Front Cover
 Title Page
 List of authorities chiefly used...
 List of abbreviations used in reference...
 Table of Contents
 Book I: Introductory
 Book II: From the manger in Bethlehem...
 Book III: The ascent: from the...
 Explanatory notes and correcti...

Group Title: Life and times of Jesus the Messiah
Title: The Life and times of Jesus the Messiah
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00025550/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Life and times of Jesus the Messiah
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Edersheim, Alfred
Publisher: Longmans, Green and Co.
Place of Publication: New York
Publication Date: 1927
Edition: 28th impression
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00025550
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Title Page
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
    List of authorities chiefly used in writing this book
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
        Page xxiii
        Page xxiv
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
    List of abbreviations used in reference to rabbinic writings quoted in this work
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
        Page xxix
        Page xxx
    Table of Contents
        Page xxxi
        Page xxxii
        Page xxxiii
        Page xxxiv
        Page xxxv
        Page xxxvi
    Book I: Introductory
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
    Book II: From the manger in Bethlehem to the Baptism in Jordan
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
    Book III: The ascent: from the River Jordan to the Mount of Transfiguration
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
        Page 395
        Page 396
        Page 397
        Page 398
        Page 399
        Page 400
        Page 401
        Page 402
        Page 403
        Page 404
        Page 405
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
        Page 411
        Page 412
        Page 413
        Page 414
        Page 415
        Page 416
        Page 417
        Page 418
        Page 419
        Page 420
        Page 421
        Page 422
        Page 423
        Page 424
        Page 425
        Page 426
        Page 427
        Page 428
        Page 429
        Page 430
        Page 431
        Page 432
        Page 433
        Page 434
        Page 435
        Page 436
        Page 437
        Page 438
        Page 439
        Page 440
        Page 441
        Page 442
        Page 443
        Page 444
        Page 445
        Page 446
        Page 447
        Page 448
        Page 449
        Page 450
        Page 451
        Page 452
        Page 453
        Page 454
        Page 455
        Page 456
        Page 457
        Page 458
        Page 459
        Page 460
        Page 461
        Page 462
        Page 463
        Page 464
        Page 465
        Page 466
        Page 467
        Page 468
        Page 469
        Page 470
        Page 471
        Page 472
        Page 473
        Page 474
        Page 475
        Page 476
        Page 477
        Page 478
        Page 479
        Page 480
        Page 481
        Page 482
        Page 483
        Page 484
        Page 485
        Page 486
        Page 487
        Page 488
        Page 489
        Page 490
        Page 491
        Page 492
        Page 493
        Page 494
        Page 495
        Page 496
        Page 497
        Page 498
        Page 499
        Page 500
        Page 501
        Page 502
        Page 503
        Page 504
        Page 505
        Page 506
        Page 507
        Page 508
        Page 509
        Page 510
        Page 511
        Page 512
        Page 513
        Page 514
        Page 515
        Page 516
        Page 517
        Page 518
        Page 519
        Page 520
        Page 521
        Page 522
        Page 523
        Page 524
        Page 525
        Page 526
        Page 527
        Page 528
        Page 529
        Page 530
        Page 531
        Page 532
        Page 533
        Page 534
        Page 535
        Page 536
        Page 537
        Page 538
        Page 539
        Page 540
        Page 541
        Page 542
        Page 543
        Page 544
        Page 545
        Page 546
        Page 547
        Page 548
        Page 549
        Page 550
        Page 551
        Page 552
        Page 553
        Page 554
        Page 555
        Page 556
        Page 557
        Page 558
        Page 559
        Page 560
        Page 561
        Page 562
        Page 563
        Page 564
        Page 565
        Page 566
        Page 567
        Page 568
        Page 569
        Page 570
        Page 571
        Page 572
        Page 573
        Page 574
        Page 575
        Page 576
        Page 577
        Page 578
        Page 579
        Page 580
        Page 581
        Page 582
        Page 583
        Page 584
        Page 585
        Page 586
        Page 587
        Page 588
        Page 589
        Page 590
        Page 591
        Page 592
        Page 593
        Page 594
        Page 595
        Page 596
        Page 597
        Page 598
        Page 599
        Page 600
        Page 601
        Page 602
        Page 603
        Page 604
        Page 605
        Page 606
        Page 607
        Page 608
        Page 609
        Page 610
        Page 611
        Page 612
        Page 613
        Page 614
        Page 615
        Page 616
        Page 617
        Page 618
        Page 619
        Page 620
        Page 621
        Page 622
        Page 623
        Page 624
        Page 625
        Page 626
        Page 627
        Page 628
        Page 629
        Page 630
        Page 631
        Page 632
        Page 633
        Page 634
        Page 635
        Page 636
        Page 637
        Page 638
        Page 639
        Page 640
        Page 641
        Page 642
        Page 643
        Page 644
        Page 645
        Page 646
        Page 647
        Page 648
        Page 649
        Page 650
        Page 651
        Page 652
        Page 653
        Page 654
        Page 655
        Page 656
        Page 657
        Page 658
        Page 659
        Page 660
        Page 661
        Page 662
        Page 663
        Page 664
        Page 665
        Page 666
        Page 667
        Page 668
        Page 669
        Page 670
        Page 671
        Page 672
        Page 673
        Page 674
        Page 675
        Page 676
        Page 677
        Page 678
        Page 679
        Page 680
        Page 681
        Page 682
        Page 683
        Page 684
        Page 685
        Page 686
        Page 687
        Page 688
        Page 689
        Page 690
        Page 691
        Page 692
        Page 693
        Page 694
        Page 695
        Page 696
    Explanatory notes and corrections
        Page 697
        Page 698
Full Text



M.A., D.D., Ph.D.

Sometime Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint
in the University of Oxford.

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Two
volumes. 8vo.

Jesus the Messiah. Being an Abridged Edition of
"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah." With
a preface by the Rev. W. Sanday, D.D. Crown 8vo.
Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah.
The Warburton Lectures for 1880-1884. With two
appendices on the arrangement, analysis, and recent
criticism of the Pentateuch. 8vo.
History of the Jewish Nation After the Destruction of
Jerusalem under Titus. Revised by the Rev. HENRY
A. WHITE, M.A. With a preface by the Rev. William
Sanday, D.D., LL.D. 8vo.
Tohu=va-Vohu ("Without Form and Void"); being a
collection of fragmentary thoughts and criticism.
Edited, with a short memoir, by ELLA EDERSHEIM.
With portrait. Crown 8vo.




OF 0



Sometime Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint in the University of Oxford

BA toipev yap ap'rz dz' -Aor7rpov ev aiviy/arl

.:*.*. .*... .*.... l
,, -.:. ... ... ..

": "" .. ... ... ..I ":.'



rV i~i~-~









IN issuing a new edition of this book I wish, in the first place, again
to record, as the expression of permanent convictions and feelings,
some remarks with which I had prefaced the Second Edition,
although happily they are not at present so urgently called for.
With the feelings of sincere thankfulness for the kindness with
which this book was received by all branches of the Church, only
one element of pain mingled. Although I am well convinced that
a careful or impartial reader could not arrive at any such conclu-
sion, yet it was suggested that a perverse ingenuity might abuse
certain statements and quotations for what in modern parlance are
termed 'Anti-Semitic' purposes. That any such thoughts could
possibly attach to a book concerning Him, Who was Himself a Jew;
Who in the love of His compassion wept tears of bitter anguish over
the Jerusalem that was about to crucify Him, and Whose first utter-
ance and prayer when nailed to the Cross was: Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do'-would seem terribly incongruous
and painful. Nor can it surely be necessary to point out that the
love of Christ, or the understanding of His Work and Mission, must
call forth feelings far different from those to which reference has been
made. To me, indeed, it is difficult to associate the so-called Anti-
Semitic movement with any but the lowest causes: envy, jealousy,
and cupidity on the one hand; or, on the other, ignorance, prejudice,
bigotry, and hatred of race. But as these are times when it is neces-
sary to speak unmistakably, I avail myself of the present opportunity
to point out the reasons why any Talmudic quotations, even if fair,
can have no application for 'Anti-Semitic' purposes.


First: It is a mistake to regard everything in Talmudic writings
about the Gentiles' as presently applying to Christians. Those spoken
of are characterized as the worshippers of idols,' of stars and planets,'
and by similar designations. That the heathens' of those days and
lands should have been suspected of almost any abomination, deemed
capable of any treachery or cruelty towards Israel-no student of
history can deem strange, especially when the experience of so many
terrible wrongs (would they had been confined to the heathen and
to those times!) would naturally lead to morbidly excited suspicions
and apprehensions.
Secondly: We must remember the times, the education, and the
general standpoint of that period as compared with our own. No
one would measure the belief of Christians by certain statements in
the Fathers, nor judge the moral principles of Roman Catholics by
prurient quotations from the Casuists nor yet estimate the Lutherans
by the utterances and deeds of the early successors of Luther, nor
Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all such cases the general
standpoint of the times has to be first taken into account. And no
educated Jew would share the follies and superstitions, nor yet sym-
pathise with the suspicions or feelings towards even the most hostile
and depraved heathens, that may be quoted from the Talmud.
Thirdly: Absolutely the contrary of all this has been again and
again set forth by modern Jewish writers. Even their attempts to ex-
plain away certain quotations from the Talmud-unsuccessful though,
in my view, some of them are-afford evidence of their present
repudiation of all such sentiments. I would here specially refer to
such a work as Dr. Griinebaum's Ethics of Judaism' (' Sittenlehre
d. Judenthums')-a book deeply interesting also as setting forth the
modern Jewish view of Christ and His Teaching, and accordant
(though on different grounds) with some of the conclusions expressed
in this book, as regards certain incidents in the History of Christ.
The principles expressed by Dr. Griinebaum, and other writers, are
such as for ever to give the lie to Anti-Semitic charges. And
although he and others, with quite proper loyalty, labour to explain
certain Talmudic citations, yet it ultimately comes to the admission
that Talmudic sayings are not the criterion and rule of present duty,
even as regards the heathen-still tess Christians, to whom they do
not apply.
What has just been stated, while it fully disposes of all Anti-
Semitism,' only the more clearly sets forth the argument which former


the main proposition of this book. Here also we have the highest
example. None loved Israel so intensely, even unto death, as Jesus of
Nazareth; none made such withering denunciations as He of Jewish
Traditionalism, in all its branches, and of its Representatives. It is
with Traditionalism, not the Jews, that our controversy lies. And
here we cannot speak too plainly nor decidedly. It might, indeed, be
argued, apart from any proposed different applications, that on one or
another point opinions of a different kind may also be adduced from
other Rabbis. Nor is it intended to convey unanimity of opinion on
every subject. For, indeed, such scarcely existed on any one point-
not on matters of fact, nor even often on Halakhic questions. And
this also is characteristic of Rabbinism. But it must be remem-
bered that we are here dealing with the very text-book of that
sacred and Divine Traditionalism, the basis and substance of Rab,
binism, for which such unlimited authority and absolute submission are
claimed; and hence, that any statement admitted into its pages, even
though a different view were also to be adduced, possesses an authori-
tative and a representative character. And this further appears from
the fact that the same statements are often repeated in other docu-
ments, besides that in which they were originally made, and that they
are also supported by other statements, kindred and parallel in spirit.
It truth, it has throughout been my aim to present, not one nor
another isolated statement or aspect of Rabbinism, but its general
teaching and tendency. In so doing I have, however, purposely left
aside certain passages which, while they might have most fully brought
out the sad and strange extravagances to which Rabbinism could go,
would have involved the unnecessary quotation of what is not only
very painful in itself, but might have furnished an occasion to
enemies of Israel. Alike the one and the other it was my most
earnest desire to avoid. And by the side of these extravagances
there is so much in Jewish writings and life-the outcome of Old
Testament training-that is noblest and most touching, especially as
regards the social virtues, such as purity, kindness, and charity, and
the acknowledgment of God in sufferings, as well as their patient
endurance. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that even the
vehement assertions of partisans on the other side, supported by
isolated sayings, sometimes torn from their context, or by such co-
incidences as are historically to be expected, will persuade those who
keep in view either the words of Christ or His history and that of
the Apostles, that the relation between Christianity in its origin, as


the fulfilment of the Old Testament, and Traditionalism, as the exter-
nalised development of its letter, is other than that of which these
volumes furnish both the explanation and the evidence. In point o0
fact, the attentive student of history will observe that a similar protest
against the bare letter underlies Alexandrianism and Philo-although
there from the side of reason and apologetically, in the New Testa-
ment from the aspect of spiritual life and for its full presentation.
Thus much-somewhat reluctantly written, because approaching
controversy-seemed necessary by way of explanation. The brief
interval between the First and Second Editions rendered only a
superficial revision possible, as then indicated. For the present
edition the whole work has once more been revised, chiefly with the
view of removing from the numerous marginal Talmudic references
such misprints as were observed. In the text and notes, also, a few
errata have been corrected, or else the meaning rendered more clear.
In one or two places fresh notes have been made; some references
have been struck out, and others added. These notes will furnish evi-
dence that the literature of the subject, since the first appearance ol
these volumes, has not been neglected, although it seemed unnecessary
to swell the List of Authorities' by the names of all the books since
published or perused. Life is too busy and too short to be always
going back on one's traces. Nor, indeed, would this be profitable.
The further results of reading and study will best be embodied in
further labours, please God, in continuation of those now completed.
Opportunity may then also occur for the discussion of some questions
which had certainly not been overlooked, although this seemed not
the proper place for them: such as that of the composition of the
Apostolic writings.
And so, with great thankfulness for what service this book has
been already allowed to perform, I would now send it forth on its
new journey, with this as my most earnest hope and desire: that, in
however humble a manner, it may be helpful for the fuller and
clearer setting forth of the Life of Him Who is the Life of all our life.
A. E.
OXFORD : MaroA 1886.


