The British Orthodox Church
Metropolis of Glastonbury
GLASFRONTFeb 2015
Last Issue: 126
Feb 2015

‘Finding Philo’

Exploring the influence of Philo of Alexandria in the works of St Gregory of Nyssa

When looking into the development of Christian Philosophy, especially that of the mystical Tradition, in the Imperial world it is vitally important to understand the context of the writing and cultural impact of the Hellenic thinkers who lived and taught before the advent of Christianity.

A key aspect is looking at how the thought of the Pagan Philosophers of the Greek world such as Plato and the Stoics entered into the Christian understanding of and patristic exegetical thought on Scripture.  Things brings forward the intellectual contribution made by the Jewish Philosopher; Philo of Alexandria.  Philo was a Hellenic Jew from Alexandria and contemporary of Jesus who was heavily influenced by the Middle Platonists of his era and is thus described as being “A sort of Platonist[1]” as his work pertaining to the nature of God “assimilates the religious notions of paganism around him, particularly the later forms of Pythagoreanism and Platonism.[2]

Though this is not something significant in itself, due to the accessibility of Greek Philosophy to the Hellenised Jewish community, his use of it within the  is. Philo merged his knowledge of Scripture and his Jewish faith with his understanding of Hellenic Philosophy to produce an analysis of Scripture and precepts for a positive religious life which combines both the Platonic concepts surrounding virtue with the lives and examples given by the Patriarchs in the Pentateuch.

The works of Plato on this issue became a great influence on Early Christian thinkers, who also used their education in Philosophy of the Hellenic world to justify their faith in the Pagan communities. One such thinker was Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Saint Gregory of Nyssa was one of the Bishops now known as the Cappadocians. His Theology and Exegetical style draws on both Philo and the Christian thinker Origen. Fr. Andrew Louth writes that as well as his use of Origen’s work “the parallel with Philo is also apparent, the reason being the essential agreement of Philo and Gregory over the incomprehensibility of God[3]” which is something we will look at later in this piece.

The Life of Moses: Allegory and History

A key text to look at when studying the influence of Philo on the work of Gregory is the life of Moses. Both thinkers wrote greatly inspired pieces on this subject, as it was a vital part of the history of Abrahamic religion. Anthony Meredith explains the importance of this when he explains how “the figure of Moses exercised great influence on the Jewish and Christian imagination[4]” to the extent that “Philo wrote two treatises about Moses, Christ is portrayed as a second Moses by St Matthew, and in St Paul we are provided with an allegorical treatment of the food provided by God through Moses in the desert in 1 Corinthians 10.[5]

According to Sandmel, a key reason for Philo’s use of allegory tells us that “the intuitions, assumptions and loyalties are Jewish but the basic content of Philo’s thought is Grecian”[6] as he demonstrates a dedication to the vitality of Judaism but shows a clear strand of Hellenic Philosophy in his works which does not allow for literalism or a simply understanding of Scripture.

Though it can be argued that this was part of the on-going trait of Hellenisation, it is important to note that to from Philo we see a way of interpreting Scripture to bring us closer to God through[7] “attending to His self-disclosure in his word and in his word in Scripture”. This was, as Louth explains “something that the Church fathers were to take up and make their own.[8]

The first key point to be noted with their treatment of the text is that both accept many points of allegory over a literal interpretation of the text.  This could be argued as a point of influence though at the same time more likely reached Gregory through early Christian thinkers such as Hippolytus and especially the many works of Origen on matters of Scripture.

A first clear example of a shared interpretation during their lives of Moses is the Prophet’s encounter with the Burning Bush. In Philo’s account he links this to the experiences of the Israelites as he clearly states that:

“The Burning Bush was a symbol of the Oppressed people and the burning fire was a symbol of the oppressors; and the circumstance of the burning bush not being consumed was an emblem of the fact that the people this oppressed would not be destroyed by those who were attacking them...[9]

Gregory, on the other hand, connects the event to a more Christian interpretation. He sees the Burning Bush as being a way of understanding the Theophany when he says:

“From this we learn also the Mystery of the Virgin: the light of divinity which through birth shone from her into human life did not consume the burning bush, even as the flower of her virginity was not withered by giving birth.[10]

This use of allegorical interpretation is seen throughout the text and is especially important when looking at Gregory’s linking of symbolism in the life of Moses to themes of the incarnation and Christian living. A key example of this is Moses’ Serpent Staff which Gregory sees as having transformed into such “to signify in a figure the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation.[11]  When looking at this event, it is vital to note that Philo did not make comment of this event, simply stating that “Moses marvelled at both changes; not knowing which was the most wonderful.[12]

From here, both thinkers go on to explain the development of Moses as a prophet and his eventual deification, linking key events and miracles throughout his life to stages of his growth as a spiritual and religious leader of his people in the desert. The key point of man’s development as the centrality of both Philo and Gregory’s Mystical Theology and the clear links between Philo and Gregory’s approaches to this will become evident as we progress.

