Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim
1883

Volume 1

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST, THE JEWISH
DISPERSION IN THE EAST.

CHAPTER I

Among the outward means by which the religion of Israel was
preserved, one of the most important was the centralisation
and localisation of its worship in Jerusalem. If to some the
ordinances of the Old Testament may in this respect seem
narrow and exclusive, it is at least doubtful, whether
without such a provision Monothsiem itself could have
continued as a creed or a worship. In view of the state of
the ancient world, and of the tendencies of Israel during the
earlier stages of their history, the strictest isolation was
necessary in order to preserve the religion of the Old
Testament from that mixture with foreign elements which would
speedily have proved fatal to its existence. And if one
source of that danger had ceased after the seventy years'
exile in babylonia, the dispersion of the greater part of the
nation among those manners and civilisation would necessarily
influence them, rendered the continuance of this separation
of as great importance as before. In this respect, even
traditionalism had its mission and use, as a hedge around the
Law to render its infringement or modification impossible.

Wherever a Roman, a Greek, or an Asiatic might wander, he
could take his gods with him, or find rites kindred to his
own. It was far otherwise with the Jew. He had only one
Temple, that in Jerusalem; only one God, Him Who had once
throned there between the Cherubim, and Who was still King
over Zion. That Temple was the only place where a
God-appointed, pure priesthood could offer acceptable
sacrifices, whether for forgiveness of sin, or for fellowship
with God. Here, in the impenetrable gloom of the innermost
sanctuary, which the High-Priest alone might enter once a
year for most solemn expiation, had stood the Ark, the leader
of the people into the Land of Promise, and the footstool on
which the Schechinah had rested. From that golden altar rose
the cloud in incense, symbol of Israel's accepted prayers;
that seven-branched candlestick shed its perpetual light,
indicative of the brightness of God's Covenant Presence; on
that table, as it were before the face of Jehovah, was laid,
week by week, 'the Bread of the Face,' [1 Such is the literal
meaning of what is translated by 'shewbread.'] a constant
sacrificial meal which Israel offered unto God, and wherewith
God in turn fed His chosen priesthood. On the great
blood-sprinkled altar of sacrifice smoked the daily and
festive burnt-offerings, brought by all Israel, and for all
Israel, wherever scattered; while the vast courts of the
Temple were thronged not only by native Palestinians, but
literally by 'Jews out of every nation under heaven.' Around
this Temple gathered the sacred memories of the past; to it
clung the yet brighter hopes of the future. The history of
Israel and all their prospects were intertwined with their
religion; so that it may be said that without their religion
they had no history, and without their history no religion.
Thus, history, patriotism, religion, and hope alike pointed
to Jerusalem and the Temple as the centre of Israel's unity.

Nor could the depressed state of the nation alter their
views or shake their confidence. What mattered it, that the
Idumaean, Herod, had unsurped the throne of David, expect so
far as his own guilt and their present subjection were
concerned? Israel had passed through deeper waters, and stood
triumphant on the other shore. For centuries seemingly
hopeless bondsmen in Egypt, they had not only been delivered,
but had raised the God-inspired morning-song of jubilee, as
they looked back upon the sea cleft for them, and which had
buried their oppressors in their might and pride. Again, for
weary years had their captives hung Zion's harps by the
rivers of that city and empire whose colossal grandeur,
wherever they turned, must have carried to the scattered
strangers the desolate feeling of utter hopelessness. And yet
that empire had crumbled into dust, while Israel had again
taken root and sprung up. And now little more than a century
and a half had passed, since a danger greater even than any
of these had threatened the faith and the very existence of
Israel. In his daring madness, the Syrian king, Antiochus IV.
(Epiphanes) had forbidden their religion, sought to destroy
their sacred books, with unsparing ferocity forced on them
conformity to heathen rites, desecrated the Temple by
dedicating it to Zeus Olympios, what is translated by
'shewbread.' a constant sacrificial and even reared a heathen
altar upon that of burnt-offering. [2 Macc. i. 54, 59; Jos.
Ant. xii. 5. 4.] Worst of all, his wicked schemes had been
aided by two apostate High-Priests, who had outvied each
other in buying and then prostituting the sacred office of
God's anointed. [1 After the deposition of Onias III. through
the bribery of his own brother Jason, the latter and Menelaus
outvied each other in bribery for, and prostitution of, the
holy office.] Yet far away in the mountains of Ephraim [2
Modin, the birthplace of the Maccabees, has been identified
with the modern El-Medyeh, about sixteen miles northwest of
Jerusalem, in the ancient territory of Ephraim. Comp.
Conder's Handbook of the Bible, p. 291; and for a full
reference to the whole literature of the subject, see Schurer
(Neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 78, note 1).] God had raised for them
most unlooked-for and unlikely help. Only three years later,
and, after a series of brilliant victories by undisciplined
men over the flower of the Syrian army, Judas the Maccabee,
truly God's Hammer [3 On the meaning of the name Maccabee,
comp. Grimm's Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. z. d. Apokr. Lief.
iii., pp. ix. x. We adopt the derivation from Maqqabha, a
hammer, like Charles Martel.] had purified the Temple, and
restored its altar on the very same day [4 1 Macc. 1. 54.] on
which the 'abomination of desolation' [5 1 Macc. iv. 52-54:]
Megill. Taan. 23. had been set up in its place. In all their
history the darkest hour of their night had ever preceded the
dawn of a morning brighter than any that had yet broken. It
was thus that with one voice all their prophets had bidden
them wait and hope. Their sayings had been more than
fulfilled as regarded the past. Would they not equally become
true in reference to that far more glorious future for Zion
and for Israel, which was to be ushered in by the coming of
the Messiah?

Nor were such the feelings of the Palestinian Jews only.
These indeed were now a minority. The majority of the nation
constituted what was known as the dispersion; a term which,
however, no longer expressed its original meaning of
banishment by the judgment of God, [6 Alike the verb in
Hebrew, and in Greek, with their derivatives, are used in the
Old Testament, and in the rendering of the LXX., with
reference to punitive banishment. See, for example, Judg.
xviii. 30; 1 Sam. iv. 21; and in the LXX. Deut. xxx. 4; Ps.
cxlvii. 2; Is. xlix. 6, and other passages.] since absence
from Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But all the more
that it referred not to outward suffering, [7 There is some
truth, although greatly exaggerated, in the bitter remarks of
Hausrath (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93), as to the
sensitiveness of the Jews in the, and the loud outcry of all
its members at any interference with them, however trivial.
But events unfortunately too often proved how real and near
was their danger, and how necessary the caution 'Obsta
principiis.'] did its continued use indicate a deep feeling
of religious sorrow, of social isolation, and of political
strangership [8 St. Peter seems to have used it in that
sense, 1 Pet. i. 1.] in the midst of a heathen world. For
although, as Josephus reminded his countrymen, [Jew. W ii.
16. 4.] there was 'no nation inthe world which had not among
them part of the Jewish people,' since it was 'widely
dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants,' [b vii.
3.3.] yet they had nowhere found a real home. A century and a
half before our era comes to us from Egypt [1 Comp. the
remarks of Schneckenburger (Vorles u. Neutest. Zeitg. p.
95).] ,where the Jews possessed exceptional privileges,
professedly from the heathen, but really fdrom the Jewish [2
Comp. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag. xxii. 39.] Sibyl, this
lament of Israel:, Crowding with thy numbers every ocean and
country, Yet an offense to all around thy presence and
customs! [3 Orac Sibyll. iii. 271,272, apud Friedlieb, p.
62.] Sixty years later the Greek geographer and historian
Strabo bears the like witness to their presence in every
land, but in language that shows how true had been the
complaint of the Sibyl. [4 Strabo apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 7.2:
'It is not easy to find a place in the world that has not
admitted this race, and is not mastered by it.'] The reasons
for this state of feeling will by-and-by appear. Suffice it
for the present that, all unconsciously, Philo tells its
deepest ground, and that of Israel's loneliness in the
heathen world, when speaking, like the others, of his
countrymen as in 'all the cities of Europe, in the provinces
of Asia and in the islands,' he describes them as, wherever
sojourning, having but one metropolis, not Alexandria,
Antioch, or Rome, but 'the Holy City with its Temple,
dedicateda to the Most High God.' [5 Philo in Flaccum (ed.
Francf.), p. 971.] A nation, the vast majority of which was
dispersed over the whole inhabited earth, had ceased to be a
special, and become a world-nation. [6 Comp. Jos. Ant. xii.
3; xiii. 10. 4; 13. 1; xiv. 6. 2; 8. 1; 10. 8; Sueton. Caes.
85.] Yet its heart beat in Jerasulem, and thence the
life-blood passed to its most distant members. And this,
indeed, if we rightly understand it, was the grand object of
the 'Jewish dispersion' throughout the world.

What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, to
the Western, rather than to the Eastern 'dispersion.' The
connection of the latter with Palestine was so close as
almost to seem one of continuity. In the account of the truly
representative gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable
Feast of Weeks, [a Acts ii. 9-11] the division of the
'dispersion' into two grand sections, the Eastern or
Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist, seems clearly
marked. [7 Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 113) quotes two passages
from Philo, in one of which he contradistinguishes 'us,' the
Hellenist Jews, from 'the Hebrews,' and speaks of the Greek
as 'our language.'] In this arrangement the former would
include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in
Mesopotamia,' Judaea standing, so to speak, in the middle,
while 'the Bretes and Arabians' would typically represent the
farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and the
Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New
Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the
'dispersion of the Greeks," [a St. John vii. 35.] and of
'Hellenists' or 'Grecians." [b Acts vi. 1;ix. 29; xi. 20.] On
the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited
Babylon and many of the other satrapies,'[c Philo ad Cajum,
p. 1023; Jos. Ant. xv. 3.1.] were included with the
Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,' from
the common language which they spoke.

But the difference between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews'
was far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the
whole direction of thought. There were mental influences at
work in the Greek world from which, in the nature of things,
it was impossible even for Jews to withdraw themselves, and
which, indeed, were as necessary for the fulfillment of their
mission as their isolation from heathenism, and their
connection with Jerusalem. At the same time it was only
natural that the Hellenists, placed as they were in the midst
of such hostile elements, should intensely wish to be Jews,
equal to their Eastern brethren. On the other hand,
Pharisaism, in its pride of legal purity and of the
possession of traditional lore, with all that it involved,
made no secret of its contempt for the Hellenists, and openly
declared the Grecian far inferior to the Babylonian
'dispersion.' [1 Similarly we have (in Men. 110a) this
curious explanation of Is. xliii. 6: 'My sons from afar',
these are the exiles in Babylon, whose minds were settled,
like men, 'and my daughters from the ends of the earth',
these are the exiles in other lands, whose minds were not
settled, like women.] That such feelings, and the suspicions
which they engendered, had struck deep into the popular mind,
appears from the fact, that even in the Apostolic Church, and
that in her earliest days, disputes could break out between
the Hellenists and the Hebrews, arising from suspicion of
unkind and unfair dealings grounded on these sectional
prejudices. [d Acts vi. 1.]

