PHILO, an ancient Greek writer, descended of a noble family amongst the Jews, flourished at Alexandria during the reign of Caligula. He was the chief of an embassy sent to Rome about the year forty-two, to plead the cause of the Jews against Apion, who had been sent by the Alexandrians to charge them with neglecting the honours due to Caesar. Caligula, however, would not allow him to speak, and behaved[7:17:353] to him in such a manner that Philo was in considerable danger of losing his life. Others, again, tell us that he was heard, but. that lais demands were refused. He afterwards went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and both Eusebius and Jerome inform us that he became acquainted with St Peter, with whom he lived on terms of friendship. Photius adds, that he became a Christian, but afterwards, from some motive of resentment, recanted. All this, however, is uncertain, because the precise period at which St Peter visited Rome has not been ascertained.

Philo was educated at Alexandria, and made very great progress in eloquence and in philosophy. After the fashion of the time, he cultivated, like many of his nation and faith, the philosophy of Plato, whose principles he so. thoroughly imbibed, and whose manner he so well imitated, that it became a common saying, Aut Plato philonizat, aut Philo platonizat. Josephus describes him as a man “eminent on all accounts and Eusebius represents him as “copious in speech, rich in sentiments, and sublime in the knowledge of Holy Writ.” He was, however, so much immersed in philosophy, particularly the Platonic, that he neglected the Hebrew language, and also the rites and customs of his own people. Scaliger alleges, that Philo knew no more of Hebrew and Syriac than a Gaul or a Scythian. Grotius is of opinion that he is not fully to be depended on in what relates to the manners of the Hebrews; and Cudworth declares that, though a Jew by nation, he was yet very ignorant of Jewish customs. But Fabricius thinks differently; for although he admits the inadvertencies and errors of Philo in regard to these matters, he does not discover sufficient reason to justify charging so illustrious a doctor of the law with ignorance. He allows, however, that Philo’s passion for philosophy had made him more than half a Pagan. It led him to interpret the whole of the law and the prophets upon Platonic ideas, and to admit nothing as truly interpreted which was not agreeable to the principles of the Academy. Besides, he turned every thing into allegory, and deduced the darkest meanings from the plainest words. This pernicious practice Origen is known to have imitated, and thus exposed himself to the scoffs of Celsus and of Porphyry. Philo’s writings abound with high and mystical, as well as subtile, far-fetched, and abstracted notions; and indeed the doctrines of Plato and Moses are so promiscuously blended, that it is not easy to assign to each his peculiar prerogatives. In his works, however, there are certainly many excellent things. Though he is continually plato-nizing and allegorizing the Scriptures, he abounds with fine sentiments and lessons of morality; and his morals are rather the morals of a Christian than those of a Jew. History, as well as his own writings, give us every reason to believe that he was a man of great prudence, constancy, and virtue.

His works were first published in Greek by Turnebus, at Paris, 1552; and to these a Latin translation, executed by Gelenius, was afterwards added. The Paris edition of 1640, in folio, is the best that was published for a century; a circumstance which led Cotelerius to observe, that Philo was an author who deserved to have a better text and a better version. This, however, was accomplished, in 1742, when a handsome edition of his works was published at London, by Dr Mangey, In two vols. folio. In 1797, Jacob Bryant published the Sentiments of Philo Judaeus concerning the Logos or Word, in order to prove that Philo borrowed his sentiments and expressions relative to the second person of the adorable Trinity from the apostles. But it is to be observed here, that Philo’s authority had repeatedly before been founded on by various writers in favour of the fundamental principle of the existence of a Divine Unity in a Trinity of Persons; particularly by Dr Allix in his Judgment of the Jewish Church, 1699, and also by Mr Whitaker in his Origin of Arianism. Disclosed, 1791.

Philo, a native of Byblos, in Syria, is believed by Vossius to have been born in the tenth year of the reign of Tiberius, a. d. 24, and to have lived to the times of the Emperor Hadrian, who succeeded to the empire A. d. 117. He gained considerable reputation as a writer both of history and grammar; but his name has come down to us chiefly as the translator of a history which Sanchoniathon had written in the Phoenician language. Eusebius has preserved several fragments of the preface of Philo, and also of this history. This fragment has called forth the ingenuity of many modern writers, but more particularly of Mr Dodwell, who has written a very learned dissertation on the subject. Fourmont also makes it the text of a work which he entitled Réflexions Critiques sur les Histoires des anciens Peuples, two vols. 4to.

Philo, a celebrated writer on mechanics, was a native of Byzantium, and flourished in the year 160, being the contemporary of Ctesibius and Hero. He was the author of a work entitled Poliorcetica,οη the method of attacking and defending towns, of which the fourth and fifth books have been preserved. The first treats of the manner of preparing arrows, balistae, catapultae, and other warlike engines. Amongst other inventions, he mentions a machine of Ctesibius which discharged weapons by means of compressed air, upon the same principle, no doubt, as our air-gun. ‘ In the second book he treats of the manner of fortifying and provisioning cities, and, amongst other things, recommends that the provisions and water be poisoned if there be danger of the place falling into the hands of an enemy. This work has been published, with a Latin translation, in a collection entitled Veterum Mathematicoum Opera, Par. 1693. The invention of the air-gun has been treated of by Alb.- Louis Meister, De Catapulta polybola Commentatio qua locus Philonis Mechanici, in librο iv. de telorum constructione certans illustratur, Göttingen, 1768. There is another little work attributed to Philo, entitled De septem Orbis Spectaculis, part of the sixth chapter of which, and the whole of the seventh, are lost. It has been published, with a Latin translation, and many learned notes, by J. C. Orelli, Leipzig, 1816, 8vo.