the opovoia that had existed under Noah by compelling 
the star that now governs the world to give him the kingdom ; the star could 
not resist him, but avenged itself by pouring out the fire of its kingdom on 
the magician. The reputation of Zoroaster as a magician goes back to 
Dinon, 8 and is conflated with Nimrod's reputation in that line in Jewish 
literature. 9 The story explains the Persian worship of fire; it seems to 
retain a memory of Zoroastrian dualism; it has introduced from popular 
philosophy the Hellenistic ideal of o/ioVota and an explanation of the origin 
of astrology from popular magic. 10 The manner of his death suggests the 
king who is destroyed by a thunderbolt (Salmoneus of Elis and the variously 

1 Diodorus of Eretria and Aristoxenus the musician ap. Hipp. El. i. z (7). 

2 Loc. cit. 

3 Strom. 5. 14. 92 (701 P). With the question of the extent to which it is just to 
describe Zoroastrianism as dualistic we are not concerned ; cf . West, Pahlavi Texts, 
p. Ixviii; Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism 125. 

4 N.H. 30. 2. 3 seqq., where Pliny does not realise that he is identical with 
"Zaratus the Mede". For the explanation suggested above see Nock, loc. cit. 

5 Diog. Laert. i. 7; Philo, De Spec. Legg. 3. 3 (13 seqq., M. 2. 301); from the 
Magica of Xanthus (Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. 2. n (515 P)). 

6 Philo, op. cit. 18 (100, M. 2. 316); Cicero, De Div. i. 41. 90. The two passages 
in Philo are significant of his methods of compilation; he betrays no sense of 
inconsistency at incorporating two entirely different accounts within a few pages of 
one another. The second passage, as the parallel with Cicero shows, is drawn from 
a defence of divination (treated by Philo here as mystical contemplation) ; it may be 
drawn from Posidonius' defence of divination. 7 Clem. Horn. 9. 4 seqq. 

8 Diog. Laert. i. 8: "ustra" = camel, but is taken to mean aorpov. 

9 The apocryphal view that Abraham invented astrology and saw through it, but 
was persecuted by Nimrod for his belief in the one true God, is implied as early as 
Philo, De Gigant. 14 (62, M. i. 272). 

10 Hipp. El. 4. 37 (73) describes the method for causing the moon or a star to 
appear in the roof of the magician's house. 


named Roman king), who derives from the lightning magic of Eftruria and 
the East (or the royal rainmaker). 1 The possession of worldfempijre rests on 
the possession of the sacred fire which is continued from the ashes of Nimrod, 
presumably a reference to the fire of Vesta and the Roman legend of the 
destruction of the king by athunderbolt. Syncretism could hardly go further. 

The inconsistency of the two Zoroaster traditions has led to one curious 
conception, which is preserved by Clement of Alexandria; according to 
Democritus on the Sacred Writings of Babylon 2 Pythagoras learnt the magic 
of Zoroaster the Persian magus ; but Alexander 3 relates that Pythagoras was 
the pupil of Zaratus the Assyrian, who is sometimes wrongly identified with 
Ezekiel. The latter statement is Clement's own ; it is significant, as showing 
that the interpretation of the "Chapter of the Chariot" (Ezek. x) is identi- 
fied with the fourfold Aion of Hellenistic-Oriental speculation, 4 which is 
ascribed to Zoroaster. Clement agrees with Pliny 5 in distinguishing 
Zoroaster from Zaratus. 

The whole attitude of educated Greek thought to Iranian religion 
betrays a striking lack of interest as compared with the interest taken in the 
religion of Egypt. It would seem that the reason is the difficulty of reading 
Greek mythology into it, except for purely superficial identifications of the 
Zeus-Ahura-Mazda type, and the incompatibility of dualism and a general 
resurrection and a final judgment of the world at the end of time with the 
whole Greek outlook. Even where there was some willingness to syncretise 
Iranian ideas it was necessary to remodel them, as when; Nigidius Figulus 
interprets the final triumph of Ahura-Mazda as a kingdom of ( Apollo (i.e. 
the sun as in the Aion-speculations of the period) with the^ Stoic; eWupooo-ts. 6 
There is indeed a striking change in the dramas of Seneca, which apparently 
under Iranian influences actually envisage a real end of the world: but 
Seneca himself, as his prose-writings show, only looks forward to a Stoic 
awo/caTaorraais. 7 Seneca's language is striking because it stands by itself, 
as against the world-ages which go back to Heraclitus. It is of course 
possible that Heraclitus drew his system of world-ages and conflagrations 
from this source; but it seems doubtful whether the evidence for his contact 
with the Magi is very serious. 8 


1 Warde Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People 52, as against Frazer, 
The Golden Bough, The Magic Art 2. 180 seqq. 

z Diog. Laert. 9. 49. Clement (Strom, i. 15. 69 seqq. (356 P) 1 ) calls them "ethical 
writings". 3 Polyhistor, irtpl TrvQayopin&v arvp.f3oX>v. 

4 For the fourfold Aion and the " Chapter of the Chariot" cf. Peterson, Els Seos 
250. For the dangerous qualities of the chapter see Mishnah, Meg. 4. Jo (Danby 207) 
and Hag. 2. i (it. 213). Cf. pp. 53 seqq. 5 See p. 206, n. 4. 

Ap. Servius on Eel. 4. 10 ; for the sun as equated to the Aion in " solar syncretism " 
cf. Peterson, op, cit. 243. 

7 For Seneca's dramatic writings with their apparent acceptance of a real "end 
of the world" cf. Kroll, Gott u. Holle 418 seqq. The transformation of Pluto into 
a figure of the Satan-Ahriman type is particularly significant. Fqr Seneca's real 
belief, as expressed in prose, cf. Ad Marc, de Cons. 26. 6; Ep. i. g. 16. 

8 According to Clem. Alex. Protrepticus 2. 22 (19 P) Heraclitus denounces the 
Magians and others who practise secret rites and mysteries with a fire that awaits 
them after death. In Strom. 5. i. 9 (649 P) Clement ascribes this to his knowledge of 
barbarian philosophy: but I doubt if he is a very reliable authority. Naturally 
Heraclitus knew of Magi: anyone at Ephesus in 500 B.C. did. The threat of " fire" 
may be Clement's Christian interpretation of Heraclitus. j 




Apart from the omission of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 1 a 
formula of Jewish exorcism of the orthodox kerygmatic type appears to 
survive in the collection of recipes in the Paris magical papyrus; except for 
its conflation with an extremely crude formula by one who had heard of 
Christianity, but only as a variation of Judaism, it appears to represent a 
duplication of the same theme, the greatness of the God of Israel in creation, 
and His mighty works in bringing His people through the waters. 2 The 
reference to Christianity suggests a date before the close of the first century 
A.D. or very early hi the second ; a later date is scarcely compatible with such 
ignorance of the precise relation of Jesus to Judaism and of His place in 
Christian theology. The Empire could afford to persecute Christianity, but 
magic cannot afford to be slovenly or inaccurate in its designation of spiritual 
beings. The reference to the Temple at Jerusalem shows that this part of 
the formula goes back to the time when the Temple was standing (Deiss- 
man, Licht. v. Ost. 1 181 seqq.). 

It would appear that the mystery of the name of God, the exalted language 
of the Bible, and the success of the Jewish practice of exorcism, which was 
largely due to these advantages, won for it a high esteem in the practice of 
Hellenistic magic. Judaism itself was largely influenced by a demonology 
which inevitably involved a belief in the efficacy of magic; and while magic 
was repudiated there was a considerable measure of disagreement as to 

1 For the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 85 
(311 b); Origen, c. Cels. i. 22 seqq., 4. 33 and 34, 5. 45. [For his belief that the names 
will not work if translated cf. Corp. Herm. 16. i b seqq. (Scott 262).] In 4. 34 he 
notes the prevalence of forms describing the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red 
Sea. For Jewish acquaintance with the belief that demons cannot cross running 
water cf . Talmud, Sank. 67 b and the sixth-century charm (Christian) banishing a 
demon across the Jordan which he cannot cross again (Diet. d'Arch. Chret. i. 1804). 
Is the unexpected Jewish-Christian insertion in Papp. Mag. Gr. 12. 174 in a spell 
for escaping from prison due to the obvious capacity of the Christian God for 
delivering His servants from prison? 

z Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 3009 seqq. LI. 3009-3017 might come from any source; they 
may be herbs of Solomon. LI. 3017-3032 may belong to the same; they come from 
a source which is neither Jewish nor Christian (Nock, Gnomon 12. n. 607 compares 
the sons of Sceva in Acts 19. 14). The same hand may have changed the "Periz- 
zites" of Gen. 15. 20 into "Pharisees" (3044). A knowledge of "Jesus the god of 
the Hebrews " might include a knowledge of the Pharisees as the villains of the Gospel 
narrative. The rest consists of a series of formulae, which appear to have been 
originally independent spells for different types of demoniac possession as ascribed 
to different types of demons. I have discussed the document at length in Harvard 
Theological Review, July 1938 and attempted to analyse the various formulae. 
For Dieterich's view (Abraxas 143) that the "pure men" of 1. 3085 are Essenes 
there seems no reason; the reference is to the ritual purity which forms a large 
element in Judaism, conventionally identified with ethical holiness. For the date 
and meaning of the papyri in general cf. Nock in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 
15. 3 and 4. 219 seqq. (1929). 


what was magic in a bad sense and what was legitimate medicine. 1 More- 
over, there were elements in Jewish religious practice which looked to the 
outsider extremely like ordinary magic, such as the ritual of the ashes of the 
Red Heifer, 2 or the wearing of phylacteries ; these resembled amulets of the 
ordinary type, though Judaism naturally distinguished them from those 
amulets against demons, whose legitimacy it recognised, even to the extent 
of allowing those of proved efficacy to be worn on the sabbath. 3 Phylacteries 
appear to be derived not from magic but from the literal interpretation of 
Deut. 6. 8 ; 4 but to the heathen, and to the less educated Jew, they would 
often appear to be amulets of magical potency rather than continual 
reminders of the Israelites' duty towards God ; the literal interpretation of 
Deuteronomy by the rabbis seems to have been due to the necessity of 
finding an orthodox substitute for heathen amulets. 5 The same applies to 
the mezuzoih on the doorposts, which appear as a protection against 
demons in the religion of Babylon. 6 

For the use of the kerygma-fprm in Jewish exorcism it is interesting to 
compare Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 85 (311 b), where the summary of 
the Creed is clearly quoted from a form of exorcism; cf. Orig. c. Cels. i. 6, 
where the name of Jesus and "the histories concerning Him" drive out 
demons ; the reference might be to a liturgical pericope from the Gospels 
(cf . Papp. Mag. Gr. Vol. 2. pp. 191 (P. 4), 207 (P. 18), 210 (O. 3)). But these 
are much later, while in c. Cels. 3. 24 Origen writes "the history" in the 
singular ; it is far more likely that a summary of the kerygma is meant ; 
summaries of this kind in a credal form appear to have been replaced later 
by passages of peculiar potency, such as the cosmogony of the prologue 
to the Fourth Gospel (Papp. Mag. Gr. Vol. 2. p. 192 (P. 5b)), or by false 
analogy the opening words of all the Gospels (ib. p. 207 (P. 19)). 

The papyri offer abundant confirmation of the Christian allusions to 
magical practice. Thus the devils who tremble (Jas. 2. 19 ; Str.-B. give no 
parallels) appear in the Jewish exorcism already noted (1. 3017) and in the 
same papyrus, 1. 359, in a passage inspired by the LXX. Origen's complaint 
that Christians use Jewish adjurations is abundantly confirmed by such 

1 Cf. Mishnah, Berakhoth 5. 5 (Danby 6) = Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 132, for saliva 
in the mouth as an omen in prayer and magic respectively. Cf. Mishnah, Shabb. 6. 10 
(Danby 106), where R. Meir regards it as legitimate to carry a nail from the gallows 
of a dead man on the sabbath for medical purposes when visiting a sick man ; but 
the sages forbid it as following the ways of the Amorites. For the demonology of 
Judaism cf. Str.-B. 4. i. 530 seqq. (excursus on demonology), which shows a combi- 
nation of primitive folklore and borrowings from alien sources. 

2 Cf. Str.-B. loc. cit. for the dialogue between R. Jochanan b. Zakkai and a heathen, 
where the Red Heifer is explained as magic. When the heathen has gone his disciples 
ask whether he really regards it as magic. He replies that of course he does not; it 
is a commandment of God and therefore to be obeyed. In other words it is exactly 
similar, to magic in practice, but differs in virtue of the intention of obedience to a 
command which cannot be understood. 

3 Mishnah, Shabb. 6. 2 (Danby 105). Rashi, ad loc., notes the use on such amulets 
of Exod. 15. 26, promising that if the Israelites are faithful, God will not bring on 
them the plagues of Egypt; this may be a reminiscence of the kerygmatic exorcism. 

4 Cf. Kennedy ap. Hastings' D.B. 3. 869, Art. "Phylacteries". The refusal of the 
Sadducees and the ordinary Jew of the am- ha-'arez to wear them seems conclusive. 

5 2 Mace. 12. 40. 

6 Jastrow, Die Ret. Bab. u. Ass. i. 286. 


210 NOTES 

documents as P. 2 a (Papp. Mag. Gr. Vol. 2. p. 190), where the "strength of 
our God has prevailed and the Lord stands at the door and allowed not the 
destroyer to enter. Abraham dwells here. Blood of Christ put an end to 
evil", or the remarkable conflation of the pericope describing the giving 
of the Lord's Prayer, obviously a potent passage, with an exorcism of 
Solomon (ib. p. 206 (P. 17)). There seems little doubt that we have here 
attempts to make the best of both religions as late as the fifth or sixth 
century A.D. Further instances of this confirmation may be found in 
Origen; cf. c. Cels. z. 34 for the opening of prison (Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 101), 
also the interesting Christian insertion into an otherwise heathen context 
(ib. 13. 289); in c. Cels. i. 68 he describes the calling up of the souls of 
heroes (ib. 4. 1390 seqq.) and the practice of providing splendid banquets 
through a Paredros; cf. Papp. Mag. Gr. i. 103 seqq. This Paredros will 
carry you through the air (1. 120), as did Simon Magus' demon, until 
faced by the more potent magic of St Peter [Acts of Peter 32 (Apocr. N.T. 
332) ; in the later Acts of Peter and Paul 77 (ed. Lipsius) Peter adjures 
the demon by the God who created all things and by Jesus Christ whom 
He raised from the dead, which shows the survival of the kerygmatic form] ; 
for the danger of precipitation cf. 4. 2505 seqq. It is interesting that the 
demon will not provide either fish or pork ; the combination shows that we 
have Egyptian not Jewish prohibitions. Cf. Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 17. 77 
and 80, for the value of herbs and relics of those who have died a violent 
death; 19. 87 for erotic charms; and Ir. Haer. 2. 32. 3 for pueri investes. 
These are all part of the regular stock-in-trade of the papyri. The extra- 
vagant claims of Simon Magus in Clem. Recog. 2. 9 suggest a lack of contact 
with regular practice. 

For later Christian forms cf. Diet, a" Arch. Chret. 5. 966; the Paris 
papyrus contains one interesting specimen (4. 1227 seqq.), in which the 
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is addressed together with Jesus Christ 
and the Holy Ghost; the allusion to being "among the seven and in the 
seven " raises suspicions as to the orthodoxy of the present form, but it may 
well go back to an original which combined ante-Nicene orthodoxy with 
the advantage of the names of the Patriarchs. 

There is a further question as to the extent to which Jewish Gnosticism, 
of the type which is presupposed in the Colossian heresy, may have 
influenced Gentile magic. Philo appears to be aware of a sevenfold division 
of the Logos, representing seven stages of the action of God, the seven days 
of creation and (presumably) corresponding to the seven planets (pp. 45 seqq.). 
We meet with a "sword of Dardanus" which consists of seven archangels 
in a state of some confusion (p. 203) ; the equation of "sword " and "word " 
is an established convention of Judaism. Here there seems a possibility of 
a direct connection between Jewish Gnosticism and magic, which renders it 
probable that in other cases where the connection is not so clear we are 
dealing with a legacy of unorthodox Judaism to magic, not simply with a 
borrowing of Jewish elements in heathen magic or purely Jewish magical 
practice. Cf. for instance Papp. Mag. Gr. 3. 145, where Adam (as the 
"original man"?) conjures the sun by a ninefold use of the names of God 
and the angels; for nine here cf. p. 31 ; in the same papyrus (but a different 
spell) 570 seqq. a god addressed as lao is also "begotten in every man", 


i.e. originally the divine element of mind; at 591 seqq. the spell incorporates 
the prayer of Corp. Herm. Ascl. 41 b (Scott 374), which is fairly clear 
evidence that we have here a link with Hermetic Gnosis. In Pap. 351 seqq. 
we have a set of seven adjurations by seven rulers sitting in the various 
heavens, including Raphael; the whole document has a strong Jewish 
colouring, and though late in date (fifth century A.D.) probably carries on 
an older tradition. In the earliest papyrus (no. 16), dating from the first 
century A.D., there is a ninefold adjuration of the demon of the dead by 
various names ; one is by the heart of the son of Cronos, others by Adonai 
Sabaoth, Abaoth and Adonai; 1 here we seem to have an indication that 
syncretism had gone to considerable lengths by the time that the New 
Testament was written, since the "heart of the son of Cronos" 2 has the 
appearance of being an alien intruder into a Jewish compilation. If we may 
assume that the ninefold adjuration represents an adjuration by the firma- 
ment, the seven planetary spheres and the earth, Adonai Sabaoth is in the 
right place for Saturn and the heart of the son of Cronos for Jupiter. 

It may be added that the title of " Eighth Book of Moses " attached to the 
Gnostic cosmogony of Pap. 13 suggests that Moses was regarded as a 
suitable author of such a work, i.e. that he was not merely known as the 
author of the orthodox story of creation, but of a more attractive and 
mysterious one. But this supposition is by no means necessary; the cos- 
mogony in question does not appear to be particularly Jewish. 

In any case the magical papyri preserve only fragments of a decayed 
form of Jewish Gnosticism. Their chief importance seems to lie in 
the fact that they show a contact between Judaism and the Hellenistic 
world which is quite different from that which we learn from more orthodox 
literature. For the understanding of Pauline theology they contribute very 
little, but they enable us to understand the early appearance and the wide 
influence of Gnosticism. Gnosticism and magic appear to represent the 
higher and the lower aspects of a view of the world and its problems which 
was characteristic of the age ; in the earliest Gnostics the line between the 
two can hardly be drawn. 3 

1 For a later (third century A.D.) adjuration of a sevenfold type with mixed 
"Orphic" and Jewish influences cf. Pap. Berol. i Parthey, 305 ap. Kern, Orph. 
Fragm. p. 312: Origen, c. Cels. 5. 9, derives the alleged worship of angels by unortho- 
dox Jews from magic. Note his allusion to their appearances, and cf. col. 2. 18. 

2 Is this a mistake for "grandson" and an allusion to the legend of the heart of 
Dionysus, the only part which was not swallowed by the Titans (Orpheus 82) ? We 
know that Judaism in Alexandria was interested in " Orpheus " from the time of 
Aristobulus, and it is just conceivable that this fragment of Orphic mythology, with 
the blunder substituting Cronos for Zeus as the father of Dionysus, should have 
been made in Jewish circles; the heart of Zeus is meaningless. / 

3 Nock (loc. cit. 232) sees an essential difference of tone between Gnosticism and 
magic. I agree entirely in the case of such men as Valentinus ; but Simon, Menander 
and Cerinthus seem to come much nearer both to magic and to the magical papyri. 




The Mandean system of redemption, whatever its origins may have been, 
bears every mark of being an attempt to introduce the common pre- 
suppositions of Hellenistic religion into an existing system of cultus, whose 
central feature was the frequent practice of baptism by immersion as a means 
of obtaining communion with the divine world and ensuring a free passage 
to the Mandean heaven. The attempt to read into it a pre-Christian system 
of Gnosis from which Christianity has derived those features which resemble 
Mandean tenets appears to be quite untenable in view of the examination of 
the documents by Pallis in Mandaean Studies, and more especially in view 
of Burkitt's demonstration in J.T. S. 29. 115. 225 seqq. that its use of Jewish 
names presupposes a knowledge of the Peshitta version of the Bible. The 
substitution of a journey through the various planetary spheres for a journey 
to the underworld (Pallis, op. cit. 22) represents a stage through which all 
Hellenistic religion was passing ; Christianity seems to have reverted to the 
traditional Jewish view of Sheol in opposition to Gnosticism, thus abandon- 
ing the view implied in Colossians and Ephesians that the soul of the 
Christian ascends to heaven, while the planets are unable to prevent it; 
the Mandean system provides suitable passports for such a passage 
(G.R. 362 seqq., Lidzb. 383. 25 seqq. and passim). The attitude to the 
celestial bodies is rightly described by Pallis as showing the hostility of the 
Gnostics (as also of Paul and rabbinical Judaism) to the general Hellenistic 
belief in a fate determined by the stars ; like Christianity and Judaism, Man- 
deism offered a deliverance from the stars and therefore was not concerned 
to describe them correctly. Later the Mandeans (no less than Christians 
and Jews) were quite prepared to practise astrology (Brandt, Die Manddische 
Religion 116). The fact that the female demon Ruha is mother of the seven 
planets in her character of Venus, -while she is also " the spirit " and in anti- 
Christian polemic the Holy Spirit, is suggestive ; Astarte has seven daughters 
in Sanchuniathon ap. Philo of Byblus ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 10. 18. This 
suggests a system in which a goddess was identified with the divine 
spirit pervading the material as is Isis in Plut. De Is. et Os. 53, 3726 
here the planetary spheres ; this explains the character of Venus as "spirit " 
and her consequent equation with the third person of the Christian Trinity ; 
for the equation of Astarte with Isis cf. above, p. 61. [Naturally Ruha 
might be derived from Ishtar in Babylonia no less than from her Syrian 
form of Astarte.] Pallis (op. cit. 55) derives the seven children of Ruha from 
the Persian view of the planets; but the "seven", i.e. the seven planets, 
and the "five", i.e. the seven planets minus the sun and moon, were 
liable to confusion in Hellenistic religion; the ultimate origin may be 
Persian, but the immediate source need not be. 

