50 Journal of Philology. yjn)fjv an olbevbs ytvrjrov to rrapdnav, aXX* e< tov rrarpoy koa fjyepovos rwv airavTM. lb yap ^evecpva-rja-ev" ovbeu tjv erepov, rj irvevpa Oelov dnb ttjs ptiKapius Ka evbaipovos (Kfimjf <pvae<os, anoiKiav ttjv ei/8dbe areCKdpevov, eV (ocpeXela tov ye'vovs qp-oov, Iva, el Ka Bvtjtos o au8pco7r6s eort Kara rfju opartju ptpida, Kara, yovv ttjv aoparov d0ai/art"nrat. Mund. Opif. C. 46. This order of production must be borne in mind as fyeing of importance to the right understanding of the apostle *. Enougli has been now said and quoted to make the general meaning of Philo's commentary on Genesis sufficiently obvious. It is time to turn to St Paul's remark on the same verse. The Earthy Man, the First Man, Adam, of the Apostle, is identical with the Earthy Man in the phraseology of Philo. Both writers appear to have regarded the constitution of the Proto- plast in much the same light. Both alike look upon his body as being created 8vtjt6v or ^vxikov. Philo insists on the natural mor- tality of his body, even before the Fall : St Paul, also speaking of him before the Fall, declares his body to have been only adapted to the animal life. The Apostle contrasts this aupa yjfvxiKov with the aaiua nvevpariKov or irvevpa {(oonoiovv of the Second Man from heaven. In this respect also he substantially agrees with Philo ; for he does not at all deny the doctrine which Philo affirms, that Adam's body was vivified by the breath of the Spirit of God, but he only maintains the bodies of Adam and of his posterity to be unadopted for immortality without a further change, without such an indwelling of the Spirit as resides in the
- It must be added, however, that distinct from 6 debs, but yet himself
Philo is not very consistent with himself debt. Commenting on the verse of Ge- in his doctrine respecting the Abyos. nesis, yc elpu b 0ebs b bedels <rot ev Bitter observes of his philosophy gene- rbwy deov, (xxxi. 1 3), he writes, Tl otiv rally, "that it is in all its parts devoid xM Xeyew ; '0 fib dXrjdela debs els of consistency and of coherence in the lartv ol b' iv Karaxp^ei eybfievot development of its fundamental posi- rXefouj. Aid koI b lepbs byos iv r$ tions." (Hist, of Anc. Philos. Vol. IV. wapbvTi rbv fxev ai)dela bib tov dpOpov p. 451, Engl. Transl.). In nothing is pepfyvKev, eiiruv, 'Eyu elpt b debt'" this incoherency more apparent than in rbv b' iv Karaxpfyrei x u pl* &p0pov, <p&- his statements respecting the Abyos. In okiov, ,,b b<pdels aoi iv rbirip," ov rod the passages which have l>een cited the 0eoO, dV avrb pJbvov, deov. " KaXet Ideal or Heavenly Man is identified with bi debv rbv wpeafifrraTov avrov vwl Xbyov. the Abyos, so far as a part can be iden- De Somn. I. 39. With reference to this tified with the whole, because the Abyos view, (afterwards adopted by the Gnos- is here declared to be identical with the tics), some portions of St John's works voryrbs nbo-pos. But elsewhere Philo are manifestly composed, makes the Aovot to be a Divine Person,
