an heretical Judaism for the half-converted Gentiles.  The disciples of Jesus spread his teaching far and wide; but they continually widened the breach which their Master had himself initiated, and so their work became, not so much a development of Judaism, as an attack upon it.  In some of its principles, indeed, the message of Jesus was the message of Philo, emphasizing, as it did, the broad principles of morality and the need of an inner godliness.  But it was fundamentally differentiated by a doctrine of God and the Messiah which was neither Jewish nor philosophical, and by the breaking away from the law of Moses, which cut at the roots of national life.  Whatever the moral worth of the preaching of Jesus, it involved and involves the overthrow of the Jewish attitude to life and religion, which may be expressed as the sanctification of ordinary conduct, and as morality under the national law.  To this ideal Philo throughout was true, and the Christian teachers were essentially opposed, and however much they approximated to his method and utilized his thought, they were always strangers to his spirit.  Philo’s philosophy was in great part a philosophy of the law; the Patristic school borrowed his allegorizing method and produced a philosophy of religious dogma!  Those who spread the Christian doctrine among the Hellenized peoples and the sophisticated communities that dwelt round the Mediterranean found it necessary to explain and justify it by the metaphysical and ethical catchwords of the day, and in so doing they took Philo as their model.  They followed both in general and in detail his allegorical interpretations in their recommendation of the Old Testament to the more cultured pagans, as the apology of Justin, the commentaries of Origen, and the philosophical miscellany ([Greek:  Stromateis]) of Clement abundantly show.

Certain parts of the New Testament itself exhibit the combination of Hebraism and Hellenism which characterizes the work of Philo.  In the sayings of Jesus we have the Hebraic strain, but in Luke and John and the Epistles the mingling of cultures.  Thus the Apostles seem to some the successors of Philo, and the Epistles the lineal descendants of the “Allegories of the Laws.”  In the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews especially the correspondence is striking.  But there is, in fact, despite much that is common, a great gulf between them.  The later missionaries oppose the national religion and the Torah:  Philo was pre-eminently their champion.

The most commanding of the Apostles, Paul of Tarsus, when he took the new statement of Judaism out of the region of spirit and tried to shape it into a definite religion for the world, “forgot the rock from which he was hewn.”  As a modern Jewish theologian says,[355] “His break with the past is violent; Jesus seemed to expand and spiritualize Judaism; Paul in some senses turns it upside down.”  His work may have been necessary to bring home the Word