The Development of the self

When looking into their lives of the patriarchs, a key shared feature in their narratives and commentaries is the spiritual development and progress of man through his life. Here we again see many features of Philo’s philosophy in the work of Gregory of Nyssa. These features are recognised as Platonic in their origins, though both of these two Philosophers refused to reject these altogether, moulding them into a Judeo-Christian context.

In the works of Philo, we see a development of the person as a development of the Soul, or the higher mind. Which is in conflict with our lower mind which prefers carnal urges to higher pursuits. The establishment of the higher mind, in Philo’s view, would lead to the creation of order between the different parts of what make up ‘us.’ Goodenough explains that there is only one way for ‘us’ to be at peace and that “the only possible solution is the conquest of the lower members, by the higher mind, not their annihilation, though their first defeat is so complete that they seem crucified or drowned in the sea.[13]” This is because the Higher Mind, as the Spirit of God in us, is the part of us which is in sync with God and therefore allows us the complete regeneration through his will.

To Philo, this is a lifelong struggle between man’s mortal nature and his immortal soul which begins at his born from which point on “Our bodies pull us towards what is material, what is evil,[14]” whilst “Our souls pull us towards what is immaterial, what is good.[15]

As explained by Louth, Philo’s recognition of the Soul as a creature “also leads to an emphasis that the Soul’s capacity to know God is not a natural capacity, but rather something God given,[16]” which is a theme also covered in the works of Gregory, who shared Philo’s idea of the temporal and sensible body as being separate from the immortal and spiritual human soul though inexplicably combined.

 Throughout his writings we see key expressions of this in Gregory’s Philosophy. In his work ‘On the Soul and Resurrection’ the Dialogue on the soul led by his sister Macrina examines the condition of the Soul and states clearly the belief that “the simplicity and invisibility of the soul and the solidity of the body have nothing in common according to the principle of their natures.[17]”  This is further detailed when she looks at the soul’s combination with the body and concludes that “we do not doubt that the life-giving energy of the soul is in these bodies, combined with them in some manner beyond human comprehension.[18]

Also Gregory supports Philo’s belief in the need of the Soul (or spirit) to govern the human in order to benefit or develop the spiritual life, explaining that “when reason does not control the impulse which naturally lies in them, the fierce animals are destroyed by anger because they fight amongst themselves.[19]” This, compared to the explanation given by Goodenough explaining the reasons for the higher mind to rule, demonstrates a clear continuation which is linked to a Platonic ideal of higher learning overcoming the basic human intentions.

To summarise Gregory’s view on the relationship of Body and Soul, Von Balthasar explains man as “at once spiritual and material, at once a concrete unity of nature and a multiplicity of the sensible as to be a perfect unity, universal and concrete at the same time.[20]

This unbreakable bond of Body and Soul is vital in the teaching of Gregory, as it demonstrates a clear opposition to the Platonic view of the higher consciousness as completely separate to the body.  It also opposes the view of Origen, who was influential on Gregory in many other cases. Gregory clearly opposes any suggestion of the predestination of the Soul before the body, saying that those who accept it “do not seem to me to be untainted by the pagan doctrines of the Greeks concerning the migration of souls.[21]

This is an example of Gregory’s opposition to the earlier Pagan teachings of the soul and one which is also goes against Philo’s view of the Soul’s pre-existence, which “draws Plato’s idea in the Timaeus that immortal souls are the direct creation of the demiurge,[22]” though this idea is modified by Philo to suit a Jewish context of the soul as the Spirit of God and the body as a physical creation rather than the work of other Gods.

As seen here, there are many common links between Philo’s and Gregory’s views of the soul as well as a few differences based on the extent of their willingness to draw in Pagan Philosophy. When it comes to the human progression through higher learning and morality, we see vast similarity between Gregory and Middle-Platonic thinkers and further influence in Gregory of Philo’s conversion of their ideas into a Monotheistic, Abrahamic Context.

