whereof he spake, to wit, to God revealed through the world; that is, the Word: and this seemed to me more likely to give peace. But as for Mere Existence, albeit Philo called it the Father of all, yet had he plainly told me he meant this only for the unlearned multitude. And whereas he used one word, God, to signify two things, one thing for the learned, and another for the unlearned; herein, to say truth, his doctrine brought to my mind a certain tale of the poet Homer, which my uncle had but yesternight related unto me; how a certain mighty man of valor, and a wise counsellor among the Greeks, Ulysses by name, deceived the giant Polyphemus, saying that his name was noman. Wherefore, when Polyphemus said that noman had blinded him, his brethren, the giants, thought that he meant to say that not a man, but a god, had blinded him. And even so Philo seemed to me, when he spake to the wise and learned, to call God no man; but when he spake to the foolish and unlearned, he called Him noman, making them think He was a person.
But what troubled me in this revelation was, that it seemed not to leave any room or place for the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel. And "Why," thought I, "should the Word reveal himself only through the world, and not through mankind? But if he revealed himself through mankind (which Philo also would allow), why might he not reveal himself through a Messiah?" All that night I lay awake musing on the same thing, and asking whether it might not be that Philo spake truth in proclaiming the revelation of the Word, and yet John the son of Zachariah might also speak truth in proclaiming the revelation of the Messiah. But after long tossing of the matter in my mind I concluded that there was no cause why the one should destroy the other: so I prayed that both might be true.