Yet another approximation to the Hellenistic world-view appears in the 
Mandean system of world-ages. Here we have four ages, the first ending 


in a destruction of all mankind by the sword, the second by fire, and the 
third by water, this destruction being equated with Noah's flood. Pallis 
points out the affinities with Zoroastrianism (op. cit. 60). But their details, 
especially the ridiculous end of the first with a destruction by the sword, 
leaving only two alive, have no particular Iranian affinities; they become 
explicable when it is remembered that the destructions by fire and water are 
Hellenistic commonplaces, while it is also an accepted view that the end 
must correspond to the beginning. Now the end of the world-age is to be 
ushered in by " wars and rumours of wars " not only in Judaism and Chris- 
tianity but in the general literature of the first century B.C. It would seem 
that the end of a first world-age by the sword has been imported (G.I?. 26, 
Lidzb. 27. 19) to provide an initial destruction by the sword to correspond 
to the last; it remains open to question whether the source is Christian or 
Hellenistic and whether we have here a genuine echo of the wars which 
preceded the establishment of the Roman Empire (or the wars which 
culminated in the downfall of the Jewish state) or a doctrine borrowed from 
Christian- Jewish apocalyptic at the time of the Mohammedan conquest 
(cf. G.R. 231, Lidzb. 232. 245^.). 

Both the date and place at which Mandeism arose can only be settled 
by those who are able to form a judgment on the linguistic problems 
involved. If the Mandean veneration for "Jordan " is an original part of the 
system, and if it refers to the actual river and is not a generic name for rivers 
as such, their origin must be sought for in the neighbourhood of Palestine. 
(So Lidzbarski, Johannesbuch der Mandder, xix; but Brandt, Die Mand. 
Rel. 66, regards it as a name for rivers as such, while Pallis, Mandaean Studies 
24, holds that "Jordan" as a name has replaced an earlier generic phrase, 
"living waters", under the influence of the late introduction of the figure 
of the Baptist to provide Mandeism with a suitable figure of a prophetic 
founder in order to secure Mohammedan toleration; the figure of the 
Baptist was according to him derived from Christianity.) 

On the other hand, even if it were possible to demonstrate that the 
Mandean system has early affinities with Judaism, it would by no means 
follow that they exercised any serious influence either on Judaism or Christi- 
anity. On the showing of the Mandean documents themselves the revelation 
of the true religion in the present (and last) world-age is the work of 
" Enos-Uthra", who appears on earth shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus 
and the destruction of Jerusalem (G.R. 29 seqq. and 56 seqq., Lidzb. 29. 
28 seqq. and 50. 14 seqq.). Enos elsewhere abandons the world after the 
coming of Mohammed ; up to this time he has remained in it unseen (G.R. 
302, Lidzb. 300. 9). The sentence is a pathetic surrender of any claim that 
Mandeism could still hope even in name to be a world-religion ; henceforth 
it is the religion of a " remnant ". Now it is highly doubtful if these passages 
retain any ancient tradition, and it is clear that the "history" of the 
appearance of "Enos-Uthra" in connection with the fall of Jerusalem as it 
stands contains much that is derived from the O.T. as learned through 
Christian sources. But it is perhaps worth noting that the conception of a 
historical founder who remains in the world suggests the first century A.D. 
Origen (In Ev. Jo. 13. 27) records that similar beliefs were entertained as to 
Dositheus; Simon and Menander seem to have claimed to be Messiahs: 

214 NOTES 

the intensification of Mk. 13. 21 in Mt. 24. 23 is suggestive. It must 
remain an open question whether the character of "Enos-Uthra" and 
Dositheus is drawn from Mt. 28. 20 or whether that verse represents a 
statement of the Christian belief in the Holy Ghost in language reflecting a 
similar point of view. 

A further suggestion of early elements in Mandeism might be found in 
the figures who retain the Hebrew name of God. Josamin (according to 
Lidzb. Johannesbuch, p. xxiii) replaces Baal-Samin, the well-known Syrian 
figure. He appears as the ruler of the firmament of heaven, and has a place to 
correspond to it; for he sometimes appears as good, or at any rate capable of 
repentance, sometimes as evil. This seems a natural position for a god of the 
firmament, since the development of Gnosticism would naturally degrade 
the "God of heaven", as the God of the Jews was commonly regarded in 
the Hellenistic age (cf. p. 67), to the rank of a demiurge and then to that 
of an even lower being. On the other hand Jorabba, another form of 
the god of the Jews, is always evil ; yet Jochabad, Jochasar and Jozataq are 
good. The confusion is in any case difficult to explain. But it seems con- 
ceivable that a Syrian sect which lived on the upper reaches of the Jordan 
and suffered forcible conversion to Judaism under Aristobulus I might have 
been left with the name of its "Lord of the heaven" in the judaised form. 
(For Aristobulus cf. Jos. Antt. 13. n. 3 (318).) An Iturean or Galilean 
tribe in this region might also be sufficiently exposed to oppression from 
centres of Syrian religion to reply by making the Syrian goddess the mother 
of the stars and the queen of the powers of evil ; Judaism had to transform 
the Isis-Astarte of that region into the divine Wisdom. On the other hand, 
it is not easy to see why so hospitable a religion as Mandeism should have 
objected to adopting her, even if it had not already worshipped her; it is 
conceivable that she was first degraded to this position by Jewish conquerors 
and left there by the first introduction of a " Gnostic" reformation. (For 
Ruha cf. p. 212 : it is difficult to explain her position as " spirit ", Venus and 
queen of the planets unless she was the divine element in the material world 
in her own religion.) 

There is a further difficulty in so far as the figures of Adam, Eve, Abel 
and Seth remain; while Adam and Eve are the first parents of mankind, 
Abel (Hibil) and Seth (Sitil) are beneficent beings of a supernatural order; 
this might be due to the fact that "Enos-Uthra", whose title suggests the 
enigmatic and quasi-Messianic titles which are familiar in Judaism and are 
reflected in Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man", might have thought it 
well, in describing himself as "Enos" the true man (cf. Philo, Quod Det. 
Pot. Ins. 38 (138, M. i. 218)), who is also of the supernatural order, to leave 
the position of Seth his father undisturbed. It must always be remembered 
that he is a purely hypothetical figure ; but such a reformer would naturally 
degrade the God of the Jews to the position of a thoroughly evil demiurge, 
while he might leave the " God of heaven " in spite of his identity with the 
God of the Jews in an intermediate position, introducing above him purely 
celestial beings, superior even to the vault of heaven itself. It seems that 
he degraded Jorabba below the firmament, making him a purely evil power ; 
the other forms Jochabad, Jochasar and Jozataq survived as powers of good 
because their names were associated with deities of the Syrian pantheon 


(Lidzb. Johannesbuch, p.xxv): Judaism when dominant may have tolerated 
the titles as "attributes" of God, so that the names survived as names of 
deities in Mandean polytheism and its Gnostic "reformation": if so, it 
was forgotten that *Jo" was the God of the Jews except in the form 
"Jorabba". This would also explain the appearance of "Ptahil" as the 
creator of the material universe; Lidzbarski identifies him with the 
Egyptian creator Phthah (ib. xxvii), and Pallis (op. cit. 203) regards him 
as an ancient Mandean figure. If he is indeed the Egyptian creator, it 
is difficult to see how he can have reached the Mandeans unless it was in 
a period when Egyptian influence was still predominant in Northern 
Palestine in an unhellenised form; the Ptolemaic Empire might have in- 
troduced Serapis and Isis but not the Memphite creator; in this case 
we should have to see in Ptahil a survival of the era when the cedars of 
Lebanon were being felled for the Egyptian navy, i.e. some time before the 
conquest of Egypt by the Persian Empire, Phthah, however, had a certain 
vogue in magic: possibly this explains his appearance as the demiurge. 1 
In the system as it appears in the texts Ptahil has become a kind of duplicate 
of his father Abathur, regarded by Pallis (loc. cit.) as ancient, by Lidzbarski 
(op. cit. p. xxix) as a Persian figure (this is denied by Pallis, op. cit. 114). In 
the existing system Ptahil and Abathur are responsible for a defective 
creation of a Gnostic type (cf. p. 224). Pallis holds (op. cit. 191) that the 
original Mandean cosmogony was a creation by powers of evil, but here he 
is considering the original Gnostic cosmogony ; there must have been an 
earlier creation, and if Ptahil was originally Phthah, it was presumably a good 
one. As it stands Mandeism has certainly adopted the conventions of the 
Hellenistic age in regard to the evil of matter, and the division of labour 
between Abathur and his son or reflection Ptahil enables the pair to do the 
work of Sophia-Achamoth in the system of Valentinus. The original 
position of Abathur as against Josamin is completely undiscoverable. 

On these lines it would be fairly simple to explain the two conceptions 
of the highest powers. We have the great Mana, who was originally in the 
" Fruit " (possibly a variation of the Orphic cosmic egg), from whom proceed 
innumerable "fruits" and "shekinas", and among these appear the "first 
life" and the "second life" (G.R. 68, Lidzb. 65. 25 seqq.). Brandt (op. cit. 
24 seqq.) regards these as remnants of Mandean polytheism, but this seems 
entirely mistaken ; the character of the great Mana and the two lives are 
completely colourless, and the second life is sometimes an entirely superior 
being (there is sometimes even a third, G.R. 196, Lidzb. 196. n), while at 
others he is dangerously compromised with the work of creation (G.R. 70, 

1 Curiously enough Phthah appears twice in the magical names of the Jewish 
exorcism of "Pibeches" discussed in Note II (Papp. Mag. Gr. 4. 3013 and 3015). 
As the Jewish creator had to be definitely evil, another deity had to be intro- 
duced as a demiurge of an intermediate type; it may be that Phthah was known in 
this way. A similar contact may explain the fact that the Hebrew tongue ascends to 
heaven when the world is destroyed (G.R. 307, Lidzb. 306. 28). At first sight this 
seems inexplicable; but the magical prestige of Hebrew (cf. p. 42) may have led to 
its inclusion as one of the eternal elements in the cosmos by a writer who did not 
even know that Hebrew was the language of the Jews. Possibly the fact that the 
name of God is not uttered in Jerusalem (G.R. 329, Lidzb. 338. 14) comes from a 
similar source. 

2l6 NOTES 

Lidzb. 66. 27), and at others he is Josamin (G.R. 295, Lidzb. 291. 21 seqq.), 
whose sons are responsible for this blunder; while in 360 (Lidzb. 381. 21) 
the world was created by the second. This confusion becomes intelligible 
in the light of the ordinary Gnostic convention of an ultimate "Abyss" or 
unknowable deity with various "emanations" who somehow unite him to 
the material world ; here it is perfectly possible to see the supreme God, the 
visible pattern or Logos of the system taken over from Posidonius, with a 
third emanation (the " second life ") to enhance the gulf between the supreme 
being and the created world; but this being had at an earlier stage been 
regarded as creator of matter and so identified with Josamin, the firmament 
of heaven. Such an origin would also explain the Mandean fondness for 
describing "deficiency" as a mark of the material world; it has been seen 
above (p. 166) that Hellenistic thought demands that there should be a 
pleroma in all things. So the conception of the world as being entirely 
" birth " (Qolasta 23, Lidzb. Mand. Lit. 36. 4) seems to reflect the Hellenistic 
tendency to confuse "birth" and "becoming". 1 

On the assumption of this hypothesis it might be possible to explain the 
beggar Ado, described by Theodore bar Konai as the founder of the 
Mandeans, whose doctrine is borrowed from various sources, including the 
Manichees (Burkitt, op. cit. 231). Theodore's only error would be that Ado 
was not the founder, but the reformer who substituted the "king of Light" 
for the "Great Mana" and the "Lives". This view finds some slight 
support in Theodore's statement that the Mandeans are Dositheans, which 
is certainly untrue, but might preserve a knowledge of a founder of Man- 
deism who shared Dositheus* quality of being in the world till the end of 
time. It may safely be assumed that the "king of Light" is Manichean 
(Brandt, 198 seqq. ; JBurkitt, loc. cit.}. A course of events such as that 
suggested above would^explain the leading features of the Mandean view 
of the soul, which is an independent " soul " yet possesses some affinity with 
the original divine element implanted in the original Adam, who was created 
by lower beings, yet unable to stand upright until a spark of divine life 
was placed in him by Hibil (G.R. 159, Lidzb. 168. 10; cf. Ir. Haer. i. 24. i 
(Satornilus) and 30. 6, "the Gnostics"). As Adam includes all mankind, 
this explains the nature of the individual soul as a divine spark, which none 
the less retains its individuality to all eternity; in other words, the usual 
Hellenistic inconsistency remains, for the soul, if it is simply a divine 
spark, ought to be reabsorbed into the divine, not simply reascend to a 
realm of light. In the same way the double character of the Mandean 
redeemer, Manda d'Haije, as conqueror of the abyss and the personified 
"knowledge of life" which brings salvation to the soul of the individual by 
conveying it through the spheres of the hostile planets (G.L. 24, Lidzb. 441. 
35 and passim), is a characteristic feature of Hellenistic religion of the Poi- 
mandres type. It would also explain the resemblance between the imagery 
of the New Testament and the Mandeans ; for both are concerned either 
with the common concepts of Hellenistic religion, such as life and light, or 
with the normal features of Palestinian life, vines, seed and sheep, or of the 

1 For the two meanings cf. Philo, Quod Deus sit Imm. 25 (119, M. i. 290) and 
Prestige, God in Patristic Thought 52 seqq. But the use of "birth" suggests a late 
and distant connection, which interpreted "becoming" as meaning "birth". 


needs of life in general, such as houses and clothing : pearls are for both a 
type of precious stones in general. But the features are far too general to 
make it necessary to assume a common Palestinian origin. Similarly, the 
presence of very striking resemblances between the accounts of the descent 
of the Mandean redeemer through the spheres and the Christian descent 
into Hades proves nothing beyond the fact that both draw on a common 
stock of literary convention describing a descent of a divine being into 
hell. The Mandean redeemer in the extant literature generally descends 
through the planets to the sphere of earth, as Jesus does in the more 
Hellenistic elements of the Pauline writings. But the Mandean redeemer's 
descent is a revised form of a descent into hell, suited to the normal world- 
view of the Hellenistic age, while it would seem that the Mandean religion 
at one time believed in a genuine descent (Kroll, Gott u. Hoik 281 segq.). 
In any case the similarities are due to a common convention going back to 
a remote past and naturally reproduce similar features (Kroll, op. cit. 297). 

Even if this purely speculative reconstruction were true, it would not 
prove that Mandeism exercised any influence on Judaism or Christianity, 
but rather the reverse, since "Enos-Uthra" would belong to a class of 
Gnostic "saviours" who appear in Palestine as competitors not of the 
historical Jesus but of the early Church (cf. above, p. 213); it would seem 
that the success of Christianity suggested the new character. It also involves 
one very serious difficulty. It seems agreed that the Mandeans migrated to 
their present dwelling-place from a region of " Jordans", i.e. a region in 
which it was natural to see in fresh and rapid streams (or in the Jordan) a 
manifestation of the divine beings who lived in mountains in the North. The 
location in Northern Galilee or Ituraea is therefore possible. But if " Enos- 
Uthra" conceals a historical founder, it would seem that there was a 
migration of the Mandeans from their original horne to Southern Meso- 
potamia at a time when the religion had reached a form which can still be 
found in their literature. This presents a serious difficulty: there is no 
allusion to such a migration in the texts : their silence would be intelligible 
if the practice of baptism, as a cult-survival, was all that remained of the 
Mandean religion in its pre-Gnostic stage ; it might also be possible to see 
in the hostility to Jorabba and Ruha the remains of a hostility to Judaea 
and Syria, which dated from a period before such a migration. If the 
Gnostic influence only made itself felt in Mesopotamia, it might have 
obliterated the historical "Exodus". Otherwise its absence from the 
texts is very difficult. An "Exodus" after Mandeism reached its present 
form could scarcely fail to leave its mark on the literature; such incidents 
are more likely to be invented than to be forgotten. 

In any case the possible course of events outlined above is no more than 
a speculation. Attempts to explain the origin of Mandeism and its 
relations to Christianity must be governed by the consideration pointed out 
by Burkitt (op. cit. 234) with regard to the common astrological pre- 
suppositions of all Gnosticism, to which he might have added the common 
presuppositions as to the nature of the soul and the essentially fluid 
character of all " Gnostic systems". It remains possible that he is entirely 
right in ascribing its origin to contact between a primitive cult and the 
Eastern systems of Gnosticism of which Bardaisan is a representative. In 

2l8 NOTES 

any case it is dangerous to suppose that all influences must or can be traced 
to one period of contact. Any race living between the Euphrates and the 
Mediterranean was exposed to contact with Zoroastrianism, Judaism, 
Hellenistic thought and Syrian paganism at any period after the conquests 
of Alexander, and from at least A.D. 200 with Christianity, whether orthodox 
or Gnostic. (Cf. Harnack, Mission u. Aufbreitung 440.) In this melting-pot 
of cultures the conception of a gradual evolution from polytheism to 
monotheism, from myth to philosophy, from magic to mystery and from 
ritual to ethics, leading to the substitution of ethical conduct for the outward 
observance of religious rites, except in so far as religion decays under the 
influence of sacerdotalism, does not apply, any more than it applies to 
Western European religion after the date of August 4, 1914. 

Note. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran by E. S. Drawer (Clarendon Press, 
1937) is invaluable as a description of the peculiar ritual and liturgical 
practices of the Mandeans. It is perhaps to be regretted that the author 
has ventured into the study of their origins. The fact that they eat a ritual 
meal every year in memory of the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea while 
pursuing Israel during the Exodus (pp. 10 and 89) may "come from a 
Jewish source", but it cannot be used to suggest that "that part of the 
Israelites who were taken captive by Sargon were in truth settled near the 
Caspian" (the supposed home of the Mandeans); the Israelites taken 
captive by Sargon can hardly be supposed to have heard of the story of the 
drowning of the Egyptians. But it is not unnatural that an experience of 
forcible conversion to Judaism should lead to sympathy with the drowned 
Egyptians, which any reader of the Mekilta is bound to feel. In the same 
way the legend of the Exodus on p. 266 is an obvious conflation of the 
anti-Semitic propaganda of Manetho and Apion with the Jewish legends 
in which Abraham appears as the destroyer of the idols of Babylon. 

In general it may be said that while the liturgical practice of the Mandeans 
reveals obvious affinities with primitive nature-religion, it is by no means 
clear how far these affinities are due to primitive practice which has 
survived from the beginning, or how far they represent a reversion to a 
lower stage of religion during the centuries of decadence and assimilation 
to neighbouring religions. The principles of Life and Light, with their very 
slight personification, cannot be taken (as on p. xxi) to represent a primitive 
form of religion which has been preserved at a pre-mythological stage, in 
view of the armies of mythological figures who still retain a shadowy 
existence in literature and cult; they clearly represent a Gnosticising attempt 
to replace mythology by allegory. The " beings " treated as demons and evil 
in the Mandean scriptures who reappear "in magic rolls as beneficent 
beings " (note that John the Baptist does not appear) are significant ; the 
opposition of the classical literature to magic (as to astrology) has failed to 
resist the popular demand for such protection, much as astrology found 
its way into orthodox Christian circles (even high ecclesiastical circles) in 
spite of the opposition of classical Christian theology. 

Such statements as those that "the haoma" as used at weddings is "an 
intensified fertility symbol; it is possible that the wine at the Cana 
marriage-feast (John 2. 3-10) had a similar ritual meaning" (p. 72); "this 


sign [of the Cross] was not at first associated even by the Christians with the 
instrument of Christ's passion but was a 'life' or 'sun' symbol" (p. 107); 
or the comparison of the removal of the seal from the mud on the 
Mandean grave on the third day with the breaking of the seal on the tomb 
of Jesus on the morning of the Resurrection (p. 201), suggest a failure to 
avoid the more obvious pitfalls of comparative religion; this is combined 
with the further statement (p. 203) that the journey of the soul through the 
mataratha in forty-five days, or in the case of the perfect soul forty, "recalls 
the Ascension of Jesus on the fortieth day. Forty is used generally as the 
Semitic equivalent of many and would therefore not be significant were it 
not for the parallel of the resurrection on the third day and the removal 
of the seal ". But forty days is a common period in the O.T. ; if there is 
any connection, it would seem that the Mandean forty days are due to the 
necessity of proving that Jesus was no better than the best Mandeans. 

It is a pity that so valuable a book should attempt to deal with the 
resemblances between Christianity and the Mandeans on the basis of The 
Golden Bough. It is conceivable that it would be difficult to reconstruct the 
theology of St Thomas Aquinas from an observation of the cult-practices 
of the remoter Roman Catholic communities of South America. 


The " myth " of a divine being who descends into hell and returns in triumph 
appears to go back to Babylonian religion ; possibly it is derived from the 
character of Marduk (originally Tammuz) as a vegetation god (Kroll, 
Gott u. Holle 239). 1 The same motif appears in Egypt as a descent of the 
sun-god into the darkness of the underworld (ib. 185 seqq.). The dualistic 
world-view characteristic of Iranian-Chaldean religion, which influenced 
the general Hellenistic outlook in which Christianity grew up, substituted 
for the descent of the saviour-god into the lower world his descent through 
the spheres of the planets into the material cosmos. 

The mere descent of a divine figure through the planets into the lower 
world does not prove any immediate connection with the myth, nor do the 
literary conventions associated with it; these conventions, such as the 
bursting of the gates of brass and the bars of iron, the bringing of light into 
the realm of darkness through a shattering of the earth, the panic of the 
rulers of the realms of the dead and the like, are to be found in literature 
which was quite unacquainted with the source from which they were 
drawn. In Pauline literature there is an obvious instance of this in 
i Cor. 15.55, where the triumph over death suggests an acquaintance with 
the triumph over a personified figure of death which is a regular feature 
of the conventional account; but the acquaintance with it must go back 
behind Is. 25. 8 and Hos. 13. 14, from which the passage is compiled. 
Similarly, the breaking of the gates of brass and the bars of iron in Is. 45. 2 
seems to show the language of this myth; but in Col. 2. 3 the "hidden 
treasures" which in Isaiah belong to the "darkness", and are the spoils to 
be taken from Hades, have become treasures of wisdom hidden in Christ. 

At the risk of some repetition of points already noticed, it is perhaps 
worth analysing the passages in the Pauline writings which have been 
held to indicate Paul's knowledge either of the "descent" of a divine 
redeemer or of some of the features commonly associated with it. 