Far other was the estimate in which the Babylonians were
held by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view
of it, Babylonia, as well as 'Syria' as far north as Antioch,
was regarded as forming part of the land of Israel. [Ber. R.
17.] Every other country was considered outside 'the land,'
as Palestine was called, witht the exception of Babylonia,
which was reckoned as part of it. [e Erub. 21 a Gritt. 6 a.]
For Syria and Mesopotamia, eastwards to the banks of the
Tigris, were supposed to have been in the territory which
King David had conquered, and this made them ideally for ever
like the land of Israel. But it was just between the
Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and wealthiest
settlements of the Jews were, to such extent that a later
writer actually designated them 'the land of Israel.' Here
Nehardaa, on the Nahar Malka, or royal canal, which passed
from the Euphrates to the Tigris, was the oldest Jewish
settlement. It boasted of a Synagogue, said to have been
built by King Jechoniah with stones that had been brought
from the Temple. [1 Comp. Furst, Kult. u. Literaturgesch d.
Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. 8.] In this fortified city the vast
contributions intended for the Temple were deposited by the
Eastern Jews, and thence conveyed to their destination under
escort of thousands of armed men. Another of these Jewish
treasure-cities was Nisibis, in northern Mesopotamia. Even
the fact that wealth, which must have sorely tempted the
cupidity of the heathen, could be safely stored in these
cities and transported to Palestine, shows how large the
Jewish population must have been, and how great their general
influence.

In general, it is of the greatest importance to remember in
regard to this Eastern dispersion, that only a minority of
the Jews, consisting in all of about 50,000, originally
returned from Babylon, first under Zerubbabel and afterwards
under Ezra. [a 537 B.C., and 459-'8 B.C.] Nor was their
inferiority confined to numbers. The wealthiest and most
influential of the Jews remained behind. According to
Josephus, [b Ant. xi. 5. 2; xv. 2. 2; xviii. 9.] with whom
Philo substantially agrees, vast numbers, estimated at
millions, inhabited the Trans-Euphratic provinces. To judge
even by the number of those slain in popular risings (50,000
in Seleucia alone [2 Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 9.] ),these figures
do not seem greatly exaggerated. A later tradition had it,
that so dense was the Jewish population in the Persian
Empire, that Cyrus forbade the further return of the exiles,
lest the country should be depopulated. [3 Midrash on Cant.
v. 5, ed. Warsh. p. 26 a.] So large and compact a body soon
became a political power. Kindly treated under the Persian
monarchy, they were, after the fall of that empire, [c 330 B.
C.] favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn the
Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire, [d 63
B.C.] the Jews formed, from their national opposition to
Rome, an important element in the East. Such was their
influence that, as late as the year 40 A.D., the Roman legate
shrank from provoking their hostility. [4 Philo ad Caj.] At
thesame time it must not be thought that, even in these
favoured regions, they were wholly without persecution. Here
also history records more than one tale of bloody strife on
the part of those among whom they dwelt. [5 The following are
the chief passages in Josephus relating to that part of
Jewish history: Ant. xi. 5. 2; xiv. 13. 5; xv. 2. 7; 3. 1;
xvii. 2. 1-3; xviii. 9. 1, &c.; xx. 4. Jew. W. i. 13. 3.]

To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and of
Syria, to which they had wandered under the fostering rule of
the Macedono-Syrian monarchs (the Seleucidae), were indeed
pre-eminently the Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them the
Sanhedrin in Jerusalem intimated by fire-signals from
mountain-top to mountain-top the commencement of each month
for the regulation of the festive calendar, [1 Rosh. haSh.
ii. 4; comp. the Jer. Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud 23
b.] even as they afterwards despatched messengers into Syria
for the same purpose. [2 Rosh. haSh. i. 4.] In some respects
the Eastern dispersion was placed on the same footing; in
others, on even a higher level than the mothercountry. Tithes
and Terumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared condition, [3
Shev. vi. passim; Gitt. 8 a.] were due from them, while the
Bikkurim, or first-fruits in a fresh state, were to be
brought from Syria to Jerusalem. Unlike the heathen
countries, whose very dust defiled, the soil of Syria was
declared clean, like that of Palestine itself. [a Ohol.
xxiii. 7.] So far as purity of descent was concerned, the
Babylonians, indeed, considered themselves superior to their
Palestinian brethren. They had it, that when Ezra took with
him those who went to Palestine, he had left the land behind
him as pure as fine flour. [b Kidd. 69.] To express it in
their own fashion: In regard to the genealogical purity of
their Jewish inhabitants, all other countries were, compared
to Palestine, like dough mixed with leaven; but Palestine
itself was such by the side of Babylonia. [4 Cheth. 111 a.]
It was evemaintained, that the exact boundaries could be
traced in a district, within which the Jewish population had
preserved itself unmixed. Great merit was in this respect
also ascribed to Ezra. In the usual mode of exaggeration, it
was asserted, that, if all the genealogical studies and
researches [5 As comments upon the genealogies from 'Azel' in
1 Chr. viii. 37 to 'Azel' in ix. 44. Pes. 62 b.] had been put
together, they would have amounted to many hundred
camel-loads. There was for it, however, at least this
foundation in truth, that great care and labour were bestowed
on preserving full and accurate records so as to establish
purity of descent. What importance attached to it, we know
from the action on Ezra [c Chs. ix. x.] in that respect, and
from the stress which Josephus layson this point. [d Life i.;
Ag Apion i. 7.] Official records of descent as regarded the
priesthood were kept in the Temple. Besides, the Jewish
authorities seem to have possessed a general official
register, which Herod afterwards ordered to be burnt, from
reasons which it is not difficult to infer. But from that
day, laments a Rabbi, the glory of the Jews decreased! [6
Pes. 62 b; Sachs,Beitr. vol. ii. p. 157.]

Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Eastern
dispersion could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everything
to Ezra, the Babylonian, [1 According to tradition he
returned to Babylon, and died there. Josephus says that he
died in Jerusalem (Anti. xi. 5. 5).] a man so distinguished
that, according to tradition, the Law would have been given
by him, if Moses had not previously obtained that honor.
Putting aside the various traditional ordinances which the
Talmud ascribes to him, [2 Herzfeld has given a very clear
historical arrangement of the order in which, and the persons
by whom, the various legal determinations were supposed to
have been given. See Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. iii. pp. 240 &c.]
we know from the Scriptures what his activity for good had
been. Altered circumstances had brought many changes to the
new Jewish State. Even the language, spoken and written, was
other than formerly. Instead of the characters anciently
employed, the exiles brought with them, on their return,
those now common, the so-called square Hebrew letters, which
gradually came into general use. [a Sanh. 21 b.] [3 Although
thus introduced under Ezra, the ancient Hebrew characters,
which resemble the Samaritan, only very gradually gave way.
They are found on monuments and coins.] The language spoken
by the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaean, both in
Palestine and in Babylonia; [4 Herzfeld (u. s. vol. iii. p.
46) happily designates the Palestinian as the
Hebraeo-Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The Hebrew, as
well as the Aramaean, belongs to the Semitic group of
languages, which has thus been arranged: 1. North Semitic:
Punico-Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic (Western and Eastern
dialects). 2. South Semitic: Arabic, Himyaritic, and
Ethipian. 3. East Semitic: The Assyro-Baylonian cuneiform.
When we speak of the dialect used in Palestine, we do not, of
course, forget the great influence of Syria, exerted long
before and after the Exile. Of these three branches the
Aramaic is the most closely connected with the Hebrew. Hebrew
occupies an intermediate position between the Aramaic and the
Arabic, and may be said to be the oldest, certainly from a
literary point of view. Together with the introduction of the
new dialect into Palestine, we mark that of the new, or
square, characters of writing. The Mishnah and all the
kindred literature up to the fourth century are in Hebrew, or
rather in a modern development and adaptation of that
language; the Talmud is in Aramaean. Comp. on this subject:
DeWette-Schrader, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Eink. (8 ed.) pp.
71-88; Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol. i. 466, 468; v. 614 &c.,
710; Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Jud. pp. 7-9; Herzfeld, u.s.
pp. 44 &c., 58&c.] in the former the Western, in the latter
the Eastern dialect. In fact, the common people were ignorant
of pure Hebrew, which henceforth became the language of
students and of the Synagogue. Even there a Methurgeman, or
interpreter, had to be employed to translate into the
vernacular the portions of Scripture read in the public
services, [5 Could St. Paul have had this in mind when, in
referring to the miraculous gift of speaking in other
languages, he directs that one shall always interpret (1 Cor.
xiv. 27)? At any rate, the word targum in Ezra iv. 7 is
rendered in the LXX. by The following from the Talmud (Ber. 8
a and b) affords a curious illustration of 1 Cor. xiv. 27:
'Let a man always finish his Parashah (the daily lesson from
the Law) with the congregation (at the same time), twice the
text, and once targum.']. and the address delivered by the
Rabbis. This was the origin of the so-called Targumim, or
paraphrases of Scripture. In earliest times, indeed, it was
forbidden to the Methurgeman to read his translation or to
write down a Targum, lest the paraphrase should be regarded
as of equal authority with the original. It was said that,
when Jonathan brought out his Targum on the Prophets, a voice
from heaven was heard to utter: 'Who is this that has
revealed My secrets to men?' [a Megill. 3.] Still, such
Targumim seem to have existed from a very early period, and,
amid the varying and often incorrect renderings, their
necessity must have made itself increasingly felt.
Accordingly, their use was authoritatively sanctioned before
the end of the second century after Christ. This is the
origin of our two oldest extant Targumim: that of Onkelos (as
it is called), on the Pentateuch; and that on the Prophets,
attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names do not,
indeed, accurately represent the authorship of the oldest
Targumim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and
authoritative recensions of what, in some form, had existed
before. But although these works had their origin in
Palestine, it is noteworthy that, in the form in which at
present we possess them, they are the outcome of the schools
of Babylon.

But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt to
Babylonia. The new circumstances in which the Jews were
placed on their return seemed to render necessary an
adaptation of the Mosaic Law, if not new legislation.
Besides, piety and zeal now attached themselves to the
outward observance and study of the letter of the Law. This
is the origin of the Mishnah, or Second Law, which was
intended to explain and supplement the first. This
constituted the only Jewish dogmatics, in the real sense, in
the study of which the sage, Rabbi , scholar, scribe, and
Carshan, [1 From darash, to search out, literally, to tread
out. The preacher was afterwards called the Darshan.] were
engaged. The result of it was the Midrash, or investigation,
a term which afterwards was popularly applied to commentaries
ont he Scriptures and preaching. From the outset, Jewish
theology divided into two branches: the Halakhah and the
Haggadah. The former (from halakh, to go) was, so to speak,
the Rule of the Spiritual Road, and, when fixed, had even
greater authority than the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the
since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the
Haggadah [2 The Halakhah might be described as the apocryphal
Pentateuch, the personal saying of the teacher, more or less
valuable according to his learning and popularity, or the
authorities which he could quote in his support. Unlike the
Halakhah, the Haggadah had no absolute authority, either as
to doctrine practice, or exegesis. But all the greater would
be its popular influence, [1 We may here remind ourselves of
1 Tim. v. 17. St. Paul, as always, writes with the familiar
Jewish phrases ever recurring to his mind. The expression
seems to be equivalent to Halakhic teaching. Comp. Grimm,
Clavis N. T. pp. 98, 99.] and all the more dangerous the
doctrinal license which it allowed. In fact, strange as it
may sound, almost all the doctrinal teaching of the Synagogue
is to be derived from the Haggadah and this also is
characteristic of Jewish traditionalism. But, alike in
Halakhah and Haggadah, Palestine was under the deepest
obligation to Babylonia. For the father of Halakhic study was
Hillel, the Babylonian, and among the popular Haggadists
there is not a name better known than that of Eleazar the
Mede, who flourished in the first century of our era.