IN presenting these volumes to the reader, I must offer an explana-
tion,-though I would fain hope that such may not be absolutely
necessary. The title of this book must not be understood as implying
any pretence on my part to write a Life of Christ' in the strict sense.
To take the lowest view, the materials for it do not exist. Evidently
the Evangelists did not intend to give a full record of even the
outward events in that History; far less could they have thought of
compassing the sphere or sounding the depths of the Life of Him,
Whom they present to us as the God-Man and the Eternal Son of
the Eternal Father. Rather must the Gospels be regarded as four
different aspects in which the Evangelists viewed the historical Jesus
of Nazareth as the fulfilment of the Divine promise of old, the Mes-
siah of Israel and the Saviour of man, and presented Him to the
Jewish and Gentile world for their acknowledgment as the Sent of
God, Who revealed the Father, and was Himself the Way to Him,
the Truth, and the Life. And this view of the Gospel-narratives
underlies the figurative representation of the Evangelists in Christian
In thus guarding my meaning in the choice of the title, I have
already indicated my own standpoint in this book. But in an-
other respect I wish to disclaim having taken any predetermined
dogmatic standpoint at the outset of my investigations. I wished

I Comp. the historical account of these symbols in Zah#t, Forsch. z. Gesch. d
Neu-Test. Kanons, ii. pp. 257-275.


to write, not for a definite purpose, be it even that of the defence
of the faith-but rather to let that purpose grow out of the book,
as would be pointed out by the course of independent study, in which
arguments on both sides should be impartially weighed and facts
ascertained. In this manner I hoped best to attain what must be the
first object in all research, but especially in such as the present: to
ascertain, as far as we can, the truth, irrespective of consequences.
And thus also I hoped to help others, by going, as it were, before
them, in the path which their enquiries must take, and removing
the difficulties and entanglements which beset it. So might I
honestly, confidently, and, in such a matter, earnestly, ask them to
follow me, pointing to the height to which such enquiries must lead
up. I know, indeed, that there is something beyond and apart from
this; even the restful sense on that height, and the happy outlook
from it. But this is not within the province of one man to give
to another, nor yet does it come in the way of study, however
earnest and careful; it depends upon, and implies the existence of
a subjective state which comes only by the direction given to our
enquiries by the true o68'y7 (St. John xvi. 18).
This statement of the general object in view will explain the
course pursued in these enquiries. First and foremost, this book was
to be a study of the Life of Jesus the Messiah, retaining the
general designation, as best conveying to others the subject to be
But, secondly, since Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, spoke to, and
moved among Jews, in Palestine, and at a definite period of its
history, it was absolutely necessary to view that Life and Teaching
in all its surroundings of place, society, popular life, and intellectual
or religious development. This would form not only the frame in
which to set the picture of the Christ, but the very background of
the picture itself. It is, indeed, most true that Christ spoke not only
to the Jews, to Palestine, and to that time, but-of which history
has given the evidence-to all men and to all times. Still He spoke
first and directly to the Jews, and His words must have been in-
telligible to them, His teaching have reached upwards from their
intellectual and religious standpoint, even although it infinitely


extended the horizon so as, in its full application, to make it wide as
the bounds of earth and time. Nay, to explain the bearing of the
religious leaders of Israel, from the first, towards Jesus, it seemed
also necessary to trace the historical development of thought and
religious belief, till it issued in that system of Traditionalism, which,
by an internal necessity, was irreconcilably antagonistic to the Christ
of the Gospels.
On other grounds also, such a full portraiture of Jewish life,
society, and thinking seemed requisite. It furnishes alike a vin-
dication and an illustration of the Gospel-narratives. A vindication
-because in measure as we transport ourselves into that time, we
feel that the Gospels present to us a real, historical scene; that the
men and the circumstances to which we are introduced are real-
not a fancy picture, but just such as we know and now recognize
them, and would expect them to have spoken, or to have been.
Again, we shall thus vividly realise another and most important
aspect of the words of Christ. We shall perceive that their form is
wholly of the times, their cast Jewish-while by the side of this
similarity of form there is not only essential difference but absolute
contrariety of substance and spirit. Jesus spoke as truly a Jew to
the Jews, but He spoke not as they-no, not as their highest and
best Teachers would have spoken. And this contrariety of spirit
with manifest similarity of form is, to my mind, one of the strongest
evidences of the claims of Christ, since it raises the all-important
question, whence the Teacher of Nazareth-or, shall we say, the
humble Child of the Carpenter-home in a far-off little place of Galilee
-had drawn His inspiration ? And clearly to set this forth has been
the first object of the detailed Rabbinic quotations in this book.
But their further object, besides this vindication, has been the
illustration of the Gospel-narratives. Even the general reader must
be aware that some knowledge of Jewish life and society at the time
is requisite for the understanding of the Gospel-history. Those who
have consulted the works of Lightfoot, Schattgen, Meuschen, Wetstein,
and Wiinsche, or even the extracts from them presented in Com-
mentaries, know that the help derived from their Jewish references
is vary great. And yet, despite the immense learning and industry


of these writers, there are serious drawbacks to their use. Some-
times the references are critically not quite accurate; sometimes
they are derived from works that should not have been adduced in
evidence; occasionally, either the rendering, or the application of
what is separated from its context, is not reliable. A still more
serious objection is, that these quotations are not unfrequently one-
sided; but chiefly this-perhaps, as the necessary consequence of being
merely illustrative notes to certain verses in the Gospels-that they
do not present a full and connected picture. And yet it is this
which so often gives the most varied and welcome illustration of the
Gospel-narratives. In truth, we know not only the leading per-
sonages in Church and State in Palestine at that time, their views,
teaching, pursuits, and aims; the state of parties; the character of
popular opinion; the proverbs, the customs, the daily life of the
country-but we can, in imagination, enter their dwellings, associate
with them in familiar intercourse, or follow them to the Temple, the
Synagogue, the Academy, or to the market-place and the workshop.
We know what clothes they wore, what dishes they ate, what wines
they drank, what they produced and what they imported: nay, the
cost of every article of their dress or food, the price of houses and
of living; in short, every detail that can give vividness to a picture
of life.
All this is so important for the understanding of the Gospel-
history as, I hope, to justify the fulness of archaeological detail in
this book. And yet I have used only a portion of the materials which
I had collected for the purpose. And here I must frankly own, as
another reason for this fulness of detail, that many erroneous and
misleading statements on this subject, and these even on elementary
points, have of late been made. Supported by references to the
labours of truly learned German writers, they have been sometimes
set forth with such confidence as to impose the laborious and un-
welcome duty of carefully examining and testing them. But to
this only the briefest possible reference has been made, and chiefly
in the beginning of these volumes.
Another explanation seems more necessary in this connection. In
describing the Traditionalism of the time of Christ, I must have said


what, I fear, may, most unwillingly on my part, wound the feelings of
some who still cling, if not to the faith of, yet to what now represents
the ancient Synagogue. But let me appeal to their fairness. I
must needs state what I believe to be the facts; and I could neither
keep them back nor soften them, since it was of the very essence of
my argument to present Christ as both in contact and in contrast with
Jewish Traditionalism. No educated Western Jew would, in these
days, confess himself as occupying the exact standpoint of Rabbinic
Traditionalism. Some will select parts of the system; others will
.allegorise, explain, or modify it; very many will, in heart-often
also openly-repudiate the whole. And here it is surely not neces-
sary for me to rebut or disown those vile falsehoods about the Jews
which ignorance, cupidity, and bigoted hatred have of late again so
strangely raised. But I would go further, and assert that, in re-
ference to Jesus of Nazareth, no educated Israelite of to-day woulA
identify himself with the religious leaders of the people eighteen
centuries ago. Yet is not this disclaimer of that Traditionalism
which not only explains the rejection of Jesus, but is the sole logical
raison d'etre of the Synagogue, also its condemnation ?
I know, indeed, that from this negative there is a vast step in
advance to the positive in the reception of the Gospel, and that
map.y continue in the Synagogue, because they are not so convinced
of the other as truthfully to profess it. And perhaps the means we
have taken to present it have not always been the wisest. The mere
appeal to the literal fulfilment of certain prophetic passages in the
Old Testament not only leads chiefly to critical discussions, but rests
the case on what is, after all, a secondary line of argumentation.
In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts,
but facts to point back to prophecies. The New Testament presents
the fulfilment of all prophecy rather than of prophecies, and individual
predictions serve as fingerposts to great outstanding facts, which
mark where the roads meet and part. And here, as it seems to me,
we are at one with the ancient Synagogue. In proof, I would call
special attention to Appendix IX., which gives a list of all the Old
Testament passages Messianically applied in Jewish writings. We,
as well as they, appeal to all Scripture, to all prophecy, as that of


which the reality is in the Messiah. But we also appeal to the
whole tendency and new direction which the Gospel presents in
opposition to that of Traditionalism; to the new revelation of the
Father, to the new brotherhood of man, and to the satisfaction of the
deepest wants of the heart, which Christ has brought-in short, to
the Scriptural, the moral, and the spiritual elements; and we would
ask whether all this could have been only the outcome of a Car-
penter's Son at Nazareth at the time, and amidst the surroundings
which we so well know.
In seeking to reproduce in detail the life, opinions, and teaching
of the contemporaries of Christ, we have also in great measure
addressed ourselves to what was the third special object in view in
this History. This was to clear the path of difficulties-in other
words, to meet such objections as might be raised to the Gospel-
narratives. And this, as regards principle-not details and minor
questions, which will cause little uneasiness to the thoughtful and
calm reader; quite irrespective also of any theory of inspiration
which may be proposed, and hence of any harmonistic or kindred
attempts which may be made. Broadly speaking, the attacks on the
Gospel-narratives may be grouped under these three particulars:
they may be represented as intentional fraud by the writers, and
imposition on the readers; or, secondly, a rationalistic explanation
may be sought of them, showing how what originally had been quite
simple and natural was misunderstood by ignorance, or perverted by
superstition; or, thirdly, they may be represented as the outcome of
ideas and expectations at the time, which gathered around the
beloved Teacher of Nazareth, and, so to speak, found body in legends
that clustered around the Person and Life of Him Who was regarded
as the Messiah. And this is supposed to account for the preach-
ing of the Apostles, for their life-witness, for their martyr-death,
for the Church, for the course which history has taken, as well as for
the dearest hopes and experiences of the Christian life!
Of the three modes of criticism just indicated, importance
attaches only to the third, which has been broadly designated as the
mythical theory. The fraud-theory seems-as even Strauss admits
-pIsychologically so incompatible with admitted 1acts as regards the


early Disciples and the Church, and it does such violence to the first
requirements of historical enquiry, as to make it-at least to me-
difficult to understand how any thoughtful student could be swayed
by objections which too often are merely an appeal to the vulgar,
intellectually and morally, in us. For-to take the historical view
of the question-even if every concession were made to negative
criticism, sufficient would still be left in the Christian documents to
establish a consensus of the earliest belief as to all the great facts of
the Gospel-History, on which both the preaching of the Apostles
and the primitive Church have been historically based. And with
this consensus at least, and its practical outcome, historical enquiry
has to reckon. And here I may take leave to point out the infinite
importance, as regards the very foundation of our faith, attaching to
the historical Church-truly in this also the xicGcort'a @eou C 0&vros,
o-r-vos ical i8palwt a columna et fulcrum] rs &aX0I as (the Church
of the Living God, the pillar and stay [support] of the truth).
As regards the second class of interpretation-the rationalistic-
it is altogether so superficial, shadowy and unreal that it can at
most be only regarded as a passing phase of light-minded attempts
to set aside felt difficulties.
But the third mode of explanation, commonly, though perhaps
not always quite fairly, designated as the mythical, deserves and
demands, at least in its sober presentation, the serious consideration
of the historical student. Happily it is also that which, in the nature
of it, is most capable of being subjected to the test of historical ex-
amination. For, as previously stated, we possess ample materials for
ascertaining the state of thought, belief, and expectancy in the time
of Christ, and of His Apostles. And to this aspect of objections to
the Gospels the main line of argumentation in this book has been
addressed. For, if the historical analysis here attempted has any
logical force, it leads up to this conclusion, that Jesus Christ was,
alike in the fundamental direction of His teaching and work, and in
its details, antithetic to the Synagogue in its doctrine, practice, and
But even so, one difficulty-we all feel it-remaineth. It is that
connected with miracles, or rather with the miraculous, since the
VOL.1. a



designation, and the difficulty to which it points, must not be limited
to outward and tangible phenomena. But herein, I venture to say,
lies also its solution, at least so far as such is possible-since the
difficulty itself, the miraculous, is of the very essence of our thinking
about the Divine, and therefore one of the conditions of it: at least,
in all religions of which the origin is not from within us, subjective,
but from without us, objective, or, if I may so say, in all that claim
to be universal religions Catholicc thinking). But, to my mind, the
evidential value of miracles (as frequently set forth in these volumes)
lies not in what, without intending offence, I may call their barely
super-naturalistic aspect, but in this, that they are the manifestations
of the miraculous, in the widest sense, as the essential element in
revealed religion. Miracles are of chief evidential value, not in
themselves, but as instances and proof of the direct communication
between Heaven and earth. And such direct communication is, at
least, the postulate and first position in all religions. They all present
to the worshipper some medium of personal communication from
Keaven to earth-some prophet or other channel of the Divine-and
some medium for our communication with Heaven. And this is the
fundamental principle of the miraculous as the essential postulate
in all religion that purposes again to bind man to God. It proceeds
on the twofold principle that communication must first come to man
from Heaven, and then that it does so come. Rather, perhaps, let
us say, that all religion turns on these two great factors of our inner
experience: man's felt need and (as implied in it, if we are God's
creatures) his felt expectancy. And in the Christian Church this is
not merely matter of the past-it has attained its fullest reality, and
is a constant present in the indwelling of the Paraclete.
Yet another part of the task in writing this book remains to be
mentioned. In the nature of it, such a book must necessarily have
been more or less of a Commentary on the Gospels. But I have
sought to follow the text of the Gospels throughout, and separately
to consider every passage in them, so that, I hope, I may truthfully
designate it also a Commentary on the Four Gospels-though an
informal one. And here I may be allowed to state that throughout
I have had the general reader in view, reserving for the foft-notes