(i) i Cor. 2. 8. That the "rulers" crucified Jesus because they did not 
know who He was suggests the motive of the redeemer who passes through 
the various doors of the planetary spheres unrecognised. 2 This is very 
commonly found in the Mandean and Gnostic literature, but, except on the 

1 Kroll's exhaustive study is marked by a restraint in finding parallels and in 
drawing inferences which it would be an impertinence to praise; a shorter study of 
the subject appears in Clemen, Religionsgeschichtlidie Erkldmng des N.T. 89 seqq. 

2 Clemen, op. cit., holds that the same thought is implied in Col. 2. 15 seqq., but 
this seems quite uncertain. He compares Asc. Is. 9. 13 seqq., which dates from the 
second century A.D., but may incorporate older material; but the Pauline explanation 
was obviously a natural way out of the difficulty involved in the crucifixion of Jesus 
by the " rulers " on earth. If they could crucify Him on earth, where His death could 
effect the redemption of man, their prisoner, why had they not opposed Him on His 
descent and so prevented Him from delivering mankind? The motive of the failure 
to recognise Him appears in Ign. ad Eph. 19. i ; Epist. Apost. 13 (Apocr. N.T. 489). 


assumption of the priority of the Mandean writings, pre-Christian parallels 
do not seem to be found. (Dibelius, Geisterwelt im Glaube des Paulus 
88 seqq., and Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnose 242, assert a pre-Christian 
source, but adduce only post-Christian or Mandean parallels.) It must, 
however, be noticed that in this passage Paul is not concerned to argue that 
Jesus came down from heaven through the planetary spheres; this was 
obviously necessary if He was to come to earth from heaven. He is con- 
cerned to prove the foolishness of the so-called wisdom of this world as 
against the Wisdom of God; his crowning proof is that the "rulers" 
themselves, i.e. the angelic powers, identified on the one hand with the 
angels who rule the nations and on the other with the planets, did not 
understand God's purpose, which is known to every Christian, and there- 
fore crucified the Lord of glory. But this is simply a transfer to the angelic 
rulers of the ignorance of the rulers of the Jews in Acts 3. 17; some such 
explanation of the conduct of the rulers of the Jews was necessary as long 
as there was any hope of avoiding a final breach with the synagogue, and as 
long as the Church hoped to live on friendly terms with the authorities of 
the Roman Empire; and it was a mere commonplace of contemporary 
thought that things on earth were counterparts of things in heaven. Thus 
the ignorance of the rulers is naturally explicable from the given facts of the 
situation in which Paul is writing. 

(2) In Colossians Paul is to a large extent concerned to prove that, even 
if the arguments of his opponents are true, the supremacy of Jesus remains 
unaffected. Hence it is not always easy to distinguish his own beliefs from 
those which he is prepared to accept for the sake of argument. None the 
less his own world-view, as appears from Rom. 8. 20, is very similar in so 
far as God is in heaven, separated from the earth by the spheres of hostile 
planets. This view was certainly drawn from the conflation of dualism 
with astrology, which in various forms was the generally accepted view 
of the age. 1 But there is no suggestion here that Jesus burst through the 
bars of the planetary spheres or that He conquered the rulers by force. That 
He acquired either a material or a psychic nature from the planets, as He 
descended through their spheres, was part of the general convention 
(pp. 103 and 1 08). That He should have laid it aside on the Cross and not 
during His ascension through the planetary spheres shows a lack of serious 
interest in the whole scheme, though a similar levity is easily paralleled in 
the literature of the time. 2 The reconciliation effected by the Cross seems to 
have no place in the myth, while it figures largely in Col. i. 20 and 2. 13 seqq. 
Here too Paul does not try to be consistent ; in Rom. 8. 38 the rulers remain 
hostile; for the reconciliation of the rulers cf. Ign. ad Smyrn. 6. i, perhaps 
representing an independent tradition, and Orig. In Ev.Jo. 1.15; contrast 
Od. Sol. 5. 4; Acts of Thomas 156 (Apocr. N.T. 432); Acts of John 114 

1 Cf. Kroll, op. cit. 268 and 365. 

2 So Verg. Aen. 6. 730 describes a purification in Hades which is really that which 
takes place in the lower air (cf. Servius, ad loc.), as it does in Seneca, Ad Marc, de 
Cons. 25 ; Plut. De Ser. Num. Vind. 23 seqq., 5636. For purification in the moon and 
in the planets cf. pp. 31 and 103. In Eph. 2. 2 Satan is in the lower air, but in 6. 12 
the Christian wrestles with the planets. Origen, in De Princ. z. n. 6, speculates 
on a celestial purgatory which appears in full in Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. 18. n6seqq. 
(616 P). 

222 NOTES 

(t'6. 269). The reconciliation of man is effected by the surrender to the rulfers 
of the material body, which is all that they can claim; this thought seems 
to transfer to the rulers the "ransom" by which Jesus delivered mankind 
from the duty of obedience to the Torah by assuming the "curse" of a 
material body to which alone the Torah applied. There is no question of a 
recipient of the "ransom" ; it would be as absurd to ask who received the 
"ransom" of Gal. 3. 13 as to ask who received the "ransom" of Ethiopia, 
Egypt and Saba in Is. 43. 3. The language of "ransom" without any 
specified recipient is common in the second Isaiah; cf. also Philo in such 
passages as De Conf. Ling. 20 (93, M. i. 419) ; in Paul it may go back to the 
logion of Mk. 10. 45, where again there is no thought of the recipient. 1 On 
the other hand in Colossians Paul uses language as to the "laying aside" 
of the material which closely resembles that used in the Hymn of the 
Soul (Acts of Thomas 108, Apocr. N.T. 412 seqq.) and the Mahichean and 
Mandean literature, as well as in the Odes of Solomon (cf. Reitzenstein, 
Erl.-Myst. 84 seqq.). But here we are in a region of Hellenistic common- 
place, and the "putting-on" of the flesh by Jesus at His descent frdm 
heaven to earth plays no part in Paul's treatment of the subject. In any case, 
if treated seriously, the "putting-off " should have taken place during the 
ascent to heaven. 2 : 

(3) In Phil. 2. 10 we have an allusion to "things under the earth" which 
might allude to a conquest of hell, but seems only to reflect the conventional 
division of the universe into heaven, earth and the lower regions; the 
development of a^system of monotheism, in which the supreme God was in 
heaven, carried with it the supremacy of that God over the lower regions (oi . 
Peterson, Els &eos 259, n. 2 and 262). This was a matter of common form. 

(4) In Rom. 10. 6 we have a commonplace of Jewish-Hellenistic exegesis 
of the O.T. applied to (the impossibility of going up to heaven to bririg 
Christ down or of going down to hell to bring Him up from the dead 
(cf.p. 102). Here, however, there is no allusion to the myth of a descent into 
hell in any recognisable form; it is merely a way of pointing out that 
Christianity is a very simple thing. Since Jesus had risen from the dead and 
since union with Him by faith was a simple matter, there was no need to 
attempt the impossible. Naturally Paul would have supposed that Jesus, 
if He had not risen from the dead, would have remained in Sheol, if he was 
addressing Jewish circles, as in Romans. 

(5) The rest of the N.T. suggests a knowledge of the myth in such 
passages as Mt. 27. 52 (cf. Kroll, op. cit. 6), possibly Heb. 2. 14, which may, 
however, be Jewish commonplace, Rev. I. 18, and apparently i Pet. 3. 
1 8 seqq. This passage however presents a peculiar difficulty. The generation 
of the Flood belongs to a separate world-age, and the preaching of the Gospel 
to them may represent a special concession to those who had no chance to 
hear the message preached at the end of the present. Moreover, Jesus 
preached it to them "in the spirit", i Cor. 5. 3 and Col. 2. 5 suggest that 

1 Cf. Rawlinson, The Gospel according to St Mark, ad loc. and above, p. 109. 

2 Cf. p. 138. Kroll, op. cit. 209, connects the laying aside of garments at each gai:e 
in the descent to the underworld in Babylonian religion with the Gnostic belief that 
the soul puts on garments as it descends into the material and puts them off as it 
ascends, but the symbolic use of garments is Hellenistic religion. 


this is contrasted with a presence, such as is normally assumed in Christian 
stories of the descent into Hades. I cannot help suspecting that the writer 
is substituting a modified version of the descent for that normally current, 
in which there really- was a bodily descent, though naturally orthodox 
theology could not say so. 1 

(6) Superficially, however,; the most remarkable resemblance appears in 
Eph. 4. 9. Here we have an "ascent" to heaven, following a " descent" to 
the " lower parts of the ttarth ", in which Jesus goes up on high and " leads 
captivity captive". But here again the resemblance vanishes on closer 
inspection.. Possibly the "lower parts of the earth" are intended to mean 
Sheol, though the writer of Ephesians in 6. 12 transfers the struggle 
between the Christian and the powers of evil to the planetary spheres ; but 
the emphasis is not on the descent, but the ascent, in virtue of which Jesus 
is able to " fill all things ", i.e. to make His work effective not only on earth 
(and in any lower spheres which there may happen to be) but in heaven 
itself. As a result of His ascent to heaven (an "ascent" which implies a 
previous "descent" (see p. ( 194)), He has been able to win the prize of 
victory which rabbinical Judaism wrongly supposed had been won by 
Moses, when he ascerided from earth to heaven and brought back the 
Torah. The error of Judaism appears from the fact that Moses could not 
properly be said to have "ascended", for he had not "descended" first; 
hence, too, the promised "gifts" were not the Torah, but the Holy .Spirit, 
the prize which Jesus had won at His ascent and now gives as His gifts to 
men, i.e. the gifts of Apostleship and the other qualities needed for the work 
of the ministry. It is conceivable that the rabbinical accounts of the ascent 
of Moses to receive the Torah have been coloured by the myth, in so far 
as they represent the angels as being opposed to the giving of the Torah to 
Moses; it is again conceivable that the language of Ps. 68. 1 8 depicts the 
triumph of the Jewish king in language drawn from the mythology of the 
Babylonian redeemer, but ^here seems no reason for this, since the Psalm 
seems a straightforward account of a triumphal procession. The writer of 
Ephesians has produced a passage which superficially resembles the myth, 
but depends for its whole; point on its reference to the entirely different 
rabbinical conception. The remarkable similarity of such lines as Seneca, 
Hercules Fur ens 423, seems^ to depend simply on a common conception of 
the structure of the cosmos. 

Naturally the myth of (the descent into hell when transferred to the 
descent of a divine being ifito the world of the material produces language 
similar to that of Paul when he describes the descent of Jesus as the divine 

1 The development of the myth is traced by Kroll. It is clear that it appears in a 
fully developed form in 'the Apostolic Canons (cf. Kroll, op. cit. 17), but it does not 
appear in the credal form of exorcism in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 85, 31 1 b (for 
this form cf . p. 209) ; it seems that Justin does not know of a descent into Hades, 
though he is acquainted with such mythical accretions as the cave of the nativity at 
Bethlehem (ib. 78, 3043) and the light at the baptism of Jesus in Jordan (ib. 88, 315 d). 
One is tempted to suspect tliiat the story made its way from popular religion into 
liturgical Christianity with the help of the isolated allusions in Scripture which 
sanctioned or seemed l!o sanction it. (Kroll, op. cit. p. 138, assumes that Justin's 
allusions to exorcism imply a knowledge of the descent and that he is evidence for 
its currency in his time. But Justin says nothing to imply it.) 

224 NOTES 

Wisdom into the material world which is subject to the celestial powers. 
Both the Pauline and the parallel myths are attempts to fit a given story into 
a setting which was the received theology of the Hellenistic age. That 
theology held that there was a divine element permeating the whole cosmos, 
which in man took the special form of an element of "mind" or "spirit" 
which was also an independent personal being or Saifjioviov. The establish- 
ment of this view seems to have been the work of Posidonius (cf. p. 72), but 
it was really a necessity of Stoic logic; if there was a divine element in man, 
it must either be present in all men, merely as part of their nature, in 
which case there was no reason for being virtuous, or it must be present in 
such a way that man could make it the dominating element in his person- 
ality, if he chose to do so. I suspect Posidonius of having been inconsistent 
in his utterances on the point. 

This element had somehow been imprisoned in the material which was the 
source of evil. Moreover, being in the lowest stage of the cosmos, earth, it 
was subject to the stars, as being "below" them. It had evidently fallen 
into the material world in some unexplained manner ; the popular myth of 
an "original" man who had somehow fallen in this way was one such 
explanation. If it was to return to its home in heaven, whether by virtue, 
Gnosis or magic, it had somehow to "ascend" through the spheres of the 
planets, which intervened ; if they were regarded as hostile and as deter- 
mining man's fate, which was the normal view, some means had to be 
found for overcoming them. The normal means was a recognition of the 
divine origin of the element of mind, if the scheme was considered from the 
point of view of philosophy ; if it was regarded from the point of view of 
religion, it was natural to identify the divine element in man, which 
explained his origin and enabled him to attain to deliverance, with the hero 
of the votary's particular cult (cf. pp. 100 seqq.). 

This is precisely the element that is the common property of the mystery- 
cults and of all other religions which retained any vitality. It was the 
underlying assumption of all intelligent religion; if you were not an 
Epicurean and took any interest in theology instead of conforming without 
asking for explanations, your religion was almost invariably a myth, 
which explained how the divine element in man had come to be imprisoned 
in the realm of the material (cf. Orig. c. Cels. i. zo). 1 The doctrine appears 
in the Poimandres in the form of an adaptation of the story of Narcissus, 
or the Pythagorean tabu (on looking at one's own reflection), which has 
found its way into the Mandean system, 2 where a spiritual " first man " of a 

1 Although Celsus is described as an Epicurean by Origen (i. 8), he often uses 
purely Hermetic language; he agrees that the word is the son of God (2. 31), 
but it is a "pure and holy" word (cf. Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 53 (Scott i. n6), 
which shows that we are dealing not with the supposed Jewish opponent, but with 
Celsus himself), cf. 6. 41 and Corp. Herm. 16. 16 (Scott 270), 7. 36 and 45 and Corp. 
Herm. 6. 4b (Scott 168), and 7 (Scott 170). There is of course no need to suppose 
a direct connection ; the views are mere commonplaces of the age. 

2 Corp. Herm. i (Poimandres), 14 (Scott 120). The resemblance to the Mandean 
myth (G.R. 168, Lidzb. 173. 38 seqq.) is obvious, but it is by no means clear which 
is the original or whether both are derived from Narcissus; on the other hand, the 
exegesis of the mirror of Dionysus by neo-Platonists (Kern, Orph. Fr. 209 ; according 
to Orpheus 123 this is the only point in the Orphic system which Plotinus deigns to 


divine origin falls into matter, while "mind" remains a celestial being, 
which visits the righteous and enables them to escape from fate and the 
material; mind is on the way to becoming a personified cult-hero. Once 
"mind" was recognised as a special manifestation of the divine power 
immanent in the cosmos, the normal Stoic allegory could be made into 
a myth of the deliverance of "mind" from matter. Among the figures who 
appear in this capacity are Osiris and Isis in Plut. De Is. et Os. 1 Here Osiris 
is the pure principle of deity and Isis the divine element fighting against 
evil in the material world,) whereas in Apuleius, Metam. n. 23. 804 seqq, 
(where the interest is entirely religious, not theological), Lucius traverses 
the lower regions with Osiris in order to enter into the full protection of 
Isis ; here the goddess is clearly the more important figure. For Mithras 
as the "world-soul " and a possible allusion to a solar cult with a similar 
interpretation as early as Philo cf. p. 46 ; for Attis, Sallustius, Concerning the 
Gods and the Universe 4 (ed. Nock 9) ; for Apollo and Dionysus Plut. De 
Ei ap. Delph. 9. 388 e, cf. Orpheus 255; for the Cabeiri in Varro cf. above, 
p. 86 ; for Zeus and Hera, Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. 6. 42. The last three 
represent the ordinary allegory: for Heracles as "mind" at the end of a 
comprehensive allegory of pagan religion, cf. Clem. Horn. 6. 16, and the 
Naassene system as described by Hippolytus 5. 8 (107 seqq.); in spite of 
Hippolytus' confusions or those of his source we have the spiritual man 
in heaven, actual humanity below and a power which raises man from 
earth to heaven ; it appears from the text of the hymn (ib. 10) that this is 
Jesus as the second mind, who pities the soul imprisoned in matter, 
lamenting its sufferings in language which seems to be drawn from the 
account of Adam at the gate of Hades in Test. Abr. n (ed. James, Texts 
and Studies 2. 2. 89 and 112). 

Naturally Paul tends to approach the language of mythological attempts 
to fit the divine element in the cosmos into the figures of contemporary 
religion, since he is concerned to expound the historical figure of Jesus in 
terms of the earlier tradition by which Alexandrine Judaism had attempted 
to read that divine element, as the Wisdom of God, into the cosmogony of 
Genesis. His lack of consistency is due to the intractability of the material. 
Hence his inconsistency in regard to the relation of Jesus to the element of 
"mind" or "spirit" in man on the one hand and to the Spirit of God as 
manifested in the prophets and the Church on the other. The casual 

notice) shows how obvious the allegory was; it must be remembered that the 
reflection in a mirror is produced by an " emanation ", cf. p. 71 ; it is never a " mere " 
reflection. It is of course possible that the original story originated in the super- 
stition that to see one's face in the water in a dream is an omen of death (Artemidorus, 
Oneirocritica 2. 7. 88) ; and it is one of the Pythagorean tabus that one must not look 
at one's face in a river (Pythagorica Symbola ap. Mullach, Fr. Phil. Or. 510. 24). 
Originally we may have a widespread superstition about reflections [cf. Frazer, The 
Golden Bough i. 292 seqq. (ed. 1900)]. But the Pythagorean connection suggests 
Posidonius as the source of the Hermetica and probably of the Mandeans. 

1 Cf. p. 68. For Isis here cf. Ruha in the Mandean system as the "spirit" who 
is also the Syrian goddess (Lidzbarski, Ginza, intr. p. xi); the identification of the 
goddess with the spirit seems to reflect the normal Hellenistic tradition. Lucian and 
Apuleius do not mention such speculations ; but they are concerned with cult not 
theology. Ruha is also Venus (G.R. 27, Lidzb. 28, 27), just as Isis can also be the 
moon. Cf. also p. 61. 

KSPC 15 

226 NOTES 

identification of "the Lord" and "the Spirit" in 2 Cor. 3. 17 never leads 
him to identify Jesus with the " spirit" of man nor with the Spirit as given 
to man?. Nor again does he ever identify the spirit of man with the Spirit 
of God, as Origen does in some of his more incautious speculations (e.g. 
In Matt. Comm. Ser. 57), and as the orthodox Syrian writers normally do 
(Tatian, Or. ad Gr. 13. 62 and 15. 69, where man consists of soul and body; 
he lost the spirit at his fall into the present earth, but retained an erauo-juo, 
of it (cf. Basilides ap. Hipp. El. 7. 22 (233)), which enabled him to seek God 
and so to fall into idolatry. Now, however, the Spirit of God is willing 
to dwell in man, who otherwise is no better than the beasts except that he 
can speak.) Cf. also the Syrian Apocalypse of Paul 14 (Apocr. N.T. 531), 
the Zadokite Fragments 7. 12 and 8. 20 (Ap. and Ps. 8n and 815). 


transliterated into Hebrew became J'OBpD. The change bf 
the hard T (Teth) into the soft T (Tau) gave pnp'p, "hidden things" 
or "secrets" [Bibl. D'Jinpl?, from the common root ino (to hide)]. While 
the LXX translators of the Hebrew Canon do not use the word, it occurs 
eight times in Daniel, as the equivalent of xn (of the dream of Nebxichad- 
nezzar and its interpretation by Daniel) ; in the O.T. apocrypha 13 times. Qf 
these Tobit 12. 7 and 1 1 contrast the " secret " of a king which must be kept 
hidden with the works of God which it is glorious to reveal; cf. Judith 2. 2 
of the secret counsels of Nebuchadnezzar. In Wisd. 14. 15 and 23 it is used 
in its proper sense of "mystery-cults". This appears to be its only Biblical 
use in its proper sense, but the earlier part of the book of Wisdom (8. 4) 
uses the term flvaris of Wisdom. Wisd. 2. 22 and 6. 22 use it in 
a similar atmosphere, for the "mysteries" of the origin of Wisdom 'have a 
manifest resemblance not to any particular mystery-cult, but to the esoteric 
doctrines which these cults were supposed to symbolise. Thus here it 
has an apocalyptic sense with Alexandrine modification. Ecclus. 3. 18 uses 
the word of divine secrets. In Ecclus. 22. 22 and 27. 16 it is 'simply 
used of human secrets, as ib. 17 and 21 , in Prov. 11.13 (Symm.) and Prov . 20. 
19 (Theod.). In Job 15. 8 (Symm., Theod.) and Ps. 25. 14 (Theod., Quint.) 
it is used of divine secrets. In 2 Mace. 13. 21 it is used of betraying a secret 
to the enemy. 

Thus it is hardly correct to say (Armitage Robinson, Ephesians 2^4) that 
the word was a natural one to use, and that it is but sparingly used of divine 
secrets, since we have eight such usages in Daniel, two in Wisdom and one 
in Ecclesiasticus, and four usages of important royal or military secrets. 
These, with two cases in Wisdom where it is used in its proper classical 
sense, leave only four instances in one section of Ecclesiasticus of' its ;use 
as an ordinary secret,! together with two instances in other Greek versions 
(against two of the secrets of God). Is. 24. 16 in Q defies interpretation 
("my mystery is mine" for v \n (A.V. "leanness"); here we 'have a 
borrowing from Daniel LXX). The usage suggests rather a tendency) for 
the word to decline from the sense of divine secrets into that of human ones. 

The rabbinical usage shows a quite clear tendency to confuse the two 
words and to eihploy them indifferently with reference : 

(i) To divine secnets, revealed to man or particular men in the past, or 
to Israel as a whole, or alternatively to things to be revealed hereafter by 
God. Thus Pesikta R&bathi 5 (ed. Friedmann, i4b) of the Oral Law revealed 
to Israel, not td the (Christians; so in Gen. R. 50. 9, 78. 2, 98. 2, 3, Num. 
Rabba 20. 2; here the Greek form (Teth) replaces the Hebrew: cf. Targ. 
Ps. -Jon. Deut. 29. 5, where Kohut Arukh 5, f. 198 notes that the spelling 
with Tau shows that the Greek and Hebrew words were identified. Fjor a 
Messianic "mystery" cf. Cant. R. on 2. 7. 