After this, it seems almost idle to inquire whether, during
the first period after the return of the exiles from Babylon,
there were regular theological academies in Babylon. Although
it is, of course, impossible to furnish historical proof, we
can scarely doubt that a community so large and so intensely
Hebrew would not have been indifferent to that study, which
constituted the main thought and engagement of their brethren
in Palestine. We can understand that, since the great
Sanhedrin in Palestine exercised supreme spiritual authority,
and in that capacity ultimately settled all religious
questions, at least for a time, the study and discussion of
these subjects should also have been chiefly carried on in
the schools of Palestine; and that even the great Hillel
himself, when still a poor and unknown student, should have
wandered thither to acquire the learning and authority, which
at that period he could not have found in his own country.
But even this circumstance implies, that such studies were at
least carried on and encouraged in Babylonia. How rapidly
soon afterwards the authority of the Babylonian schools
increased, till they not only overshadowed those of
Palestine, but finally inherited their prerogatives, is well
known. However, therefore, the Palestinians in their pride or
jealousy might sneer, [2 In Moed Q. 25 a. sojourn in Babylon
is mentioned as a reason why the Shekhinah could not rest
upon a certain Rabbi.] that the Babylonians were stupid,
proud, and poor ('they ate bread upon bread'), [3 Pes. 34 b;
Men. 52 a; Sanh. 24 a; Bets. 16 a, apud Neubauer, Geog. du
Talmud, p. 323. In Keth. 75 a, they are styled the 'silly
Babylonians.' See also Jer. Pes. 32 a.] even they had to
acknowledge that, 'when the Law had fallen into oblivion, it
was restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was a second time
forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it; and
when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija came
from Babylon and gave it back once more.' [4 Sukk. 20 a. R.
Chija, one of the teachers of the second century, is among
the most.celebrated Rabbinical authorities, around whose
memory legend has thrown a special halo.] Such then was that
Hebrew dispersion which, from the first, constituted Such
then was that Hebrew dispersion which, from the first,
constituted really the chief part and the strength of the
Jewish nation, and with which its religious future was also
to lie. For it is one of those strangely significant, almost
symbolical, facts in history, that after the destruction of
Jerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to
Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress of
political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the
seats of Israel's ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by its
own act what the judgment of God had formerly executed. But
long before that time the Babylonian 'dispersion' had already
stretched out its hands in every direction. Northwards, it
had spread through Armenia, the Caucasus, and to the shores
of the Black Sea, and through Media to those of the Caspian.
Southwards, it had extended to the Persian Gulf and through
the vast extent of Arabia, although Arabia Felix and the land
of the Homerites may have received their first Jewish
colonies from the opposite shores of Ethiopia. Eastwards it
had passed as far as India. [1 In this, as in so many
respects, Dr. Neubauer has collated very interesting
information, to which we refer. See his Geogr. du Talm. pp.
369-399.] Everywhere we have distinct notices of these
wanderers, and everywhere they appear as in closest
connection with the Rabbinical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus
the Mishnah, in an extremely curious section, [2 The whole
section gives a most curious glimpse of the dress and
ornaments worn by the jews at that time. The reader
interested in the subject will find special information int
he three little volumes of Hartmann (Die Hebraerin am
Putztische), in N. G. Schroder's some-what heavy work: De
Vestitu Mulier. Hebr., and especially in that interesting
tractate, Trachten d. Juden, by Dr. A. Brull, of which,
unfortunately, only one part has appeared.] tells us how on
Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia might wear their long veils,
and those of India the kerchief round the head, customary in
those countries, without incurring the guilt of desecrating
the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of the
law, would be a burden; [a Shabb. vi. 6.] while in the rubric
for the Day of Atonement we haveit noted that the dress which
the High-Priest wore 'between the evenings' of the great
fast, that is, as afternoon darkened into evening, was of
most costly 'Indian' stuff. [b Yoma iii. 7.]

That among such a vast community there should have been
poverty, and that at one time, as the Palestinians sneered,
learning may have been left to pine in want, we can readily
believe. For, as one of the Rabbis had it in explanation of
Deut. xxx. 13: 'Wisdom is not "beyond the sea", that is, it
will not be found among traders or merchants,' [c Er. 55 a.]
whose mind must be engrossed by gain. And it was trade and
commerce which procured to the Babylonians their wealth and
influence, although agriculture was not neglected. Their
caravans, of whose camel drivers, by the way, no very
flattering account is given [a Kidd. iv.], carried the rich
carpets and woven stuffs of the East, as well as its precious
spices, to the West: generally through Palestine to the
Phoenician harbours, where a fleet of merchantmen belonging
to Jewish bankers and shippers lay ready to convey them to
every quarter of the world. These merchant princes were
keenly alive to all that passed, not only in the financial,
but in the political world. We know that they were in
possession of State secrets, and entrusted with the
intricacies of diplomacy. Yet, whatever its condition, this
Eastern Jewish community was intensely Hebrew. Only eight
days' journey, though, according to Philo's western ideas of
it, by a difficult road [1 Philo ad Cajum, ed. Frcf. p.
1023.], separated them from Palestine; and every pulsation
there vibrated in Babylonia. It was in the most outlying part
of that colony, in the wide plains of Arabia, that Saul of
Tarsus spent those three years of silent thought and unknown
labour, which preceded his re-appearance in Jerusalem, when
from the burning longing to labour among his brethren,
kindled by long residence among these Hebrews of the Hebrews,
he was directed to that strange work which was his life's
mission. [b Gal. i. 17;] And it was among the same community
that Peter wrote and laboured, [c 1 Pet. v. 13.] amidst
discouragements of which we can form some conception from the
sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the third
century it had not numbered among its members any convert to
Christianity. [2 Pes. 56 a, apud Neubauer, u. s., p. 351.] In
what has been said, no notice has been taken of those
wanderers of the ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seem
as mysterious as their after-fate. The Talmudists name four
countries as their seats. But, even if we were to attach
historic credence to their vague statements, at least two of
these localities cannot with any certainty be identified. [3
Comp. Neubauer, pp. 315, 372; Hamburger, Real-Encykl. p.
135.] Only thus far all agree as to point us northwards,
through India, Armenia, the Kurdish mountains, and the
Caucasus. And with this tallies a curious reference in what
is known as IV. Esdras, which locates them in a land called
Arzareth, a term which has, with some probability, been
identified with the land of Ararat. [4 Comp. Volkmar, Handb.
d. Einl. in d. Apokr. iite Abth., pp. 193, 194, notes. For
the reasons there stated, I prefer this to the ingenious
interpretation proposed by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of
Philol. for 1870, pp. 113, 114), who regards it as a
contraction of Erez achereth, 'another land,' referred to in
Deut. xxix. 27 (28).] Josephus [a Ant. xi. 5.2.] describes
them as an innumerable multitude, and vaguely locates them
beyond the Euphrates. The Mishnah is silent as to their
seats, but discusses their future restoration; Rabbi Akiba
denying and Rabbi Eliezer anticipating it. [b Sanh. x. 3.] [1
R. Eliezer seems to connect their return with the dawn of the
new Messianic day.] Another Jewish tradition [c Ber. R. 73.]
locates them by the fabled river Sabbatyon, which was
supposed to cease its flow on the weekly Sabbath. This, of
course, is an implied admission of ignorance of their seats.
Similarly, the Talmud [d Jer. Sanb 29 c.]speaks of three
localities whither they had been banished : the district
around the river Sabbatyon; Daphne, near Antioch; while the
third was overshadowed and hidden by a cloud.

Later Jewish notices connect the final discovery and the
return of the 'lost tribes' with their conversion under that
second Messiah who, in contradistinction to 'the Son of
David' is styled 'the Son of Joseph,' to whom Jewish
tradition ascribes what it cannot reconcile with the royal
dignity of 'the Son of David,' and which, if applied to Him,
would almost inevitably lead up to the most wide concessions
in the Christian argument. [2 This is not the place to
discuss the later Jewish fiction of a second or 'suffering'
Messiah, 'the son of Joseph,' whose special mission it would
be to bring back the ten tribes, and to subject them to
Messiah, 'the son of David,' but who would perish in the war
against Gog and Magog.] As regards the ten tribes there is
this truth underlying the strange hypothesis, that, as their
persistent apostacy from the God of Israel and His worship
had cut them off from his people, so the fulfilment of the
Divine promises to them in the latter days would imply, as it
were, a second birth to make them once more Israel. Beyond
this we are travelling chiefly into the region of conjecture.
Modern investigations have pointed to the Nestorians, [3
Comp. the work of Dr. Asahel Grant on the Nestorians. His
arguments have been well summarised and expanded in an
interesting note in Mr. Nutths Sketch of Samaritan History,
pp. 2-4.] and latterly with almost convincing evidence (so
far as such is possible) to the Afghans, as descended from
the lost tribes. [4 I would here call special attention to a
most interesting paper on the subject ('A New Afghan
Question'), by Mr. H. W. Bellew, in the 'Journal of the
United Service Institution of India,' for 1881, pp. 49-97.]
Such mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalities
seems to have been before the minds of those Rabbis who
ordered that, if at present a non-Jew weds a Jewess, such a
union was to be respected, since the stranger might be a
descendant of the ten tribes. [e Yebam 16 b.] Besides, there
is reason to believe that part of them, at least, had
coalesced with their brethren of the later exile; [5 Kidd. 69
b.] while we know that individuals who had settled in
Palestine and, presumably, elsewhere, were able to trace
descent from them.[1 So Anna from the tribe of Aser, St. Luke
ii. 36. Lutterbeck (Neutest. Lehrbegr. pp. 102, 103) argues
that the ten tribes had become wholly undistinguishable from
the other two. But his arguments are not convincing, and his
opinion was certainly not that of those who lived in the time
of Christ, or who reflected their ideas.] Still the great
mass of the ten tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our
own, lost to the Hebrew nation.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST, THE HELLENISTS, ORIGIN OF
HELLENIST LITERATURE IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE,
CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

CHAPTER II.

When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to
that in the West, we seem to breathe quite a different
atmosphere. Despite their intense nationalism, all
unconsciously to themselves, their mental characteristics and
tendencies were in the opposite direction from those of their
brethren. With those of the East rested the future of
Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the
world. The one represented old Israel, stretching forth its
hands to where the dawn of a new day was about to break.
These Jews of the West are known by the term Hellenists, from
, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks.[1
Indeed, the word Alnisti (or Alunistin), 'Greek', actually
occurs, as in Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 14 from bottom. Bohl
(Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p. 7) quotes Philo (Leg. ad Caj. p.
1023) in proof that he regarded the Eastern dispersion as a
branch separate from the Palestinians. But the passage does
not convey to me the inference which he draws from it. Dr.
Guillemard (Hebraisms in the Greek Test.) on Acts vi. 1,
agreeing with Dr. Roberts, argues that the term 'Hellenist'
indicated only principles, and not birthplace, and that there
were Hebrews and Hellenists in and out of Palestine. But this
view is untenable.]

Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, in
the nature of thing, impossible that the Jewish communities
in the West should remains unaffected by Grecian culture and
modes of though; just as, on the other hand, the Greek world,
despite popular hatred and the contempt of the higher
classes, could not wholly withdraw itself from Jewish
influences. Witness here the many converts to Judaism among
the Gentiles; [2 An account of this propaganda of Judaism and
of its results will be given in another connection.] witness
also the evident preparedness of the lands of this
'dispersion' for the new doctrine which was to come from
Judea. Many causes contributed to render the Jews of the West
accessible to Greek influences. They had not a long local
history to look back upon, nor did they form a compact body,
like their brethren in the East. They were craftsmen,
traders, merchants, settled for a time here or there, units
might combine into communities, but could not form one
people. Then their position was not favourable to the sway of
traditionalism. Their occupations, the very reasons for their
being in a 'strange land,' were purely secular. That lofty
absorption of thought and life in the study of the Law,
writtem and oral, which characterised the East, was to the,
something in the dim distance, sacred, like the soil and the
institutions of Palestine, but unattainable. In Palestine or
Babylonia numberless influences from his earliest years, all
that he saw and heard, the very force of circumstances, would
tend to make an earnest Jew a disciple of the Rabbis; in the
West it would lead him to 'hellenise.' It was, so to speak,
'in the air'; and he could no more shut his mind against
Greek thought than he could withdraw his body from
atmospheric influences. That restless, searching, subtle
Greek intellect would penetrate everywhere, and flash its
light into the innermost recesses of his home and Synagogue.

To be sure, they were intensely Jewish, these communities of
strangers. Like our scattered colonists in distant lands,
they would cling with double affection to the customs of
their home, and invest with the halo of tende memories the
sacred traditions of thir faith. The Grecian Jew might well
look with contempt, not unmingled with pity, on the
idolatrous rites practised around, from which long ago the
pitiless irony of Isaiah had torn the veil of beauty, to show
the hideousness and unreality beneath. The dissoluteness of
public and private life, the frivolity and aimlessness of
their pursuits, political aspirations, popular assemblies,
amusements, in short, the utter decay of society, in all its
phases, would lie open to his gaze. It is in terms of lofty
scorn, not unmingled with idignation, which only occasionally
gives way to the softer mood of warning, or even invitation,
that Jewish Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocrypha
or in its Apocalyptic utterances, address heathenism.

From that spectacle the Grecian Jew would turn with infinite
satisfaction, not to say, pride, to his own community, to
think of its spiritual enlightenment, and to pass in review
its exclusive privileges. [1 St, Paul fully describes these
feelings in the Epistle to the Romans.] It was with no
uncertain steps that he would go past those splendid temples
to his own humbler Synagogue, pleased to find himself there
surrounded by those who shared his descent, his faith, his
hopes; and gratified to see their number swelled by many who,
heathens by birth, had learned the error of their ways, and
now, so to speak, humbly stood as suppliant 'strangers of the
gate,' to seek admission into his sanctuary. [1 The 'Gerey
haShaar,' proselytes of the gate, a designation which some
have derived from the circumstance that Gentiles were not
allowed to advance beyond the Temple Court, but more likely
to be traced to such passages as Ex. xx. 10; Deut. xiv. 21;
xxiv. 14.] How different were the rites which he practised,
hallowed in their Divine origin, rational in themselves, and
at the same time deeply significant, from the absurd
superstitions around. Who could have compared with the
voiceless, meaningless, blasphemous heathen worship, if it
deserved the name, that of the Synagogue, with its pathetic
hymns, its sublime liturgy, its Divine Scriptures, and those
'stated sermons' which 'instructed in virtue and piety,' of
which not only Philo, [a De Vita Mosis, p. 685; Leg ad Caj.
p. 1014.]Agrippa, [b Leg. ad Caj. p. 1035.] and Josephus, [c
Ag. Apion ii. 17.] speak as a regular institution, but whose
antiquity and general prevalence is attested in Jewish
writings, [2 Comp. here Targ. Jon. on Judg. v. 2, 9. I feel
more hesitation in appealing to such passages as Ber. 19 a,
where we read of a Rabbi in Rome, Thodos (Theudos?), who
flourished several generations before Hillel, for reasons
which the passage itself will suggest to the student. At the
time of Philo, however, such instructions in the Synagogues
at Rome were a long, established institution (Ad Caj. p.
1014).] and nowhere more strongly than in the book of the
Acts of the Apostles?

And in these Synagogues, how would 'brotherly love' be
called out, since, if one member suffered, all might soon be
affected, and the danger which threatened one community
would, unless averted, ere long overwhelm the rest. There was
little need for the admonition not to 'forget the love of
strangers.' [3 Hebr. xiii. 2.] To entertain them was not
merely a virtue; in the Hellenist dispersion it was a
religious necessity. And by such means not a few whom they
would regard as 'heavenly messengers' might be welcomed. From
the Acts of the Apostles we knew with what eagerness they
would receive, and with what readiness they would invite, the
passing Rabbi or teacher, who came from the home of their
faith, to speak, if there were in them a word of comforting
exhortation for the people. [d Acts xiii. 15.] We can
scarcely doubt, considering the state of things, that this
often bore on 'the consolation of Israel.' But, indeed, all
that came from Jerusalem, all that helped them to realise
their living connection with it, or bound it more closely,
was precious. 'Letters out of Judaea,' the tidings which some
one might bring on his return from festive pilgrimage or
business journey, especially about anything connected with
that grand expectation, the star which was to rise on the
Eastern sky, would soon spread, till the Jewish pedlar in his
wanderings had carried the news to the most distant and
isolated Jewish home, where he might find a Sabbath, welcome
and Sabbath-rest.

Such undoubtedly was the case. And yet, when the Jew stepped
out of the narrow circle which he had drawn around him, he
was confronted on every side by Grecianism. It was in the
forum, in the market, in the counting, house, in the street;
in all that he saw, and in all to whom he spoke. It was
refined; it was elegant; it was profound; it was supremely
attractive. He might resist, but he could not push it aside.
Even in resisting, he had already yielded to it. For, once
open the door to the questions which it brought, if it were
only to expel, or repel them, he must give up that principle
of simple authority on which traditionalism as a system
rested. Hellenic criticism could not so be silenced, nor its
searching light be extinguished by the breath of a Rabbi. If
he attempted this, the truth would not only be worsted before
its enemies, but suffer detriment in his own eyes. He must
meet argument with argument, and that not only for those who
were without, but in order to be himself quite sure of what
he believed. He must be able to hold it, not only in
controversy with others, where pride might bid him stand
fast, but in that much more serious contest within, where a
man meets the old adversary alone in the secret arena of his
own mind, and has to sustain that terrible hand-to-hand
fight, in which he is uncheered by outward help. But why
should he shrink from the contest, when he was sure that his
was Divine truth, and that therefore victory must be on his
side? As in our modern conflicts against the onesided
inferences from physical investigations we are wont to say
that the truths of nature cannot contradict those of
revelation, both being of God, and as we are apt to regard as
truths of nature what sometimes are only deductions from
partially ascertained facts, and as truths of revelation
what, after all, may be only our own inferences, sometimes
from imperfectly apprehended premises, so the Hellenist would
seek to conciliate the truths of Divine revelation with those
others which, he thought, he recognized in Hellenism. But
what were the truths of Divine revelation? Was it only the
substance of Scripture, or also its form, the truth itself
which was conveyed, or the manner in which it was presented
to the Jews; or, if both, then did the two stand on exactly
the same footing? On the answer to these questions would
depend how little or how much he would 'hellenise.

One thing at any rate was quite certain. The Old Testament,
leastwise, the Law of Moses, was directly and wholly from
God; and if so, then its form also, its letter, must be
authentic and authoritative. Thus much on the surface, and
for all. But the student must search deeper into it, his
senses, as it were, quickened by Greek criticism; he must
'meditate' and penetrate into the Divine mysteries. The
Palestinian also searched into them, and the result was the
Midrash. But, whichever of his methods he had applied, the
Peshat, or simple criticism of the words, the Derush, or
search into the possible applications of the text, what might
be 'trodden out' of it; or the Sod, the hidden, mystical,
supranatural bearing of the words, it was still only the
letter of the text that had been studied. There was, indeed,
yet another understanding of the Scriptures, to which St.
Paul directed his disciples: the spiritual bearing of its
spiritual truths. But that needed another qualification, and
tended in another direction from those of which the Jewish
student knew. On the other hand, there was the intellectual
view of the Scriptures, their philosophical understanding,
the application to them of the results of Grecian thought and
criticism. It was this which was peculiarly Hellenistic.
Apply that method, and the deeper the explorer proceeded in
his search, the more would he feel himself alone, far from
the outside crowd; but the brighter also would that light of
criticism, which he carried, shine in the growing darkness,
or, as he held it up, would the precious ore, which he laid
bare, glitter and sparkle with a thousand varying hues of
brilliancy. What was Jewish, Palestinian, individual,
concrete in the Scriptures, was only the outside, true in
itself, but not the truth. There were depths beneath. Strip
these stories of their nationalism; idealise the individual
of the persons introduced, and you came upon abstract ideas
and realities, true to all time and to all nations. But this
deep symbolism was Pythagorean; this pre-existence of ideas
which were the types of all outward actuality, was Platonism!
Broken rays in them, but the focus of truth in the
Scriptures. Yet these were rays, and could only have come
from the Sun. All truth was of God; hence theirs must have
been of that origin. Then were the sages of the heathen also
in a sense God, taught, and God, teaching, or inspiration,
was rather a question of degree than of kind!

One step only remained; and that, as we imagine, if not the
easiest, yet, as we reflect upon it, that which in practice
would be most readily taken. It was simply to advance towards
Grecianism; frankly to recognise truth in the results of
Greek thought. There is that within us, name it mental
consciousness, or as you will, which, all unbidden, rises to
answer to the voice of intellectual truth, come whence it
may, just as conscience answers to the cause of moral truth
or duty. But in this case there was more. There was the
mighty spell which Greek philosophy exercised on all kindred
minds, and the special adaptation of the Jewish intellect to
such subtle, if not deep, thinking. And, in general, and more
powerful than the rest, because penetrating everywhere, was
the charm of Greek literature, with its brilliancy; of Greek
civilisation and culture, with their polish and
attractiveness; and of what, in one word, we may call the
'time-spirit,' that tyrannos, who rules all in their
thinking, speaking, doing, whether they list or not.