and Appendices what may be of special interest to students. While
thankfully availing myself of all critical help within my reach-
and here I may perhaps take the liberty of specially singling out
Professor Westcott's Commentary on St. John-I have thought it
right to make the sacred text the subject of fresh and independent
study. The conclusions at which I arrived I would present with
the more deference, that, from my isolated position, I had not, in
writing these volumes, the inestimable advantage of personal contact,
on these subjects, with other students of the sacred text.
It only remains to add a few sentences in regard to other matters
-perhaps of more interest to myself than to the reader. For many
years I had wished and planned writing such a book, and all my
previous studies were really in preparation for this. But the task
was actually undertaken at the request of the Publishers, of whose
kindness and patience I must here make public acknowledgment.
For, the original term fixed for writing it was two or three years.
It has taken me seven years of continual and earnest labour-and,
even so, I feel as if I would fain, and ought to, spend other sever
years upon what could, at most, be touching the fringe of this great
subject. What these seven years have been to me I could not at-
tempt to tell. In a remote country parish, entirely isolated from all
social intercourse, and amidst not a few trials, parochial duty has
been diversified and relieved by many hours of daily work and of
study-delightful in and for itself. If any point seemed not clear
to my own mind, or required protracted investigation, I could give
days of undisturbed work to what to others might perhaps seem
secondary, but was all-important to me. And so these seven years
passed-with no other companion in study than my daughter, to
whom I am indebted, not only for the Index Berum, but for much
else, especially for a renewed revision, in the proof-sheets, of the
references made throughout these volumes. What labour and pa-
tience this required every reader will perceive-although even so I
cannot hope that no misprint or slip of the pen has escaped our
And now I part from this book with thankfulness to Almighty
God for sparing me to complete it. with lingering regret that the


task is ended, but also with unfeigned diffidence. I have, indeed,
sought to give my best and most earnest labour to it, and to write
what I believed to be true, irrespective of party or received opinions.
This, in such a book, was only sacred duty. But where study
necessarily extended to so many, and sometimes new, departments,
I cannot hope always to carry the reader with me, or-which is far
more serious-to have escaped all error. My deepest and most
earnest prayer is that He, in Whose Service I have desired to write
this book, would graciously accept the humble service-forgive what
is mistaken and bless what is true. And if anything personal may
intrude into these concluding lines, I would fain also designate what
I have written as Apologia pro vitd med (alike in its fundamental
dirst~ion and even ecclesiastically)-if, indeed, that may be called
an Apologia which is the confession of this inmost conviction of
mind and heart: Lord, to Whom shall we go ? The words of
eternal life hast Thou! And we have believed and know that Thou
art the Holy One of God.'

eptember 1883.



Alford: Greek Testament.
Von der Alm: Heidn. u. jild. Urtheile
fiber Jesu u. die alten Christen.
Altingiu : Dissertationes et Orationes.
Apoorypha: S. P. C. K. Commentary on.
The Apocryphal Gospels.
Auerback: Berith Abraham.

Backer: Die Agada der Babylon. Amo-
Bick: Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes u.
seiner Literatur.
Baedeker: Syrien u. Palistina.
Bdir : Gesetz fiber Falsche Zeugen nach
Bibel u. Talmud.
Barclay: City of the Great King.
Beer: Leben Abraham's.
Beer: Leben Mosis.
Beer, P.: Geschichte d. relig. Sekten d.
Bengel: Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
Bengel: Alter der jiidischen Proselyten-
Bergel: Naturwissenschaftliche Kennt-
nisse d. Talmudisten.
Bergel: Der Himmel u. seine Wunder.
Bergel: Die Eheverhiltnisse der alten
Berliner, Dr. A.: Targum Onkelos.
Bertholdt: Christologia Judaeorum.
Beykohlag: Die Christologie des Neuen
Beysohlag: Zur Johanneischen Frage.
Bickell: Die Entstehung der Liturgie aus
der Einsetzungsfeier.
Bleek: EinleitungindasNeue Testament,
ed. Mangold.
Bleek: Synoptische Erkliirung d. drei
Bloch: Studien z. Gesch. der Sammlung
d. althebr. Literatur.
Block: Das Mosaisch-talmud. Polizei-
Block: Oivilprocess-Ordnung nach Mos.
rabb. Rechte.

Boehartus: Hierozoicon.
Bodek: Marcus Aurelius u. R. Jehudah.
Bodenschat : Kirchliche Verfassung der
heutigen Juden.
B6hl: Forschungen nach einer Volks-
bibel zur Zeit Jesu.
BoAl: Alttestamentliche Citate im N. T.
Bonar: The Land of Promise.
Braun: Die S8hne des Herodes.
Braunius: De Vestitu Hebraeorum.
Broker : Das Transcendentaleim Talmud.
Bredom: Rabbinische Mythen, &c.
Briickner: Die Versuchungsgeschichte
unseres Herrn Jesu Christi.
Briick: Rabbinische Ceremonialgebrlau-
Briill: Fremdsprachliche Redensarten im
Briill: Trachten der Juden.
Buber: Pesikta.
Bucker: Des Apostels Johannes Lehre
vom Logos.
Burgon: The Last Twelve Verses of St.
Bwxtorf: Exercitationes.
Buxtorf: Synagoga Judaica.
Bwcutorf: Lexicon Talmud.

Calvin: Comment. passimm).
Caken: Repertorium Talmudioum.
Carpzov: Chuppa Hebr iorium.
Caspari: Eiileitung in' das Leben Jesu
Cassel: Das Buch KF sari.
Cassel: Lehrbuch der Jiid. Gesch. u.
Cate7li: Commento di Sabbatai Donnolo
sul libro della Creazione.
Castelli: I1 Messia second gli Ebrei
Cavedoni: Biblische Numismatik
Charteris: Canonicity.
Chasronoth Hashas.
Cheyne: Prophecies of Isaiah.
SCh 's: De Herode Magno


Cohen: Les D6icides.
Commentaries, Speaker's, on the
Gospels; Camb. Bible on the
Condor: Tent Work in Palestine.
Conder: Handbook to the Bible.
Conforte: Liber Kore ha-Dorot.
Cook: The Rev. Version of the Gospels.
Oreizenach: Shulcan Aruch.
Cremer: New Testament Dictionary.
Cweton: Syriac Gospels.

Diihne: Jiidisch-Alex. Religionsphilos.
.Davidson: Introduction to the Study of
the New Testament.
Davidson: The Last Things.
Dachs: Codex SuccaTalmudis Babylonici.
DanTo : Historia Revelationis Divine N. T.
Danko: De Sacra Scriptura ejusque in-
terpretatione Commentarius.
Delaunay: Moines et Sibylles dans 1'an-
tiquit6 Judio-Grecque.
Delitzsoh: Handwerkerleben zur Zeit
Delitzsch: Geschichte der jid. Poesie.
Delitzsch: Durch Krankheit zur Gene-
Delitzsch: Ein Tag in Capernaum.
Delitzschk: Untersuchungen fib. die Ent-
steh. u. Anlage d. Matth.-Evang.
Delitzsch: Talmudische Studien.
Delitzsch : Jesus und Hillel.
Derenbourg: Essai sur i'Histoire et la
G6ographie de la Palestine.
Deutsch: Literary Remains.
Deylingius: Observationes Sacrm.
Dillmann : Das Buch Henoch.
DSllinger : Heidenthum und Judenthum.
Drummond: The Jewish Messiah.
Dukes: Zur Rabbinischen Sprachkunde.
Dukes: Rabbinische Blumenlese.
Duschak: Zur Botanik des Talmud.
Duschak : Die Moral der Evangelien und
des Talmud.
Duschak: Jiidischer Cultus.
Dusehak: Schulgesetzgebung.

Ebrard: Wissenschaftliche Kritik der
evangel. Geschichte.
Edersheim : History of the Jewish Nation.
Edersheim: The Temple, its Ministry and
its Services.
JEdersheim: Sketches of Jewish Social

Ehrmann: Geschichte der Schulen u. der
Cultur unter den Juden.
Eisennmenger: Entdecktes Judenthum.
Eisler: BeitrAige zur Rabb. Sprach- u.
Ellicott: New Testament Commentary:
Ellicott: Lectures on the Life of our
Encyclopedia Britannica passimm).
Etheridge: The Targums on the Penta-
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History.
EJald: Abodah Sarah.
Ewald: Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Emald: Bibl. Jahrb. passimm).

Fabrieius: Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T.
Farrar: Life of Christ.
Farrar: Eternal Hope.
Fassel: Das Mos. rabb. Civilrecht.
Fassel: Gerichts-Verf.
Field: Otium Norvicense.
Filipowski: Liber Juchassin.
Fisher: Beginnings of Christianity.
Frankel: Targum der Proph.
Frankel: Ueb. d. Einfl. d. pallist. Exegese
auf die Alexandr. Hermeneutik.
Frankel: Monatschrift fiir das Juden,
thum passingn).
Fra-nhel: Vorstudien zuder Septuaginta.
Frankel: Einleitung in d. Jerusalem.
Franck: d. Kabbala.
Freudenthal: Hellenistische Studien.
Friedenthal: Jessode haddat weikere
Fiiedlaender: Sittengeschichte Roms.
FYiedlaender: Ben Dosa u. seine Zeit.
Friedlaender: Patristischeu. Talmudische
Friedlieb: Oracula Sibyllina.
Friedlieb: Archiologie der Leidensge-
Friedmann: Siphri debe Rab.
Fritzsche u. Grimm: Handbuch zu den
Fritzsche v. Grimm : Libri V. T. Pseud-
epigraphi Selecti.
Fuller: Harmony of the Four Gospels.
First: Der Kanon des A. T.
First: Kultur u. Literaturgeschichte der
Juden in Asien.
Finst: Biblioth. Jild. passimm).
Firstenthal: Menorath Hammaor.



.FWrst nthal: Jessode haddat.

Geier: De Ebraeorum Luctu Lugen-
tiumque Ritibus.
Geiger: Das Judenthum u. seine Ge-
Geiger : BeitrAge z. Jiid. Literatur-Gesch.
Geiger: Zeitschrift fuir Jiid. Theol.
Geiger : Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der
Geikie: Life and Words of Christ.
Gelpke: Die Jugendgesch. des Herrn.
Gerlach: Die R1m. Statthilter in Syrien
u. Judha.
OGfrrer: Philo.
Gfriirer: Jahrh. d. Heils.
Ginsburg : Ben Chajim's Introd.
Ginsburg: Massoreth Ha-Massoreth.
Ginsburg: The Essenes.
Ginsbwug: The Kabbalah.
Godet: Commentar.
Godet: Bibl. Studies.
Goebel: Die Parabeln Jesu.
Goldberg: The Language of Christ.
Graetz: Geschichte der Juden.
Green: Handbk. to the Grammar of the
Grk. Test.
Grimm: Die Samariter.
Grimm: Clavis N. T.
Gronemann: Die Jonathansche Penta-
Griinebaum: Sittenlehre des Judenthums.
Guirin: Description de la Palestine et
Guilleinard: Hebraisms in the Greek
Giinzburg: Beleuchtung des alten Juden-

Hamburger: Real- Encykloptidie f. Bibel
u. Talmud.
Hamelsveld: Dissertatio de mdibus vet.
Haneberg : Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel.
BHarnoch: De Philonis Judei Log. In-
zartmann: Die Hebraerin am Putztische
u. als Braut.
Hartmann: Die enge Verbindung des
A. T. mit dem Neuen.
Hase: Leben Jesu.
Haupt: Die A. T. Citate in den 4
Hausrath: Neutestamentliche Zeitge-

lHerzfeld: Geschichte Israels.
Herzfeld: Handelsgeschichte der Judren
des Alterthums.
Herzog: Real-Encyklop'die passimm).
Hildesheimer: Der Herod. Tempel n. d.
Talmud u. Josephus.
Hilgenfeld: Jiidische Apokalyptik.
Hirsctfeld: Halach. u. Hagad. Exegese.
Hirsekfeld: Tractatus Macot.
Hitzig : Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Hojfmann: Leben Jesu.
Hofmann: Schriftbeweis.
Hofmann: Weissagung u. Erfiillung.
Hoffmann: Abhandlungen iib. die Pentat.
Holdheim: d. Cerem. Ges.
Hottinger: Juris Hebr. Leges.
Husehke: Ueb. d. Census u. die Steuer.
verf. d. friih. Rdm. Kaiserzeit.
Husehike: Ueb. d. z. Zeit. d. Geb. Jesu
Christi gehaltenen Census.
Havercamp : Flavius Josephus.

Ideler: Chronologie.
Ikenius: Antiquitates Hebraice.
17eenius: Dissertationes Philologico-theo-

Jellinek: Beth ha-Midrash.
Joel: Blick in d. Religionsgesch. d. 2ten
Christlichen Jahrh.
Joel: Religionsphilos. des Sohar.
Jost: Gesch. d. Judenth. u. seiner Sekten.
Jdwvett: Epistles of St. Paul, Romans,
Galatians, Thessalonians.
Josephas Gorionides: ed. Breithaupt.
Juynboll: Comment. in Hist. Gentis

Keil: Einl. in d. Kanon. u. Apokryph.
Schriften des A. T.
Keim: Geschichte Jesu von Nazara.
Kennedy : Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
trehheim: Septem Libri Talmudici parvi
Kirchner: Jiid. Passahf.
Kitto: Cyclopaedia of Biblical Litera-
ture passimm).
Kohut: Jiidische Angelologie u. Daemo-
KSnig: Die Menschwerdung Gottes.
Edoster : Nachw. d. Spur. einer Trinitats.
lehre vor Christo.
Krafft: Jiidische Sagen u. Dichtungen.
Krauss: Die Grosse Synode.



Krebs: Deereta Athen. in honor Hyrcani
P. M. Judmorum.
Krebs: Decreta Roman. pro Judais.
Krebs: Observationes in Nov. Test.
Kuhn: Stidt. u. birgerl. Verfass d.
Rim. Reichs.