228 NOTES 

(2) The word is used in the Hellenistic sense in Lev. Rob. 32. 4 probably 
of the "mystery" of the name of God and Exod. R. 19. 6 of the Passover; 
another nation shall not know its "mysteries". These are two of Philo's 
stock usages for depicting Judaism as the true "mystery-religion", cf. 
above, pp. 28 and 40. In Tanhuma (Stettin) ^ ^ 30. 19 the "secret" 
is circumcision (here nio) in a sense between (i) and (2). 

(3) Apparently the use with the simple meaning of "secret" is found 
with reasonable frequency. 

The Pauline usage is quite constant, apart from Eph. 5. 32, for which 
cf. p. 183: this Epistle is not written by Paul. The other uses of the term in 
his writings (not including the Pastorals) all fall under the first of the 
rabbinical usages of a divine revelation, usually of the revelation of God 
made in Christ (e.g. i Cor. 2. i (v.l. paprvpiov) and 7, 4. i, 13. 2, 14. 2 and 
Rom. 16. 25). In Rom. 1 1. 25 the " mystery " that some of Israel have been 
blinded till the Gentiles are brought in is very like the converse quoted 
above that the Oral Law is a "mystery" only revealed to Israel. .j, 

There is a deliberate contrast of Jewish and Greek usage in Col. 2. 2' The 
hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ are the hidden treasures 
of Is. 45. 3, which in LXX are dyaavpol aTroKpvfoi and in the Hebrew are 
D'nnDD. Paul has simply applied the ordinary rabbinical conflation of the 
two words in order to prove from Isaiah that all the "mysteries" of God 
are in Christ, and consequently that "mysteries" of the type advocated by 
his opponents can have no place in the Christian revelation. In his other 
uses of the word he follows the first of the three rabbinical usages noticed 
above. Some such conception was necessary for Judaism or Christianity, 
since both assumed a progressive revelation by the one God of perfect 
goodness of a full and complete religion. It followed as a corollary that He 
must in the past have kept some parts of the truth secret from all mankind, 
or from all but a few favoured individuals, for some good reason of His own. 
This was particularly necessary for Pauline Christianity, which had to 
explain both the promulgation of the Torah and its abolition. Clearly God 
had possessed secrets, which He had now revealed, or would reveal at some 
future date. 

The same meaning . appears in i En. 8. 3 (Syncellus* text) and 9. 
6. In 2 Thess. 2. 7 there is a slight variation from the normal sense, in so 
far as the "mystery" is in a transitional state, partly revealed and partly 
hidden. As the "mystery" appears to have been Caligula's attempt to set 
up his statue in the Temple, and as his plan had been made known but not 
fulfilled, it was in the curious status of a half-revealed "mystery". In 
Papp. Mag. Gr. 5. 109, where the form is Jewish (cf. Norden, Agnostos 
Theos 187), though the content is heathen, we find a quite rabbinical use 
of the word : eyco et/u Maivarfjs 6 trpo^TT/js crov <$ -rrapeStaKas ra /iuonj/na 
TO, owreAou/zefa '/<rr/m7jA. Here the phrase is exactly analogous to the 
first usage noticed above and to the Pauline. Probably the presumably 
heathen author had heard Jews describing the Torah as a "mystery". 



"ACHILLES TATIUS" (ap. Diels, Doxo- 
graphi Graeci) 163 


Fr. 162 75 

Fr. 219 194 


Placita (ap. Dox. Gr.) 91 

i. 3- 8 65 

i. 6. i 65 

i. 7- 33 2, 67 

I. 12. I 191 

I. 18. I sqq. 163 

I. 27. 5 i g8 

i. 28. i 82 (Heraclitus) 

1. 28. 3 82 (Chrysippus) 

2. 4. 6 i 
2. 4. 10 i 

2. 4. 12 104, 187 

4-4-4 2, 8 

4-7-3 2 

4. 13. i seqq. 72, 136 

4. 14. I seqq. 132 




Punica, 66 129 


8. 27. 5 8 i IS 

ii. 3. 756 seqq. 68 

ii. 5. 761 58 seqq. 

n. 5. 762 seqq. 85 

ii. 15. 783 no 

ii. 23. 803 85, 153 

ii. 23. 804 154, 225 

ii. 24. 804 138 

ii. 24. 806 138 

n. 25. 808 in 


Phaenomena, 5 i, 26, 38 

96 seqq. 61 

ARISTIDES (Keil), 45. 8 50 


Birds, 685 38 

692 36 

Frogs, 354 seqq. 30 

Ethica Nicomachea, 6. 7. 11413 


Epitome (ap. Dox. Gr.) 

19 191 
26 71 (Posidonius) 

28 72 

29. i 163 

29. 3 163 

29. 7 2 
31 163 (Chrysippus) 

36. 2 65 

37 3. 

39- 4 73 

39- 6 73 


Oneirocritica, i. 9. 15 109 

2. 7. 88 225 

2. 39- 139 ii 



5. 27. i97e 

6. 60. 2523 

6. 62. 253 c 

7. 80. 308 c 
12. 50 


10 (Theopompus) 

35 (Duris) 


Noctes Atticae, 5. i 121 (Musonius) 
12. 5 200 

CATAL. CODD. ASTROL. GR. (ed. Cumont 
and Kroll) 

4 7 

5. 2 202 

De Die Natali, 18. ii 4, 7 



Academica Posteriora, i. 10. 42 155 

De Divinatione 

i. 19. 36 64 

i. 23. 46 31 (Dinon) 

i. 32. 70 132 

i. 41. 90 206 

i. 42. 93 64 






De Divinatione 

dres) 84, 
5a 82, 

118, 140 
134, 224 

i. 49. no 


ta x 



i. 49. in 


H 133, 

200, 224 

i. 51. 115 
i. 52. 118 

6 4 



I. 53- 121 





i. 55- 125 
i. 57- 131 



1 60 (Pacuvius) 

. *. 



2. 2. 6 




78, 104 

2. 14- 34 



26 a 

75, 128 

2. 43- 9<> 
De Finibus, 3. 22. 73 
De Legibus (see STOIC 



Tr. 3: ib 

38, 149 

122, 176 

2. 10. 24 

J 53 

Tr. 4: 5 

ioi, 193 

2. II. 27 




De Natura Deorum 



1.4. 7 


Tr. 5: 2 


i. 10. 25 seqq. 

9 1 



i. 12. 30 


Tr. 6 : 4b ' 

136, 224 

i. 13- 34 



i. 15.41 


Tr. 7: 


i. 20. 54 
2. 6. 17 

66, no 

i seqq. 

I O2 

2. 7- 18 


x x 



2. II. 29 

2, 66 

Tr. 10: 13 


2. 13- 34 




2. 13. 36 




2. 13- 37 




2. 15. 42-4 
2. 24. 63 

2. 26. 66 

20 1 (Chrysippus) 

Tr. ii (i): 4b 
Tr. ii (2): 19 


IOI, 102 

2. 33- 85 


21 b 


2. 34- 88 


22 a 


2.45- "5 
2. 46. 118 

2. 56. 140 

2. 66. 165 




7i, 75 

Tr. 12 (i): 9 
Tr. 12(2): 15 b 
Tr. 13: i 

I0 3 



2. 66. 167 


3. 10. 26 




3- 21. 53 


3. 26. 66 




3. 27. 69-70 




3. 28. 71 



De Republica, Book 6 

(Somn. Scip.) 


1 /U 

73, 14 

13- 13 


Tr. 16: ib 


15. 15 



202, 224 

17. 17 

31, 77, 104 

Asclepius i : 2 


21. 23 




22. 24 
24. 26 


Asclepius 3: 173 



26. 29 

Tusc. Disp. i. 5. 10 


24 b 
32 b 


1. 17. 40 

i. 18. 43 

78, 139 

Asclepius, Epilogue, 41 b 102, 

103, 153, 
176, 211 

I. 22. 52 


Excerpta, 2 a. 2 


6. 18 



(ed. Usener) 



6s B . 5- 28 

70 (Posidonius) 

23 (K-oprj Ko'trpov), 10 68 




Excerpta, 23. i 6 
23. 65 seqq. 
24. i 


24. 2 
26. 12 



Fragments, 20 






Dub. et Sol. 125 bis, i. 322 

(Eudemus c 

DINON, Persica, see CICERO, De Divina- 

FIT. ap. Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2. go. 8 




7- 130 



7- 139 



7. 142 


7- H7 
7- 156 


7- 157 

7- 159 

8. 20 








30. 8 

9- 34 



9. 61 

77 (Chrysippus and 

Posidonius), 163 

66, 73, 77 (Cleanthes and 


2, 65 (Zeno) 

2, 5 

2, 65, 73 (Zeno) 

2 (Cleanthes and 



138, 153 (Alexander 


65 (Heraclitus) 

2 (Heraclitus) 

205 (Democritus) 

207 (Democritus) 

205 (Pyrrho) 



Antiquitates Romanae 


i. 36 


i. 4- 3 96 

i. 40 


i. n. 3 35 

i. n. 6 35 (Manetho), 161 

i. 61 


i. 14. i seqq. 112 

I. 22. I 80 

2. 19 



2. 20 


1.25.3 " 

2. 56 


i. 25. 6 130 

3- II 


i. 27. 4 56 

6. 86 


I. 94- 2 2O4 

i. 96. i 35, 36 

9- 35 
10. 46 


2. 55 seqq. 22 

De Orat, Ant. Prol. 5 


4.51.2 119 

5- 49- 6 ii 


5-77-8 204 


17. 114. 4 204 

21. I. 4 172 


21. IO 172 

34/5- 2. 5 15 

Dissertationes (Arrian) 

38/9. 5 (ap. Suidas) 16 

i- 3- 3 

1 02 


40. 3. 4 3, 44 (Hecataeus of 

i. 9.4 
i. 16. 6 


i. 25. 28 



2. 16. 39 


i. 7 206 

2- 17- 33 


i. 8 205 (Aristotle, Hermippus, 

2. 23. 3 




3- 13- 4 


206 (Dinon) 

3- 21- 15 



1.9 40 (Theopompus), 205 

3. 22. 01 


7. 88 82 

3- 24. 9 


7- 113 172 


7. 119 70 

7. 122 7O 



7- 125 116 
7. 129 63 (Posidonius, Protreptica) 



7- 134 47. 65, 82 


, De Iside et 

7- 137 65, 72 



Mathematical, 3, Proem. 3 174 

FR. PHIL. GR. (ed. Mullach), 510. 24, 
Pythagorica Symbola 225 



Vita Gallieni, 8 138 


Astronomica, 4. 893 174 


9. i. 49b 75 

Fr. ap. i Cor. 15. 33 90 




i. 131 seqq. 



(ed. Kern) 

i. 140 


75, 211, 224 (Plotinus) 

i. 209 
2. 64 



PACUVIUS, see CICERO, De Divinatione 

2. 142 



(ed. Preisen- 



Works and Days, 109 


I. 101 



I. 102 



I. 103 seqq. 



Epode i 6 


* X t\J 

i. 176 


Odes, i. 2. 45 seqq. 


i. 197 

101, 152 

I. 12. 46 

Carmen Saeculare 


2. 78 

3- "9 



3- 145 


Satires, 2. 149 


3. 146 seqq. 




3. 210 seqq. 



3. 495 seqq. 


2. 32 


3. 570 seqq. 

210 seqq. 

26. 19 


4- 132 


29. 14 


4. 194 



4. 211 


Pharsalia, i . 46 segg. 
i. 60 


4- 359 
4. 485 seqq. 



i. 72 


4. 510 seqq. 

101, 117 

i. 564 


4- 524 


6. 253 


4- 537 


6. 732 

4 1 

4- 557 



4. 851 


Alexander, 13 


4- 967 



85, 201 

4- 97 


De Dea Syria, 19 


4- 998 
4. 1227 




4. 1390^0. 


J Somn. Scip. 

4. 1717 seqq. 


i. 5- 3 


4. 1769 


I. 12. 3 


4- i873 


i. 12. 13 seqq. 


4. 2163 


i. 14- 15 


4. 2505 seqq. 


Saturnalia, i. 7. 15 


4. 3009 seqq. 

208 seqq., 215 

i. 11-45 


5. 109 


i. 18. 14 


7. 506 


i. 18. 20 


7- 561 


I. l8. 22 


8. 2 seqq. 


i. 20. 16 


12. 92 


i- 23. 7 73 


12. 174 


i. 23. 19 


12. 243 








Republic, 3776 


12. 316 




44, 2ii 

391 e 

75, 94 

13- 5 


402 d 


13- 39 




13. 208 


Theaetetus, 1563 


13- 254 


176 3 

1 02 

13. zSgseqq. 

152, 210 

Timaeus 20, 65, 77, 79, 81 seqq. 

13- 335 

4 6 

22 d 


13- 546 




13. 762 


28 c 


13- 771 


30 b 


13- 997 


30 c 






i7b. 22 


33 a 

1 66 

21. 6 


37 d 


35. i seqq. 




Pap. 2a (2. 190) 




Pap. 4 (2. 191) 


40 d 

63, 75 

Pap. sb (2. 192) 



28, 51 

Pap. 17 (2. 206) 


41 c 


Pap. 1 8 (2. 207) 


41 d 


Pap. 19 (2. 207) 




Ostr. 3 (2. 210) 





70 e 




Descriptio Graeciae, i. 17 


y** u 

92 c 


2. 31. 10 


5- 27- 5 



IO. 12. 10 

1 60 

Nat. Hist. 2. 24. 93 


Praep. Evang. and LYDUS) 

2. 24. 95 174 (Hipparchus) 
2. 57. 148 16 
3. 9. 65 41 (Valerius 



De Pietate (ap. Dox. Gr.), ?b 


7. 15. 72 19 
30. 2. 3 206 (Zoroaster) 


/ / 

30. 2. 9 

203 (Pseudo- 


J f 



Vita Apollonii, z. 37 






8. 3 


Alexander, 2 seqq. (665 b) 18 



Lycurgus, 39 (58 a) 



Ly sander, 18 (443 b) 

10 (Duris) 

Cratylus, 4000 


Romulus, 12 (240) 


Gorgias, 4933 

30, 79 

Sulla, 7(445 f) 


Laws, 677 a 


Themistocles, 27 (1250) 


7 I 5 e 





De Anim. Procr. in Tim. 



26 (10250) 


Phaedo, 690 


27 (10260) 




De Def. Orac. 



10 (4153) 


Phaedrus, 2473 


21 (4210) 



23 (4233) 


Philebus, 160 


25 (4243) 




34 (4280) 


Politicus, 269 a seqq. 


36 (429 d) 






De Def. Orac. 

21. 23. 9 77 

40 (432 b) 


27. i. 5 170 

Si (438a) 


30. 19. 5 ii 

De Ei ap. Delph. 

31. 7- 12 132 

4 (386 a) 


37 9- 2 ii 

7 (38?e) 


39- 19- 3 1 86 

9 (388 e) 
De Fac. in Orbe Lunae 


PORPHYRY, see VII (EUSEBIUS, Preparatio 




De Is. et Os. 

tome, COMM. BERN. LUCAN., 

2( 3 5if) 






ii (355 <0 86 
46 (369 d seqq.) 46, 205 (Theo- 



47 (370 b) 


" POTTER'S ORACLE ", The 1 2 

S3 (373 e) 

85, 212 


PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE, De Mundo, 5. 3973. 

56 (374b) 

1 66 

9 92 

62 (3?6c) 

35 (Eudoxus) 


67 (3779 
67 (3783) 
76 (3823) 




77 (3820) 


PSEUDO-PLUTARCH, De Fato, 6. 5700 

78 (3820) 



78 (3833) 


* j~ 

79 (3833) 



Plat. Quaest. 


3. i (10023) 
8. i (1006 c) 
De Ser. Num. Vind. 



irepl Qe5>v 4 ill, 225 

23 (563e) 

99, 221 


23 (5643) 


BYBLUS, ap. EUSEBIUS, Praep.Evang.) 

30 (567 b) 
De Gen. Socr, 



20 (588 d) 

76, 153 

Nat. Quaest. 

20 (s8 9 b) 


Prol. 12 175 

22 (591 e) 


2. 43. i 50 (? Posidonius) 

De Stoic. Rep. 

3- 29. i 4 

9 (1035 b) 3 


3- 29. 5 5 

9(10350) 177 


3- 30. 8 94 

12 (io38b) 


6. 1 6. i seqq. 194 

31 (io48d) 


Ludus de Morte Claudii, i. i 92 

34 (losod) 72 


De Beneficiis, 4. 7. i S3. 63 

De Tranq. Anim. 

4. 8. 2 163 

20 (477 d) 

30, 87 

Tragedies 26, 207 

Hercules Furens, 423 223 



2. 60. 7 


Quare Aliqua, 5. 7 103 

4. 19. 10 


AdHelv. Matr. 8. 3 63 

5- 104. 5 


Ad Marc, de Cons. 

6. 1.6 


18. 2 64, 103 

6. 5. 4 seqq. 

80, 94 

19. 4 125 

6. 6. 12 

80, 8 1 

25. i 221 

10. 2. 7 


26. 6 73, 207 

10. 5- 5 


Ad Ser. de Of. 5. 4 66 

IS- 20. 4 


De Ira, 2. 15. i 175 

18. 46. 12 


2. 31. 7 161 





De dementia, 1.5-1 I0 2 

Von Arnim) 

2. 2. i 162 

Vol. 2, p. 235 88 (Chalcidius) 

Epistles, i. 9. 1 6 128, 207 

255 35 (Galen) 

a. 2 (14). i 200 

264 77 (Chrysippus ap. 

2. 4 (16). 5 103 


4. 2 (31). ii i7S 

299 30 (Etym. Magn.) 

4. 12 (41). 2 116 

307 73 (Zeno ap. Alex. 

7. 3 (65). 21 137 


9. 2 (73). 16 116 

Vol. 3, p. 18 88 (Stobaeus) 

10. 3 (79). 12 121 

77 60 (Marcianus) 

ii. 3 (82). 6 120 

78 seqq. 60 (Cicero, De 

14. 2 (90). 5 94 (Posidonius) 


14. 2 (90). 20 116 

148 116 

14. 4 (92). 30 162 

185 seqq. 6 

IS- 2 (94)- I 177 

18. 4 (107). 9 202 


20. 3 (120). 12 202 

i. 3- 8 194 
3- 5- 8 63 


10. 4. 10 204 

On Verg. Ed. 4. 6 18 

12. 3. 15 seqq. 204 

4. 10 207 

12. 3. 37 204 

On Verg. Aen. 6. 127 74, 125 

15. 3. 13 seqq. 204 

6. 439 3i 

16. 2. 35 44 (? Posidonius) 

6. 640 187 


6. 714 103 

Augustus, 31 24 

6. 724 63, 135 


6. 730 221 

s.v. Sulla 16 



Adv. Math. 5. 35 107 

Annals, z. 85 23 

300 T*7n 

7. 93 82 (Posidonius), 174 
(Posidonius and Philolaus) 

33 I 7y 
Histories, 5. 4 8 

5- 13 25 

7. 290 136 

9. 5 201 


9- 4 5 


9- 73 103 


9- 79 63 
9. 86 73 


9. 187 14 

Fr. De Sensibus ap. Dox. Gr. 23 72 

ii. 25 88 
Pyrrh. Hypot. 2. 30 191 
2. 70 71 (Cleanthes) 

179 107 



De Anima Mundi, looa 136 
105 a 163 

STOBAEUS, Eclogae, see STOIC. VETT. FR. 
(for excerpts from Hermetica, see 




Ed. 4. i seqq. 17 seqq. 

Von Arnim) 

4. 6 16 

Vol. i, p. 56 161 (Zeno ap. Maximus) 

4. 7 20, 173 

Vol. 2, p. 152 63 (Chrysippus ap. 

4. 53 12, 20, 126, 173 


Aeneid 6. 439 31 

154 63 (Chrysippus ap. 

6. 640 125 

Alex. Aphr.), 72 

6. 724 seqq. 63 

178 4 (Dio Chrys.) 

6. 727 162 

189 85 (Dio Chrys.) 

6. 730 seqq. 125, 221 

223 125 

6. 744 73 




Cyropaedia, 3. 3. 21 


Cyropaedia, 7. 5. 22 
7- 5- 53 
7- 5- 57 




Assos, Syll. Inscr. Gr. 797. 9 92 

Bosporus, ap. Beginnings of Christianity, 

5. 90 seqq. 147 

Carvoran, Anth. Lat. i. 24 61 

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 2. 

3724 69 

Cyme, ap. Peek, Isishymne von Andros 

[Aretalogy of Isis], 56, 58 seqq., 

62, 78 
Delos, ap. Roussel, Cultes Egypt, a 

Delos 6 1 

Halicarnassus, Brit. Mus. 984, ap. 

Wendland, Hell.-Rom. Kultur 23 
los, see Cyme 
Palmyra, ap. Repertoire d'Epigraphie 

Se"mitique 147 

Priene, Or. Gr. Inscr. Sel. (ed. Ditten- 

berger), 458. 5 seqq. 93 

Rheneia, ap. Deissmann, Licht v. Ost. 

Thrace, Sylloge, 932 ( = 880), 63 179 


(See also Papyri Magicae Graecae, Mgyptus) 

Chester-Beatty Biblical Papyri (Fasc. 
HI : Pauline Epistles) 

Ro. 8. 28 105 

i Cor. 15. 47 127 

Col. 3. 5 172 

Pap. Berol. i. Parthey, 305, ap. Kern 

Orph.Fr. 211 

Pap. Par. 29 (UPZ. 41. 4) 80 

63 (UPZ. 144. 47) 182 







ADAM AND EVE (Books of) 

13- H 


ARISTEAS (Letter of), 12 



i. 2 7, 17 

I. 14 112 

9. I 112 

10. 12 17 

Singer) 69, 107, 175 

1 BARUCH, 3. 29 

2 BARUCH, 4. 2 

1 02 


2 BARUCH, 5. 7 

17- 3 
48. 24 

53- 5 
73- 6 

3 BARUCH, 3. 3 

22. 22 


24. 25 

24. 3 
27. 1 6 seqq. 



1 66 





CANTICLES RABBA on Cant. 2. 7 227 

i ENOCH, i. 5 

51.1 seqq. 


58, 59 seqq. 