Why, his sway extended even to Palestine itself, and was
felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism.
We are not here referring to the fact that the very language
spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with
Greek, and even Latin, words Hebraised, since this is easily
accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities
of intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners. Nor
is it requisite to point out how impossible it would have
been, in presence of so many from the Greek and Roman world,
and after the long and persistent struggle of their rulers to
Grecianise Palestine, nay, even in view of so many
magnificent heathen temples on the very soil of Palestine, to
exclude all knowledge of, or contact with Grecianism. But not
to be able to exclude was to have in sight the dazzle of that
unknown, which as such, and in itself, must have had peculiar
attractions to the Jewish mind. It needed stern principle to
repress the curiosity thus awakened. When a young Rabbi, Ben
Dama, asked his uncle whether he might not study Greek
philosophy, since he had mastered the 'Law' in every aspect
of it, the older Rabbi replied by a reference to Josh. i. 8:
'Go and search what is the hour which is neither of the day
nor of the night, and in it thou mayest study Greek
philosophy.' [a Men. 99 b, towards the end.] Yet eventhe
Jewish patriarch, Gamaliel II., who may have sat with Saul of
Tarsus at the feet of his grandfather, was said to have
busied himself with Greek, as he certainly held liberal views
on many points connected with Grecianism. To be sure,
tradition justified him on the ground that his position
brought him into contact with the ruling powers, and,
perhaps, to further vindicate him, ascribed similar pursuits
to the elder Gamaliel, although groundlessly, to judge from
the circumstance that he was so impressed even with the wrong
of possessing a Targum on Job in Aramaean, that he had it
buried deep in the ground.

But all these are indications of a tendency existing. How
wide it must have spread, appears from the fact that the ban
had to be pronounced on all who studied 'Greek wisdom.' One
of the greatest Rabbis, Elisha ben Abujah, seems to have been
actually led to apostacy by such studies. True, he appears as
the 'Acher', the 'other', in Talmudic writings, whom it was
not proper even to name. But he was not yet an apostate from
the Synagogue when those 'Greek songs' ever flowed from his
lips; and it was in the very Beth-ha-Midrash, or theological
academy, that a multitude of Siphrey Minim (heretical books)
flew from his breast, where they had lain concealed. [a Jer.
Chag. ii. 1; comp. Chag. 15.] It may be so, that the
expression 'Siphrey Homeros' (Homeric writings), which occur
not only in the Talmud [b Jer. Sanh. x. 28 a.] but even in
the Mishnah [c Yad. iv. 6.] referred pre-eminently, if not
exclusively, to the religious or semi-religious Jewish
Hellenistic literature, outside even the Apocrypha. [1
Through this literature, which as being Jewish might have
passed unsuspected, a dangerous acquaintance might have been
introduced with Greek writings, the more readily, that for
example Aristobulus described Homer and Hesiod as having
'drawn from our books' (ap. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. xiii. 12).
According to Hamburger (Real-Encykl. fur Bibel u. Talmud,
vol. ii. pp. 68, 69), the expression Siphrey Homeros applies
exclusively to the Judaeo-Alexandrian heretical writings;
according to First (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simply to
Homeric literature. But see the discussion in Levy, Neuhebr.
u. Chald. Worterb., vol. i. p. 476 a and b.] But its
occurrence proves, at any rate, that the Hellenists were
credited with the study of Greek literature, and that through
them, if not more directly, the Palestinians had become
acquainted with it.

This sketch will prepare us for a rapid survey of that
Hellenistic literature which Judaea so much dreaded. Its
importance, not only to the Hellenists but to the world at
large, can scarcely be over-estimated. First and foremost, we
have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament,
venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the
time of Jesus held the place of our 'Authorized Version,' and
as such is so often, although freely, quoted, in the New
Testament. Nor need we wonder that it should have been the
people's Bible, not merely among the Hellenists, but in
Galilee, and even in Judaea. It was not only, as already
explained, that Hebrew was no longer the 'vulgar tongue' in
Palestine, and that written Targumim were prohibited. but
most, if not all, at least in towns, would understand the
Greek version; it might be quoted in intercourse with
Hellenist breathren or with the Gentiles; and, what was
perhaps equally, if not more important, it was the most
readily procurable. From the extreme labour and care bestowed
on them, Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were enormously
dear, as we infer from a curious Talmudical notice, [d Gitt.
35 last line and b.] where a common wollen wrap, which of
course was very cheap, a copy of the Psalms, of Job, and torn
pieces from Proverbs, are together valued at five maneh, say,
about 19l. Although this notice dates from the third or
fourth century, it is not likely that the cost of Hebrew
Biblical MSS. was much lower at the time of Jesus. This
would, of course, put their possession well nigh out of
common reach. On the other hand, we are able to form an idea
of the cheapness of Greek manuscripts from what we know of
the price of books in Rome at the beginning of our era.
Hundreds of slaves were there engaged copying what one
dictated. The result was not only the publication of as large
editions as in our days, but their production at only about
double the cost of what are now known as 'cheap' or 'people's
editions.' Probably it would be safe to compute, that as much
matter as would cover sixteen pages of small print might, in
such cases, be sold at the rate of about sixpence, and in
that ratio. [1 Comp. Friedlander, Sitteng. Roms, vol. iii. p.
315.] Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek or Latin, although
often incorrect, must have been easily attainable, and this
would have considerable influence on making the Greek version
of the Old Testament the 'people's Bible.' [2 To these causes
there should perhaps be added the attempt to introduce
Grecianism by force into Palestine, the consequences which it
may have left, and the existence of a Grecian party in the
land.]

The Greek version, like the Targum of the Palestinians,
originated, no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national
want on the part of the Hellenists, who as a body were
ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find notices of very early Greek
versions of at least parts of the Pentateuch. [3 Aristobulus
in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. ix. 6; xiii. 12. The doubts raised
by Hody against this testimony have been generally repudiated
by critics since the treatise by Valkenaer (Diatr. de
Aristob. Jud. appended to Gaisford's ed. of the Praepar.
Evang.).] But this, of course, could not suffice. On the
other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural
curiosity on the part of students, especially in Alexandria,
which had so large a Jewish population, to know the sacred
books on which the religion and history of Israel were
founded. Even more than this, we must take into account the
literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors in
Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour
which the Jews for a time enjoyed. Ptolemy I. (Lagi) was a
great patron of learning. He projected the Museum in
Alexandria, which was a home for literature and study, and
founded the great library. In these undertakings Demetrius
Phalereus was his chief adviser. The tastes of the first
Ptolemy were inherited by his son, Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), who had for two years been co-regent. [a
286-284 B.C.] In fact, ultimately that monarch became
literally book-mad, and the sums spent on rare MSS., which
too often proved spurious, almost pass belief. The same may
be said of the third of these monarchs, Ptolemy III.
(Euergetes). It would have been strange, indeed, if these
monarchs had not sought to enrich their library with an
authentic rendering of the Jewish sacred books, or not
encouraged such a translation.

These circumstances will account for the different elements
which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament,
and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices
which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter.
Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is
a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother
Philocrates, [1 Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Havercamp, vol. ii.
App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical edition of this
letter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' Archiv. i. pp. 252-310.
The story is found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii. 4;
Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. section 5-7. The extracts are
most fully given in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. Some of the
Fathers give the story, with additional embellishments. It
was first critically called in question by Hody (Contra
Historiam Aristeae de L. X. interpret. dissert. Oxon. 1685),
and has since been generally regarded as legendary. But its
foundation in fact has of late been recognized by well nigh
all critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, and
full of fabulous details.] in which we are told how, by the
advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II.
had sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter,
with rich presents, to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem;
who in turn had selected seventy-two translators (six out of
each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable
manuscript of the Old Testament. The letter then gives
further details of their splendid reception at the Egyptian
court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where
they accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when they
returned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, their
translation having received the formal approval of the Jewish
Sanhedrin at Alexandria. From this account we may at least
derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch, for to
it only the testimony refers, was translated into Greek, at
the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under
the patronage, if not by direction, of Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus). [2 This is also otherwise attested. See Keil,
Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T., p. 551, note 5.] With
this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the
translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy, the Jerusalem
Talmud [a Meg. i.] in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian [b
Meg. 9 a.] with additions apparently derived from the
Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen,
the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original
text. [3 It is scarcely worth while to refute the view of
Tychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that the
Jewish writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew words
in Greek letters. But the word cannot possibly bear that
meaning in this connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien,
p. 31.]

The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more
likely by several persons,. [4 According to Sopher. i. 8, by
five persons, but that seems a round number to correspond to
the five books of Moses. Frankel (Ueber d. Einfl. d. palast.
Exeg.) labours, however, to show in detail the differences
between the different translators. But his criticism is often
strained, and the solution of the question is apparently
impossible.] the other books of the Old Testament would
naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were
evidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very
different qualifications for their work, the translation of
the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its
place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. The
version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX., as some have
supposed from the number of its translators according to
Aristeas' account, only that in that case it should have been
seventy-two; or from the approval of the Alexandrian
Sannedrin [1 Bohl would have it, 'the Jerusalem Sanhedrin!']
although in that case it should have been seventy-one; or
perhaps because, in the popular idea, the number of the
Gentile nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded as
typical, was seventy. We have, however, one fixed date by
which to compute the completion of this translation. From the
prologue to the Apocryphal 'Wisdom of Jesus the son of
Sirach,' we learn that in his days the Canon of Scripture was
closed; and that on his arrival, in his thirty-eighth year,
[2 But the expression has also been referred to the
thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes.] In Egypt,
which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found the
so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to a
similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather.
But in the 50th chapter of that work we have a description of
the High-Priest Simon, which is evidently written by an
eye-witness. We have therefore as one term the pontificate of
Simon, during which the earlier Jesus lived; and as the
other, the reign of Euergetes, in which the grandson was at
Alexandria. Now, although there were two High-Priests who
bore the name Simon, and two Egyptian kings with the surname
Euergetes, yet on purely historical grounds, and apart from
critical prejudices, we conclude that the Simon of Ecclus. L.
was Simon I., the Just, one of the greatest names in Jewish
traditional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the
younger Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy III., who
reigned from 247 to 221 B.C. [3 To my mind, at least, the
historical evidence, apart from critical considerations,
seems very strong. Modern writers on the other side have
confessedly been influenced by the consideration that the
earlier date of the Book of Sirach would also involve a much
earlier date for the close of the O. T. Canon than they are
disposed to admit. More especially would it bear on the
question of the so-called 'Maccabean Psalms,' and the
authorship and date of the Book of Daniel. But historical
questions should be treated independently of critical
prejudices. Winex (Bibl. Realworterb. i. p. 555), and others
after him admit that the Simon of Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed
Simon the Just (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of the
Prologue was the second of that name, Ptolemy VII., popularly
nicknamed Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks of Fritzsche on this
view in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. z. d. Apokr. 5te Lief. p.
xvii.] In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX.
version as, at least substantially, completed.