Morality, education and the Soul

The growth and development of the human through embracing education has been a common theme in Philosophy through the ages. From Plato in Ancient Athens to the Ethics of John Stewart Mill, the acceptance higher forms of education have always been associated with the betterment of mankind. This theme is demonstrated in both Philo of Alexandria, though the influence of Philo on Gregory’s spiritual ideal goes further, as Gregory embraced much of Philo’s views on the role of Scripture in this process.

As mentioned, the concept of education as being part of a path to some higher life is a Platonic teaching, so it is understood that any influence or interaction between these two can be a clear line from the Platonic view through Philo, Origen and Gregory. As Louth explains, Philo’s concept of ascent that it is “one of purification, both Moral and Intellectual,[23]” which consists of three stages.

The first stage is conversion to ‘Pure religion.’ Philo, as a Jewish Philosophers, weighs the concept of pure religion as a belief in the Transcendent God of his faith and Philosophy as opposed to the Pagan beliefs and Pantheon.  One key aspect in learning this came from an education in the traditional arts of mathematics and Physics to allow someone to understand the world itself. Goodenough explain how from studying the Sciences we can “get not only preparation for true knowledge, but also a rudimentary and valuable introduction to the virtues.[24]

This Gnosis which mankind acquires through the sciences of the time are established to benefit through various ways such as “music to rhythm and concord; mathematics to justice; rhetoric and dialectic to true perception and deduction.[25]” Though this is seen as a useful tool for understanding existence and preparing one for a moral education, it is only seen by Philo as earthly knowledge and therefore just a stepping stone to true education.

The second phase in Philo’s development is Self-Knowledge, which develops the higher mind, allowing the Soul to understand itself. This development of morality is the time in which man can leave the study of pagan sciences and look to scripture and moral living through this. Unlike the last phase, which involved seeking knowledge of the material and sensible world, this phase has the goal righteous living and knowledge of the Soul. This is achieved “when man, observing the Laws of Moses, thereby progresses from this sensible into the intelligible world where virtue, piety and wisdom abide.[26]

In Philo’s thought here, there is an emphasis on the failure of Pagan teachings to achieve this goal, which now becomes part of the realm of his Jewish Faith and Scripture instead of sciences. This is because Philo understands the Soul as a creature that must understand itself, something that cannot be achieved through study of the sensible world. This understanding of the Soul, in Philo’s view, would then lead to a freedom from the Sensible. In short, Scripture allows a greatest closeness to God through his direct word, making it “a real way of feeding his love for God.[27]

When comparing Philo’s views to those of Gregory we see a distinct agreement in many fields. Firstly, Gregory did not have a problem with the idea of seeking a Pagan education to understand the sciences and mathematics and secondly, Gregory appeals greatly to the moral life as a key part of spiritual growth. He advises the same path as Philo, as shown in his life of Moses when Moses says “learns first things that must be known about God[28]” and then “he is taught the other side of virtue, learning by what pursuits the virtuous life is perfected.[29]

Gregory also sees morality as being of extreme importance in the spiritual development of a person, though not for the sake of morality itself. Gregory, in his writing, sought to reform the Platonic idea of virtue being practiced as part of developing knowledge to make it compatible with the Christian ideal as shown in the Gospel of Matthew when it is said “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God[30]and is similar to the ideas of Origen in his writing ‘On first Principles.’

As shown in his writings on the Beatitudes, Gregory brings much attention to virtue and puts it at the Centre of his text On the Perfection. In this, Gregory lists three key components as vital to the life of excellence. The three components are ‘thought, idea and action’ and work in this order as Gregory believed that “Virtuous action is seen as the result of thought and knowledge rather than conditioning.[31] Here we see the one key difference with Philo teaching of the acquisition of the Virtuous life for the sake of learning about the Soul’s nature and Gregory doing so in order to gain knowledge of God.

The teaching of the knowledge of God is also vital in both of these Philosophers’ works, with both bringing contemplation of Scripture into their works as an important part of gaining insight. This is where the influence of Philo appears and also many differences emerge, since Philo was the pioneer in the Abrahamic development of Platonic thought but his Jewish faith differed from Gregory’s Christianity leading to some clear changes being made in Gregory’s view of scripture.

Scripture and Logos

In Philo’s view contemplation on the scriptures are the ways in which we can learn about God. Philo does not believe that we can see God in any way other than through what he shows us. Philo’s approach is to use Scripture to discover God, though not fully since “this is only a stage: The soul that seeks God as he is in himself will see to ascend beyond God’s manifestation of himself through the Word of God in itself.[32]” What this means is that scripture is not a complete way to see God, as God is infinite. It is therefore impossible to fully understand God, though this will be explained further in the next section.