Landau: Arukh.
Lange: Bibelwerk (on Gospels).
Langen: Judenthum in PalAstina z. Zeit
Lange: Leben Jesn.
Langfelder: Symbolik des Judenthums.
Lattes : Saggiodi Giunte e Correzzioni al
Lessico Talmudico.
Lavadeur: Krit. Beleucht. d. jild. Kalen-
Lenormant: Chaldean Magic.
Levi: Historia Religionis Judeorum.
Levy: Neuhebr. u. Chaldhisch. Wirter-
Levy: Chaldiisch. Wdrterb. fiber die
Levy : Gesch. der Jiidisech. Miinzen.
Levyssohn : Disputatio de Jud. sub COes.
Lewin: Fasti Sacri.
Lewin: Siege of Jerusalem.
Lewiyssokn : Zoologie des Talmuds.
Lightfoot: Horm Hebraics et Talmudice
in 4 Evangel.
Ligktfoot : Commentary on Galatians.
Lightfoot: Commentary on Colossians.
Lisco: Die Wunder Jesu Christi.
Ldw: BeitrAge z. jfid. Alterthumskunde.
Low: Lebensalter in d. jiid. Literatur.
Ldwe: Schulchan Aruch.
Lbwy: Biggoreth haTalmud.
Lucius: Essenismus in sein Verhiltn. z.
Lichke: Johannes (Gospel).
Lundius : Jiidische Heiligthiimer.
Luthardt: Johann. Evangelium.
Luthardt: Die modern. Darstell. d.
Lebens Jesu.
Lutterbeck: Neutestamentliche Lehrbe-

Meellan: New Testament (Gospels).
Madden: Coins of the Jews.
Mainwuides: Yad haChazzakah.
Marcus: PAdagogik des Talmud.
Marquardt: R8m. Staatsverwaltung.
Martinus: Fidei Pugio.

Maybaurm: Die Anthropomorph. u. An-
thropopath. bei Onkelos.
Megillath Taanith.
Meier: Judaica.
Meuschen: Nov. Test ex Talmude et
Meyer: Seder 01am Rabba et Suta.
Meyer: Buch Jezirs.
Meyer: Kommentar. (on Gospels).
Meyer: Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud.
Midrash Rabboth.
Midrashim. (See List in Rabb.
Mill: On the Mythical Interpretation of
the Gospels.
Molitor: Philosophie der Geschichte.
Moscovitor: Het N. T. en de Talmud.
Miller : Mess. Erwart. d. Jud. Philo.
Miller : Zur Johann Frage.
Miller, J.: Massech. Sopher.
Hiinter: Stern der Weisen.
Nansz: Die Besessenen im N. T.
Neander: Life of Christ.
Nebe: Leidensgesch. unser. Herrn Jesu
Nebe: Auferstehungsgesch. unser. Herrn
Jesu Christi.
Neeubauer: La G6ographie du Talmud.
Neubauer and Driver: Jewish Interpre-
ters of Isaiah liii.
Neumann: Messian. Erschein. bei d.
Neumann: Gesch. d. Mess. Weissag. im
A. T.
New Testament. Ed. Scrivener.
Ed. Westcott and Hort. Ed. Geb-
Nicolai: De Sepulchris Hebrmorum.
Nizzachon Vetus, et Toledoth Jeshu.
Nicholson: The Gospel accord, to the
Norris: New Testament (Gospels).
ork : Rabbinische Quellen u. Parallelen.
Nutt: Samaritan History.
Otho: Lexicon Rabbin. Philolog.
Outram: De Sacrificiis Judmor. et
Othijoth de R. Akiba.
Oxlee: Doc. of Trinity on Princips. of
Pagninus: Thesaurus Lingum Sancts.
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly
Statements passimm).



Perles: Leichenfeierlichk. im Nachbibl.
Philippson: Haben wirklich die Jud.
Jesum gekreuzigt ?
Philippson: Israelit. Religionslehre.
Philo Judaus : Opera.
Pictorial Palestine passimm).
Picturesque Palestine.
Pinner: Berachoth.
Pinner: Compend. des Hieros. u. Babyl.
Pirk6 de R. Elieser.
Plumptre: Comment. on the Gospels.
Plumptre: Bible Educator passimm).
Pocock: Porta Mosis.
Prayer-books, Jewish: i. Arnheim. ii.
Mannheimer. iii. Polak (Frankfort
ed.). iv. Friedlhinder. v. F. A. Euchel.
vi. Jacobson. vii. Pesach Haggadah.
viii. R6delheim ed.
Pressense: Jesus Christ: His Time, Life,
and Works.
Prideaus : Connec. of 0. and N.T.
Pusey: What is of Faith as to Everlasting
Babbinomicz: Einleit. in d. Gesetzgeb.
u. Medicin d. Talm.
Bavuis: Dissertat. de. aedib. vet. Hebr.
Redslob: Die Kanonisch. Evangelien.
Reland: Antiquit. Sacr. veter. Hebr.
Reland: Palhestina.
Remond: Ausbreit. d. Judenthums.
Renan: L'Ant6christ.
Benan: Vie de J6sus.
Renan: Marc-Aurble.
Rhenferd et Vitringa: De Decem Otiosis
Biehm: Handwdrterb. d. bibl. Alterth.
Richmi: Lehrbegriff d. Hebrierbriefs.
Riess: Geburtsjahr Christi.
Bitter : Philo u. die Halacha.
Roberts: Discussion on the Gospels.
Robinson: Biblical Researches in Pales-
Roeth: Epistola ad Hebreos.
Bohr: Pallistina z. Zeit Christi.
BRnsch: Buch Jubililen.
Boos: Lehre u. Lebensgesch. Jesu Christi.
BRsch: Jesus-Mythen d. Talmudist.
Rosenmiiller: Biblisch. Geographie.
Rossi, Azarjah de: Meor Enajim.
Rossi, Giambernardo de: Della Lingua
Propria di Christo.
Sacks: Beitrige z. Sprach u. Alterthums.

Saalschiits: Musik bei d. Hebriern.
Saalschiitz: Mos. Recht.
Salvador: R;merherrschaft in Judaea.
Salvador: Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes.
Sammtner: Baba Mezia.
Scenkel: Bibel-Lexicon passimm).
Schleusner: Lexicon Gr. Lat. in N.T.
Schmer: De Chuppa Hebrmorum.
Schmilg: Der Siegeskalender Megill.
Schneckenburger: Neutestament. Zeitge-
Schoettgen: Hors Hebraice et Tal-
Schreiber: Principien des Judenthums.
Schroederus: Comment. de Vestitu Mulier.
Schiirer: Neutestam. Zeitgesch.
Schiirer: Gemeindeverfass. d. Juden in
Rom in d. Kaiserzeit.
Schwab: Le Talmud de J6rusalem.
Schwarz: D. Heilige Land.
Schwarz: Tosifta Shabbath.
Scrivener: Introduction to the Criticism
of the New Testament.
Seder Hadoroth.
Selden: De Synedriis Ebr.
Selden: De Jure Naturali et Gent. Hebr.
Selden: Uxor Ebraica.
Sepp: Leben Jesu.
Sevin: Chronologie des Lebens Jesu.
Sheringham: Joma.
Siegfried: Philo von Alexandria.
Singer: Onkelos u. seine Verhiltn. z.
Sion Ledorosh.
Smith : Dictionary of the Bible (passtm).
Smith and Wace: Dictionary of Christian
Biography (passim).
Tikkuui haSohar.
Soloweyezyk: Bibel, Talmud, u. Evan-
Sommer: Mispar haSohar.
Spencer: De Legib. Hebr. Ritual.
Spiess: Das Jerusalem des Josephus.
Spitzer: Das Mahl bei den Hebriiern.
Stanley: Sinai and Palestine.
Steinmeyer: Geburt des Herrn u. sein.
erste Schritte im Leben.
Steinmeyer: Die Parabeln des Herrn.
Stein: Schrift des Lebens.
Stern: Die Frau im Talmud.
Stern: Gesch. des Judenthums.
Stier: Reden des Herrn Jesa.



&rack : Pirk6 Aboth.
Struck: Proleg. Crit. in V.T. Hebr.
&raauss: Leben Jesu.
Supernatural Religion.
Swrenhusius: Biblos Katallages.
Surenhusius: Mishnah.

Talmud, Babylon and Jerusalem.
Targum, the Targumim in the Mik-
raoth gedoloth.
Taylor: Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
(Pirq6 Ab, &c.), with critical and
illustrative Notes.
Taylor: Great Exemplar.
Tauchnma : Midrash.
Thein: Der Talmud.
Theologische Studien u. Kritiken
Th7oluch: Bergpredigt Christi.
Tholuch: Das Alt. Test. im Neu. Test.
Tiscaendorf: Whlen were our Gospels
written ?
Toettermnan: R. Eliezer ben Hyroanus.
Traill: Josephus.
Trench: Notes on the Miracles.
Trench: Notes on the Parables.
Tristram: Natural History of the Bible.
Tristram: Land of Israel.
Tristramr: Land of Moab.
Trusen: Sitten, Gebriuche u. Krank-
heiten. d. alt. Hebr.

Ugolinus: Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sac-
rarum passimm).
UnaruA: Das alte Jerusalem u. seine

Vernes: Histoire des Id6es Messianiques.
Vitringa: De Synagoga Vetere.
Volkmar: Einleitung in die Apokryphen.
Volkmar: Marcus.
Volkmar: Mose Prophetie u. Himmel-
Vorstius: De Hebraisms Nov. Test.

Waee: The Gospel and its Witnesses.
Wa~genscil: Sota.
Wahl: Clavis Nov. Test. Philologica.
Warneck: Pontius Pilatus.
Watkins: Gospel of St. John.
Weber: Johannes der Taufer u. die
Parteien seiner Zeit.
Weber: System der altsvuagog. pallist.

B. Weiss: Lehrb. d. bibl. Theoi, des N. T.
Weiss: Mechilta.
Weiss: Siphra.
B. Weiss: Matthilusevangelium.
B. We'iss: Leben Jesu.
Weiss: Geschichte der jiid. Tradition.
Weizsieoker: Untersuch. fib. die evangel.
Wellhausen: Die Pharisi.er u. die Sad-
Westeott: Introduction to the Study of
the Gospels.
Westoott: On the Canon of the New
Westeott: Gospel of St. John.
Wetstein: Novum Testamentum Grmcum
Wichelhaus: Kommentar zur Leidens,
Wieseler : Beitrage zu den Evang. u. d6
Evangel. Gesch.
Wieseler: Chronol. Synopse der 4 Evan-
Wiesner : d. Bann in s. Gesch. Entwicke-
Winer: Biblisches Realwbrterbuch (pan-
Winer: De Onkeloso.
Wilson: Recovely of Jerusalem.
Witticken: Die Idee des Reiches Gottes.
Wittichen: Leben Jesu.
Wolfius: Bibliotheca Hebrama passimm).
Wordsworth: Commentary (Gospels).
WuInderbar: Bibl. talmud. Medecin.
Wilnsche: Die Leiden des Messias.
Wiinsehe: Neue Beitrige z. Erlilut. der
Wiinsche: Der Jerusalemische Talmud.
Wiinsohe: Bibliotheca Rabbinica.

Yalkut Shimeoni.
Yalkut Rubeni.
Young: Christology of the Targums.

Zahn: Forsch. zur Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons,
Zeller: Philosophie der Griechen.
Zemach David.
Zimmenrmann: Karten u. Plane z. Topo-
graphie des alten Jerusalems.
Zohkler : Handb. d. Theol. Wissenschaften.
Zumpt: Geburtsjahr Christi.
Zunz: Zur Geschichte u. Literatur.
Zaqnz: Die Gottesdienstl. Vortr. d. Juden.
Zuzs: Synagogale Poesie.
Zunz: Ritus d. Synagogalen-Gottesdienat.
Zawkermandel: Tosephta.




THE MishnA is always quoted according to Tractate, Chapter (Pereq) and Para
fraph (Mishnah), the Chapter being marked in Roman, the paragraph in ordinary
Numerals. Thus Ber. ii. 4 means the Mishnic Tractate Berakhoth, second Chapter,
fourth Paragraph.
The Jerusalem Talmud is distinguished by the abbreviation Jer. before the
name of the Tractate. Thus, Jer. Ber. is the Jer. Gemara, or Talmud, of the Tractate
.Berakhoth. The edition, from which quotations are made, is that commonly used,
Krotoschin, 1866, 1 vol. fol. The quotations are made either by Chapter and Para-
graph (Jer. Ber. ii. 4), or, in these volumes mostly, by page and column. It ought to
be noted that in Rabbinic writings each page is really a double one, distinguished
respectively as a and b: a being the page to the left hand of the reader, and b the
reverse one (on turning over the page) to the riht hand of the reader. But in the
.Terusalem Gemara (and in Yalkdt [see below], as in all works where the page and
column (col.) are mentioned) the quotation is often-in these volumes, mostly-made
by page and column (two columns being on each side of a page). Thus,while Jer. Ber.
ii. 4 would be Chapter II. Par. 4, the corresponding quotation by page and column
would in that instance be, Jer. Ber. 4 d; d marking that it is the fourth column in b
(or the off-side) of page 4.
The Babyl. Talmud is, in all its editions, equally paged, so that a quotation made
applies to all editions. It is double-paged, and quoted with the name of the Tractate,
the number of the page, and a or b, according as one or another side of the page is
referred to. The quotations are distinguished from those of the Mishnah by this,
that in the Mishnah Roman and ordinary numerals are employed (to mark Charters
and Paragraphs), while in the Babylon Talmud the name of the Tractate is followed
by an ordinary numeral, indicating the page, together with a or b, to mark which side
of the page is referred to. Thus Ber. 4 a means: Tractate Berachoth, p. 4, first or
left-hand side of the page.
I have used the Vienna edition, but this, as already explained, is not a point of
any importance. To facilitate the verification of passages quoted I have in very many
instances quoted also the lines, either from top or bottom.
The abbreviation Tos. (Tosephta, additamentum) before the name of a Tractate
refers to the additions made to the Mishnah after its redaction. This redaction dates
from the third century of our era. The Tos. extends only over 52 of the Mishnic Trac-
tates. They are inserted in the Talmud at the end of each Tractate, and are printed
on the double pages in double columns (col. a and b on p. a, col. e and d on p. b).
lThey are generally quoted by Pereq and Mishnah: thus, Tos. Gitt. i. 1, or (more
largely) by page and column, Tos. Gitt. p. 150 a. The ed. Zuchermandel is, when
quoted, specially indicated.
Besides, the Tractate Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (Ab. de. R. Nath.), and the smaller
tVractates, Sopherim (Sopher.), Semachoth (Semaoh.), Kallah (Kall. or Chall.'), DerekA
Srets (Der. Er.), Derekh Erets Zuta (commonly Der. Er. S.), and Pereq Shalom (Per.
fial. are inserted at the close of vol. ix of. the Talmud. They are printed in four
columns (on double pages), and quoted by Pereq and Mishnah.
The so-called Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani are published
1 It is to be noted that in the marginal and note-references the old mode of indicating a
reference (as in the first ed. of this book) and the, perhaps, more correct mode of transliteration
have been promiscuo "1y employed. Bat the reader can have no difficulty in understanding
the reference.