64, 228 

1 References to the Pseudepigrapha of the O.T. are given from Charles' 
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. 



i ENOCH, 9. 6 


Antiquitates, 3. 7. 7 (179) 


42. I seqq. 


3- 7- 7 (183^ 


46. i 


4. 8. 5 (201) 


48. i 


4. 8. 48 (326) 


49. i 


8. 2. 5 (43) 


89- 59 


8. 2. 5 (46) 


93- 3 


ii. 8. 5 (331) 


1 06. 2 


13. ii. 3 (318) 


2 ENOCH, 9. i-io. 6 


16. 6. 2 (164) 


29- 5 


16 6.4(168) 


30. ii 


17. 6. 2 (151) 


33- i 


18. i. i (4) 


4 ESDRAS, 3. 4 


18. i. 3 d3). 




18. 3- i (55) 



1 02 

18. 3- 5 (84) 


4- 36 


18. 4- 3 (90) 


5- 13 


20. 5-.4(iiS) 


6. 23 


Contra Apionem, i . 2 (6) seqq. 




I. 2 (9) 




I. 22 (l6l) 


7. 132 

1 88 

2. 5 (53) 



94. "5 

2. 16 (167) 


13. 10 


2. 19 (179) 


13. 26 


2. 22 (l9O) 

i, 160 



2. 23 (193) 

33. 194 

ESTHER (Greek Version), 

15. 2 28 

2. 31 (224) 




2. 37 (269) 


36. 3 


Bellum Judaicum 


69> "3 

i. 33- 2 (650) 
2. 8. ii (155) 




2. 8. 12 (159) 


19. 6 


2. 8. 14 (162) 

1 88 

22. 3 


2. 8. I 4 (l6 3 ) 


34- 21 


2. 9. 2 (169) 


39- ii 


2. 13. 7 (266) 


45. 12 


4. 8. 4 (484) 


46. 3 


5- 5- 4 (213) 


49. 2 



6. 5-4(312) 


49- 8 


7- 6. 3 (180) 


5- 9 



7- 8. 7 (345 ) 

76, 136 

78. 2 


7. IO. 2 (420) 


8l. 2 

1 60 

JUBILEES, Book of 


98. 2, 3 


4- 23 



10. i o $e<7#. 



JUDITH, 2. 2 


i. i. 4 (41) 


5- 5 


i- 3- 6 (93) 


II. 12 


i. 3. 9 (106) 
i. 7. i (156) 





i. 7. 2 (159) 


i MACCABEES, i. 13 


i. 15. i (240) 

8 1 (Alexander 

i. 14 



2 MACCABEES, i. 10 


2. 9. 2 (205) 


2. 30 


2. 9. 3 (212) 


12. 40 


2. 12. 4 (275) 


13- 21 


2. 15. 4 (326) 


3 MACCABEES, i. i 


2. 16. 2 (339) 


2. 30, 3i 


3- 5. i (78) 




3- 5- 3 (84) 




3- 5- 4 (90) 


3- 21 





9. 22 
16. 16 

17- S 
MEKILTA (ed. Lauterbach), Tr. 

14. 116 
Tr. es&. i. 65 

i. 93 

MIDRASH SAMUEL, 19. i (51 a) 

Ps. 72. i 
Ps. 116. 10 


Tr. Berakoth, 3. 5 

5- 5 
Tr. Shabb. 6. 2 

6. 10 

7V. Demaz 
TV. Pesachim, 4. 8 

10. 5 
10. 6 

Tr. Yoma, i. 3 

i. 5 


6. 2 

8. i 

Tr. Rosh-ha-Shanah, i. i 
3- 2 

Tr. Megillah, 4. 10 
Tr. Taanith, i. 6 
Tr. Hagiga, 2. i 
Ba6a Metzia, 2.11 
Tr. Sanhedrin, 8. i 

10. i 

Tr. Abodah Zarah, i. 7 

4- 5 

Tr. Pirke Aboth, i. 2 

Tr. Menachoth, 13. 10 
Tr. Tamid, 3. 8 
Tr. Yadaim, 4. 6 


Prologue 1-9 

i. 7 
3- 56 
3- 35 
3- 74i 
4. 174 


PESIKTA RABATHI, 5 (Friedmann 140) 


De Mund. Op. i (3) 
2 (12) 




De Mund. Op. 5 (20) 





i8 7 

6 (24) 81, 

1 60 


7 (26) 



7 (27) 28, 



8 (30) 69, 






14 (45) 



1 6 (70) 


1 60 

i9 (58) 



23 (69) 66, 8t 


23 (70 



24 (72) 



25 (77) 



27 (82) 66, 

1 60 


30 (89) 



30 (90) 



33 (100) 



3" C^ ^ 3/ 



40 (117) 42, 



42 (126) 41, 



46 (134) 81 



46 (i35) 78, 117, 



47 (136) 



51 (145) 



Si (146) 



55 (i54) 



60 (169) 



61 (170) 



Leg. Alleg. i : 4 (8) 



12 (31) 



12 (32) 81, 



13 (38) 77, 



13 (42) 



14 (43) 



14 (44) 131, 



15 (51) 



19 (63 seqq.) 



33 (108) 99, 



Leg. Alleg. 2 : 14 (49) 

20 1 


IS (57) 


21 (86) 51 



Leg. Alleg. 3 : i (3) 







17 (52) 



22 (69) 81, 83, 



23 (73) 



23 (74) 



24 (77) 



3i (96) 



33 (101 seqq.) 121, 




i 4 b) 

De Cherubim, 7 (24) 



9 (27) 





ii (35) 



12 (42) 



13 (46) 






De Cherubim, 30 (101) 


De Confusione Linguarum 

32 ("4) 








34 (120) 


14 (62) 

114, 168 

De Sacr. Ab. et Cain 

14 (63) 


IS (59) 


17 (77) 


18 (67) 


20 (93) 


Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 

27 (136) 




27 (138) 


23 (85) 


28 (146) 

45. 49 

24 (89) 


34 (171) 


3i (US) 

88 seqq. 

34 (i73) 


38 (138) 


34 (174) 


45 (164) 


De Migratione Abrahami 

De Post. Cain, 5 (15) 




8 (26) 




13 (48) 



83, 160 

16 (58) 


5 (25) 28, 

158, 176 

i7 (61) 




24 (84) 


1 6 (90) 


39 (132) 


22 (I2S) 


4i (136) 

88, 1 68 

32 (178) 


45 (156) 


32 (179) 


47 (163) 


32 (181) 

51, 106 

48 (167) 


33 (184) 


De Gigantibus, 2 (9) 


34 (190) 

76, 132 



39 (220) 




De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia 



19 (106) 



117, 164 

20 (112) 


13 (58) 


21 (116) 


14 (62) 


26 (147) 


15 (65) 

8l, 201 

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 

Quod Deus sit immutabilis 

' 9 (45) 




ii (56) 




13 (64) 


12 (58) 


14 (69) 


18 (83) 

1 68 

1 6 (82) 


25 (n9) 


23 (in) 


36 (123 seqq.) 


23 (112) 


32 (150) 


34 (165) 


De Agricultura, z (9) 


35 (170) 

40, 48 

12 (51) 


4i (196) 


14 (65) 


42 (205) 

45. 123 

17 (80) 

28, 158 

45 (221) 


De Plantatione, 2 (8) 


46 (226) 

1 08 



52 (259) 


IS (64) 

122, 192 

53 (264) 


18 (76) 


S3 (263) 


19 (80) 


55 (274) 



4 8 

56 (278) 


30 (126) 


57 (280) 

1 60 

De Ebrietate, 8 (30) 

86, 159 

57 (283) 




60 (300) 


ii (43) 


61 (309) 


17 (72) 


62 (315) 

60, 97 

28 (107 seqq.) 


De Mutations Nominum 

36 (146) 




De Sobrietate, 13 (64) 








De Mutatione Nominum 

De Vita Moysis, 2 (3) : 





33 (180) 


3 (74) 


38 (210) 




De Fuga et Inventione 





ii (109) 




ii (n4) 


" (59) 


ii ("5) 


12 (63) 


14 (132) 


13 (69) 


H (i34) 

1 06 

18 (97) 


22 (186) 


19 (101) 




19 (103) 


29 (222) 


20 (109) 


39 (288) 


25 (i37) 


39 (289) 


30 (166) 


39 (291) 


32 (181) 


De Decalogo, 1 1 (45) 


32 (182) 


19 (93) 


35 (i95) 


21 (102 seqq.) 46 

, 49 

36 (i99) 


21 (105) 


De Somniis, i : 4 (21) 


28 (142 seqq.) 



32, 102 

De Specialibus Legibus, i 

ii (62) 

117, 164 

De Circumcisione, i (2) 


13 (75) 

133, 151 

De Monarchia 

22 (137) 

73, 139 

i (13) 150, 

l8 7 

22 (141) 




22 (144) 




23 (148) 




23 (I5l) 




25 (157) 




26 (164) 


5 (4o) 


32 (186) 




37 (215) 




De Somniis, 2 : 4 (25) 








1 6 (114) 


De Templo, i (66) 


34 (229) 


i (67) 33, 


36 (241) 

87 seqq. 



37 (248) 

87, 164 

12 (116) 


44 (292) 


De Sacerdotibus 

De Abrahamo, i (5) 


6 (97) 1 06, 


12 ( S 6) 


12 (116) 


15 (69) 


De Sacerdotibus Honorandis 

24 (122) 


S dS3) . 


28 (143) 


De Sacrificantibus 

32 (168) 


3 (271) 


46 (268) 


3 (272) 


De Josepho, 14 (68) 


4 (274) 


De Vita Moysis, i : 

4 (275) 




ii (3i7) 








De Specialibus Legibus, 2 

5 (20) 

19, 20 

De Septenario, 17 (140) 

6 3 

29 (166) 


18 (147) 


50 (279) 


19 (i59) 


De Vita Moysis, 2 : 

22 (189) 




De Specialibus Legibus, 3 

10 (53) 




10 (56) 


18 (100) 








De Specialibus Legibus, 3 

23 (131) 

28 (151) 
De Specialibus Legibus, 4 

8 (49) 

De jfudice, 2 (60) 

De Concupiscentia, 4 (101) 

Dejustitia, 3 (149) 

3 (iS9) 

4 (166) 

14 (231) 
De Virtutibus 
(De Fortitudine) 

7 (35) 134, 194 

(De Humanitate) 

4 (76) 137 

12 (103) 161 

(De Poenitentia), 2 (183) i 
De Praemiis et Poenis 

7 (45) 134 

ii (65) 164 

15 (88) 27 

16 (95) 27 

19 (114) 161 

20 (125) 161 
De Exsecrationibus 

6 (152) 187 

7 (i54) 14 

9 (165) 27 
Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 

1 (5) 140, 198 
7 (41) 164 
7 (42) 70, 77 

11 (74) 175 
H (94) 175 
17(111) 136 
18(117) Hi 
22 (160) in 

De Vita Contemplative! 

2 (12) 77 

2 (13) 99 

2 (16) 199 

10 (78) 161 
In Flaccum, 3 (15) 196 
Legatio Ad Gaium 

2 (10) 175 

2 (13) 23 

3 (20) 23 

12 (89) 174 

13 (97) 174 
16 (117) 141 

Quaestiones in Genesim 

I- S3 81, 83 

Quaestiones in Exodum, 2. 62 seqq. 


De Providentia, 2. 76 63 

FRAGMENTS, M. 2. 658 (ap. Joh. 

Damasc. 782 b) 30 


PHILO (?) De Aeternitate Mundi 

3(8) 3 

3(9) 5 

21 (lI2) 164 

"PRAYER OF JOSEPH" (ap. Orig. In Ev. 
Jo. 2. 25) 49 


ii. 2 25 

17. 50 12 

RASHI on the Mishnah 209 

on the Talmud 41, 101 



Tr. Shabb. 88 b 16 

Tr. Sanhedrin, 67 b 101, 208 

9ob 127 

97 b 17 

Tr. Abodah Zarah, 22 b 95 

Tr. Kiddushin, 710 41 

Tr. Tamid, 66 a 99 

TALMUD (JERUSALEM), Tr. Hag. (79 d) 

i L S4 

TANHUMA, ^7 $> 30. 19 228 


Genesis 8. i 156 

Psalm 68 195 

Job 41. ii 118 

Isaiah 44. 25 109 

Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 29. 5 227 


Studies, 2. 2): 19 6 




Symeon, 2. 7 93 

Levi, 3. i 126 

3- 6 130 

18. 2 14, 25 

18. 10 94 

Naphtali, 2. 9 seqq. 199 

jfudah, 19. i 172 

Benjamin, 3. 4 187 

TOBIT, 6. 17 43 

8. 2 43 

12. 7 227 

12. ii 227 


Tr. Hagigah, 3. 35 54 

Tr. Sukkah, 2. 6 100,101 

i. 1-6. ii 
i. i-n. 4 


1. 12 seqq. 

2. 22 








2. 24 


9. I seqq. 


3- 7 



78, 112 

4- IS 


9- IS 

136 seqq. 

5- i7 


10. I seqq. 

28, 80 

6. 12-u. 4 


10. 4 

5, 28, 59 

6. 12 seqq. 


10. 7 


6. 22 


10. 14 


6. 23 


10. 17 




13- 2 


7. 10 


13- 3 seqq. 


7- 13 




7. 17 segg. 


14- is 


7. 22 seqq. 


14- 23 


7- 23 


18. 24 


7. 27 


7. 28-30 




8. i 

77, 81, 164 





59, 78, 227 

7. 12 


8. 7 segg. 


8. 20 


8. 19 seqq. 



Genesis, i 


Exodus, 33. 12 


i. i 

113, 114, 162 

33- 17 


i. 2-3 


33- 18 


i. 3 


33- 20 

45, 121 

i. 26 


Leviticus, 10. 2 


2. 7 

38, 81, 127 

13- 14 


2. 24 


14. 36 



59, 95 

19. 18 

1 2O 

6. i seqq. 


23. 23 




23. 27 




c. 26 


II. 2 


26. 12 


ii. 3 


Numbers, 12, 6 seqq. 


12. I 


21. 17 

8 9 

IS- 5 seqq. 


22. 31 

8 4 

IS- 16 

100, 167 

23. 10 


15. 20 


24. 7 


18. 16 


29. i 


18. 20 


Deuteronomy, 4. 6 


19. i 


4. 19 


28. ii 



1 20 





Exodus, 6. 3 


10. 16 


7- i 


18. 15 


12. 46 


21. 18 


13. 21 


21. 23 

1 08 

15. 26 


c. 28 




28. 13 


17. II 




19- is 


30. 6 


19. 25-20. I 


30. ii seqq. 

1 02 

25- 9 

79, 112 

30. 12 seqq. 


25. 40 


32. 8 




33- 6 


33- ii 


33- 17 



Joshua, 19. 49 


Proverbs, 8. 22 

Judges, 7. 1 6 



Ruth, I. 20 



I. 21 


n. 13 

i Samuel, i. 2 seqq. 


20. IS 

i. 28 


20. 19 

10. IO 


31. 10 

19. 24 



i Kings, i. 39 


Isaiah, 6. i 




4- 3i 



16. 2 


ii. 6 seqq. 

16. 13 


ii. 8 

17. 10 


24. 1 6 

18. 19 


25. 8 

2 Kings, ii. 14 


26. 19 

2 Chronicles, 20. 7 


28. 1 6 

Ezra, 6. 21 


40. 9 

Nehemiah, i. 4 


40. 13 

Job, 15. 7 


43- 3 

15. 8 227 

(Symm., Theod.) 


21. 15 


45- 2 

c. 28 


45- 3 

28. 18 



31. 2 


47. i 

40. 2 


49- 2 

41. II 



Psalms, 2 


Si- 21 

2. 7 

94, 1 10, 157 

53- 5 

22. 22 

1 06 

54- I 

23. I 



25. 14 227 

(Theod., Quint.) 

59- 17 



62. 5 seqq. 






63- 9 

So. 7 


65. I seqq. 

65- 9 






68. 19 

194 seqq., 223 

66. i 



66. 17 



Jeremiah, i. 5 

72. 19 


2. 13 



3- 4 

81. 10 


8. 19 



IO. 2 



23. 24 

116, 10 

135, H3 

31- 31 

1 1 6. 17 seqq. 


31- 33 

118. 22 


Si- 7 

126. 5 seqq. 


Lamentations, 2. 15 



4- 7 

Proverbs, 3. 15 

59, 7o 

Ezekiel, c. i 

3.19 seqq. 


i. 24 

6. 23 


ii. 19 

8. i seqq. 

58 seqq. 

26. 5 



36. 25 

8. 10 



8. ii 


2. 8 

8. 19 


10. 3 

8. 20 


12. 2 seqq. 


86, H2, ii3 

227 (Symm.) 

227 (Theod.) 





1 6, 203 

227 (Quint.) 


117 seqq. 





36, 134 








25, 28 
122 seqq. 
















53. 207 




24, 227 




Hosea, 6. 5 

10. 12 

13- H 
Amos, 3. 2 




Nahum, 3. 4 seqq. 

6. iz 
Zechariah, 9. 14 




St Matthew, i. 17 

2. 2 seqq. 

11. 25 

12. 27 

13. 24 seqq. 

17. 20 

18. 6 

20. I 

23- 9 

24. 23 
24. 31 

24- 37 

25. 14 seqq. 
25. 40 

27. 52 

28. 10 

28. 20 

St Mark, i. n 
2. 8 

2. 22 

3- 31 

6. 14 
6. 38 

10. 45 
12. 6 

12. IO 
12. 29 
13- 21 
14. 62 

IS- 34 

St Luke 

St John 

2. 35 
8. 8 

10. 21 

11. 19 

ii. 49 
17. 16 

17. 26 

18. ii 

19. 12 
22. 53 
22. 69 



2. 3 seqq. 

3- 3 
3.16 seqq. 


St John, 5. 28 






14. 30 



20. 17 

1 06 


Acts of the Apostles 

1 20 

i. 24 



2. 2 



2. 13 



2. 33 



2. 41 



3- 17 






7. 22 


1 06 




8. 10 


1 06 

ii. 16 



17. 1 6 segg. 



17. 28 



17- 3i 



19. ii seqq. 


1 06 

19. 14 



19. 18 



21. 8 



27- 9 



. 27.44 



Epistle to the Romans 



i- 3 





1 2O 

I. 1 8 seqq. 

182 seqq. 


i. 21 seqq. 



i. 23 



2. 2 



2. 15 



3- 19 






4. ii 

1 86 





5- 13 



5- IS seqq. 






c. 6 

97 seqq. 











6. 22 



c. 7 96, 98 seqq., 

182, 187 

114, 141 

7- 7 



7. 14 



7. 23 segg. 



8. i seqq. 







Epistle to the Romans 

i Corinthians 

8. 6 


c. 13 

1 20 seqq. 

8. io 

95, 99 

13- 2 


8,, ii seqq. 


13- 4-7 


8, 15 seqq. 

104 seqq. 

13- 12 


8. 18 


13- 13 


8. 20 


14. 2 


8. 20 seqq. 


14. 2O 





121, 2OO 


90, 1 86 

15. 14 seqq. 


8. 28 seqq. 

105 seqq. 

15. 24 

1 86 

8. 38 105, 150, 

190, 201, 221 

IS- 33 






9* i seqq. 



99, 163 

to. 6 

IO2, 222 

*5: 51 

90, 120 

h. 13 


IS- 55 


ii. 13 seqq. 

9 6 

15- 56 

124, 182 

ii. 25 

176, 190, 228 

2 Corinthians 

127, 129 seqq. 

" 33 

191 seqq. 

I. 12 


ii. 34 


I. 22 

1 86 

ii. 36 


2. 13 


12. 2 


2. 14 seqq. 


12. 3 


2. 18 


12. 5 


3- i 




3- 3 seqq. 


13- 9 




13- ii 

38, 158 

3. io seqq. 


13- 12 


3- 17 


'16. 25 


4. I seqq. 


i Corinthians 

114 seqq., 129 


93, 1 86, 187 



4. 7 seqq. 


i. 1 8 seqq. 


4- 13 


i. 30 


4. i 6 seqq. 

135, H2 

2. I 


4. 16 


2. 3 seqq. 


5- i seqq. 


2. 7 


5 5 scQ(j 



109, 152, 220 

5- io 


2. 9 


5. ii seqq. 


2. io seqq. 


5- 12 


3- 2 


5. 16 


3- 5 


5- 17 


3. ii seqq. 


5. 18 




6. 3-4 






7- 29 


6. 14 


8. i 


6. 16 

164, 191, 199 



7. 2 seqq. 




8. 18 


8. 6-7 


8. 23 


8. 6 


io. i-end 


9- i 


II. 22 


9. 24 


ii. 23 seqq. 

129, 179 

9. 26 seqq. 


ii. 27 


io. i segg. 


12. I 


io. 14 


12. 2 

1 02 

ii. 30 


Galatians, i. 4 


12. 8 


2. 20 


12. 12 

1 60 

3. 7 seqq. 

98, 108 

12. 17 


3- 13 


12. 28 


3- 19 




Galatians, 3. 27 

138, 175 


4- 3 

104, 1 08 

i. 9-11 



18, 185 

i. 9 


4. 9 

104, 1 08 

I. IO 


4. 19 


i. ii 


S- 20 


i. 12-14 

150, 185, 197 







i. 15 segg. 


Ephesians, i . 3 seqq. 


i. 16 

1 66, 1 86, 194 



i. 18 


I. 15 seqq. 

1 86 

i. 19 segg. 

1 63 segg., 186 

i. 22 seqq. 


i. 20 152, 

189 segg., 221 

2. i seqq. 


i. 24 segg. 

1 66, 189 segg. 

2. 2 

195. 221 

i. 24 

152, 189, 191 

2. 5 


i. 27 

1 86 



2. 2 segg. 

1 68, 228 

2. ii segg. 

1 88 

2- 3 

152, 220 

3* i segg. 


2. S 


3- 9 seqq. 


2. 7 


3. 14 segg. 


2. 8 




2. 9 

156, 186, 193 

4. i segg. 


2. IO 


4. 7 segg. 


2. II 

153, 186, 188 

4. 9 

195, 223 

2. 13 segg. 

169, 221 

4. i i segg. 


2. 13 


4. 16 


2. 14 

152, 1 88 segg. 

4. 17 segg. 

183, 196 

2. IS 

109, 220 

4. 19 


2. 1 6 segg. 


4. 25 segg. 

177, 196 

2. 16 


5- 5 


2. 18 


5. 5 segg. 


2. 19 

184, 189, 196 

5. 6 segg. 


2. 20 segg. 

153, 171 

s- 14 

38, 198 

3. i segg. 

187 segg. 

5. 15 segg. 




s- 17 


3- 5 iSS, 

172, 183, 196 

5. 22 segg. 




S- 29 


3- 10 


5- 32 

183, 228 

3- ii 


6. 10 segg. 