Gregory holds a similar view on the contemplation of Scripture, with it being a way of understanding God a key difference we see in Gregory is that he has the benefit in Christianity of the incarnation which brings an extra level of understanding to humanity. This brings Philosophy to a full circle as “it is no Longer a question of how the soul can approach God but of learning how, indeed, God has approached us,[33]” which adds a new dimension to Philo’s view of God being visible in only what he has shown us.

One way in which God is seen to transfer knowledge to us in Both Philo and Gregory is through the Logos, though the term has a completely different meaning based on which of the thinkers you are reading. This is due to the different use of the term in the stoic tradition to that of the Christian fathers.

Philo is one of pioneers of the term Logos, and does not use it in the same as our modern understanding of the ‘Word’ of God, and simply meant any kind of speech or utterance rather than the later Latin interpretation as ‘The Word’.  In order to understand it we need to take away all presuppositions and look at the role of the Logos in Philo’s thought. In Philo’s view, the Logos is a knowable aspect of the unknowable God as the Divine “reaches down into the intelligible world in the form of the logos.[34]” As well as the Logos, God also contains two other powers, the creative and the Kingly, though the Logos is the highest of these and manifested through God’s revelations to mankind in scripture.

In Philo’s thought the Logos was not a separate entity in itself but a flow of the divine which is knowable to mankind and allows humankind to contemplate parts of God’s reality. This contemplation was made possible by mankind reaching to receive this communication rather than the Logos descending to the realm of the sensible, which meant contemplation, was required. Louth notes that “this strand in Philo’s doctrine of the word is something quite original to him,[35]” in allowing God to remain unknowable yet communicate with us through a separate means. It effectively solves the Paradox of a God who is completely immanent yet transcendent through allowing God to remain apart from us in his entirety yet reach us. This is a reason why Christian authors were so eager to use it in their own faith.

“The ancient world was presented with an entirely new sort of problem when the Christians later identified the Logos with the extremely personal individual Jesus of Nazareth,[36]” states Goodenough. This refers to the use of the Logos as a Christian symbol representing the man Jesus as the Word of God. This brought with it a new concept of the Divine rays and a form of revelation in this Logos becoming incarnate flesh.

During his lifetime, Gregory of Nyssa discussed the Logos in relation to scripture and the incarnation and speaks of contemplation on the creation, scripture and the Incarnation as a vital part of the contemplative life. In the view of Gregory, contemplation is not just the contemplation of God since he cannot be completely understood, but the contemplation of “God as he has manifested himself to us through his divine energies.[37]” So, as with Philo, Gregory sees contemplation on the Logos in Scripture as vital though has the additional output of the incarnation as physical Logos as a secondary beacon of contemplation.

Another way in which Gregory is seen as developing Philo’s view on Scripture and spiritual progress is that through his Christian lens of exegesis Gregory demonstrates a revelation of Christ in the Old Testament. One example of this is the Snake Headed Staff during the Exodus. Gregory describes the Staff’s healing of those bitten by serpents as a revelation of the Cross. He explains how:

 “Man, then, is freed from sin through him who assumed the form of sin and became like us who had turned into the form of the Serpent. He keeps the bites form causing death, but the beasts themselves are not destroyed. By Beasts I mean desires. For although the evil of death which follows sins does not prevail against those who look to the cross, the lust of flesh against spirit has not completely ceased to exist.[38]” Here we have a clear like to John 3:14-15, which says “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him[39]” and a clear example of the contemplation of Scripture in Gregory giving knowledge of not just God but the revelation also.

This use of the revelation of Christ as a key part of Gregory’s Christian understanding of God and demonstrates an adaptation on the understanding of Scriptural contemplation in Philo. This difference in understanding of the importance of Scripture and Revelation is even clearer when looked at in the context of their views of God. Though both see God as an infinite and unknowable creator, the influence of the revelation of Jesus Christ and Christian tradition on Gregory’s understanding of the nature of God can be clearly seen when comparing the two.

God and the Darkness

As mentioned, Philo’s understanding of God is that he is unknowable and Transcendent. Sandmel explains that from Philo’s perspective “we can know that God exists, his existence is an axiom… We can know that God exists, but as to our knowing what he is, Philo repeatedly assures us that we can never know that.[40]So in Philo we have a God who we can only understand through his creations and what he allows us to see. He is compared, by Goodenough to a “king who governed his subjects though never seen by more than a handful of them.[41]” In only his appearing by his choice, the unknowable God is made clear.