separately (ed. RaplJael Kiraohwim, Frof 1851). They are the Massee ket Seoptr
Torah (Mass. Seph. Tor.), Mass. Mezuzah (Mass. Messs., Mass. Tepihillin (Mass.
Tephill.), Mass. Tsitsith (Mass. Ziz.), Mass. Abhadim (Mass. Abad.), Mass. XKthim
(Mass. C th.), and Mass. Gerim (Mass. Ger.). They are printed and quoted
according to double pages (a.and b).
To these must be added the so-called Chesronoth haShas, a collection of passages
expurgated in the ordinary editions from the various Tractates of the Talmud.
Here we must close, what might else assume undue proportions, by an alphabetical
list of the abbreviations, although only of the principal books referred to:-

Ab. Zar.' The Talmudic Tractate Abhodah Zarah, on Idolatry.
Ab. ... ,, ,, ,, Pirqey Abhoth, Sayings of the Fathers.
Ab. de R. Nath. The Tractate Abhoth de Rabbi Nathan at the close of vol. ix. in the
Bab. Talm.
Aralhs. The Talmudic Tractate Arak/hi, on the redemption of persons or
things consecrated to the Sanctuary.

Bab. ,, ,, ,, Babha Qammna (' First Gate'), the first,
Bab, Mets. [or Mez.] ,, ,, Babha Metsia (' Middle Gate '), the second,
Bab. B. ,, ,, ,, Babha Bat /iha (' Last Gate'), the third of the
great Tractates on Common Law.
Beohor. ,, LBekhoroth, on the consecration to the Sanc-
tuary of the First-born.
Bemid. R. The Midrash (or Commentary) Bemidbar labba, on Numbers.
Ber. The Talmudic Tractate Boerakhoth, on Prayers and Benedictions.
Ber. B. The Midrash (or Commentary) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis.
Bets. [or Bez.]. The Talmudio Tractate Betsah, laws about an egg laid on Sabbath
and Fast-days, and on similar points con-
nected with the sanctifying of such
Biocur. ,, n Bikkurim, on First-fruits.

Chag. ,, ,, Chagigak, on the festive offerings at the three
Great Feasts.
Chall. ,, Challah, on the first of the dough (Numb.
xv. 17).
C7slul. ,, ChtAllin, the rubric as to the mode of killing
meat and kindred subjects.

Debar R. The Midrash Doeharim Rabba, on Deuteronomy.
Dem. The Talmudic Tractate Demai, regarding produce, the tithing of
which is not certain.

Eho. R. The Midrash Elkhah Rabbathi, on Lamentations (also quoted as
Mid. on Lament.).
Eduy. The Talmudic Tractate Edayoat (Testimonies), the legal determina-
tions enacted or confirmed on a certain
occasion, decisive in Jewish History.
Erub. The Talmudic Tractate Erubin, on the conjunction of Sabbath-
boundaries. (See Appendix XVIL)
Midr. Esth. The Midrash on Esther.
Sitt. The Talmudic Tractate Gittin, on Divorce.
1 Mark the note on previous page.


Boray,. The Talmudic Tractate HIorayot., Decisions' on certain uninten-
tional transgressions.
Jad. [or Tad.] ,, t Yadayim, on the Washing of Hands.
Jebam. [or Yebhaknoth, on the Levirate.
Yebam.] I
Jo. costly ,, Yoma, on the Day of Atonement.

Eel. ,, ,, ,, Keliin, on the purification of furniture and
Xerith. ,, ,, ,, erithuth, on the punishment of cutting off.'
Xethub. ,, ,, ,, Ketubhoth, on marriage-contracts.
Xidd. ,, ,, ,, Qiddushin, on Betrothal.
Kil. ,, ,, ilayim, on the unlawful commixtures (Lev.
xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9-11).
Kinn. ,, ,, Qinnim, on the offering of doves (Lev. v
1-10; xii. 8).
Midr. Kohel. The Midrash on Qoheletk or Eccles.
3faas. The Talmudic Tractate Maaseroth, on Levitical Tithes.
Maas. Sh. ,, ,, Maaser Sheni, on second Tithes (Deut. xiv.
22, &c.).
Nacsh. .. ,, ,, ,, Makhshki'n, on fluids that may renderproducts
defiled,' or that leave them undefiled
(Lev. xi. 34, 38).
Ma.kk. [or Mace.],, ,, ,, Makkotk, on the punishment of Stripes.
Iehi' ,, ,. Mekhilta, a Commentary on part of Exodus,
dating at the latest from the first half of
the second century.
AMegill. ,, Megillah, referring to the reading of the
(' roll') Book of Esther and on the Feast
of Esther.
Meil. ,, Meilah, on the defilement of things con-
Menack.. ,, ,, enaehoth, on Meat-offerings.
Midd. ,, ,, ,, Middoth, on the Temple-measurements and
Mik. .. ,, ,, Mivaot, on ablutions and immersions.
Mood. K. ,, ,, Moed Qatan, on Half-holidays.
Naz. ,, Nazir, on the Nasirate.
Ned. ,, ,, ,, Nedarim, on Vowing.
Neg. ,, ,, Negaim, on Leprosy.
Nidd Niddah, on female levitical impurity (men-
Oll. ,, Oholoth, on the defilement of tents and houses,
specially by death.
Orl. o ,, ,, Orlah, on the ordinances connected with Lev.
xix. 23.

Par'. ,, ,, Parah, on the Red Heifer and purification
by its ashes.
Pe"~ so Peah, on the comer to be left for the poor in


Pes. The Talmudic Tractate Pesaohim, on the Paschal Feast.
Pesiqta The book Pesiqta, an exceedingly interesting series of Meditations
or brief discussions and Lectures on certain
portions of the Lectionary for the principal
Sabbaths and Feast Days.
Pir gdeR.Eliez. The Haggadic Pirq6 de Rabbi Eliezer, in 54 chapters, a discursive
Tractate on the History of Israel from the
creation to the time of Moses, with the in-
sertion of three chapters (xlix-li) on the
history of Haman and the future Messianic
Rosh haSA. The Talmudic Tractate Rosh, haShanah, on the Feast of New Year.
Sab. ,, Zabhim, on certain levitically defiling issues.
Sank. ,, ,, ,, Sanedria, on the Sanhedrim and Criminal
Sebach. ,, ,, ,, Zebhachim, on Sacrifices.
Shabb .. ,, ,, Sabbath, on Sabbath-observance.
Shebh. ,, ,, ,, Shebhiith, on the Sabbatic Year.
Shebu ,, ,, ,, Shebkhoth, on Oaths, &c.
Sheqal. ,, ,, ,, Seqalim, on the Temple-Tribute, &c.
Shem. R. The Midrash Sheemotih Rabba on Exodus.
Shir haSh. B. ,, ,, Shir haShirim RBabba, on the Song of Solomon.
Siphra The ancient Commentary on Leviticus, dating from the second
Siphrj The still somewhat older Commentary on Numb. and Deuter.
Sot. The Talmudic Tractate Sotah, on the Woman accused of- adultery.
Sukk. ,, ,, Sukkah, on the Feast of Tabernacles.

Taa. ,, ,, ,, Taanith, on Fasting and Fast-days. .
Tam. ,, ,, ,, Tamid, on the daily Service and Sacrifice in
the Temple.
Teb. Yom, ,, ebhul Yom (' bathed of the day '), on im-
purities, where there is immersion on the
evening of the same day.
Tern. ,, ,, Temurah, on substitution for things con-
secrated (Lev. xxvii. 10).
Ter. ,, ,, ,, Terumout, on the priestly dues in produce.
Tlhar. ,, ,, ,, Tohatroth, on minor kinds of defilement.
Tanch. The Midrashic Commentary Tanehuma (or Yelamdenu), on the
Uti. The Talmudic Tractate Uqtsin, on the defilement of fruits through
their envelopes, stalks, &c.

Vayyik. R. The Midrash Vayyikra Rabba, on Leviticus.
Yalk. The great collectaneum: Talkut Shimeoni, which is a catena on the
whole Old Testament, containing also
quotations from works lost to us.'

2 It will, of course, be understood that we jects of which they treat, all kindred topics
have only given the briefest, and, indeed, are taken up, nay, the discussion often passes
imperfect.indications of thecontentsof the to quite other than the subjects iimarily
vasAonsTalmudicTractates. Besides giving treated of in a Tractate.
the Laws connected with each of the sub-







The Jewish World in the Days of Christ-The Jewish Dispersion in the East 3
Che Jewish Dispersion in the West-The Hellenists-Origin of Hellenist
Literature in the Greek Translation of the Bible-Character of the Septua-
gint 17
The Old Faith preparing for the New-Development of Hellenist Theology:
The Apoerypha, Aristeas, Aristobulus, and the Pseudepigraphic Writings 31

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 40
Alexandria and Rome-The Jewish Communities in the Capitals of Western
Civilisation,. 68
Political and Religious Life of the Jewish Dispersion in the West-Their
Union in the Great Hope of the Coming Deliverer *


In Palestine-Jews and Gentiles in 'the Land '-Their Mutual Relations and
Feelings-' The Wall of Separation' 84

Traditionalism, its Origin, Character, and Literature-The Mishnah and
Talmud-The Gospel of Christ-The Dawn of a New Day o 93



In Jerusalem when Herod reigned o a 111
The Personal History of Herod-The Two Worlds in Jerusalem o 121
The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist o 8 133
The Annunciation of Jesus the Messiah, and the Birth of His Forerunner 144
What Messiah did the Jews expect ? o 160
The Nativity of Jesus the Messiah 180
The Purification of the Virgin and the Presentation in the Temple 191
The Visit and Homage of the Magi, and the Flight into Egypt o 202
The Child-Life in Nazareth .217
In the House of His Heavenly, and in the Home of His Earthly Father-
The Temple of Jerusalem-The Retirement at Nazareth 230



In the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar and under the Pontificate of Annas
and Caiaphas-A Voice in the Wilderness 255

The Baptism of Jesus: Its Higher Meaning 275




The Temptation of Jesus 291

The Deputation from Jerusalem-The Three Sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Essenes-Examination of their distinctive Doctrines 308

The Twofold Testimony of John-The First Sabbath of Jesus's Ministry-
The First Sunday-The First Disciples 886

The Marriage-Feast in Cana of Galilee-The Miracle that is a Sign' 851

The Cleansing of the Temple--- The Sign' which is not a Sign 864

The Teacher come from God and the Teacher from Jerusalem-Jesus and
Nicodemus 877
In Judaea and through Samaria-A Sketch of Samaritan History and Theology
-JTws and Samaritans 390

Jesus at the Well of Sychar 404


The Second Visit to Cana-Cure of the Nobleman's' Son at Capernaum 422

The Synagogue at Nazareth-Synagogue-Worship and Arrangements 430

The First Galilean Ministry 451

At the Unknown' Feast in Jerusalem, and by the Pool of Bethesda 460

By the Sea of Galilee-The Final Call of the First Disciples, and the Miracu-
lous Draught of Fishes 472

A Sabbath in Capernaum 478

Second Journey through Galilee-The Healing of the Leper 489

The Return to Capernaum-Concerning the Forgiveness of Sins-The Heal-
ing of the Paralysed 499

The Call of Matthew-The Saviour's Welcome to Sinners-Rabbinic Theology
as regards the Doctrine of Forgiveness in contrast to the Gospel of Christ
-The Call of the Twelve Apostles 507

The Sermon on the Mount-The Kingdom of Christ and Rabbinic Teaching 524

The Return to Capernaum-Healing of the Centurion's Servant 64:

The Raising of the Young Man of Nain-The Meeting of Life and Death 552

The Woman which was a Sinner 561


The Ministry of Love, the Blasphemy of Hatred, and the Mistakes of Earthly
Affection-The Return to Capernaum-Healing of the Demonised Dumb
-Pharisaic Charge against Christ-The Visit of Christ's Mother and
Brethren 670

New Teaching 'in Parables'-The Parables to the People by the Lake of
Galilee, and those to the Disciples in Capernaum 578

Christ stills the Storm on the Lake of Galilee. .. 699

At Gerasa-The Healing of the Demonised 606

The Healing of the Woman-Christ's Personal Appearance-The Raising of
Jairus' Daughter 616

Second Visit to Nazareth-The Mission of the Twelve 635

The Story of John the Baptist, from his Last Testimony to Jesus to his
Beheading in Prison 654

The Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand 676

The Night of Miracles on the Lake of Gennesaret 686





'All the prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messiah.'-SANH. 99 46

'The world was not created but only for the Messiah.'-SANH. 98 b.