From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the
Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. [1
Comp. here, besides the passages quoted in the previous note,
Baba B. 13 b and 14 b; for the cessation of revelation in the
Maccabean period, 1 Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41; and, in
general, for the Jewish view on the subject at the time of
Christ, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8.] That Canon was accepted by the
Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the
Hellenists on 'inspiration,' and the absence of that close
watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to
additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the
admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible. Unlike the
Hebrew arrangement of the tex into the Law, the Prophets, [2
Anterior: Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam. 1 and 2 Kings.
Posterior: Major: Is., Jer., and Ezek.; and the Minor
Prophets.] and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the
LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic
books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet,
instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both
these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently
knew the Jewish order of the books. [a De Vita Contempl.
section 3.] What text the translators may have used we can
only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances
from our own, though the more important deviations are
comparatively few. [3 They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, the
books of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In the
Pentateuch we find them only in four passages in the Book of
Exodus.] In the great majority of the lesser variations our
Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text. [4 There is also
a curious correspondence between the Samaritan version of the
Pentateuch and that of the LXX., which in no less than about
2,000 passages agree as against our Hebrew, although in other
instances the Greek text either agrees with the Hebrew
against the Samaritan, or else is independent of both. On the
connection between Samaritan literature and Hellenism there
are some very interesting notices in Freudenthal, Hell. Stud.
pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c.]
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making
allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we
note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek
version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its
use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident
traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and
false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in
handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy
renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of
some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably
there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish
tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics
have supposed. [5 The extravagant computations in this
respect of Frankel (both in his work, Ueber d. Einfl. d.
Palast. Exeg., and also in the Vorstud. z. Sept. pp. 189-191)
have been rectified by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Vol. Isr. vol.
iii.), who, perhaps, goes to the other extreme. Herzfeld (pp.
548-550) admits, and even this with hesitation, of only six
distinct references to Halakhoth in the following passages in
the LXX.: Gen. ix. 4; xxxii. 32; Lev. xix. 19; xxiv. 7; Deut.
xxv. 5; xxvi. 12. As instances of Haggadah we may mention the
renderings in Gen. v. 24 and Ex. x. 23.] This we can easily
understand, since only those traditions would find a place
which at that early time were not only received, but in
general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements,
however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist
of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of
Greek philosophical ideas. However few, [1 Dahne and Gfrorer
have in this respect gone to the same extreme as Frankel on
the Jewish side. But even Siegfried (Philo v. Alex. p. 8) is
obliged to admit that the LXX. rendering, Gen. i. 2), bears
undeniable mark of Grecian philosophic views. And certainly
this is not the sole instance of the kind.] even one
well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others,
and in general give to the version the character of Jewish
Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the
prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want
of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and
apologetic. Difficulties, or what seemed such, are removed by
the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it
need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More
especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all
anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the
Deity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regard
this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be
noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in
the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps such alterations had even been
introduced into the Hebrew text itself. [2 As in the
so-called 'Tiqquney Sopherim,' or 'emendations of the
scribes.' Comp. here generally the investigations of Geiger
(Urschrift u. Ueberse z. d. Bibel). But these, however
learned and ingenious, require, like so many of the dicta of
modern Jewish criticism, to be taken with the utmost caution,
and in each case subjected to fresh examination, since so
large a proportion of their writings are what is best
designated by the German Tendenz-Schriften, and their
inferences Tendenz-Schlusse. But the critic and the historian
should have no Tendenz, except towards simple fact and
historical truth.] But there is this vital difference between
Palestinainism and Alexandrianism, that, broadly speaking,
the Hebrew avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on
objective, theological and dogmatic, the Hellenistic on
subjective, philosophical and apologetic, grounds. The Hebrew
avoids them as he does what seems to him inconsistent with
the dignity of Biblical heroes and of Israel. 'Great is the
power of the prophets,' he writes, 'who liken the Creator to
the creature;' or else [a Mechilta on Ex. xix.] 'a thing is
written only to break it to the ear', to adapt it to our
human modes of speaking and understanding; and again, [b Ber.
31 b.] the 'words of the Torah are like the speech of the
children of men.' But for this very purpose the words of
Scripture may be presented in another form, if need be even
modified, so as to obviate possible misunderstanding, or
dogmatic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the same
conclusion, but from an opposite direction. They had not
theological but philosophical axioms in their minds, truths
which the highest truth could not, and, as they held, did not
contravene. Only dig deeper; get beyond the letter to that to
which it pointed; divest abstract truth of its concrete,
national, Judaistic envelope, penetrate through the dim porch
into the temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light,
of which, as its portals had been thrown open, single rays
had fallen into the night of heathendom. And so the truth
would appear glorious, more than vindicated in their own
sight, triumphant in that of others!

In such manner the LXX. version became really the people's
Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity
was afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part of
the case, that this translation should be regarded by the
Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it would
have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words
of the Greek; still less, to find in them a mystical and
allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard their views
of inspiration, except as applying to Moses, and even there
only partially, as identical with ours. To their minds
inspiration differed quantitatively, not qualitatively, from
what the rapt soul might at any time experience, so that even
heathen philosophers might ultimately be regarded as at times
inspired. So far as the version of the Bible wa concerned
(and probably on like grounds), similar views obtained at a
later period even in Hebrew circles, where it was laid down
that the Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch had been originally
spoken to Moses on Sinai, [a Ned. 37 b; Kidd. 49 a.] though
afterwards forgotten, till restored and re-introduced. [b
Meg. 3 a.]

Whether or not the LXX. was read in the Hellenist
Synagogues, and the worship conducted, wholly or partly, in
Greek, must be matter of conjecture. We find, however, a
significant notice [c Jer. Meg. iv. 3,ed. Krot. p. 75a.] to
the effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language
(not Hebrew, the term referring specially to Greek), it was
the custom for one person to read the whole Parashah (or
lesson for the day), while among the Hebrew-speaking Jews
this was done by seven persons, successively called up. This
seems to imply that either the Greek text alone was read, or
that it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Targum of the
Easterns. More probably, however, the former would be the
case, since both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to
read them, would be difficult to procure. At any rate, we
know that the Greek Scriptures were authoritatively
acknowledged in Palestine, [1 Meg. i. It is, however, fair to
confess strong doubt, on my part, whether this passage may
not refer to the Greek translation of Akylas. At the same
time it simply speaks of a translation into Greek. And before
the version of Aquila the LXX. alone held that place. It is
one of the most daring modern Jewish perversions of history
to identify this Akylas, who flourished about 130 after
Christ, with the Aquila of the Book of Acts. It wants even
the excuse of a colourable perversion of the confused story
about Akylas, which Epiphanius who is so generally
inaccurate, gives in De Pond. et Mensur. c. xiv. and that the
ordinary daily prayers might be said in Greek. [2 The 'Shema'
(Jewish creed), with its collects, the eighteen
'benedictions,' and 'the grace at meat.' A later Rabbi
vindicated the use of the 'Shema' in Greek by the argument
that the word Shema meant not only 'Hear,' but also
'understand' (Jer. Sotah vii. 1.) Comp. sotah vii. 1, 2. In
Ber. 40 b, it is said that the Parashah connected with the
woman suspected of adultery, the prayer and confession at the
bringing of the tithes, and the various benedictions over
food, may be said not only in Hebrew, but in any other
languages.] The LXX. deserved this distinction from its
general faithfulness, at least, in regard to the Pentateuch,
and from its preservation of ancient doctrine. Thus, without
further referring to its full acknowledgment of the doctrine
of Angels (comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 2), we specially
mark that is preserved the Messianic interpretation of Gen.
xlix. 10, and Numb. xxiv. 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence of
what had been the generally received view two and a half
centuries before the birth of Jesus. It must have been on the
ground of the use made of the LXX. in argument, that later
voices in the Synagogue declared this version to have been as
great calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, [a
Mass. Sopher i. Hal. 7, at the close of vol. ix. of the
Bab.Talmud.] and that is completion had been followed by the
terrible omen of an eclipse, that lasted three days. [b
Hilch. Ged. Taan.] For the Rabbis declared that upon
investigation it had been found that the Torah could be
adequately translated only into Greek, and they are most
extravagant in their praise of the Greek version of Akylas,
or Aquila, the proselyte, which was made to counteract the
influence of the LXX. [c Jer. Meg. i. 11, ed. Krot. p. 71 b
and c.] But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the
LXX. was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in
which ultimately even heathens seem to have taken part. [d
Philo, Vita Mos. ii. ed. Francf. p. 660.]

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

THE OLD FAITH PREPARING FOR THE NEW, DEVELOPMENT OF
HELLENIST THEOLOGY: THE APOCRYPHA, ARISTEAS, ARISTOBULUS, AND
THE PSEUD-EPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.

CHAPTER III.

The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be
regarded as the starting-point of Hellenism. It rendered
possible the hope that what in its original form had been
confined to the few, might become accessible to the world at
large. [a Philo, de Vita Mos. ed. Mangey, ii. p. 140.] But
much yet remained to be done. If the religion of the Old
Testament had been brought near to the Grecian world of
thought, the latter had still to be brought near to Judaism.
Some intermediate stage must be found; some common ground on
which the two might meet; some original kindredness of spirit
to which their later divergences might be carried back, and
where they might finally be reconciled. As the first attempt
in this direction, first in order, if not always in time, we
mark the so-called Apocryphal literature, most of which was
either written in Greek, or is the product of Hellenising
Jews. [1 All the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek,
except 1 Macc., Judith, part of Baruch, probably Tobit, and,
of course, the 'Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.'] Its
general object was twofold. First, of course, it was
apologetic, intended to fill gaps in Jewish history or
thought, but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind against
attacks from without, and generally to extol the dignity of
Israel. Thus, more withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured
on heathenism than in the apocryphal story of 'Bel and the
Dragon,' or in the so-called 'Epistle of Jeremy,' with which
the Book of 'Baruch' closes. The same strain, only in more
lofty tones, resounds through the Book of the 'Wisdom of
Solomon,' [b Comp. x. xx.] along with the constantly implied
contrast between the righteous, or Israel, and sinners, or
the heathen. But the next object was to show that the deeper
and purer thinking of heathenism in its highest philosophy
supported, nay, in some respects, was identical with, the
fundamental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course,
was apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the
way for a reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice
this especially in the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, so
long erroneously attributed to Josephus, [1 It is printed in
Havercamp's edition of Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. The
best edition is in Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test.
(Lips. 1871).] and in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' The first
postulate here would be the acknowledgment of truth among the
Gentiles, which was the outcome of Wisdom, and Wisdom was the
revelation of God. This seems already implied in so
thoroughly Jewish a book as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.
[a Comp. for ex. Ecclus. xxiv. 6.] Of coursethere could be no
alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole of
the Old Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculations
would charm, while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicism
would prove almost equally attractive. The one would show why
they believed, the other why they lived, as they did. Thus
the theology of the Old Testament would find a rational basis
in the ontology of Plato, and its ethics in the moral
philosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the very line of
argument which Josephus follows in the conclusion of his
treatise against Apion. [b ii. 39, 40.] This, then, was an
unassailable position to take:contempt poured on heathenism
as such, [c Comp. also Jos. Ag. Ap. ii. 34.] and arational
philosophical basis for Judaism. They were not deep, only
acute thinkers, these Alexandrians, and the result of their
speculations was a curious Eclecticism, in which Platonism
and Stoicism are found, often heterogeneously, side by side.
Thus, without further details, it may be said that the Fourth
Book of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical treatise on the Stoical
theme of 'the supremacy of reason', the proposition, stated
at the outset, that 'pious reason bears absolute sway over
the passions,' being illustrated by the story of the
martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the mother and her seven sons.
[d Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 18-vii. 41.] On the other hand, that
sublime work, the 'Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and
Stoic elements [2 Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. pp.
626-632) has given a glowing sketch of it. Ewald rightly says
that its Grecian elements have been exaggerated; but Bucher
(Lehre vom Logos, pp. 59-62) utterly fails in denying their
presence altogether.], chiefly perhaps the latter, the two
occurring side by side. Thus [e Ch. vii. 22-27.] 'Wisdom,'
which is so concretely presented as to be almost
hypostatised, [3 Compare especially ix. 1; xviii. 14-16,
where the idea of passes into that of the. Of course the
above remarks are not intended to depreciate the great value
of this book, alike in itself, and in its practical teaching,
in its clear enunciation of a retribution as awaiting man,
and in its important bearing on the New Testament revelation
of the.] is first described in the language of Stoicism, [f
Vv. 22-24.] and afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,
[g Vv. 25-29.] as 'the breath of thepower of God;' as 'a pure
influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;' 'the
brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of
the power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Similarly,
we have [a In ch. viii. 7.] a Stoical enumeration of the four
cardinal virtues, temperance, prudence, justice, and
fortitude, and close by it the Platonic idea of the soul's
pre-existence, [b In vv. 19, 20.] and of earth and matter
pressing it down. [c ix. 15.] How such views would point in
the direction of the need of a perfect revelation from on
high, as in the Bible, and of its rational possibility, need
scarcely be shown.

