48 Journal of Philology. 'O 8e K rfjs vXrjSy ttjs KovcpTjs Kai ea<f>poTarr]s avpas, co? av ano(popas tivos, oTrotat ylvovrai anb tu>u upapi'iTcov. De Allegor. Leg. I. 12, 13. Now, who can believe that these two commentaries are inde- pendent of each other ? Upon the same text Philo and St Paul proceed to enlarge, employing, to a considerable extent, the same most remarkable words*, on a subject not contained in the text at all, nor obviously arising out of it? We may then, I think, affirm with confidence, that we have here no fortuitous or trivial coincidence; but that the Apostle either had the place of Philo in his eye (and this certainly seems the most probable hypothesis), or else that Philo and St Paul drew the phraseology of their commentary from some common origin, such as the allegorical interpretations of Aristobulus, or other Alexandrian Jews, may possibly have beenf. Let us, in the first place, endeavour to discover the meaning of Philo, as a preliminary to the full understanding of the Apo- stle. However true it may be that some Rabbinic writers have designated the Messiah as the Second Adam, and that St Paul had their phraseology in his eye as well as that of Philo, both here and elsewhere (Rom. v. 14), yet our philosopher was thinking of a very different matter in his above-cited interpretation of the Mosaic cosmogony. Philo had observed that Moses twice describes the Creation of the world, once in the first chapter of Genesis, and again in the second chapter. He explained this fact, in a Platonic fashion, by supposing that the first chapter contained an account of the ideal or suprasensual world, the votjtos Koo-pos, which God created by his Word (Aoyoj), as by an instrument. In fact, the ideal world is itself regarded by him as identical with the Word of God, the idea of ideas. His Heavenly Man then is the arche- typal man, incorporeal, unsexual, immortal, the ideal denizen of the ideal world, of whom the Earthy Man or Protoplast, the The omission of the words & Ktjptoi Some of these passages will be employed in v. 47, which are now regarded as in the course of the argument. They spurious by most editors, makes the appear to have received less attention allusion to Philo more direct and pointed. from the commentators on the New t The distinction which Philo here Testament than they deserve, though makes, occurs again in his works several Bome among them, as Grotius, Loesner, times, e.g. Alleg. Leg. I. 16, 28, 29, 30; and especially Whitby, have not entirely 11. 2 5111.31. Opif. Mund. c. 46. Plant. overlooked them. Noe. c. 11. Qusest. in Genes, c. 4, 8.