M. I.



AMONG the outward means by which the religion of Israel was pre- CHAP.
served, one of the most important was the centralisation and localisa- I
tion 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 Monotheism 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 whose manners and civilisation would
necessarily influence them, rendered the continuance of this separa-
tion of as great importance as before. In this respect, even tradi-
tionalism 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 inner-
most 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 Shechinah
had rested. From that golden altar rose the sweet cloud of incense,
symbol of Israel's accepted prayers; that seven-branched candlestick


BOOK shed its perpetual light, indicative of the brightness of God's Covenant-
I Presence; on that table, as it were before the Face of Jehovah, was
laid, week by week, the Bread of the Face,' 1 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
Nor could the depressed state of the nation alter their views or
shake their confidence. What mattered it, that the Idumman, Herod,
had usurped the throne of David, except 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,
and even reared a heathen altar upon that of burnt-offering.2 Worst
of all, his wicked schemes had been aided by two apostate High-
Priests, who had outvied each other in buying and then prostituting
I Such is the literal meaning of what is translated by 'shewbread.'
1 Macc. i. 54, 59; Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 4.


the sacred office of God's anointed.' Yet far away in the mountains CHAr.
of Ephraim2 God had raised for them most unlooked-for and unlikely I
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 Hammer3-had purified the Temple, and
restored its altar on the very same day 4 on which the abomination'
of desolation 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 since absence from Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But
all the more that it referred not to outward suffering,7 did its continued
use indicate a deep feeling of religious sorrow, of social isolation, and of
political strangership8 in the midst of a heathen world. For although,
as Josephus reminded his countrymen,' there was no nation in the W. w
world which had not among them part of the Jewish people,' since it
was widely dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants,' b yet b il 3
they had nowhere found a real home. A century and a half before

I 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.
2 Modin, the birthplace of the Macca-
bees, has been identified with the modern
E.Merlyeh, about sixteen miles north-
west of Jerusalem, in the ancient terri-
tory of Ephraim. Comp. Conder's Hand-
book of the Bible, p. 291; and for a full
reference to the whole literature of the
subject, see Sckliirer (Neatest. Zeitgesch.
p. 78, note 1).
3 On the meaning of the name Macca-
bee, comp. Grimm's Kurzgef. Exeget.
Handb. z. d. Apokr. Lief. iii., pp. ix. x.
We adopt the derivation from Maqqabha,
a hammer, like Charles Malrtel.
4 1 Mace. iv. 52-54; Megill. Taan. 23.
1 1 Mace. i. 54.

I Alike the verb in Hebrew, and
StaorEipc in Greek, with their derivatives,
are used in the Old Testament, and in
the rendering of the LXX., withreference
to punitive banishment. See, for example,
Judg. xviii. 30; 1 Sam. iv. 21; and in
the LXX. Dent. xxx. 4; Ps. cxlvii. 2; Is.
xlix. 6, and other passages.
I There is some truth, although greatly
exaggerated, in the bitter remarks of
Hausratl (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93),
as to the sensitiveness of the Jews in
the &tarvopd, 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 prin-
I St. Peter seems to have used it in that
sense, 1 Pet. i. 1.


BOOK our era comes to us from Egypt '-where the Jews possessed exceptional
I privileges-professedly from the heathen, but really from the Jewish 2
Sibyl, this lament of Israel:-
Crowding with thy numbers every ocean and country-
Yet an offence to all around thy presence and customs !

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 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, dedicated to the Most
High God.' 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 Yet its heart beat in Jerusalem, and thence the life-
blood passed to its most distant members. And this, indeed, if we
brightly understand it, was the grand object of the Jewish dispersion'
throughe 1t the world.
What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, to the
Western, father than to the Eastern 'dispersion.' The connection of
\ the latter with Palestine was so close as almost to seem one of con-
tinuity. In the account of the truly representative gathering in
*Acts i.9- Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks,a the division of
the dispersion' into two grand sections-the Eastern or Trans-
Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist-seems clearly marked.7 In
this arrangement the former would include the Parthians, Medes,
Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judsea standing, so to speak,
in the middle, while the Cretes and Arabians would typically re-
present tbe farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and the
Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New Testament,

Comp. the remarks of Sohneekn- s PhiloinFlaccum (ed. Francf.), p. 971.
buzter (Vorles. ii. Neutest. Zeitg. p. 95). Comp. Jos. Ant. xii. 3; xiii. 10. 4;
2 Comp. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag. 13. 1 ; xiv. 6. 2; 8. 1; 10. 8; Sueton.
xxii. 39. COes. 85.
Orac Sibyll. iii. 271, 272, apud Fried- Grian (Clavis N.T. p. 113) quotes
lieb, p. 62. two passages from Philo, in one of which
4 Strabo apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 7.2 : It he contradistinguishes us,' the Hellenist
is not easy to find a place in the world Jews, from 'the Hebrews,' and speaks of
that has not admitted this race, and is the Greek as our language.'
not mastered by it.'


commonly bore in Palestine the name of the 'dispersion of the CHAP.
Greeks,'a and of Hellenists' or Grecians.'b On the other hand, the I
Trans-Euphratic Jews, who inhabited Babylon and many of the other st. John
satrapies,'c were included with the Palestinians and the Syrians under Vi. 35
b Acts v. 1;
the term Hebrews,' from the common language which they spoke. ix.29; xi.
But the difference between the Grecians' and the Hebrews' was au p. Ia
far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the whole 1.; ^
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 fulfilment 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 Baby-
lonian dispersion.' 1 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 d Acts vi.
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.2 Every other country was con-
sidered outside the land,' as Palestine was called, with the excep-
tion of Babylonia, which was reckoned as part of it.e For Syria and Erb. 21
Mesopotamia, eastwards to the banks of the Tigris, were supposed 6 a
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 Nahair Malka, or royal canal, which passed from the

I Similarly, we have (in Men. 110a) ends of the earth'-these are the exiles
this curious explanation of Is. xliii. 6: in other lands, whose minds were not
' My sons from afar '-these are the exiles settled, like women,
in Babylon, whose minds were settled, 2 Ber. R, 17.
like men, and my daughters from the


BOOK 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.' 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
" '~ m Zerubbabel and afterwards under Ezra.a Nor was their inferiority
confined to numbers. The wealthiest and most influential of the Jews
b Ant. xi. 5. remained behind. According to Josephus,b with whom Philo sub-
2; xv. 2. 2;
xviii. stantially 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 alone2, 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
So large and compact a body soon became a political power. Kindly
'\ treated under the Persian monarchy, they were, after the fall of that
S6.c. empire,c favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn the
ac3a Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire,' 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 At the
same 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
To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and of Syria-to
which they had wandered under the fostering rule of the Macedono-

I Comp. First, Kult. u. Literaturgesch. 5 The following are the chief passages
d Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. 8. in Josephusrelatingtothat part of Jewish
2 Jq. Ant xviii. 9. 9. history: Ant. xi. 5. 2; xiv. 13.5; xv. 2. 7;
Midrash on Cant. v. 5, ed. Warsh. p 3. 1; xvii. 2. 1-3; xviii. 9. 1, &c.; xx. 4
26 a. Jew. W. i. 13. 3.
Plilo ad Caj.


Syrian monarchs (the Seleucidse)-were indeed pre-eminently the CHAP.
Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in- I
timated by fire-signals from mountain-top to mountain-top the com-
mencement of each month for the regulation of the festive calendar,'
even as they afterwards despatched messengers into Syria for the
same purpose.2 In some respects the Eastern dispersion was placed
on the same footing; in others, on even a higher level than the mother-
country. Tithes and Terumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared condition,3
were due trou them, while the Bikkurim, or first-fruito in afresh 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 So far as purity of descent was con- ohoi.
xviii. 7
cerned, 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 To express it in their own fashion: In regard to b Kidd. 69 b
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 It was even
maintained, 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 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
of Ezra c in that respect, and from the stress which Josephus lays on chs. ix. x.
this point.d Official records of descent as regarded the priesthood were dLifei. ; Ag.
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
Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Eastern dis- /
person could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everything to Ezra,

I Rosh haSh. ii. 4; comp. the Jer. I As comments upon the genealogies
Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud from Azel' in 1 Chr. viii. 37 to Azel' in
23 b. ix. 44. Pes. 62 b.
2 Rosh. haSh. i. 4. 6 Pes. 62 6; Sacks, Beitr. vol. ii. p.
Shev. vi. passim; Gitt. 8 a. 157.
4 Cheth. 111 a.


BOOK the Babylonian,1 a man so distinguished that, according to tradition,
I the Law would have been given by him, if Moses had not previously
obtained that honour. Putting aside the various traditional ordi-
nances which the Talmud ascribes to him,2 we know from the Scrip-
tures 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,
*Sanh. 21 b which gradually came into general use.a3 The language spoken by
the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaean, both in Palestine and
in Babylonia ; 4 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,6 and the addresses 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 Me-
thurgeman to read his translation or to write down a Targum, lest

I According to tradition he returned
to Babylon, and died there. Josepbhus says
that he died in Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 5. 5).
2 Herzfeld has given a very clear his-
torical 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.
3 Although thus introduced under Ezra,
the ancient Hebrew characters, which re-
semble the Samaritan, only very gradu-
ally gave way. They are found on monu-
ments and coins.
Herzfeld (u. s. vol. iii. p. 46)'happily
designates the Palestinian as the HebrFeo-
Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The
Hebrew, as well as the Aramsean, 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
Ethiopian. 3. East Semitic: The Assyro-
Babylonian cuneiform. When we speak of
the dialect used in Palestine, we do not, of
course, forget the great inl uence 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 interme-
diate position between the Aramaic and
the Arabic, and may be said to be ihe
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 develop-
ment and adaptation of that language;
the Talmud is in Aramaean. Comp. on
this subject: De Wette-Schrader, Lehrb.
d. hist. kr. Einl. (8 ed.) pp. 71-88; IHer-
zog'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,
6 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 targumn
in Ezra iv. 7 is rendered in the LXX.by
EpfliveEvW. The following from the Tal-
mud (Der. 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 congrega-
tion (at the same time)-twice the text,
and once targum.'


the paraphrase should be regarded as of equal authority with the CHAP.
original. It was said that, when Jonathan brought out his Targum I
on the Prophets, a voice from heaven was heard to utter: Who is '
this that has revealed My secrets to men ?'a Still, such Targu- Megill. 3 a
mim 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 Tar-
gumim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and authorita-
tive 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 them-
selves 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 Darshan,1 were engaged. The result of
it was the Midrash, or investigation, a term which afterwards was
popularly applied to commentaries on the Scriptures and preaching.
From the outset, Jewish theology divided into two branches: the
IHalachah and the Haggadah. The former (from halak:h, 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
Haggadah 2 (from nagad, to tell) was only 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

From daras.h, to search out, literally, 2 The Hulahialtik migilt be described as
to tread out. The preacher was after- the apocryphal Pentateuch, the Ilaggadah
wards called the Darshas. as the apocryphal Prophets.


BOOK be its popular influence,' and all the more dangerous the doctrinal
I 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 scarcely 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, there-
fore, the Palestinians in their pride or jealousy might sneer,2 that the
Babylonians were stupid, proud, and poor (' they ate bread upon
bread '),3 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

1 We may here remind ourselves of 1 is mentioned as a reason why the Shekhi-
Tim.v. 17. St. Paul,as always,writes with nab could not rest upon a certain Rabbi.
the familiar Jewish phrases ever recur- 3 Pes. 34 b; Men. 52 a; Sanh. 24 a;
ring to his mind. The expression SMSa- Bets. 16 a-apud -Neibauer, G6og. du
mraela seems to be equivalent to Halakhio Talmud, p. 323. In Keth. 75 a, they
teaching. Comp. Grimm, Clavis N.T. pp. are styled the silly Babylonians.' See
98, 99. also Jer. Pes. 32 a.
In Moed Q. 25 a, sojourn in Babylon 4 Sukk. 20 a. R. Chija, one of the


Such then was that Hebrew dispersion which, from the first, con- CHAP.
stituted 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.' Everywhere we have distinct notices of these wanderers,
and everywhere they appear as in closest connection with the Rabbi-
nical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus the Mishnah, in an extremely
curious section,2 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 while in the rubric for the Day of Atonement we have it *Shabb. vi
noted that the dress which the High Priest wore between the even-
ings' of the great fast-that is, as afternoon darkened into evening-,
was of most costly Indian' stuff.b b Yoma1 .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 whose mind must be engrossed by gain. And it was Er.55a

teachers of the second century, is among ments worn by the Jews at that time.
the most celebrated Rabbinical authori- The reader interested ;n the subject will
ties, around whose memory legend has find special information in the three little
thrown a special halo. volumes of Hartmann (Die Hebriierin
I In this, as in so many respects, Dr. am Putztische), in N. Sc/irider,'s some-
Neubauer has collated very interesting what heavy work: De Vestitu Mulier.
information, to which we refer. See his Hebr., and especially in that interesting
G6ogr. du Talm., pp. 369-399. tractate, Trachten d. Juden, by Dr. A.
2.The whole section gives a most Briill, of wh.ch, unfortunately, only one
curious glimpse of the dress and orna- part has appeared.


BOO\ trade ana commerce which procured to the Babylonians their wealth
I and influence, although agriculture was not neglected. Their cara-
Svans-of whose camel drivers, by the way, no very flattering account
Kidd. iv. 14 is given a-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 diffi-
cult road '-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
al. 17 life's mission.' And it was among the same community that Peter
SPet. v. 13 wrote and laboured,' 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
In what has been said, no notice has been taken of those wan-
derers 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 state-
ments, at least two of these localities cannot with any certainty be
identified.3 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

Ph1ilo ad Cajum, ed. Frcf. p. 1023. For the reasons there stated, I prefer this
2 Pes. 56 a, apud iNeubaiter, u. s., p. to the ingenious interpretation proposed
351. by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of Philol.
9 Comp. Neubaeir, pp. 315, 372; Hamin- for 1870, pp. 113, 114), who regards it as
burger, Real-Encykl. p. 135. a contraction of Erez achereth, an-
4 Comp. Volkmar, Handb. d. Einl. in other land,' referred to in Deut. xxix. 27
d. Apokr. ii" Abth., pp. 193, 194, notes (28).