3. 12 segg. 


6. 12 

221, 223 

3. 12 


6. 1 8 segg. 


3. 14 

iSS, 193 

Philippians, i. 6 


3- IS 


I. 10 


3- 16 


i. 13 


3. 1 8 segg. 

177, 197 

i. 14 


4. 2 segg. 


i. 23 


4- 5 


2. 5 segg. 

1 80 

4. 10 


2. 9 

41, 186 

i Thessalonians, 3. 7 


2. 10 

195, 222 

4- IS 


2. l6 




3- 12 


S- 8 


3- 13 


2 Thessalonians, 2. 3 


3. 20 

142, 1 80 



4- S 




4. 12 


i Timothy, i. 17 


4. 22 


2 Timothy, 2. 18 



146 segg. 

4. 9 segg. 

1 80 

i. 1-15 

156 segg. 

Hebrews, 2. 7 


i- S 


2. II 

1 06 



2. 14 



Hebrews, 4. 12 
10. 19 

12. 23 

James, 2. 19 
4 .8 

1 Peter, 2. 4 


3. 20 

2 Peter, i. 13 

2. 5 


i John, 3. 2 
Revelation, The 






1 60 

Revelation, The 
i. 16 

1. 18 

2. 16 

2. 17 

6. ii 


12. I 

14. 8 



19- 15 

20. 3 
C. 21 

21. 2 

22. 2 






1 67 

1 66 










Acta Pilati, 3. 19 
Acts of Peter, 25 
Acts of Peter and Paul (ed. Lipsius), 

Acts of John, 98 


Acts of Andrew 

Martyrdom, i, 14 
Acts of Thomas, 27 
108. 9 
no. 46 
112. 76 
AENEAS GAZAEUS, Theophr. (P.G. 9963) 

205 (T 

APHRAATES, Dem. 23. 60 
APOCALYPSE OF PAUL (Apocr. N.7 1 .) 14 

ARISTO OF PELLA, Dialogue of Jason and 


ARNOBIUS, adv. Gentes, 5. 28 
ATHANASIUS, Vita Antonii, 14 
ATHENAGORAS, Legatio pro Christianis 
20. 96 
24- 130 

De Civitate Dei 
4. 10 
4. ii 

7- 5 
7. 9 38 (Valei 

1 References to M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T., except where otherwise stated. 



De Civitate Dei 


7-13 73 (Varro) 


7- 23 73 (Varro) 


7. 28 86 (Varro) 


22. 28 74 (Varro) 


De Consensu Evang. 


i. 30 3 (Varro) 

IS4, 222 


I S 6 



Protrepticus, 2. 22 207 (Heraclitus) 

97, 222 

5. 64 91 


5. 66 6 (Xenocrates), 


72 (Zeno) 


7- 74 36 




i. 14- 59 i?S (Tatian) 

G. 9963) 

i. 15. 69 207 (Democritus and 


Alexander Polyhistor) 


i. 21. 124 30 

N.T.) 14 

i. 21. 141 36 (Demetrius) 


i. 21. 143 42 

'ason and 

i. 21. 147 8 


i- 23. 153 19 


i. 29. 182 124 (Kerygma Petri) 


2. II. 51 31 


2. 18. 92 153 


2. 21. 129 102 (Posidonius) 


3. 2. ii 206 (Xanthus, Magica) 


3. 3. 17 79 (Philolaus) 


3- 6. 48 153 

3- 13. 93 75 (Julius Cassianus) 


4. 12. 81 152 (Basilides) 

o (Varro) 

4. 18. 116 seqq. 221 

3 (Varro) 

4. 23. 149 128 

3 (Varro) 

4. 23. 152 128 


4-25.159 103 



5- I- 9 
5- 6. 37 
5- ii. 67 
5- 12. 78 
5- 14- 92 
5- 14- 94 
5. 14. 99 

5- 14- 99 
5. 14. 106 

5- 14- 107 
5- 14- 109 

5. 14. no 

207 (Heraclitus) 


36, 192 
' I 7 2 

194 (Arjstobulus) 
194 (Xenophanes of 
71 (Cileanthes) 

5. 14. 113 194 (Pseudo-Hecataeus) 

5- 14- 123 36 

6. 5. 43 22 (Hystaspes) 
6. 6. 41 108 (Kerygma Petri) 
6. 7. 58 162 (Kerygma Petri) 
6. 16. 138 7, 69 
6. 1 6. 145 6 (Hennippus of 


7- 12. 72 155 
Excerpta ex- Theodoto (eel. R. P. 

i. 2 152 

22. 4 156 

41. 2 162 

42. I 156 

56. 2 118 

62. 2 152 

69 seqq. 106 

70. 2 132 

73- i 153, 154 

74- 2 93 
76. i seqq. 101 
78. 2 120 

Eclogae Propheticae 

53 64 

55 64 

56 35 (Pantaenus) 

i. 28 64 

i. 32 6 

1. 36 29 

2. 9 210 
2. 50 71 
2. 53 110 
2. 65 71 

2. 68 no 

3. 26 166 

3- 45 
6. is 
8. 28 

9- 3 

IO. 12 

2. 52 
6. 4 

1 60 




6. 16 225 

9. 4 segg. 206 

10. 9 108 


6. 20. 4 29 

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, c. jfulianum 

134 seqq. 62 

DIDACHE, 1 6. 6 
6. 16. 6 


EPHRAEM SYRUS (ap. Bernard, Texts and 
Studies, 8. 3. 76) 132 


adv. Haereses (ap. Diels, Dox. Gr.) 
3- 8 39. i4. 187 


30. 3 iSi 

30. 14 iSi 

30. 18 151 

36. 3 101 (Heracleon), 135 


12. 2 156 

14. i 29 

IS- 5 seqq. ^ 

IS- 9 69 


5 155 

13 220 

42 155 


ii. 2 170 

Praeparatio Evangelica 

i. 10. 10 5 (Sanchuniathon ap. 
Philo of Byblus) 

i. 10. 1 6 8, 62 (Philo of Byblus) 
i. 10. 1 8 212 (Philo of Byblus) 
i. 10. 21 6 1 (Philo of Byblus) 

i. 10. 28 62 (Philo of Byblus) 

i. 10. 29 62 (Philo of Byblus) 

3. 2. 9 35 (Manetho) 

3. 4. 3 152 (Porphyry) 

3. 9. 2 1 60 (Porphyry) 

3. ii. 29 35, 38 (Porphyry) 

5. 10. i 153 (Porphyry) 

5. 14. 2 42 (Porphyry) 

6. n. 41 1 06 (Bardaisan) 

7. 14. i 68 (Aristobulus) 

7. 21. i 1 66 (Philo) 

8. 10. i 68 (Aristobulus) 

9. 10. 4 46 (Porphyry) 
9. 17. 2 100 (Eupolemus) 
9. 18. 2 100 (Artabanus) 
9. 1 8. 3 8 1 (Alexander Polyhistor) 
9. 27. i 36 (Artabanus), 112 
9. 27. 2 62 (Artabanus) 


Praeparatio Evangelica 

9. 27. 13 40 (Artabanus) 
Book 10 36 

10. 7. 12 36 
13. 12. i seqq. 26 (Aristobulus) 
13. 12. 4 '36 (Aristobulus) 
13. 12. 9 160 (Aristobiulus) 
13. 12. 13 7, 45, 68 (Aristobulus) 
13. 12. 19 194 
15. 9. i 3 (Arius Didymus) 

Historia Ecclesiasticd , 

5. i. 210 152 (Churches of Vlenne 
and Lyons) 


fanarum Religionum 

21. 2 

21. 4 

22. i 
26. 3 

27- 3 

i. 205 d (Migne) 


io, 130 



; 157 


HERMAS, Pastor, Vis. '2. 4. i 112 

3- io. 6 153 

Sim.s.3.7 , 153 

HERMIAS, Irrisio Gentilium Philoso- 

phorunt (ap. Diels, Dox. Gr.), 6 132 


Elenchus, i. 2 206 

i. 4 104 

i. 19 188, 192 

4- 33 16 

4- 37 206 

5- 7 201 
5- 8 150, 156, 225 

5- 9 97 

5. 10 225 

5. 16 28, 49, 97, 151 

7. 22 226 (Basilides) 

De Antichristo, 44 , 162 

The Apostolic Tradition \ 

1-4-4 i 223 

1.4-8 iS5 

On the Targums (ed. Bonwetsch and 

Achelis, 2. 91) I 156 



AdEph. 17. r 

18. 2 

19. i 

19. 2 seqq. 
Ad Ro. 2. i 



Ad Smyrn. i. i 157 

6. i 165, 221 

Ad Trail. 5.2 165 

IRENAEUS (c. Haer.) 6 

i. I- 3 M9 

i. 2. 2 62 (Valentinus), 155 

i. 2. 4 155 (Valentinus) 

i. 3. i 155 (Valentinus) 

i. 4. i 62 (Valentinus) 

i. 4. 4 149 

i. 5. 5 83 (Valentinus) 

i. 7. 5 118 (Heracleon) 

i. 13. 3 201 (Marcus) 

i. 13. 5 201 (Marcus) 

i. 13. 6 101 (Marcus), 152 

i. 13. 7 149 

i. 14. i 42 (Marcus) 

i. 14. 7 42 (Marcus) 

i. 1 8. i 149 (Marcus) 

i. 21. 2 158 (Marcus) 

i. 21. 3 42 (Marcus), 165 
r. 21. 5 101 (Marcus), 149, 165 

i. 23. i 151 (Simon) 

i. 23. 2 102 (Simon), 201 

i. 23. 3 152 (Simon) 

i. 23. 4 199 (Simon) 

i. 23. 5 151 (Menander), 152 

I. 24. i 153 (Satornilus) 

i. 24. 2 151 (Satornilus), 216 

i. 24. 4 152 (Basilides) 

i. 24. 6 152 (Basilides), 199 

i. 25. 2 152 (Carpocrates) 

i. 26. i 151 (Cerinthus), 152 

i. 26. 2 151 (Ebionites) 

i. 30. i 158 

1. 30. 6 216 

2. 32. 3 210 

3- 3- 2 96 

4- IS- i 29 

5- 17- 4 155 

JEROME, Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. 305 1 14 

Apologia i: 20. 66 c 21 

44. 82 b 21 (Hystaspes), 

55- 9ob 156 

Dial. c. Tryph. 8. 226 b 19 

49. 2683 157 

62. 285 d 47 

72. 297d 30, 199 

78. 3043 223 

85. 311 b seqq. 43, 
208 seqq., 223 

87. 3153 195 

88. 3isb 157 
88. 3isd 223 
90 seqq. 3i?c 156 
128. 3583 52 



93, 220 





LACTANTIUS, Div. Inst. Lib. 

i- 5 39 

i. 6 15 (Varro) 

4. 10 29 

7- 14 6 

7. 15 22 (Hystaspes) 

7. 1 8 22 (Hystaspes) 

7. 20 125 

7. 23 3 (Chrysippus) 

De Mensibus, 4. 53 44 seqq. (Philo of 

Byblus ap. Varro) 

De Ostentis, 22 c 16 

Horn. 22 


19. 4 seqq. 

19. 14 



ODES OF SOLOMON, 4. 3 112 

5- 4 221 

7. 6 137 

ii. 9 137 

13- i 132 

20. 7 137 

25. 8 83 


c. Celsum, i. i 175 

i. 6 209 

i. 8 224 

i. 12 183 

i. 20 224 

i. 22 seqq. 208 

i- 57 iSi 

i. 58 93 (Chaeremon) 

i. 66 152 (Celsus) 

1. 68 210 

2. 31 224 
2. 34 210 

2. 64 169 

2. 74 29 

3. 24 209 

3- 36 153 

3. 42 169 

3- 59 ii 

4- ii 5 

4. 21 62 

4-33 208 

4. 34 208 

4. 40 81 

4. 45 6 (Chrysippus) 

4. 62 1 66 (Celsus) 

5-6 44 

c. Celsum, 5. 9 
5- 20 
5- 60 
6. ii 

6. 22 

6. 27-6. 31 
6. 27 
6. 31 
6. 32 
6. 35 
6. 41 
6. 42 
7- 36 

In Ev. jfoann. i. 15 
i. 17 

1. 22 

2. 3 
2. 26 
2. 30 

6. 25 
6. 37 





154, 157 

104, 154, 155 



162, 168 


113, l62 

151 (Heracleon) 

13.11 164 (Heracleon) 

13. 27 213 

13. 40 48 

13- 43 74 

13- 58 165 

20. 20 105 

28. 14 144 

In Ev. Matt. 13. 17 81 

14. 17 200 
15- 33 8 
16. 6 135 

In Matt. Comm. Ser. 57 226 

no 43 

In Ep. ad Rom. 2. 13 62 

7. 4 i7 

7- 7-9 105 

In Genesim, 3. 5 63 

In Gen. Horn. i. 13 81 

2. 5 156 

In Lev. Horn. 1.3 165 

In Num. Horn. 3. 3 162 

Sel. in Psalmos, In Ps. n6 135 

Exhortatio ad Marty rium, 28 135 

De Oratione Libellus, 9 72 

23 194 

26-27 128 

De Prindpiis t i. 6. 2 175 

2. 3. 3 81 

2. 9. i 166 

2. II. 6 221 





ad Ampl. Quaest. 89. 7 42 

Bibl. 244. 58 44 


Cohortatio ad Gentes 

3. 40 91 

14- I5b 35 

15- ISC 36, 37 
15. i6a 194 
15. i6b 39 
18. 176 194 (Pseudo-Sophocles) 

De Monarchia, 2. 1046 36 

5. io7b 90 


SYNCELLUS, 173 ap. Muller, Fr. Hist. 
Gr. 6 


Or. adv. Gr. i. 3 

8. 35 seqq. 



Or. adv. Gr. 8, 39 
13. 62 
15. 69 
17. 77 
17. 80 

20. 89 

31- "8 

Ad Scapulam, 2 
Apol. 32 
De Bapt. 5 
adv. Valent. 
adv. Judaeos, 3 
adv. Marcionem, 2. 9 

4- 39 

de Jdololatria, 9 
de Anima, g 








32, 127 







Studies, 2. 2), ii 225 

p. 41, 1. 27) iSS 


(Tr. Lidzbarski : references in brackets to page and line of his translation) 

Ginza, R. n (13. 27) 103 

26 (27. 19) 213 

27 (28. 27) 225 
29 (29. 28) 213 
56 (50. 14) 213 
68 (65. 25) 215 
70 (66. 27) 215 
159 (168. 10) 216 
168 (173. 38 seqq.) 224 
196 (196. n) 215 
231 (232. 24) 213 

Ginza, R. 241 (242. 28) 103 

295 (291. 21) 216 

302 (300. 9) 213 

307 (306. 28) 215 

326 (332. 21) 135 

329 (338. 14) 215 

360 (381. 21) 216 

362 (383. 25 seqq.) 212 

Ginza, L. 24 (441. 35) 216 

Qolasta, 23 (36. 4) 216 


Abrahams, I., in Singer's Authorized 

Prayer-book, annotated edition, 


Aegyptus (1934) (C. Roberts), 85 
Allen, W. C., in Hastings' DB., 16 
Andrews, H. T., in Ap. and Ps., Letter 

of Aristeas, 56 
Anrich, G., Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 


Barton, G. A., in Hastings' E.R.E., 14 

Baudissin, Graf W. W. von, Kyrios als 
Gottesname, 10, n, 46, 61, 62, 65, 
67, 92 

Adonis und Esmun, 24, 61, 140 
Behm, J., in T.W.z.N.T., 150 
Bernard, J. H., The Odes of Solomon 

(Texts and Studies, 8. 3), 83, 132 
Bevan, A. A., The Book of Daniel, 24 
Bevan, E., Stoics and Sceptics, 2, 10, 62, 

65, 73 
In Hastings' E.R.E., 10 


Blackman, E., Literature of the Ancient 

Egyptians, 9 
Blue, Irvin, in Anglo-Iranian Studies, 

Boll, F. and Bezold, W., Sternglaube und 

Sterndeutung, 7, 18, 42, 64, 74 
Bouch6-Leclercq, L'Astrologie Grecque, 

62, 64, 65, 107 
Bousset, W., Die Religion des Juden- 

thums, 3, 4, 6, 7, 47, 94, 102 
Kyrios Christos, 184 
Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, 221 
Box, G. H., The Book of Isaiah, 94, 122 
With W. O. E. Oesterley, in Ap. and 

Ps., Ecclesiasticus, 61 
In Ap. and Ps., 4 Esdras, 166 
Brandt, A. J. W., Die Mandaische 

Religion, 212 seqq. 
Braun, M., 12, 23, 126 
Breasted, Religion and Thought in 

Ancient Egypt, 35 
Briggs, C. A., The Psalms (International 

Critical Commentary), 9, 67 
Bultmann, R., 115 

Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings, 91 
The Religion of the Manichees, 155 
Note in Apocr. N.T., 155 
In Journal of Theological Studies, 

212 seqq. 
In The Beginnings of Christianity, 


Burney, C. F., The Book of Judges, 135 
Burrows, E., in The Labyrinth, 112 
Buxtorf, J., Lexicon Chaldaicum, 130 

Casey, R. P., Excerpta ex Theodoto, 120, 


Charles, R. H., in Ap. and Ps., 55 
In Ap. and Ps., The Assumption of 

Moses, 7, 17, 112 
In Ap. and Ps., Testaments of the XII 

Patriarchs, 25, 187, 199 
Revelation (International Critical Com- 
mentary), 92 
Clemen, C., Religionsgeschichtliche Er- 

klarung des N.T., 4, 220 
Cohn, L. and Wendland, P., Philonis 

Opera, 134, 138, 171 
Cook, A. B., Zeus, 34, 160 
Cook, S. A., 62 

Religion of Ancient Palestine in theLight 
of Archaeology, 14, 57, 60, 61, 112, 

The Old Testament, a Reinterpretation, 

56, 67 
Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the 

Fifteenth Century B.C., 56 
Creed, J. M., The Gospel according to 

St Luke, 93, 115, 150, 158 
In Journal of Theological Studies, 84 

Cumont, F., Philo, De Aeternitate 

Mundi, 3 
Les Religions Orientales dans le 

Paganisms Remain, 10, 24, 26, 31, 

35, 57, 67, 68, 75, 77, 102, 119, 149, 

169, 205 

Etudes Syriennes, 50 
Fouilles de Doura-Europos, 103, 138, 


Danby, H., The Mishnah, 33 

Daube, D., 95 

Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten, 41, 


De Puniet, in Diet. d'Arch. Chret., 138 
Dibelius, M., Handbuch zum N.T. Eph. 

u. Kol., 108, 153, i68seqq., 175, 

177, 184, 187, 193, 197, 198, 202 
Die Geisterwelt im Glaube des Paulus, 

Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne et 

de Liturgie, ed. H. Leclercq, 41, 

138, 208, 2ii 
Diels, H., Doxographi Graeci (see also 

separate writers), 3, 8, 163 
Dieterich, A., Abraxas, 44, 112, 208 
Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching 

and its Development, 28, 55, 157 
The Bible and the Greeks, 75, 82, 134 
The Epistle to the Romans, in Moffatt's 

Commentary, 96, 105 
In Bulletin of the John Rylands 

Society, 151 

Driver, S. R., in Hastings' DB. t 144 
Drower, E. S., The Mandeans of Iraq 

and Iran, 218 seqq. 
Duncan, G. S., St Paul's Ephesian 

Ministry, 179 

Elmslie, W. A. L., Mishnah, Abodah 
Zarah (Texts and Studies, 8. 2), 
61, 147 

Emmet, C. W., in Ap. andPs., 3 Macca- 
bees, 57 

Erman, A., Die Religion der JEgypter, 

Finnesinger, J. H., in Hebrew Union 

College Annual, 16 
Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The 

Beginnings of Christianity, 25, 43, 

57, 147, 148, 205 
Forster, W., Von Valentinus zu Hera- 

cleon, 118 

Frazer, Sir J. G., The Golden Bough, 225 
The Golden Bough, The Magic Art, 

26, in, 207 
Pausanias' Description of Greece, 14, 

25, 160 
Friedrich, G., in T.W.z.N.T., 23 



Garstang, J., The Syrian Goddess, 61 
Ginsberg, Legends of the yews, 19, 203 
Gnomon, 43, 208 
Goodenough, E. R., By Light, Light, p. ix, 30, 33 
Goodspeed, E. J., The Meaning of 

Ephesians, 184 
Gressmann, H., Das Gilgamesh-Epos, 

14, 61 
Gunkel, H., Schopfung und Chaos, 19, 


Guthrie, W. K. C., Orpheus and Greek 
Religion, 14, 35, 38, 39, 73, 75, 76, 
83. 153, 211, 224, 225 

Harmon, A. M., Lucian (Loeb Classical 

Library), 61 
Harnack, A., Mission und Ausbreitung 

des Christenthums, 218 
Harrison, J., Themis, n 
Hart, Rev. H. St J., 60 
Harvard Theological Review, 11,67, 102, 

112, 147, 153, 208 
Hastings, J., Dictionary of the Bible, 16, 

57. 59, i44> 209 
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 

10, 14, 203 

Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A., Con- 
cordance to the Septuagint, 131 
Hebrew Union College Annual, 16 
Hicks, R. D., Diogenes Laertius (Loeb 

Classical Library), 40 
Holmes, S., in Ap. and Ps., Wisdom, 70, 

71, 112, 202 
Hoskier, H. C., mjf.T.S., 172 

Jack, J. W., The Ras Shamra Tablets, 7 

Jacoby, in Papp. Mag. Gr., 44 

James, E. O., Origins of Sacrifice, 76, 

James, M. R., Testament of Abraham 

(Texts and Studies), 154 
Jastrow, Marcus, Dictionary of the 

Targumim, 109 
Jastrow, Morris, Die Religion Babylons 

und Assyriens, 7, 209 
Jeremias, A., in Bertholet-Lehmann, 

Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 31 
Jeremias, J., in T.W.z.N.T., 189 
Jewish Encyclopedia, The, 113, 149 
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 208 
Journal of Roman Studies, 12 seqq., 

17 seqq., 74 
Journal of Theological Studies, 56, 84, 

172, 212 seqq. 