But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this
Apocryphal literature? We find it described by a term which
seems to correspond to our 'Apocrypha,' as Sepharim Genuzim,'
'hidden books,' i.e., either such whose origin was hidden,
or, more likely, books withdrawn from common or
congregational use. Although they were, of course, carefully
distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, as not being
sacred, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are
quoted in Talmudical writings. [1 Some Apocryphal books which
have not been preserved to us are mentioned in Talmudical
writings, among them one, 'The roll of the building of the
Temple,' alas, lost to us! Comp. Hamburger, vol. ii. pp.
66-70.] In this respect they are placed on a very different
footing from the so-called Sepharim Chitsonim, or 'outside
books,' which probably included both the products of a
certain class of Jewish Hellenistic literature, and the
Siphrey Minim, or writings of the heretics. Against these
Rabbinism can scarcely find terms of sufficient violence,
even debarring from share in the world to come those who read
them. [d Sanh 100.] This, not only because they were used
incontroversy, but because their secret influence on orthodox
Judaism was dreaded. For similar reasons, later Judaism
forbade the use of the Apocrypha in the same manner as that
of the Sepharim Chitsonim. But their influence had already
made itself felt. The Apocrypha, the more greedily perused,
not only for their glorification of Judaism, but that they
were, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded a
glimpse into that forbidden Greek world, opened the way for
other Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged but
frequent traces occur in Talmudical writings. [2 Comp.
Siegfried, Philo von Alex. pp. 275-299, who, however, perhaps
overstates the matter.]

To those who thus sought to weld Grecian thought with Hebrew
revelation, two objects would naturally present themselves.
They must try to connect their Greek philosophers with the
Bible, and they must find beneath the letter of Scripture a
deeper meaning, which would accord with philosophic truth. So
far as the text of Scripture was concerned, they had a method
ready to hand. The Stoic philosophers had busied themselves
in finding a deeper allegorical meaning, especially in the
writings of Homer. By applying it to mythical stories, or to
the popular beliefs, and by tracing the supposed symbolical
meaning of names, numbers, &c., it became easy to prove
almost anything, or to extract from these philosophical
truths ethical principles, and even the later results of
natural science. [1 Comp. Siegfried, pp. 9-16; Hartmann, Enge
Verb. d. A. Test. mit d. N., pp. 568-572.] Such a process was
peculiarly pleasing to the imagination, and the results alike
astounding and satisfactory, since as they could not be
proved, so neither could they be disproved. This allegorical
method [2 This is to be carefully distinguished from the
typical interpretation and from the mystical, the type being
prophetic, the mystery spiritually understood.] was the
welcome key by which the Hellenists might unlock the hidden
treasury of Scripture. In point of fact, we find it applied
so early as in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' [3 Not to speak of
such sounder interpretations as that of the brazen serpent
(Wisd. xvi. 6, 7), and of the Fall (ii. 24), or of the view
presented of the early history of the chosen race in ch. x.,
we may mention as instances of allegorical interpretation
that of the manna (xvi. 26-28), and of the high-priestly
dress (xviii. 24), to which, no doubt, others might be added.
But I cannot find sufficient evidence of this allegorical
method in the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The
reasoning of Hartmann (u. s., pp. 542-547) seems to me
greatly strained. Of the existence of allegorical
interpretations in the Synoptic Gospels, or of any connection
with Hellenism, such as Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loesner
(Obs. ad. N.T. e Phil. Alex) put into them, I cannot, on
examination, discover any evidence. Similarity of
expressions, or even of thought, afford no evidence of inward
connection. Of the Gospel by St. John we shall speak in the
sequel. In the Paul ne Epistles we find, as might be
expected, some allegorical interpretations, chiefly in those
to the Corinthians, perhaps owing to the connection of that
church with Apollos. Comp here 1 Cor. ix. 9; x. 4 (Philo,
Quod deter. potiori insid. 31); 2 Cor. iii. 16; Gal. iv. 21.
Of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse we cannot
here speak.]

But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of sober
interpretation. it is otherwise in the letter of the
Pseudo-Aristeas, to which reference has already been made. [4
See p. 25.] Here the wildest symbolismis put into the mouth
of the High-Priest Eleazar, to convince Aristeas and his
fellow-ambassador that the Mosaic ordinances concerning food
had not only a political reason, to keep Israel separate from
impious nations, and a sanitary one, but chiefly a mystical
meaning. The birds allowed for food were all tame and pure,
and they fed on corn or vegetable products, the opposite
being the case with those forbidden. The first lesson which
this was intended to teach was, that Israel must be just, and
not seek to obtain aught from others by violence; but, so to
speak, imitate the habits of those birds which were allowed
them. The next lesson would be, that each must learn to
govern his passions and inclinations. Similarly, the
direction about cloven hoofs pointed to the need of making
separation, that is, between good and evil; and that about
chewing the cud to the need of remembering, viz. God and His
will. [1 A similar principle applied to the prohibition of
such species as the mouse or the weasel, not only because
they destroyed everthing, but because they latter, from its
mode of conceiving and bearing, symbolized listening to evil
tales, and exaggerated, lying, or malicious speech.] In such
manner, according to Aristeas, did the High Priest go through
the catalogue of things forbidden, and of animals to be
sacrificed, showing from their 'hidden meaning' the majesty
and sanctity of the Law. [2 Of course this method is
constantly adopted by Josephus. Comp. for example, Ant. iii.
1. 6; 7. 7.]

This was an important line to take, and it differed in
principle from the allegorical method adopted by the Eastern
Jews. Not only the Dorshey Reshumoth, [3 Or Dorshey
Chamuroth, searchers of difficult passages. Zunz. Gottesd.
Vortr. p. 323. note b.] or searches out of the subleties of
Scripture, of their indications, but even the ordinry
Haggadist employed, indeeds, allegoric interpretations.
Thereby Akiba vindicated for the 'Song of Songs' its place in
the Canon. Did not Scripture say: 'One thing spake God,
twofold is what I heard,' [a Ps. lxii. 11; Sanh. 34 a.] and
did not this imply a twofold meaning; nay, could not the
Torah be explained by many different methods? [4 The seventy
languages in which the Law was supposed to have been written
below Mount Ebal (Sotah vii. 5). I cannot help feeling this
may in part also refer to the various modes of interpreting
Holy Scripture, and that there is an allusion to this Shabb.
88 b, where Ps. lxviii. 12. and Jer. xxiii. 29, are quoted,
the latter to show that the word of God is like a hammer that
breaks the rock in a thousand pieces. Comp. Rashi on Gen.
xxxiii. 20.] What, for example, was the water which Israel
sought in the wilderness, or the bread and raiment which
Jacob asked in Bethel, but the Torah and the dignity which it
conferred? But in all these, and innumerable similar
instances, the allegorical interpretation was only an
application of Scripture for homiletical purposes, not a
searching into a rationale beneath, such as that of the
Hellenists. The latter the Rabbis would have utterly
repudiated, on their express principle that 'Scripture goes
not beyond its plain meaning.' [5 Perhaps we ought here to
point out one of the most important principles of Rabbinism,
which has been almost entirely overlooked in modern criticism
of the Talmud. It is this: that any ordinance, not only of
the Divine law, but of the Rabbis, even though only given for
a particular time or occasion, or for a special reason,
remains in full force for all time unless it be expressly
recalled (Betsah 5 b). Thus Maimonides (Sepher ha Mitsv.)
declares the law to extirpate the Canaanites as continuing in
its obligations. The inferences as to the perpetual
obligation, not only of the ceremonial law, but of
sacrifices, will be obvious, and their bearing on the Jewish
controversy need not be explained. Comp. Chief Rabbi
Holdheim. d. Ceremonial Gesetz in Messasreich, 1845.] They
sternly insisted, that we ought not to search into the
ulterior object and rationale of a law, but simply obey it.
But it was this very rationale of the Law which the
Alexandrians sought to find under its letter. It was in this
sense that Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, [b
About 160 B.C.] sought to explain Scripture. Only a fragment
of hwork, which seems to have been a Commentary on the
Pentateuch, dedicated to King Ptolemy (Philometor), has been
preserved to us (by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius [a
Praepar. Evang. vii. 14. 1 ; vii. 10. 1-17; xiii. 12.]).
According to Clement of Alexandria, his aim was, 'to bring
the Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out
of the other prophets.' Thus, when we read that God stood, it
meant the stable order of the world; that He created the
world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest
of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in
such manner could the whole system of Aristole be found in
the Bible. But how was this to be accounted for? Of course,
the Bible had not learned from Aristole, but he and all the
other philosphers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according
to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages
had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in
their writings were united in all their glory in the Torah.

It was a tempting path on which to enter, and one on which
there was no standing still. It only remained to give
fixedness to the allegorical method by reducing it to certain
principles, or canons of criticism, and to form the
heterogeneous mass of Grecian philosophemes and Jewish
theologumena into a compact, if not homogeneous system. This
was the work of Philo of Alexandria, born about 20 B.C. It
concerns us not here to inquire what were the intermediate
links between Aristobulus and Philo. Another and more
important point claims our attention. If ancient Greek
philosophy knew the teaching of Moses, where was the historic
evidence for it? If such did not exist, it must somehow be
invented. Orpheus was a name which had always lent itself to
literary frand, [b As Val. Kenaer puts it, Daitr. de Aristob.
Jud. p. 73.] and so Aristobulus boldl;y produces (whether of
his own or of others' making) a number of spurious citations
from Hesiod, Homer, Linus, but especially from Orpheus, all
Biblical and Jewish in their cast. Aristobulus was neither
the first nor the last to commit such fraud. The Jewish Sibyl
boldly, and, as we shall see, successfully personated the
heathen oracles. And this opens, generally, quite a vista of
Jewish-Grecia literature. In the second, and even in the
third century before Christ, there were Hellenist historians,
such as Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, and Aristeas; tragic
and epic poets, such as Ezekiel, Pseudo-Philo, and Theodotus,
who, after the manner of the ancient classical writers, but
for their own purposes, described certain periods of Jewish
history, or sang of such themes as the Exodus, Jerusalem, or
the rape of Dinah.