Josephus a describes them as an innumerable multitude, and vaguely CHAP.
locates them beyond the Euphrates. The Mishnah is silent as to I
their seats, but discusses their future restoration; Rabbi Akiba deny-
Ant. xi. 5,.
ing and Rabbi Eliezer anticipating it.b I Another Jewish tradition c b Sanh. x. 3
locates them by the fabled river Sabbatyon, which was supposed to Ber. R. n7
cease its flow on the weekly Sabbath. This, of course, is an implied
admission of ignorance of their seats. Similarly, the Talmud d speaks dJer. SanWh
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 .1 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 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 and latterly with almost convincing evidence (so far as
such is possible) to the Afghans, as descended from the lost tribes.4
Such mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalities seems to have
been before the mind of those Rabbis who ordered that, if at present
a non-Jew wedded a Jewess, such a union was to be respected, since
the stranger might be a descendant of the ten tribes.e Besides, eYebam. 16
there is reason to believe that part of them, at least, had coalesced
with their brethren of the later exile; 5 while we know that indi-
viduals who had settled in Palestine and, presumably, elsewhere, were

I R. Eliezer seems to connect their 3 Comp. the work of Dr. Asahel Grant
return with the dawn of the new Mes- on the Nestorians. His arguments have
sianic day. been well summarised and expanded in
2 This is not the place to discuss the an interesting note in Mr. Nutt's Sketch
later Jewish fiction of a second or suffer- of Samaritan History, pp. 2-4.
ing' Messiah, the son of Joseph,' whose 4 I would here call special attention to
special mission it would be to bring back a most interesting paper on the subject
the ten tribes, and to subject them to (' A New Afghan Question'), by Mr. H. W.
Messiah, 'the son of David,' but who Bellem, in the Journal of the United
would perish in the war against Gog and Service Institution of India,' for 1881,
Magog. pp. 49-97. 6 Kidd. 69 b.


BOOK able to trace descent from them.' Still the great mass of the ten
I tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our own, lost to the Hebrew
'r nation.

So Anna from the tribe of Aser, St. ments are not convincing, and his opinion
Luke ii. 36. Lutterbeek (Neutest. Lehr- was certainly not that of those who lived
begr. pp. 102, 103) argues that the ten in the time of Christ, or who reflected
tribes had become wholly undistinguish- their ideas.
able from the other two. But his argu-



WHEN we turn from the Jewish dispersion' in the East to that in CHAP.
the West, we seem to breathe quite a different atmosphere. Despite II
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 groping back. into the darkness of the
past; the other young 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 AXXrvletv, to conform
to the language and manners of The Greeks.'
Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, in the nature
of things, impossible that the Jewish communities in the West should
remain unaffected by Grecian culture and modes of thought; 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; witness also the evident preparedness of the lands
of this dispersion' for the new doctrine which was to come from
Judaea. 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
I Indeed, the word Alnisti (or Alu- Test.) on Acts vi. 1, agreeing with Dr.
mistin)-' Greek'-actually occurs, as in Roberts, argues that the term' Hellenist'
Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 14 from bottom. Bbhl indicated only principles, and not birth-
(Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p. 7) quotes Philo place, and that there were Hebrews and
(Leg. ad Caj. p. 1023) in proof that Hellenists in and out of Palestine. But
he regarded the Eastern dispersion as a this view is untenable.
branch separate from the Palestinians. 2 An account of this propaganda of
But the passage does not convey to me Judaism and of its results will be given
the inference which he draws from it. in another connection.
Dr. Guillemard (Hebraisms in the Greek



LOOR time here or there-units which might combine into communities,
I but could not form one people. Then their position was not favour-
-"-' able 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, written
and oral, which characterized the East, was to them 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 circum-
stances, 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 every-
where, 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 tender memories the sacred traditions of their 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 indignation, which only
occasionally gives way to the softer mood of warning, or even invita-
tion, that Jewish Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocrypha or
in its Apocalyptic utterances, addresses 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.' 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
St. Paul fully describes these feelings in the Epistle to the Romans.


admission into his sanctuary.1 How different were the rites which he CHAP.
practised, hallowed in their Divine origin, rational in themselves, and II
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 Agrippa,b and Josephus,e speak as a De vita
regular institution, but whose antiquity and general prevalence is p. 68'; Leg.
attested in Jewish writings,2 and nowhere more strongly than in the p. 014
book of the Acts of the Apostles ? b Leg. a
And in these Synagogues, how would brotherly love' be called oAg. Apion
out, since, if one member suffered, all might soon be affected, and the ii. 17
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.' B 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 know 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 We can scarcely dXVopyrap
doubt, considering the state of things, that this often bore on the wpos 76
consolation of Israel.' But, indeed, all that came from Jerusalem, all Acts xiii. 16
that helped them to realise their living connection with it, or bound
it more closely, was precious. Letters out of Judsea,' 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.

I The' GereyhaShaar,'proselytes of the read of a Rabbi in Rome, Thodos (Theu-
gate, a designation which some have de- dos?), who flourished several generations
rived from the circumstance that Gentiles before Hillel, for reasons which the pas-
were not allowed to advance beyond the sage itself will suggest to the student.
Temple Court, but more likely to be At the time of Philo, however, such in-
traced to such passages as Ex. xx. 10; structions in the Synagogues at Rome
Deut. xiv. 21; xxiv. 14. were a long-established institution (Ad
2 Comp. here Targ. Jon. on Judg. v. Caj. p. 1014).
2, 9. I feel more hesitation in appealing s tsXolevia, Hebr. xiii. 2.
to such passages as Ber. 19 a, where we


BOOK Such undoubtedly was the case. And yet, when the Jew stepped
I 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 extin-
guished 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 con-
troversy 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 in-
ferences 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 premisses, 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 authorita-
tive. 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 mys- CHAP.
teries. The Palestinian also searched into them, and the result was the II
Midrash. But, whichever of his methods he had applied-the Peshat, '
or simple criticism of the words; the Der'tsh, or search into the pos-
sible 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 Scripture, 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 individualism 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 recognize 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 calls 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


BOOK special adaptation of the Jewish intellect to such subtle, if not deep,
I 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
Men. b, it thou mayest study Greek philosophy.'a Yet even the Jewish
md 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 Aramsean, 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 CHAP.
those Greek songs' ever flowed from his lips ; and it was in the very II
Beth-ha-Midrash, or theological academy, that a multitude of Siphrey
Minim (heretical books) flew from his breast, where they had lain
concealed.a It may be so, that the expression Siphrey Homeros' *Jer. chag.
ii. 1; cOmp.
(Homeric writings), which occurs not only in the Talmud b but even chag. 15
in the Mishnah,c referred pre-eminently, if not exclusively, to the z. 28 '
religious or semi-religious Jewish Hellenistic literature, outside even Y Yad. iv. 6
the Apocrypha.' 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 Judea 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 Authorised 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 Judsea. It
was not only, as already explained, that Hebrew was no longer the
' vulgar tongue' in Palestine, and that written Targumim were pro-
hibited. But most, if not all- at least in towns-would understand
the Greek version; it might be quoted in intercourse with Hellenist
brethren 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 noticed d Gitt. 35 a,
last line,
where a common woollen wrap, which of course was very cheap, a copy ad b
of the Psalms, of Job, and torn pieces from Proverbs, are together
valued at five maneh-say, about 191. 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

I Through this literature, which as Bibel u. Talmud, vol. ii. pp. 68, 69), the
being Jewish might have passed unsus- expression 8iphrey Homeros applies ex-
pected, a dangerous acquaintance might clusively to the Judseo-Alexandrian
have been introduced with Greek writ- heretical writings; according to Fiirst
ings-the more readily, that for example (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simply to
Aristobulus described Homer and Hesiod Homeric literature. But see the discus-
as having 'drawn from our books' (ap. sion in Levy, Neuhebr. u. Chald. Wdrterb.,
Euseb. Prepar. Evang. xiii. 12). Ac- vol. i. p. 476 a and b.
cording to Hamburger (Real-Encykl. fuir


BOOK other hand, we are able to form an idea of the cheapness of Greek
I 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.' 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
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 Penta-
teuch.3 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, specially in Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish popu-
lation, 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.
286-284B.c. (Philadelphus), who had for two years been co-regent.a 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.
I Comp. Friedliinder, Sitteng. Roms, s Aristobulus in Euseb. Praepar. Evang.
vol. iii. p. 315. ix. 6; xiii. 12. The doubts raised by
2 To these causes there should perhaps Hody against this testimony have been
be added the attempt to introduce Gre- generally repudiated by critics since the
cianism by force into Palestine, the con- treatise by Valkenaer (Diatr. de Aristob.
sequences which it may have left, and the Jud. appended to Gaiqford's ed. of the
existence of a Grecian party in the land. Prmpar. Evang.).


These circumstances will account for the different elements which CHAP.
we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain II
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,' 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 ac-
complished 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.sggtri.n.'f ementrius Phalereus, in the reign
and under -th ak'-rngen--if-* 'ot .*1y. dirction-of Ptolemy II.
(Philadelppl .'"VWith this the Jewish act~i W.s'*agree, which describe
the trasl~tilon of the Pentateuch under Ptole m '-.-he Jerusalem Tal-
mud 2*i'a simpler nhrr .witha.iadlanb witl Va0ditons apparently Meg.
detive.'from the A alilrla'n" legendss; the former Axpressly noting Meg. 9 a
thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text.3
The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely
by several persons,4 the other books of the Old Testament would

I Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Haver-
camp, vol. ii. App. pp. 103-132. The
best and most critical edition of this
letter is by Prof. 3M. So hnidt, 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. 5-7.
The extracts are most fully given in
useb. Piarpar. Evarg. Some of the
Fathers give the story, with additional
embellishments. Itf was first critically
called in question by Hody (Contra His-
toriam Aristem de L ', X. interpret. dissert.
Oxon. 1685), and has since been generally
regarded as legendary. But its founda-
tion in fact has of late been recognized
by well nigh all critics, though the letter
itself is pseudonymic, and full of fabulous
2 This is also otherwise attested. See

Keil, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T.,
p. 551, note 5.
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 jDn cannot possibly bear
that meaning in this connection. Comp.
also _Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 31.
4 According to Sopher. i. 8, by five
persons, but that seems a round number
to correspond to the five books of Moses.
Fran.kel (Ueber d. Einfl. d. paltist. Exeg.)
labours, however, to show in detail the
differences between the different trans-
lators. But his criticism is often strained,
and the solution of the question is ap-
parently impossible.


BOOK naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were evidently
I rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very different qualifi-
' cations for their work-the translation of the Book of Daniel having
been so defective, that in its place" another by Theodotion was after-
wards substituted. The version, as a whole, bears the name of the
LXX.-as some have supposed from the number of its translators ac-
cording to Aristeas' account-only that in that case it should have
been seventy-two; or from the approval of the Alexandrian San-
hedrin 1-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 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
'n the 50th chapter of thatwork-e. 'lav..4'description of the High-
Priest Simon, which i" eavief'tly wMftte lly airneye-yitness. We
have therefore as oni.'erai'the pontificate of Sinlola, itring which
the earlier JesusAlde4 ; and asthe other, the reign of' Etirgetes, in
which the gra'tdsin was at AJ pa ia.V'.l although th'et'.were
two High-Priests who bore thd ndaime Shhi,* af d'two EgyptiaMJ Aigs
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
tradi ional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the younger
Jesus was the first of that name, or Ptolemy III., who reigned from
247 to 221 B.C.3 In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX.
version as, at least substantially, completed.
I BiMh would have it, the Jerusalem it bear on the question of the so-called
Sanheirin I' Maccabean Psalms,' and the authorship
2 But the expression has also been and date of the Book of Daniel. Buthis-
referred to the thirty-eighth year of the torical questions should be treated inde-
reign of Euergetes. pendently of critical prejudices. Winer
3 To my mind, at least, the historical (Bibl. RealwSrterb. i. p. 555), and others
evidence, apart from critical considera- after him, admit that the Simon of
tions, seems very strong. Modern writers Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed Simon the Just
on the other side have confessedly been (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of
influenced by the consideration that the the Prologue was the second of that
earlier date of the Book of Sirach would name, Ptolemy VII., popularly nick-
also involve a much earlier date for the named Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks
close of the 0. T. Canon than they are dis- of Fritzsche on this view in the Kurzgef.
posed to admit. More especially would Exeg. Handb. z. d. Apokr. 5te Lief. p. xvii.