What we can understand about God is also made clear in the writings and thought of Philo, as is the reaction and experience of God. As we have seen, the training of the soul allows a better understanding of the nature of the insensible which makes God’s way more understandable and through Scripture and the meditation on this conduit of divine understanding we can know of both the path to and experience of knowing the divine closer, though we can never understand him fully as he is beyond human comprehension.

Gregory’s understanding of the infinite nature of God is clear, especially in his writings against Eumonius where he argues that Eumonius’ attempts to define the divine nature are illogical as the Divine is beyond definition. Gregory’s argument is based on the idea that perfection is infinite, an idea which he echoes in his opening of The Life of Moses when he tells the reader that “it is also impossible for those who pursue the life of virtue to attain perfection[42]” as “perfection is not marked off by limits.[43]

With this definition of perfection with regards to virtue, Gregory also explains the motivation for his view of an infinite divine when he explains that “since it has not been demonstrated that there is any limit to virtue except evil, and since the Divine does not admit of an opposite, we hold the divine nature to be unlimited and infinite.[44]

With this lack of a human ability to reach the perfection of the infinite divine, it is hard to understand how mankind can understand God’s nature. A key text explaining this is Philo’s life of Moses which charts the development of Moses into what Philo saw as a perfect man. This is not only key in understanding a path towards God but also in giving an insight into the nature of God himself through his meetings with Moses on Mount Sinai and other mediums.

When Moses is labelled as a “Friend of God[45]” by Philo, it is explained how he is closer to God than any others. Philo’s language here reveals much about the Nature of God in Philo, which we see replicated to a degree in the works of Gregory.  Philo describes how Moses was “said to have entered into the Darkness where God was; that is to say, into the invisible, and shapeless, and incorporeal world, the essence, which is the model of all existing things, where he beheld things invisible to human nature…[46]which is a clear realm of the idea and the insensible, above the heavens.

Though this entry into the realm of ideas would spark a communion with God to later Christian thinkers, it is not the case for Philo, as this is where someone would enter the ecstatic state of something he describes as a ‘Sober Drunkenness.’ This sober intoxication is one of the four types of ecstasy described by Philo and bears an opposite nature to the strict and rigid mind-set of the mind which is seeking God.

This Sober intoxication is spoken of in Philo’s Allegorical Interpretation where he says “the colour of a coal when on fire is akin to that of a man who in inclined to confession: for he is inflamed by gratitude to God and he is intoxicated with a certain sober intoxication[47]” as opposed to the green stone which is “more appropriate to the man who is still labouring: for those who are devoted to constant labour are pale on account of wearing the nature of toil.[48]

To Philo this does not mean that the man has reached the end of his quest, but that he has reached a point in his growth that the worldly cares leave him. As Louth explains, “this is the wise man, the one to for whom the longing to know God has become all-devouring, the one for whom the quest is the life and that quest endless.[49]

This Divine Darkness and Sober Intoxication both also appear in the writings of Saint Gregory of Nyssa and the Church fathers, though they are not held in an identical understanding to that of Philo, as we see in Gregory’s life of Moses where he contrasts the dark cloud to the enlightening flame of the burning bush.

Gregory explains how “then the Divine was held in light, but now he is seen in darkness.[50]” When doing this, Gregory finds it important to explain that this darkness is not the same as that which was enlightened by the Burning Bush but a Darkness in which God dwells.

To do this, Gregory states that traditionally “what is contrary to religion is darkness, and the escape from darkness comes about when one participates in light[51]” but then goes on to explain the situation in terms of knowledge and virtue. Since Moses has learnt of the nature of the world and understands virtue and the Soul he comes to realise that as the mind “approaches more nearly to contemplation, it sees more clearly what of the divine nature is contemplated.[52]” Gregory understands this as the infinite perfection of the Divine which will never be completely contemplated as “perfection is not marked off by limits[53]” and thus full contemplation is impossible, as is also the case in Philo’s teaching.

The Sober intoxication also emerges in the teaching of Gregory and in leaving behind of the senses his Homilies on the Canticle. According to Bouyer, the link to Philo’s teaching is direct here and links also to “that of the sleep of the senses as the condition of the Soul’s awakening to the sudden appearance of God.[54]” To Gregory, this is part of the spiritual experience which is borne in the mind which allows for one to become “attentive to the contemplation of invisible things.[55]

In this again, we see a link between Philo’s  wise man to for whom the longing to know God has become all-devouring and Gregory’s wise man who has left all cares to be attentive to the contemplation of the invisible.

