We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are essentially the same as those of Jewish
traditionalism in the Haggadah,10 only the latter were not rationalising, and far more brilliant in
their application.11 In another respect also the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian
exegesis. Reverently and cautiously it indicated what might be omitted in public reading, and
why; what expressions of the original might be modified by the Meturgeman, and how; so as to
avoid alike one danger by giving a passage in its literality, and another by adding to the sacred
text, or conveying a wrong impression of the Divine Being, or else giving occasion to the
unlearned and unwary of becoming entangled in dangerous speculations. Jewish tradition here
lays down some principles which would be of great practical use. Thus we are told,12 that
Scripture uses the modes of expression common among men. This would, of course, include all
anthropomorphisms. Again, sometimes with considerable ingenuity, a suggestion is taken from a
word, such as that Moses knew the Serpent was to be made of brass from the similarity of the
two words (nachash, a serpent, and nechosheth, brass.)13 Similarly, it is noted that Scripture
uses euphemistic language, so as to preserve the greatest delicacy.14 These instances might be
multiplied, but the above will suffice.
10. Comp. our above outline with the `XXV. theses de modis et formulis quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS.
interpretari etc. soliti fuerunt,' in Surenhusius,Βιβλος καταλλαγης, pp. 57-88.
11. For a comparison between Philo and Rabbinic theology, see Appendix II.: `Philo and Rabbinic
Theology.' Freudenthal (Hellen. Studien, pp. 67 &c.) aptly designates this mixture of the two as
`Hellenistic Midrash,' it being difficult sometimes to distinguish whether it originated in Palestine or in
Egypt, or else in both independently. Freudenthal gives a number of curious instances in which
Hellenism and Rabbinism agree in their interpretations. For other interesting comparisons between
Haggadic interpretations and those of Philo, see Joel, Blick in d. Religionsgesch. i. p. 38 &c.
12. Ber. 31 b.
13. Ber. R. 31.
14. Ber. R. 70.
In his symbolical interpretations Philo only partially took the same road as the Rabbis. The
symbolism of numbers and, so far as the Sanctuary was concerned, that of colours, and even
materials, may, indeed, be said to have its foundation in the Old Testament itself. The same
remark applies partially to that of names. The Rabbis certainly so interpreted them.15 But the
application which Philo made of this symbolism was very different. Everything became
symbolical in his hands, if it suited his purpose: numbers (in a very arbitrary manner), beasts,
birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones, elements, substances, conditions, even sex - and so
a term or an expression might even have several and contradictory meanings, from which the
interpreter was at liberty to choose.
15. Thus, to give only a few out of many examples, Ruth is derived from ravah, to satiate to give to
drink, because David, her descendant, satiated God with his Psalms of praise (Ber. 7 b). Here the
principle of the significance of Bible names is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in the Hebrew): `Come, behold
the works of the Lord, who hath made names on earth,' the word `desolations,' shamoth, being altered
to shemoth, `names.' In general, that section, from Ber. 3 b, to the end of 8 a, is full of Haggadic
Scripture interpretations. On fol. 4 a there is the curious symbolical derivation of Mephibosheth, who is