The mention of these spurious quotations naturally leads us
to another class of spurious literature, which, although not
Hellenistic, has many elements in common with it, and, even
when originating with Palestinian Jews is not Palestinian,
nor yet has been preserved in its language. We allude to what
are known as the Pseudepigraphic, or Pseudonymic Writings, so
called because, with one exception, they bear false names of
authorship. It is difficult to arrange them otherwise than
chronological, and even here the greatest difference of
opinions prevails. Their general character (with one
exception) may be described as anti-heathen, perhaps
missionary, but chiefly as Apocalyptic. They are attempts at
taking up the key-note struck in the prophecies of Daniel;
rather, we should say, to lift the veil only partially raised
by him, and to point, alike as concerned Israel, and the
kingdoms of the world, to the past, the present, and the
future, in the light of the Kingship of the Messiah. Here, if
anywhere, we might expect to find traces of New Testament
teaching; and yet, side by side with frequent similarity of
form, the greatest difference, we had almost said contrast,
in spirit, prevails.

Many of these works must have perished. In one of the latest
of them [a 4 Esdras xiv. 44, 46.] they are put down at
seventy, probably a roundnumber, having reference to the
supposed number of the nations of the earth, or to every
possible mode of interpreting Scripture. They are described
as intended for 'the wise among the people,' probably those
whom St. Paul, in the Christian sense, designates as 'knowing
the time' [b Rom. xiii. 11.] [1 The of St. Paul seems here
used in exactly the same sense as in later Hebrew. The LXX.
render it so in five passages (Ezr. v. 3; Dan. iv. 33; vi.
10; vii. 22, 25).] of the Advent of the Messiah. Viewed in
this light, they embody the ardent aspirataions and the
inmost hopes [2 Of course, it suits Jewish, writers, like Dr.
Jost, to deprecate the value of the Pseudepigrapha. Their
ardour of expectancy ill agrees with the modern theories,
which would eliminate, if possible, the Messianic hope from
ancient Judaism.] of those who longed for the 'consolation of
Israel,' as they understood it. Nor should we judge their
personations of authorship according to our Western ideas. [3
Comp. Dillmann in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol. xii. p. 301.]
Pseudonymic writings were common in that age, and a Jew might
perhaps plead that, even in the Old Testament, books had been
headed by names which confessedly were not those of their
authors (such as Samuel, Ruth, Esther). If those inspired
poets who sang in the spirit, and echoed the strains, of
Asaph, adopted that designation, and the sons of Korah
preferred to be known by that title, might not they, who
could no longer claim the authority of inspiration seek
attention for their utterances by adopting the names of those
in whose spirit they professed to write?

The most interesting as well as the oldest of these books
are those known as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles,
the Paler of Solomon, and the Book of Jubilees, or Little
Genesis. Only the briefest notice of them can here find a
place. [1 For a brief review of the 'Pseudepigraphic
Writings,' see Appendix I.]

The Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date a century
and a half before Christ, comes to us from Palestine. It
professes to be a vision vouchsafed to that Patriacrch, and
atells of the fall of the Angels and its consequences, and of
what he saw and heard in his rapt journeys through heaven and
earth. Of deepest, though often sad, interest, is what it
says of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the advent of Messiah and
His Kingdom, and of the last things.

On the other hand, the Sibylline Oracles, of which the
oldest portions date from about 160 B.C., come to us from
Egypt. It is to the latter only that we here refer. Their
most interesting parts are also the most characteristics. In
them the ancient heathen myths of the first ages of man are
welded together with Old Testament notices, while the heathen
Theogony is recast in a Jewish mould. Thus Noah becomes
Uranos, Shem Saturn, Ham Titan, and Japheth Japetus.
Similarly, we have fragments of ancient heathen oracles, so
to speak, recast in a Jewish edition. The strangest
circumstance is, that the utterances of this Judaising and
Jewish Sibyl seem to have passed as the oracles of the
ancient Erythraean, which had predicted the fall of Troy, and
as those of the Sibyl of Cumae, which, in the infancy of
Rome, Tarquinius Superbus had deposited in the Capitol.

The collection of eighteen hymns known as the Psalter of
Solomon dates from more than half a century before our ear.
No doubt the e original was Hebrew, though they breathe a
somewhat Hellenistic spirit. They express ardent Messianic
aspirations, and a firm faith in the Resurrection, and in
eternal rewards and punishments.

Different in character from the preceding works is The Book
of Jubilees, so called from its chronological arrangement
into 'Jubilee-periods', or 'Little Genesis.' It is chiefly a
kind of legendary supplement to the Book of Genesis, intended
to explain some of its historic difficulties, and to fill up
its historic lacunae. It was probably written about the time
of Christ, and this gives it a special interest, by a
Palestinian, and in Hebrew, or rather Aramaean. But, like the
rest of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature which
comes from Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew, we
posses it no longer in that language, but only in
translation.

If from this brief review of Hellenist and Pseudepigraphic
literature we turn to take a retrospect, we can scarcely fail
to perceive, on the one hand, the development of the old, and
on the other the preparation for the new, in other words, the
grand expectancy awakened, and the grand preparation made.
One step only remained to complete what Hellenism had already
begun. That completion came through one who, although himself
untouched by the Gospel, perhaps more than any other prepared
alike his co-religionists the Jews, and his countrymen the
Greeks, for the new teaching, which, indeed, was presented by
many of its early advocates in the forms which they had
learned from him. That man was Philo the Jew, of Alexandria.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, THE RABBIS, AND THE GOSPELS, THE FINAL
DEVELOPMENT OF HELLENISM IN ITS RELATION TO RABBINISM AND THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

CHAPTER IV.

It is strange how little we know of the personal history of
the greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old, though he
occupied so prominent a position in his time. [1 Hausrath
(N.T. Zeitg. vol. ii. p. 222 &c.) has given a highly
imaginative picture of Philo, as, indeed, of many other
persons and things.] Philo was born in Alexandria, about the
year 20 before Christ. He was a descendant of Aaron, and
belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential
families among the Jewish merchant-princes of Egypt. His
brother was the political head of that community in
Alexandria, and he himself on one occasion represented his
co-religionists, though unsuccessfully, at Rome, [a 39 or 40
A.D.] as the head of an embassy to entreat the Emperior
Caligula for protection from the persecutions consequent on
the Jewish resistance to placing statues of the Emperor in
their Synagogues. But it is not with Philo, the wealthy
aristocratic Jew of Alexandria, but with the great writer and
thinker who, so to speak, completed Jewish Hellenism, that we
have here to do. Let us see what was his relation alike to
heathen philosophy and to the Jewish faith, of both of which
he was the ardent advocate, and how in his system he combined
the teaching of the two.

To begin with, Philo united in rare measure Greek learning
with Jewish enthusiasm. In his writings he very frequently
uses classical modes of expression; [2 Siegfried has, with
immense labor, collected a vast number of parallel
expressions, chiefly from Plato and Plutarch (pp. 39-47).] he
names not fewer than sixty-four Greek writers; [3 Comp.
Grossmann, Quaest. Phil. i. p. 5 &c.] and he either alludes
to, or quotes frequently from, such sources as Homer, Hesiod,
Pindar, Solon, the great Greek tragedians, Plato, and others.
But to him these men were scarcely 'heathen.' He had sat at
their feet, and learned to weave a system from Pythagoras,
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of these
philosophers were 'holy,' and Plato was 'the great.' But
holier than all was the gathering of the true Israel; and
incomparably greater than any, Moses. From him had all sages
learned, and with him alone was all truth to be found, not,
indeed, in the letter, but under the letter, of Holy
Scripture. If in Numb. xxiii. 19 we read 'God is not a man,'
and in Deut. i. 31 that the Lord was 'as a man,' did it not
imply, on the one hand, the revelation of absolute truth by
God, and, on the other, accommodation to those who were weak?
Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation of
the Word of God, the literal and the allegorical. The letter
of the text must be held fast; and Biblical personages and
histories were real. But only narrow-minded slaves of the
letter would stop here; the more so, as sometimes the literal
meaning alone would be tame, even absurd; while the
allegorical interpretation gave the true sense, even though
it might occassionally run counter to the letter. Thus, the
patriarchs represented states of the soul; and, whatever the
letter might bear, Joseph represented one given to the
fleshly, whom his brothers rightly hated; Simeon the soul
aiming after the higher; the killing of the Egyptian by
Moses, the subjugation of passion, and so on. But this
allegorical interpretation, by the side of the literal (the
Peshat of the Palestinians), though only for the few, was not
arbitrary. It had its 'laws,' and 'canons', some of which
excluded the literal interpretation, while others admitted it
by the side of the higher meaning. [1 In this sketch of the
system of Philo I have largely availed myself of the careful
analysis of Siegfried.]

To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly
set aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity,
anything unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason.
Manifestly, this canon, if strictly applied, would do away
not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot
wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would
find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation
indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly
superfluous words, particles, or expressions. [2 It should be
noted that these are also Talmudical canons, not indeed for
allegorical interpretation, but as pointing to some special
meaning, since there was not a word or particle in Scripture
without a definite meaning and object.] These could, of
course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of the
actual inspiration of the LXX. version. Similarly, in exact
accordance with a Talmudical canon, [a Baba K 64 a.] any
repetition of what had been already stated would point to
something new. These were comparatively sober rules of
exegesis. Not so the licence which he claimed of freely
altering the punctuation [3 To illustrate what use might be
made of such alterations, the Midrash (Ber. R. 65) would have
us punctuate Gen. xxvii. 19, as follows: 'And Jacob said unto
his father, I (viz. am he who will receive the ten
commandments), (but) Esau (is) thy firstborn.' In Yalkut
there is the still more curious explanation that in heaven
the soul of Jacob was the firstborn!] of sentences, and his
notion that, if one from among several synonymous words was
chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning
attaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea, that a
word which occurred in the LXX. might be interpreted
according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the
Greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by
slightly altering the letters. However, like other of Philo's
allegorical canons, these were also adopted by the Rabbis,
and Haggadic interpretations were frequently prefaced by:
'Read not thus, but thus.' If such violence might be done to
the text, we need not wonder at interpretations based on a
play upon words, or even upon parts of a word. Of course, all
seemingly strange or peculiar modes of expression, or of
designation, occurring in Scripture, must have their special
meaning, and so also every particle, adverb, or preposition.
Again, the position of a verse, its succession by another,
the apparently unaccountable presence or absence of a word,
might furnish hints for some deeper meaning, and so would an
unexpected singular for a plural, or vice versa, the use of a
tense, even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, an
allegorical interpretation might be again employed as the
basis of another. [1 Each of these positions is capable of
ample proof from Philo's writings, as shown by Siegfried. But
only a bare statement of these canons was here possible.]

We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are
essentially the same as those of Jewish traditionalism in the
Haggadah, [2 Comp. our above outline with the 'XXV. theses de
modis et formulis quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretari
etc. soliti fuerunt,' in Surenhusius, Biblos, pp. 57-88.]
only the latter were not rationalising, and far more
brilliant in their application. [3 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.] 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, [a Ber. 31 b.] that Scripture uses the
modes ofexpression 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. [b Ber. R. 31.] Similarly, it is noted
that Scripture uses euphemistic language, so as to preserve
the greatest delicacy. [c Ber. R. 70.] These instances might
be multiplied, but the above will suffice.

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. [1
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
Biblenames 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 curi