Conclusion

There are many aspects of Gregory’s philosophy which demonstrate the influence of Philo, such as his use of the logos, understanding of divine darkness and also his use of Philo’s semi-Platonic exegetical tracts to explain Biblical concepts in relation to Hellenic Philosophy. The Life on Moses as a piece of commentary demonstrates this in itself with a fair number of shared aspects in which Gregory incorporates Philo’s interpretation into his Christian understanding of the events.

The Christian understanding of the Hellenistic concepts put forth by Philo and the middle-Platonic movement as a whole is also hailed as one of the greatest aspects of originality Gregory’s work as he was able to take the teachings of both the pagan and Jewish thinkers and Christianise them, though it is arguable that this also owes to Philo who put the concepts in terms of the Abrahamic faith.

In conclusion, Philo’s contribution to the work of Gregory is substantial, as it allowed the clear transmission of the Monotheistic Abrahamic faith into the sphere of middle-Platonic thought. This, in turn, allowed many Christian ideas to be formulated in Philosophical terms of Gregory’s writing. The influence is not completely direct though, as is seen in Gregory’s interpretation of aspects such as the Soul show a divergence from Philo’s traditionally Platonic thought. Therefore it is clear though Philo influenced Gregory to a great degree though many points differ, allowing for a separate but similar Philosophy to emerge in the Nicene Christian world.

 

Bibliography

Bouyer, L, (2004), The Christian Mystery, T&T Clarke International, London

Goodenough, E G, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, Yale University Press, London

Louth, A , (2009), The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Meredith, A, (1995), The Cappadocians, Gregory Chapman, York

Sandmel, S, (1979) Philo of Alexandria, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, (1993), On the Soul and Resurrection, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, (1961), From Glory to Glory, John Murray, London

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, (2006), The Life of Moses, Harper One, New York

Spidlik T, (1986), The Spirituality of the East, Cistercian Publications, Michigan

Von Balthasar, H, (1988), Presence and Thought, Communio Books, San Francisco

Younge, C D, (1993), The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Publishers, USA

 

Deacon Daniel Malyon

[1] P4, Sandmel, 1979

[2] P16, Goodenough, 1940

[3] P80, Louth, 2009

[4] P68, Meredith, 1995

[5] P68, Meredith, 1995

[6] P28 Sandmel, 1979

[7] P29, Louth, 2009

[8] P29, Louth, 2009

[9] P465, Philo, tr. Yonge, 1993

[10] P37, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[11] P39, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[12] P466, Philo, tr. Yonge, 1993

[13] P155-156, Goodenough, 1940

[14] P83, Sandmel, 1979

[15] P83-84, Sandmel, 1979

[16] P25, Louth, 2009

[17] P46, Gregory Tr. Roth, 1993

[18] P46, Gregory Tr. Roth, 1993

[19] P57, Gregory Tr. Roth, 1993

[20] P50, Von Balthasar, 1995

[21] De Hom op. 28 quoted in P58, Von Balthasar, 1995

[22] P25, Louth, 2009

[23] P25, Louth, 2009

[24] P179, Goodenough, 1940

[25] P179, Goodenough, 1940

[26] P28, Sandmel, 1979

[27] P28, Louth, 2009

[28] P81, Gregory Tr. Roth, 1993

[29] P81, Gregory Tr. Roth, 1993

[30] Matt 5:8, NIV

[31] P58, Meredith, 1995

[32] P29, Louth, 2009

[33] P133, Von Balthasar, 1995

[34] P94, Sandmel, 1979

[35] P29, Louth, 2009

[36] P179, Goodenough, 1940

[37] P84, Louth, 2009

[38] P117, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[39] John 3:14-15, NIV

[40] P21, Sandmel, 1979)

[41] P132, Goodenough, 1940

[42] P5, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[43] P5, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[44] P5, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[45] 156, Mos I, Philo tr. Yonge, 1993

[46] 158, Mos I, Philo tr. Yonge, 1993

[47] 84, leg. all I, Philo tr. Yonge, 1993

[48] 84, leg. all I, Philo tr. Yonge, 1993

[49] P33, Louth, 2009

[50] P80, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[51] P80, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[52] P80, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[53] P5, Gregory, Tr. Malherbe, 2006

[54] P213, Bouyer, 2004

[55] P215, Bouyer, 2004