Kennedy, A. R. S., in Hastings' DB., 

Kennett, R. H., Composition of the Book 

of Isaiah, 14, 94 

Kirk, K. E. (Bishop of Oxford), The 

Vision of God, 173 
The Epistle to the Romans (Clarendon 

Bible), 105 
Kittel, G., in T.W.z.N.T., 23, 121 seqq., 

132, 134 

Knox, W. L., St Paul and the Church of 
Jerusalem, 90, 91, 119, 129, 179, 


InJ.T.S., 56 
In Harvard Theological Review, 112, 

Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, 113, 


Kohut, A., Arukh, 227 
Krauss, S., Lehnwo'rter im Talmud, etc., 

170, 202 

Kroll, J., Gott und Holle, 26, 125, 207, 
217, 220 seqq. 

Lagrange, J. M., fitudes sur les Religions 
semitiques, 89, 138 

Lanchester, H. C. O., in Ap. and Ps., 
The Sibylline Oracles, 15 

Lidzbarski, M., Quellen der Religions- 
geschichte (13, Ginza), 225 
Johannesbuch der Mandaeer, 213 seqq. 

Lietzmann, H., Messe und Herrenmahl, 

Lightfoot, J. B., Colossians and Philemon, 

Philippians, 179 

Loewe, H. M., viii 

Lommel, H., Die Religion Zarathustras, 
6, 7, 9, IS, 19, 92, 128, 137, 205 

McGown, C., Testament of Solomon, 

Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfdnge des 

Christenthums, i, 3, n, 36, 69, 70, 

96, 97, 103, 122, 129, 134, 141, 189, 

194, 205 

Geschichte des Alterthums, 204 
Kleine Schriften, 12 
Michael, J. H., The Epistle to the 

Philippians (in Moffatt's Commen- 
tary), 179 

Mommsen, T., in Hermes, xxxv, 179 
Moore, G. F., Judaism, 29, 30, 51, 57, 

82, 94, 95, 100, 102, 112, 113, 122, 

134. 136, 144, 165 
Moulton, J. H., Early Zoroastrianism, 

19, 137, 204, 206 
With Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the 

Greek N.T., 108, 150, 155, 165, 

171, 179 

Moulton, W. J., in Hastings' DB., 


Murray, G., Four Centuries of Greek 
Religion, 10 


Neubauer, A., Geographic du Talmud, 

Nilsson, M. P., The Minoan-Mycenean 

Religion, xi 

Griechische Feste, 10, 31 
Nock, A. D., viii, 147 

Conversion, 10, 29, 35, 59, 85, 119, 

138, 149, 153, 162, 191, 199 
Sallustius, in 
In Essays on the Trinity and the 

Incarnation, ed. Rawlinson, 35 
In The Beginnings of Christianity, 

205 seqq. 

In Gnomon, 43, 208 
In Harvard Theological Review, n, 

102, 153 
In Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 

208, 211 

See also Roberts, C. 
Norden, E., Agnosias Theos, 44, 120, 

122, 158, 176, 228 
Die Geburt des Kindes, 7, 18, 20, 86 
Nowack, A., in Hastings' DB., 59 

Oesterley, W. O. E., see Box, G. H. 
With T. H. Robinson, A History of 
Israel, 28, 56, 58, 59, 76 

Pallis, S. A., Mandaean Studies, 212 seqq. 
Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyclopadie 

der classischen Alterthums-Wissen- 

schaft, 12, 31, 155 
Peek, W., Die Isis-Hymne von Andros, 

56 seqq. 
Peet, T. E., Religion of Egypt, Palestine 

and Mesopotamia, 57 
X Peterson, E., Eis Qeus, 18, 31, 37, 53, 

159, 161, 192, 194, 207, 222 
Polotsky, H. J., in P.R.E., 31, 155 
Preisigke, Yforterbuch der Griechischen 

Papyrus-Urkunde, 13 
Preisker, E. H., in T.W.z.N.T., 171 
S' Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic 

Thought, 216 

Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of 

Phrygia, 146 
In Hastings' DB., 144 

Rankin, O. S., Israel's Wisdom Litera- 
ture, 58, 59, 61 

Rawlinson, A. E. J. (Bishop of Derby), 
The Gospel according to St Mark 
(Westminster Commentaries'), 222 

Reinhardt, M., Poseidonios, 62, 64, 82 

Reitzenstein, R., Die Hellenistischen 
Mysterien-Religionen (3rd ed.), n, 
in, 148, 153, 155, 161 
Das Iranische Erlosungs-Mysterium, 

21, 58, 97> 123, 155, 160, 222 
Poimandres, 24, 192 

Reitzenstein, R. and Schader, H., 
Studien zum antiken Syncretismus, 
4, 12, 107 

Repertoire d'Epigraphie Sdmitique, 147 
Riess, J., in Hastings' E.R.E., 203 
Roberts, C. (with Skeat, T. C. and 
Nock, A. D.), in Harvard Theo- 
logical Review, 67, 147 
In Aegyptus, 85 

Robinson, J. Armitage, The Epistle to 
the Ephesians, 182, 188, 189, 195, 
198, 227 
Rohde, E., Psyche (Eng. Tr. 1925), 4, 

73, 76, H9 

Roscher, Lexikon, n, 61 
Roussel, P., Les Cultes Egyptiens a 

Delos, 6 1 
Routh, M. J., Reliquiae Sacrae, 114 

Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The 
Epistle to the Romans (International 
Critical Commentary), 99, 105, 
118, 186 

Sasse, H., in T.W.z.N.T., 187 

Schmekel, H., Philosophic der Mittleren 
Stoa, 94 

Schneider, J., in T.W.z.N.T., 196 

Schiirer, E., Geschichte des jildischen 
Volkes, 21, 36 seqq., 69, 81, 146, 
189, 198 seqq. 

Scott, E. F., The Pastoral Epistles (in 
Moffatt's Commentary), 185 

Scott, W., Hermetica, 23, in, 134 

Sethe, K., 31 

Singer, see IV, Authorised Jewish prayer- 

Skeat, T. C., see Roberts, C. 

Strachan, R. H., The Second Epistle to 
the Corinthians (in MofFatt's Com- 
mentary), 129, 136 

Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kom- 
mentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und 
Midrash, 8, 13, 19, 33, 38, 79, 80, 
89, 92, 95, 96, 99, i 10, 120, 121, 128, 
130, 131, 137, 144, 150, 161, 162, 
167, 169, 180, 195,198,200,203,209 

Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Civilisation, 67 
In Journal of Roman Studies, 12 seqq., 

17 seqq., 74 

Taylor, A. E., The Timaeus of Plato, 137 
.Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen 

Testament, ed. Kittel, G., 23, 

121 seqq., 130, 132, 134, 150, 171, 

187, 189, 196 
Travers Herford, R., Talmud and 

Apocrypha, 55 

Vincent, H., Religion des Judeo-Ara- 
meens d' Elephantine, 30, 56 

Warde Fowler, W., Religious Experience 

of the Roman People, 23, 41, 207 
Wells, L. S. A., in Ap. and Ps., Adam 

and Eve, 5 
Wendland, P., Die Hellenistische- 

Romische Kultur, 23 
In Sitzungsberichte des kgl. preus- 

sischen Akademie, 91 
West, Pahlavi Texts, 206 
White, H. A., in Hastings' DB., 144 


Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, U. von, Der 

Glaube der Hellenen, 3 
Wilcken, U., Urkunde aus der Ptole- 

maerzeit, 10, 39, 56, 57, 183 
Windisch, H., Der Sinn der Berg- 

predigt, 96 
In T.W.Z.N.T., 130 

Zeller, E., Philosophic der Griechen, 


[Names marked with * are also referred to in the indices of authors] 

Aaron, 25 

Abaoth, 41, 211 

Abathur, 215 

Abel, 49, 214 

Abihu, see Nadab 

Abraham, 37, 47, 49, 75, 81, 98, 

100 seqq., 108, 112, 130, 144, 173, 

206, 210, 218 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 21, 41, 43, 

208, 210 

Academics, the, 39 
Acha, R., 167 
Achamoth, 155, 215 
Achilles (of Alexandria), 163 
Actium, 23 
Adad, 85 
Adam, 7, 8, 66, 81 seqq., 94 seqq., 103, 

105, 107, 127, 137, 151, 157, 163, 

165, 169 seqq., zoo, 210, 214, 216, 


Ado, 216 
Adonai, 40, 211 
Adonis, 48 
Aeneas, 23 
Aeon, the, 21, 23, 31, 37, 46, 48, 

53, 92 seqq., 148, 159, 187, 192, 

Aetius, ii 

'A.ya6os Aai'^cov, 12, 35, 38, 204 

Ahriman, 6, 46, 103, 205, 207 

Ahura Mazda, 46 seqq., 204 seqq. 

Akiba, R., 30, 112 

Alcinous, 22 

Alcmena, 18 

Alexander the Great, 9 seqq., 18, 40, 56, 

99, 204 

Alexander of Abonouteichos, aoi 
Alexandria, 12 seqq., 28 seqq., 35, 39, 43, 

54, 60 seqq., 65, 69, 71, 88, 113, 161, 

Alexandrine Christianity, 128 
Aloades, the, 62 
Alypus, 28 
Amalek, 156 

Amasea, 204 

Amenemhet, 9 

Am-ha'arets, 209 

Amhaspands, 47, 54, 204 

Amorites, the, 166, 209 

Amulets, 152, 209 

Anahita, 204 

Anath, 56 

Anaximenes, 3 

Anthropomorphism (of O.T.), 44 seqq., 

52, 68, 82, 84, 148 
Antichrist, 90, 92 
Antioch, 61, 179 
Antiochus Epiphanes, 12, 6 1 
Antiochus I of Commagene, 34 
Anti-Semitism, 29, 43, 49, 188 
Antonia, Tower of, 33 
Antonius, M., 13 seqq., 18, 74 
Aoth, see Abaoth 
Apamea, 15, 64 
Apion, 218 

Apocryphal Gospels, the, 19 
Apollo, 1 8, 31, 34, 46, 75, 207, 225 
Apollonius of Tyana, 152 
Appion, 39 

Aquila, version of, 131, 158 
Arcadia, 203 
Archons, 165 

Areopagus, the, i seqq., 26, 38 
Aristarchus of Samos, 7, 65 
Aristobulus I, 214 
*Aristobulus, 211 
*Aristotle, 69, 73, 104, 187, 205 
Aristoxenus, 206 
Ark of the Covenant, 33, 47, 51 
Ark, Noah's, 5, 59, 156 
Arsinoe, 13 
Artemis, 204 
Asceticism, 76, 153 seqq., 170 seqq., 


Asherah, 15 
Asia, 10, 13, 179 
Assyria, 67 
Astarte, 16, 61, 88 seqq., 212, 214 


Astrology, 4, 7, i 26, 37, 46 segg., 58, 
dzseqq., 71, 74, 84, 93, looseqq., 
114, 125, 132, 148, 156, 166, 174, 

202, 206, 213, 221 

Atargatis, 61 (see Astarte and Syrian 

goddess), 85 
Athens, i seqq., 14, 25, 92, in, 115, 

144, 1 80 
Atlantic, the, 63 

Atonement, Day of, 94, 144, 153 
Attis, 10, 34, 84, in, 130, 156, 225 
*Augustine, 4 

Augustus, 17, 21^ 23 seqq., 93 
Avestas, the, 9 

Baal, 15 ! i 

Baal Shamayim, 67, 214 

Baalath Gebal, 611 

Babel, Tower ofj, 62, 81, 126, 202 

Babylon, 4, ic>, 13, 14, 42, 45, 56, 64, 67, 

97, 218 
Babylon, religion of, 3 seqq., 24, 31, 32, 

58, 67, 1 12, 127, 137, 209, 212, 220, 


"Babylonians", 175 

Bacchus, 148 

Baptism, 97, 101, 123, 138, 149, 152, 

154, 169, 186, 193, 217 
Baptism of Je^sua, 157 seqq., 223 
Baptismal robe, 138 
"Barbarians'", 175 
Bar-Cochba, na 
Bardaisan, 217 
Baresman, the, 204 
*Baruch, 22 
"Beliar", 199 i 
"Benefactors"", ii, 28 

Bethel, 80 
Bethlehem, 223 
Bundahesh, the, 15 
Byblus, 6 1 

Cabeiri, the, 5, u, 86, 225 

Caesarea, 189 

Caiaphas, 161 

Cain, 49 

Caligula, 23, 91 \seqq., 228 

Cana, 218 

Cancer, 4 i 

Candlestick (of Tabernacle), 54, 109, 113 

Capitol, the, 17 

Capricorn, 4 

Caspian Sea, the, 218 

Cassander, 7 

*Cerinthus, 151, 211 

Chaeremon, 93 

Chaldeans, 37, 42, 45 seqq., 63, 74 

"Chariot, Chapter of the", 48, 53, 207 

Cherubim, 33, 46 seqq., 51 

Chronologies, 36 

Circumcision, 29 seqq., 62, 97,, 152 seqq., 

1 68 seqq., 186, 227 
Cities of the Plain, 5, 50, 80 
Cities of Refuge, 47 
Citizenship, 57, 189 
Civilisation, History of, 86 
Cladus, G. Tyrrhonius, 146 
Claros, 34 

Cleopatra, 13 seqq., 28 
Cneph, 12, 35, 38 
Colossae, 44, 48, 53, 149 
Comana, 204 
Combabos, 61 

Contemplation, 76, 101 seqq., 206 
Corinth, in seqq., 126 seqq., 180 
Corybants, 5 
Cosmocrators, 202 
Cronos, 58, 62, 211 
Ctesias, 204 
Curetes, n 
Cyrene, 27 
Cyrus, 31, 204 

Darda, 203 

Dardanus, 49, 203, 210 

David, 9, 24, 25, 95 

Dead Sea, the, 5 

Decad, the, 17, 31 

Decalogue, the, 29, 81, 172 

Delphi, 31 

Deluge, the, 4 seqq., 21, 80, 203, 222 

Demeter, 14, 85 

Demetrius Poliorcetes, 36 

*Democritus, 203 

Demons (daipovia), 10, 51, 7^3, 75, 187, 

Demons (Jewish-Christian), 43 seqq., 83, 

100, 125, 127, 153, 183, 202, 208 

seqq., 218 

Diadochi, the, n, 62 
Dike, 6 1 

Dimensions, 191 seqq. i 

Diodorus of Alexandria, 163 
Diodorus of Eretria, 206 
Diogenes of Babylon, 64 
Dionysus, 35 seqq., 56, 37, 74, 76, 83, 

119, 153, 211, 224 seqq. 
Divination, 50, 63 seqq., 76, 78, 132, 206 
Docetism, 168 
Dodona, 37, 160 
Domitian, 152 
Domitiana, 41 
Dositheus, 151, 213 seqq. 
Duad, the, 65, 139 

Earth, the, 3, 147 ; 

Ebionites, the, 151 
Eclipses, 5, 93 
Eden, 8, 60, 87 seqq., 94 



Egypt, 4, 7, 10 seqq., 23, 25, 27, 28, 35, 
56 segg., 64, 97, 122 iegg., 158, 
179, 187, 215, 222 

Egypt, religion of, 9 seqq., 31, 32, 35, 39, 
58, 68, 86, 102, 112, 130, 153, 173, 

204, 206, 2O7, 210, 22O 

Egyptians, 175, 208, 218 

El, 8, 62 

El Elyon, 67 

Eleazar (of Modin), 112 

Eleazar (son of Jairus), 76 

Elements, 3, 108, 165, 168 seqq. 

Elephantine, 30, 56 

Eleusis, 29, 85 

Elijah, 19, 95, 157 

Elisha, 95 

Elohim, 40, 46 

Elysian fields, 125 

Emanations, 71 seqq., 132, 216 

Empedocles, 104 

Emperors, cult of, 23, 92 seqq., 126, 146 

Ennead, the, 31, 37 

Enoch, 6, 22 

Enos (Enos-Uthra), 213 seqq. 

Epaphras, 149, 156 

Ephesus, 43, 85, 148 seqq., 179 seqq., 


*Epictetus, 77 
Epicureans, i, 224 
"Epiphanes", n 
"Epiphany", 28 
Equinox, vernal, 31, 144 
Er, 83, 137 
Esau, 49 

Essenes, 119, 126, 208 
Ethiopia, 222 
Ethiopians, the, 22 
Etruscans, 16, 50, 207 
Eunus, 15 

Euphrates, 60, 97, 218 
Europe, 13 
Evander, 18 

Eve, 83 seqq., 95, 137, 214 
Exile, the, 55 
Exodus, the, 25, 28 seqq., 49, 57, 81, 97, 

123, 169, 217, 218 
Exorcism, 43, 208 seqq. 
*Ezekiel, 207 
Ezra, 22, 56 seqq., 146 

Fall, the, 80 seqq., g^seqq., 105 seqq., 127, 

Fate, 10, 16, 37, 51 seqq., 63 seqq., 74, 

100 seqq., 164, 187, 202, 212 
Firmament, the, 8, 16, 22, 24, 31, 44, 

46, 51, 66 seqq., 77, 86, 125, 148, 

161, 163, 187, 190, 202, 216 
Firmament, ascents to the, 100 seqq., 

139, 154, iQi, 195. 223 seqq. 
Fravashis, 137, 164 


Gabriel, 203 

Gades, 63 

Galilee, 214, 217 

Gamaliel, R., 30, 55, 91, 130 

Gayomard, 107 

Giants, 75, 83, 84 

Glory, 52, 71, 131 seqq. 

Glossolaly, 1 18 seqq., 176 

Gnosis, 101, 120 seqq., 130, 150, 158, 

178, 193, 201, 224 
Gnosticism, 34, 38, 41 seqq., 44 seqq., 72, 

101, 109, 118, 123, 125, 148 seqq., 

155 seqq., 190, 210 seqq., 212 seqq., 

220 seqq. 

Great King, the, 10 
Great Year, the, 2 seqq., 22, 46 

Hades, 125 seqq., 141, 195, 217, 220 seqq. 

Hadrian, i, 130 

Hagar, 84 

Haggada, 28 

Hallel, 28 

"Hamiram", 113 

Hannah, 59, 200 

Haoma, 218 

Harpocrates, 86 

Hasmoneans, the, 25 

Heaven, God of, 37, 67, 214 

Heavenly man, the, 83 seqq., 98, 127, 

133, 220 seqq. 
Hebdomad, the, 6 seqq., 14, 16, 42, 

45 seqq., 58, 63, 68 seqq., 101, 109, 

121, 155 

Hebrew language, the, 42, 215 

Hecataeus (of Miletus), 4 

Hera, 225 

Heracles, 18, 20, 26, 112, 174, 225 

*Heraclitus, 3, 99, 142 

Hermes-Thoth, 112 

*Hermes (Trismegistus), 54, 91, 113 

Hermippus, 205 

Hermon, 61 

Herod the Great, 24, 147 

Heroes, 26, 75 

Hesiod, 3, 12 

Hezekiah, 43 

Hibil, 214, 216 

High Priest, the, 40, 49, 74, 86, 106, 148, 

161, 194 
High Priest's robe, the, 33 seqq., 40, 49, 

63, 86, 131, 165 
Homer, 113, 124 
Horos, 155 
Horus, 68, 86 
Hostanes, 206 
Humbaba, 61 
Huna, R., 94 
Hymenaeus, 127 
Hypsistos, 67 (see also "Most High" 



Hyrcanus, John, 25 
Hystaspes, 21 seqq. 

lambulus, 22 

lao, 34, 38, 41 seqq., 62, 159, 192, 210 

"laoth", 42 

Incense, 39, 54, 66, 129 

Indian religion, 155, 160, 172 

"Invisible God", the, 44 seqq., 150, 159 

Iranian religion, see Persian religion 

*Irenaeus, 6 

Irnini, 61 

Isaac, 49 

*Isaiah, 199 

Ishtar, 14, 61, 212 

Isis, 10 seqq., 35, 56 seqq., 62, 68 seqq., 

jSseqq., Ssseqq., 138, 154, 212 seqq., 


Islands of the Blest, 22 
Israel, 49, 62, 173, 203 
Iturea, 214, 217 

Jacob (see also Abraham), 45, 49, 80, 

161, 164 
Jannes, 203 
Jehu, 9 
Jerusalem, 32 seqq., 54, 56, 59 seqq., 66, 

87, 113, 129, 144, 147, 161, 179, 

200, 213, 215 
Jewish Christians, 95 seqq., 129 seqq., 

142, 181, 182 
Jezebel, 16 
Jochabad, 214 
Jochanan, R., 95, 101 
Jochanan b. Zakkai, R., 120, 209 
Jochasar, 214 

John the Baptist, 157, 162, 213, 218 
Jorabba, 214, 217 

Josamin, 214, 216 

Joseph, 41, 80 seqq. 

Jozataq, 214 

Jubilees, 16 seqq., 144 

Judah the Patriarch, R., 29 

Judas of Galilee, 112 

Julia Severa, 146 

Julian (emperor), 84 

Julian (jurisconsult), 179 

jfulium Sidus, 93 

Juno, 86 

Jupiter (see also Zeus), 21, 22, 50, 53, 

86, 136, 202 
Jupiter Capitolinus, n 
Jupiter (the planet), 107, 211 

Kingdom of God, 91 
Kitchener, Lord, 12 

Leah, 85 
Lebanon, 59 

Leontopolis, 33 

Leprosy, 172, 198 

"Life and Light", 140, 174, 218 

Life, the first, 215 

Life, the second, 215 

Light, 7, 39, 45 seqq., 68 seqq., 77, 

133 seqq., 150, 154, 158, 197 seqq. 
Linus, 68 
Logos, the, 34, 39, 45 seqq., 69 seqq., 

81 seqq., 106, 113 seqq., 123 seqq., 

127, 134, 154, 157, 159, 162, 164, 

168, 198, 203, 210, 216 
Lot, 6, 80 
Ludi Saeculares, 23 
Luke-Acts, 184 
Lysander, 10 

Maccabees, the, 24, 57, 187 
Macrocosm-microcosm, 8, 34, 38, 42, 

45, 66, 87 seqq., 103, 161, 164, 174 
Magi, 40, 93, 153, 204 seqq. 
Magic, 16, 38, 40 seqq., 49, 52, 71, 101, 

103, 125, 128, 148, 153, 173, 190, 

192, 202 seqq., zo6 seqq., 208 seqq., 


Magna Mater, 129 
Mahol, 203 

Mana, the Great, 215 seqq. 
Manda d'Haije, 216 
Mandeans, 7, 83, 103, 135, 160, 212 seqq., 

220 seqq., 224. seqq. 
Mandulis, n 
Manetho, 35, 218 
Mani (Manicheans, -ism), 31, 83 seqq., 

151, 155, 216, 222 
Manna, 89, 123 
Manumission (to temples), 147 
*Marcus (the Gnostic), 178 
Marduk, 10, 220 
Mark, John, 149 
Martyrs, 136, 142 
Medea, 119 
Media, 21 

Meir, R., 51, 100, 209 
Mekilta, the, 218 
"Melchi", 19 
Memphis, 13, 35, 215 
Memra, 52, 82, 195 
Men, 34 

*Menander (Gnostic), 211, 213 
Mesopotamia, 49, 217 
Messiah, the, 6 seqq., 16 seqq., 25, 27, 

92 seqq., 106, no seqq., 151, 158, 

160, i6(seqq., 185, 198 
Mezuzoth, 209 
Middoth, see Powers 
Milk, in, 124 
" Mind ", 8, 54, 67, 73 seqq., 83, 103 seqq., 

116 seqq., 132, 14.0 seqq., 161, 170, 

17 5 seqq., 192 seqq., 198, 224 seqq. 

Minerva, 86 

Minim, 113 

Ministry, 129 seqq. 

Minoan civilisation, 4 

Mirrors, 121 seqq., 132, 137 

*Mishnah, 29 

Mithras (Mithraism), 46, 103, 204 seqq., 


Mithridates (VI Eupator), 204 
Mohammed, 213 
Monad, the, 46, 65, 68, 72, 139 
Monad (the Eighth book of Moses), 42, 

44, 2ii 
Moon, the, 31, 35, 54, 63, 85, 103, 151, 

l66, 187, 212, 221, 225 

Moses, 5 seqq., 17, 19 seqq., 29, 32, 
35 seqq., 44, 49, 52, 62, 69, 75, 76, 
79, 85, 91, 102, 104, 112 seqq., 
121 seqq., 131 seqq., 137, 141, 153 
seqq., 191, 194 seqq., 203, 211, 223 

"Most High" God (see also Hypsistos), 

8, 41, 43, U7 

Musaeus, 35 seqq., 45 

Music of the spheres, 32 

Myriad, the, 72 

Mysteries, 10, 29 seqq., 40, 56, 79, 
84 seqq., go, 101, 103, in, 115, 
130, 138, 149 seqq., 167, 171, 183, 
190 seqq., 200 seqq., 224, 227 seq. 

Naassenes, 84, 97, 150, 156, 201, 225 

Nadab and Abihu, 104, 137, 172 

Names, efficacy of, 41 

Narcissus, 84, 224 

Nativity, cave of the, 223 

Nazirites, 59 

Nebuchadnezzar, 227 

Nectanebos II, 12 

Neferrohu, 9 

Nero, 15, 162 

Nicocreon of Argos, 35 

Nicolas of Damascus, 100 

Nicostratus of Argos, 10 

Nigidius Figulus, 207 

Nile, the, 41, 60, 97 

Nimrod, 75, 81, 130, 206 seqq. 

Nina-Ishtar, 14 

Nineveh, 13 seqq. 

Noah, 5, 19, 21, 173, 203, 206, 213 

Nyssa, 56 

Ocean, 37 seqq. 

Octavia, 18 

Ogdoad, 7 seqq., 16, 69, 155 

Olympus (Olympian), 14, 39, 77, 88, 


Omega, 42 
Onesimus, 177 
Onias, 33 
Ophites, 46, 101, 104, 154 


Orpheus (Orphism, etc.), 14, 34 seqq., 
69, 73, 75, 79, 83, 91, 101, 153, 160, 

l62, 194, 198, 201, 211, 215, 224 

Osiris, 35, 68, 72, 79, 85 seqq., 112, 125, 

Ouphareg, 42 

Panaetius, 2, 94 

Papas, 156 

Parousia, 90, 126 seqq., 142 

Passover, 29 seqq., 57, 97, 144, 228 

Passover Liturgy, 28 

Pastoral Epistles, the, 180, 185 

Peloponnesian War, 10 

Peninnah, 59 

Pentad, the, 5, 155, 172, 176 

Pentecost, 17, 57, 195 

Peratae, the, 28, 49, 97, 151 

Pergamos, 14 

Peripatetics, 68 

Perizzites, 208 

Persephone, 85 

Persian religion (Iranian religion, Zoro- 
astrianism), 3 seqq., 12, 18, 20 seqq., 
24, 31, 36 seqq., 46 seqq., 53, 58, 67, 
92, 94, 97, i3, 123, 128, 134, 
137 seqq., 150 seqq., 155, 158 seqq., 
173, 175, 187, 194, 197 seqq., 
204 seqq., 212 seqq., 218, 220 seqq. 

Peshitta, the, 212 

Peter, St, 210 

Phanes, 39 

Pharaoh, 40, 86 

Pharisees, 54, 100, 104, 112 seqq., 126, 

Philetas, 127 

Philippi, 1 80 seqq. 

Phoenicia, 5, 8, n, 67 

Phoenix, the, 95 

Phrygia, 146 seqq. 

Phrygian religion, 76, 119 

Phthah, 35, 215 

Phylacteries, 209 

Pity, altar of, 14 

"Place, the", 164 

Planets, the, 7 seqq., 16,31,37, 44 seqq., 
58, 63, 101, 103 seqq., 150 seqq., 165, 
187, 202, 212 seqq., 220 seqq. 

*Plato(Platonism), 22, 36seqq., 46, 62,70, 

82 seqq., 112, 119, 125, 134, 142, 151 

Pleroma, the, 62, 156, 163 seqq., 166, 

168, 187, 193 seqq. 
Plotinus, 224 
Pluto, 207 

Pollio (C. Asinius), 18 seqq. 
Poseidon, n 

*Posidonius, 5, 31, 50 seqq., 62 seqq., 
70 seqq., 82, 94, 102, 116, 119, 122, 
132, 139, 161, 163, 194, 204, 206, 
216, 224 seqq. 


"Power" of God, 115 seqq. 

"Powers" of God, 45 seqq., 50 seqq., 

83 seqq., 134, 148, 154 
Praetorium, 179 
Prajapati, 155 
Prodicus, 36 

Proselytes, 29, 97, 183, 189 
Protogonos, 39, 49 
Prusias of Bithynia, 1 1 
Ptahil, 215 

Ptolemies, the, n, 39, 56, 61, 161, 215 
Ptolemy I, 10 

Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, 161 
Ptolemy III, 12 
Ptolemy IV, Philopator, 57 
Ptolemy VI, Philometor, 68 
Ptolemy IX, Physcon, 56 
Ptolemy XV, 28 
Pythagoras (-cans, -eanism), 6, 39, 42, 

46, 48, 62, 65, 69, 72, 79, 94, 102, 

104, 151, 153, 155, 164, 187, 192, 

206 seqq., 224 seqq. 

Queen of Heaven, the, 56 
Quintessence, 73 

Rain-magic, 57, 207 

Raphael, 203, 211 

Re, 86 

Rebekah, 85, 88 

Rebellions, Jewish, 27, 93, 189 

Red Heifer, the, 209 

Red Sea, the, 28, 43, 97, 123, 208, 218 

Reincarnation, 3, 20, 23,73 seqq., 122, 125 

Reuben, 141 

River-gods, 60 

Robes (heavenly), 127, 137 seqq. 

Rock in the Desert, the, 88 seqq., 123 

Rome, 10, u, 13, 17, 21 seqq., 96, 129, 

179 seqq. 

Rome, Church of, 95 seqq. 
Rome, kings of, 207 
Rome, religion of, 16, 41, 153 
Romulus, 5, 1 8 
*Rosh-ha-Shanah, 17, 31, 144 
Rubies, 59 seqq., 70 
Rufinus, 105 
Ruha, 103, 212 seqq,. 225 

Saba, 222 

Sabaoth, 44, 155, 211 

Sabbath, the, 6 seqq., 14,' 44 seqq., 68, 89 

Sacred marriages, 85 seqq., 183, 200 seqq. 

Sadducees, 34, 54, 113, 209 

Salmoneus of Elis, 206 

"Salvation", 10 seqq., 27 seqq., 80, 

97 seqq., 140, 158, 169 seqq., 201 
Samos, 10 

Samothrace, 5, n, 86 
Sarah, 85 

Sarapis, 10 seqq., 30, 35, 39, 56, 215 

Sargon, 218 

Sassanids, the, 9 

Satan, 84, 92 seqq., 151, 187, 195, 202,207 

*Satornilus, 151 

Saturn, 8, 16, 18, 20, 23, 39, 44, 48, 62, 

94, 107, 211 
"Saviour", n, 19 seqq., 26, 28, 30, 123, 


Scapegoat, the, 144 
Sceva, 148, 208 
Scipio, P. Africanus, ir, 102 
Scythians, 175 
Seal (Baptism as), 186 
Seal of God, the, 160 
Seleucid Empire, the, 61, 146 
Seleucus of Seleuceia, 65 
Semitic religion, 7, 15, 17, 24, 60, 65, 67, 

83, 92, 127, 140 
Sermon on the Mount, the, 96 
Seth, 65, 214 
Severa, Julia, 146 
Shaddai, 131, 157 
Shekinah, the, 52, 134, 17? 
Shema, the, 194 

Sheol, 24, 126, 156, 195, 212, 222 seqq. 
Shiloh, 148 
Shofar, the, 16 
Sibyls (Sibylline Oracles), 13 seqq., 21, 

23 seqq., 160 
Sicily, 15 
Sidon, 6 1 
Sihon, 89 

Simeon the Just, 55 
*Simon Magus, 40, 115, 210 seqq., 213 
Sinai, Mount, 28, 32, 79, 95, 108 
Sitil, 214 
Sky-gods, 34, 67 
Sodom, 51 

Solomon, 43, 68 seqq., 208, 210 
Spirit, 71 seqq., JQ^, 104, 116 seqq., 127, 

132, 140, 195, 225 
Spirit of Christ, the, 9S,j 118 ^___ 
Spirit of God, the, 71 seqq., 99 seqq., 

I04.seqq., 114, 116 seqq., 131 seqq., 

139 seqq., 151, 158, 164, 189, 

194 seqq., 225 seqq. 
Stigmata, 97 
Stoa, the (Stoics, Stoicism), i seqq., 

14 seqq., 21, 31, 35 seqq., 44 seqq., 

47, 50 seqq., 60 seqq., 82, 94^59-. 

116 seqq., 122, 125, 128, 130, 139, 

155, 156, i6oseqq., 172 seqq., 

200 seqq., 207, 224 
Stratonice, 61 
Sulla, i 
Sun, the, 18, 22, 31, 35, 37, 48, 53 seqq., 

72. 77, 85, 93, 103, 139, 147, 161, 

212, 219, 220 

Sydyk, 5 



Symmachus, 131 

Sympathy (of cosmos), 41, 42, 51, 63, 

too, 103, 109 
Syria, 12, 64, 77 
Syria (religion of), 15, 31, 67, 77, 89, 

103, 119, 138, 214, 218 
Syrian goddess, the, 15, 61, 214, 225 

Tabernacle, the, 33, 38, 40, 59 seqq., 79, 

87, 137 

Tabernacles, feast of, 57 

Tammuz, 220 

Targums, the, 82 

Tarsus, 179 

Tau, 42 

Temple, the, 32 seqq., 40 seqq., 54, 55, 
60, 67, 79, 87, 92, 108, 112, 131, 
144, 147, 188, 194, 208, 228 

Tetrad, the, 39, 48, 53, 60, 192 

Tetragrammaton, the (Name of God), 
34, 39 seqq., 45,48, 51, 132 

Thales, 3 

Thanksgiving, 158, 176 

Themistocles, 10 

Theodore bar Khonai, 216 

*Theopompus, 6 

Therapeutae, 77 

Thessalonica, 91 

Thomas Aquinas, St, 219 

Thot, 62, 112 

Thouro, 62 

Thrace, 119, 179 

Three Children, the, 130 

Tiberius, 23, 92 

Timaeus of Locri, 63 

Titans, the, 83, 2:1 

Tithes, 33 

Titus, 144 

Torah, the, 14, 17, 27, 32, 43, 48, 52, 
55, 57, 60, 62, 68, 80, 88 
seqq., 95 seqq., 112 seqq., 121, 123, 
T.2<)seqq., 142, 146, 155, 169, 
173 seqq., 181, 185, 188, 191, 
194 seqq., 203, 222 seqq., 228 

Trajan, 27 

Tree of Life (of Paradise), 46, 59, 61, 

78, 94, iS7 
Troas, 144 
Troezen, n 

Trojan War, the, 21 
Tychicus, 203 
Typho, 31 

"Unknown Gods", 25 

Urbanus, 41 

Uriel, 48, 173 

Urim and Thummim, 34 

Utopias, 22 

*Valentinus, 84, 151, 178, 21 r, 215 

Valerius, 129 

*Valerius Soranus, 41 

Vegetation-gods, 24, 140 

Venus, 212, 214, 225 

Vespasian, 25, 33, 43 

Vesta, 207 

Victory, 28 

Vistaspa, 21 

Vowels, the, 41 seqq., 109 

"Watchers", the, 83 

Wisdom (the divine), 7, 32, 45, 47, 
51, 57 seqq., 68 seqq., 77 seqq., 
113 seqq., 122 seqq., 133 seqq., 144, 
159, 163 seqq., 168, 170, 175, 178, 
180, 187, 198, 201, 214, 221, 225 

World-ages (see also Aeon), 2 seqq., 
73 seqq., 92 seqq., 126, 128, 160, 
1 66, 172, 187, 207, 212 seqq. 

World-catastrophes, 4 seqq., So 

Xenocrates of Chalcedon, 8 
Xerxes, 206 

Yahweh, 67 

Zadok (Pharisee), 112 

Zan, 1 60 

Zaratas (-us), 206 seqq. 

Zarvan, 205 

*Zeno, 2, 65, 72 seqq., 172 

Zeus, 18, 28, 34 seqq., 64, 70, 147, 160, 

164, 207, 211, 225 
Zeus Oromazdes, 34 
Zeus Soter, n 
Zodiac, the, 164 
Zoroaster, 19, 21 seqq., 204 seqq. 
Zoroastrianism, see Persian religion 





"Power" of God, 115 seqq. 

"Powers" of God, 45 seqq., 50 seqq., 

83 seqq., 134, 148, 154 
Praetorium, 179 
Prajapatl, 155 
ProdicuS, 36 

Proselytes, 29, 97, 183, 189 
Protogonos, 39, 49 
Prusias of Bithynia, 1 1 
Ptahil, 215 

Ptolemies, the, n, 39, 56, 61, 161, 215 
Ptolemy I, 10 

Ptolemy II, Philadelphia, 161 
Ptolemy III, 12 
Ptolemy IV, Philopator, 57 
Ptolemy VI, Philometor, 68 
Ptolemy IX, Physcon, 56 
Ptolemy XV, 28 
Pythagoras (-cans, -eanism), 6, 39, 42, 

46, 48, 62, 65, 69, 72, 79, 94, i2, 

104, 151, 153, U55, 164, 187, 192, 

206 seqq., 224 seqq. 

Queen df Heaven, the, 56 
Quintessence, 73 i 

Rain-magic, 57, 207 

Raphael, 203, 211 

Re, 86 i 

Rebekah, 85, 88 

Rebellions, Jewish, (27, 93, 189 

Red Heifer, the, 209 

Red Sea 1 , the, 28, 43, 97, 123, 208, 218 

Reincarnation, 3, 2Ot 23,735693., 122, 125 

Reuben: 141 - ( 

River-gods, 60 

Robes (heavenly), 1127, 137 seqq. 

Rock in the Desert, the, B&seqq., 123 

Rome, lo, u, 13, 17, 21 seqq., 96, 129, 

Rome, Church of, 95 seqq. 
Rome, Icings of, 207 
Rome, religion of, 16, 41, 153 
Romuhis, 5, 18 
*Rosh-ha-Shanah, 17, 31, 144 
Rubies, 59 seqq., 70 
Rufinus, 105 
Ruha, 103, 212 seqq,. 225 

Saba, 222 

Sabaotli, 44, 155, 211 

Sabbath, the, 6 seqq., 14, 44 seqq., 68, 89 

Sacred marriages, 85 seqq., 183, zoo seqq. 

Sadducees, 34, 54, 113, 209 

Salmoneus of Elis, 1206 

"Salvation", 10 $,eqq., 27 seqq., 80, 

97 seqq., 140, 158, 169 seqq., 201 
Snmos, 10 

Snmotlirace, 5, ii,j86 
Sarah, 85 

Sarapis, 10 seqq., 30, 35, 39, 56, 215 

Sargon, 218 

Sassanids, the, 9 

Satan, 84, gzseqq., 151, 187, 195, 202,207 

*Satornilus, 151 

Saturn, 8, 16, 18, 20, 23, 39, 44, 48, 62, 

94, 107, an 
"Saviour", u, 19 seqq., 26, 28, 30, 123, 


Scapegoat, the, 144 
Sceva, 148, 208 
Scipio, P. Africanus, n, 102 
Scythians, 175 
Seal (Baptism as), 186 
Seal of God, the, 160 
Seleucid Empire, the, 61, 146 
Seleucus of Seleuceia, 65 
Semitic religion, 7, 15, 17, 24, 60, 65, 67, 

83, 92, 127, 140 
Sermon on the Mount, the, 96 
Seth, 65, 214 
Severa, Julia, 146 
Shaddai, 131, 157 
Shekinah, the, 52, 134, 173 
Shema, the, 194 

Sheol, 24, 126, 156, 195, 212, 222 seqq. 
Shiloh, 148 
Shofar, the, 16 
Sibyls (Sibylline Oracles), 13 seqq., 21, 

23 seqq., 160 
Sicily, 15 
Sidon, 6 1 
Sihon, 89 

Simeon the Just, 55 
*Simon Magus, 40, 115, 210 seqq., 213 
Sinai, Mount, 28, 32, 79, 95, 108 
Si til, 214 
Sky-gods, 34, 67 
Sodom, 51 

Solomon, 43, 68 seqq., 208, 210 
Spirit, 71 seqq.,io_i, 104, 116 seqq., 127, 

132, 140, 195, 225 
Spirit of Christ, the, 95 1 18 ^_ 
Spirit of God, the, 71 seqq., 99 seqq., 

104 seqq., 114, 116 seqq., 131 seqq., 

139 seqq., 151, 158, 164, 189, 

194 seqq., 225 seqq. 
Stigmata, 97 
Stoa, the (Stoics, Stoicism), i seqq., 

i^seqq., 21, 31, 35 seqq., 44seqq., 

47, 50 seqq., 60 seqq., 82, 94 seqq., 

116 seqq., izz, 125, 128, 130, 139, 

ISS, 156, 160 seqq., 172 seqq., 

zoo seqq., 207, 224 
Stratonice, 61 
Sulla, i 
Sun, the, 18, 22, 31, 35, 37, 48, 53 seqq., 

72, 77, 8S, 93, 103, 139, H7, 161, 

212, 219, 220 

Sydyk, 5 



Symmachus, 131 

Sympathy (of cosmos), 41, 42, 51, 63, 

100, 103, 109 
Syria, 12, 64, 77 
Syria (religion of), 15, 31, 67, 77, 89, 

103, 119, 138, 214, 218 
Syrian goddess, the, 15, 61, 214, 225 

Tabernacle, the, 33, 38, 40, 59 seqq., 79, 

87, 137 

Tabernacles, feast of, 57 

Tammuz, 220 

Targums, the, 82 

Tarsus, 179 

Tau, 42 

Temple, the, 32 seqq., 40 seqq., 54, 55, 
60, 67, 79, 87, 92, 108, 112, 131, 
144, 147, 188, 194, 208, 228 

Tetrad, the, 39, 48, 53, 60, 192 

Tetragrammaton, the (Name of God), 
34, 39 seqq., 45,48, 51, 132 

Thales, 3 

Thanksgiving, 158, 176 

Thernistocles, 10 

Theodore bar Khonai, 216 

*Theopompus, 6 

Therapeutae, 77 

Thessalonica, 91 

Thomas Aquinas, St, 219 

Thot, 62, 112 

Thouro, 62 

Thrace, 119, 179 

Three Children, the, 130 

Tiberius, 23, 92 

Timaeus of Locri, 65 

Titans, the, 83, an 

Tithes, 33 

Titus, 144 

Torah, the, 14, 17, 27, 32, 43, 48, 52, 
55, 57, 60, 62, 68, 80, 88 
seqq., 95 seqq., HZ seqq., 121, 123, 
129 seqq., 142, 146, 155, 169, 
173 seqq., 181, 185, 188, 191, 
194 seqq., 203, 222 seqq., 228 

Trajan, 27 

Tree of Life (of Paradise), 46, 59, 61, 

78, 94, 157 
Troas, 144 
Troezen, n 

Trojan War, the, at 
Tychicus, 203 
Typho, 31 

"Unknown Gods", 25 

Urbanus, 41 

Uriel, 48, 173 

Urim and Thummim, 34 

Utopias, 22 

*Valentinus, 84, 151, 178, an, 215 

Valerius, 129 

*Valerius Soranus, 41 

Vegetation-gods, 24, 140 

Venus, 212, 214, 225 

Vespasian, 25, 33, 43 

Vesta, 207 

Victory, 28 

Vistaspa, 21 

Vowels, the, 41 seqq., 109 

"Watchers", the, 83 

Wisdom (the divine), 7, 32, 45, 47, 
51, 57 seqq., 68 seqq., 77 seqq., 
113 seqq., 122 seqq., 133 seqq., 144, 
159, 163 seqq., 168, 170, 175, 178, 

l8o, 187, 198, 201, 214, 221, 225 

World-ages (see also Aeon), 2 seqq., 
73 seqq., 92 seqq., 126, 128, 160, 
166, 172, 187, 207, 212 seqq. 

World-catastrophes, 4 seqq., 80 

Xenocrates of Chalcedon, 8 
Xerxes, 206 

Yahweh, 67 

Zadok (Pharisee), 112 

Zan, 1 60 

Zaratas (-us), 206 seqq. 

Zarvan, 205 

*Zeno, 2, 65, 72 seqq., 172 

Zeus, 18, 28, 34 seqq., 64, 70, 147, 160, 

164, 207, 211, 225 
Zeus Oromazdes, 34 
Zeus Soter, n 
Zodiac, the, 164 
Zoroaster, 19, 21 seqq., 204 seqq. 
Zoroastrianism, see Persian religion 




3650 gt. Paul and the church 


of the gentiles 

dup. 12/9/60 1260036 


PR 1 2 1968 


,8 c 


8 - ffi. 



"II I H 1 

15 462 292