From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old CHAP.
Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine.' That Canon was UI
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 tne Greek Bible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text
into the Law, the Prophets,2 and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagio-
grapha, the LXX. arrange them into the 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 What text the translators may have De Vita
used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable is
instances from our own, though the more important deviations are
comparatively few.3 In the great majority of the lesser variations
our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.4
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 com-
position. 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 un-
deniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish
tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have
supposed.5 This we can easily understand, since only those tradi-

I Comp. here, besides the passages
quoted in the previous note, Baba B. 18 b
and 14 b; for the cessation of revela-
tion in the Maccabean period, 1 Mace. 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.
2 Anterior: Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam.,
1 and 2 Kings. Posterior: Major; Is.,
Jer., and Ezek.; and the Minor Pro-
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
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 inte.
resting notices in Freudeathal, Hell. Stud.
pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &o.
5 The extravagant computations in
this respect of Frankel (both in his work,
Ueber d. Einfl. d. Palist. 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


BOOK tions would find a place which at that early time were not only
I received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian ele-
ments, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of
allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek phi-
losophical ideas. However few,' 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 incon-
sistent 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 But there is this vital
difference between Palestinianism 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,
Sechilta who liken the Creator to the creature ;' or else a a thing is written
an Ex. xix.
only to break it to the ear '-to adapt it to our human modes of
Super. 31 b speaking and understanding; and again,b the words of the Torah
are like the speech of the children of men.' But for this very pur-
pose the words of Scripture may be presented in another form, if need

the other extreme. Herzfeld (pp. 548-
550) admits-and even this with hesita-
tion-of only six distinct references to
Halakhoth in the following passages in
the LXX.: Gen. ix. 4; xxxii. 32; Lev.
xix. 19; xxiv. 7; Dent. xxv. 5; xxvi. 12.
As instances of Haggadah we may men-
tion the renderings in Gen. v. 24 and
Ex. x. 23.
SDdlhne and Gfr rer 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, j Be yq
sr &adpaTos eal aKav are are'-ros (Gen. i. 2),
bears undeniable mark of Grecian philo-
sophic views. And certainly this is not

the sole instance of the kind.
2 As in the so-called Tiqquney So-
pherim,' or emendations of the scribes.'
Comp. here generally the investigations
of Geiger (Urschrift u. Uebersetz. 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 writ-
ings are what is best designated by the
German Tendenz-Schriften, and their in-
ferences Tendenz-&Sliisse. But the critic
and the historian should have no Ten-
denz-except towards simple fact and
historical truth.


be even modified, so as to obviate possible misunderstanding, or dog- CHAP.
matic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the same conclusion, but II
from an opposite direction. They had not theological but philo-
sophical 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 inspira-
tion 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 was 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 though afterwards for- Ned. ;
gotten, till restored and re-introduced.b bMeg..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 noticeO to the *Jer.Meg.
iv. 3, ed.
effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language (not Hebrew Krot. p. 7t
-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 Tar-
gum of the Easterns. Moro 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,'
and that the ordinary daily prayers might be said in Greek.2 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 Compp. Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 2), we specially
mark that it preserved the Messianic interpretation of Gen. xlix. 10,
and Numb. xxiv. 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence of what Lad been
the generally received view two and a half centuries before rae 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 a calamity to Israel as the making of
the golden calf,a and that its completion had been followed by the
terrible omen of an eclipse, that lasted three days.b 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 But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the LXX.
was celebrated by a feast in the island of PLaros, in which ultimately
even heathens seem to have taken part.d

Meg. i. 8. It is, however, fair to
confess strong doubt, on my part, whe-
ther this passage may not refer to the
Greek translation of Akylas. At the
same time it simply speaks of a transla-
tion into Greek. And before the version
of Aquila the LXX. alone held that place.
It is one of tie 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 Epiphaenius,
who is so generally inaccurate, gives in

De Pond. et Mensur. c. xiv.
2 The Shema (Jewish creed), with its
collects, the eighteen benedictions,' and
' the grace at meat.' A later Rabbi vindi-
cated the use of the Shema' in Greek
by the argument that the word Slwma
meant not only 'Hear,' but also 'un-
derstand'(Jer. Sotahvii. 1.) Comp.Sotah
vii. 1, 2. In Ber. 40 h6, 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, bat in
any other languages.

* Mass. So-
pher i. Hal. 7
-at the
close of
vol. ix. of
the Bab.
ab Which. Ged.

Jer. Meg.
1. 11, ed.
Krot. p. 71
band c
A Phiho, Vita
Mos. ii. ed.
Franef. p.





THE translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be regarded CHAP.
as the starting-point of Hellenism. It rendered possible the hope inl
that what in its original form had been confined to the few, might '
become accessible to the world at large.a But much yet remained to philo, d
Vita Moo
be done. If the religion of the Old Testament had been brought near ed. Man( '
to the Grecian world of thought, the latter had still to be brought near ii. p. 14?
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.' 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 along with the b o0mp. .
constantly implied contrast between the righteous, or Israel, and x'
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 funda-
mental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course, was
apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the way for a
I All the Apocrypha were originally course, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of
written in Greek, except 1 Macc., Judith, Sirach.'
part of Baruch, probably Tobit, and, of


BOOK reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice this especially in
I the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, so long erroneously attributed
to Josephus,1 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
SComp. for as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.a Of course there could be no
ex. Ecclus.
xxiv. 6. alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole to 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
f'. 39, 40 against Apion.b This, then, was an unassailable position to take:
Comp. also contempt poured on heathenism as such,c and a rational philoso-
Tos. Ag. Ap.
i. 34 phical 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 hetero-
geneously, 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,
dcomp. 2 and of the mother and her seven sons.d On the other hand, that
Vacc. vi. 18-
Cvi. 41 sublime work, the Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and Stoic
elements 2-chiefly perhaps the latter-the two occurring side by side.
*oh. vii. 22- Thus e Wisdom,' which is so concretely presented as to be almost
vy. 22-324 hypostatised,3 is first described in the language of Stoicism,f and
a"v. 25-29 afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,9 as 'the breath 2f the
power 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.' Simi-
I It is printed in Havercamp's edition 3 Compare especially ix. 1. ; xviii. 14-
of Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. The 16, where the idea of aopla passes into
best edition is in Fritzsche, Libri. Apo- that of the Aiyor. Of course the above
cryphi Vet. Test. (Lips. 1871). remarks are not intended to depreciate
2 Ebald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. the great value of this book, alike in
pp. 626-632) has given a glowing sketch itself, and in its practical teaching, in
of it. Ewald rightly says that its Grecian its clear enunciation of a retribution
elements have been exaggerated ; but Bu- as awaiting man, and in its important
o]er (Lehre vom Logos, pp. 59-62) utterly bearing on the New Testament revelation
fails in denying their presence altogether. of the Adyos.


larly, we have a a Stoical enumeration of the four dinal virtues, CHAP.
temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude, and close by it the In
Platonic idea of the soul's pre-existence, and of earth and matter
pressing it down." How such views would point in the direction of 1
the need of a perfect revelation from on high, as in the Bible, and of "In "7 9.
its rational possibility, need scarcely be shown. ix. is
But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this Apocryphal
literature ? We find it described by a term which seems to corre-
spond 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.' 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 This, not only because they were used in sanh. 106
controversy, 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 Chilsonim.
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
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 Scrip-
ture 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
Some Apocryphal books which have burger, vol. ii. pp. 66-70.
not been preserved to us are mentioned 2 Comp. Siegfried, Philo von Alex. pp.
in Talmudical writings, among them 275-299, who, however, perhaps overstates
one, 'The roll of the building of the the matter.
Temple,' alas, lost to us I Comp. Ham-



I Comp. Siegfried, pp. 9-16; Hart-
mann, Enge Verb. d. A. Test. mit d. N.,
pp. 568-572.
2 This is to be carefully distinguished
from the typical interpretation and from
the mystical-the type being prophetic,
the mystery spiritually understood.
3 Not to speak of such sounder inter-
pretations 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 suf-
ficient 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 inter-
pretations in the Synoptic Gospels,
or of any connection with Hellenism,
such as Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loee-
ier (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 Pauline Epistles we
find, as might be expected, some alle-
gorical 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 inside. 31); 2 Cor. iii.
16; Gal. iv. 21. Of the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the Apocalypse we cannot
here speak.
See p. 25.

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.' 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 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.' "
But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of sober inter-
pretation. It is otherwise in the letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas, to
which reference has already been made.4 Here the wildest symbolism
is 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.' In such manner, according to Aristeas, did the High CHAP.
Priest go through the catalogue of things forbidden, and of animals to HI
be sacrificed, showing from their 'hidden meaning' the majesty and '
sanctity of the Law.2
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 searchers out of the subtleties of Scripture,
of their indications, but even the ordinary Haggadist employed, indeed,
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,'" and did not this imply a twofold ps.xi. 11;
meaning; nay, could not the Torah be explained by many different sanh. 34
methods ? 4 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 search-
ing into a rationale beneath, such as that of the Hellenists. The
latter the Rabbis would have utterly repudiated, on their express prin-
ciple that Scripture goes not beyond its plain meaning.'5 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 sought to explain Scripture. Only a fragment of his bAbout ile

A similar principle applied to the
prohibition of such species as the mouse
or the weasel, not only because they
destroyed everything, but because the
latter, from its mode of conceiving and
bearing, symbolised listening to evil
tales, and exaggerated, lying, or ma-
licious speech.
2 Of course this method is constantly
adopted by Josephus. Comp. for ex-
ample, Ant. iii. 1. 6 ; 7. 7.
3 Or Dorshey Chamuroth, searchers of
difficult passages. Comp. Zunz. Gottesd.
Vortr. p. 823.
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 inter-
preting Holy Scripture, and that there is
an allusion to this in 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.
5 Perhaps we ought here to point out
one of the most important principles of
Rabbinism, which has been almost en-
tirely overlooked in modern criticism of
the Talmud. It is this: that any ordi-
nance, 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 obli-
gations. The inferences as to the per-
petual obligation, not only of the cere-
monial 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 Messiasaeich, 1845.


BOOK work, which seems to have been a Commentary on the Pentateuch,
I dedicated to King Ptolemy (Philometor), has been preserved to us (by
Prpar. Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebiusa). According to Clement
Evang. v of Alexandria, his aim was, to bring the Peripatetic philosophy out
14. 1 ; viii.
0. 1-27; 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 Aristotle be found in the Bible.
But how was this to be accounted for ? Of course, the Bible had not
learned from Aristotle, but he and all the other philosophers 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 allegori-
cal 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 be-
tween 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
* As val- always lent itself to literary fraud,b and so Aristobulus boldly produces
,itDite (whether of his own or of others' making) a number of spurious
ud p. 73 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-Grecian 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 CHAP.
its language. We allude to what are known as the Pseudepigraphic, II
or Pseudonymic Writings, so called because, with one exception, they
bear false names of authorship. It is difficult to arrange them
otherwise than chronologically- 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 any-
where, 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 they are put down at seventy, probably a round number, 4Edra
having reference to the supposed number of the nations of the earth, xv. 44,46
or to every possible mode of interpreting Scripture. They are de-
scribed as intended for the wise among the people,' probably those
whom St. Paul, in the Christian sense, designates as knowing the
time b 1 of the Advent of the Messiah. Viewed in this light, they nom. xi
embody the ardent aspirations and the inmost hopes 2 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 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 inspire&
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

I The iaip&s of St. Paul seems here used the Pseudepigrapha. Their ardour of
in exactly the same sense as in later expectancy ill agrees with the modern
Hebrew Int. The LXX. render it so in theories, which would eliminate, if pos-
five passages (Ezr. v. 3; Dan. iv. 33; vi. sible, the Messianic hope from ancient
10; vii. 22, 25). Judaism.
2 Of. course, it suits Jewish writers, Comp. Dillmann in Herzog's Real.
like Dr. Jost, to deprecate the value of Encykl. vol. xii. p. 301.


BOOK those known as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Psalter
I of Solomon, and the Book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis. Only the
briefest notice of them can here find a place.'
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 Patriarch, and tells 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 por-
tions 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 characteristic. 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 Erythreean, which had predicted the fall
of Troy, and as those of the Sibyl of Cumte, 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 era. No doubt the
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 sup-
plement to the Book of Genesis, intended to explain some of its historic
difficulties, and to fill up its historic lacunce. It was probably written
about the time of Christ-and this gives it a special interest-by a
Palestinian, and in Hebrew, or rather Aramman. But, like the rest
of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature which comes from
Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew, we possess it no longer
in that language, but only in translation.
If from this brief review of Hellenist and Pseudepigraphic lite-
rature we turn to take a retrospect, we can scarcely fail to perceive,
I For a brief review of the Pseudepigraphic Writings,' see Appendix I.


on the one hand, the development of the old, and on the other the 0otAP.
preparation for the new-in other words, the grand expectancy III
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



BOOK IT is strange how little we know of the personal history of the
I greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old, though he occupied so
Prominent a position in his time.' 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 poli-
tical head of that community in Alexandria, and he himself on one
occasion represented his co-religionists-though unsuccessfully-at
M7-41 Ax.. Rome,a as the head of an embassy to entreat the Emperor Caligula
for protection from the persecutions consequent on the Jewish re-
sistance 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 rela-
tion 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 clas-
sical modes of expression; he names not fewer than sixty-four Greek
writers; 3 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 Pytha-
goras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of these

Hausrath (N.T. Zeitg. vol. ii. p. 222 collected a vast number of parallel ex-
&c.) has given a highly imaginative pressions, chiefly from Plato and Plutarch
picture of Philo-as, indeed, of many (pp. 39-47).
other persons and things. 3 Comp. Grossmann, Qusest. Phil. i. p. 5
Siegfried has, wvth immense labour, &c.


philosophers were holy,' and Plato was the great.' But holier than CHAP.
*1 was the gathering of the true Israel; and incomparably greater IV
shan any, Moses. From him had all sages learned, and with him
lone was all truth to be found-not, indeed, in the letter, but under
bhe 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 occasionally 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 interpreta-
tion, while others admitted it by the side of the higher meaning.'
To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set
aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity, anything un-
meaning, 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 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,* Baba .
any repetition of what had been already stated would point to some-
thing new. These were comparatively sober rules of exegesis. Not"
so the licence which he claimed of freely altering the punctuation 3 of
I In this sketch of the system of Philo ing to some special meaning, since there
I have largely availed myself of the was not a word or particle in Scrip-
careful analysis of Siegfied. ture without a definite meaning and
2 It should be noted that these are object.
also Talmudical canons, not indeed for I To illustrate what use might be
allegorical interpretation, but as point- 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 I
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 pos-
Comp. our above outline with the
' xxv. theses de modis et formulis quibus
pr. Hebr. doctors SS. interpretari etc.
ooliti fuerunt,' in Swrenhktus, Bl8Aos

KaraYXa-yjs, pp. 57-88.
s For a comparison between Philo and
Rabbinic theology, see Appendix II.:
' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.' Freuden-
tVal (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 inte-
resting comparisons between Haggadic
interpretations and those of Philo, see
Joel, Blick in d. Religionsgesch. i. p. 88

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 versd, the use of a tensa,
even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, an allegorical inte:.:
pretation might be again employed as the basis of another.1
We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are essentially
the same as those of Jewish traditionalism in the Haggadah,2 only
the latter were not rationalising, and far more brilliant in their appli-
cation.3 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 impres-
sion of the Divine Being, or else giving occasion to the unlearned and


unwary of becoming entangled in dangerous speculations. Jewish CHAP.
tradition here lays down some principles which would be of great IV
practical use. Thus we are told,a that Scripture uses the modes of "-
expression 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 Similarly, it is noted b Ber. R. 31
that Scripture uses euphemistic language, so as to preserve the great-
est delicacy.c These instances might be multiplied, but the above Ber. B. 2s
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.' But the application which
Philo made of this symbolism was very different. Everything became
symbolical in his hands, if it suited his purpose : numbers (in a very
arbitrary manner), beasts, birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones,
elements, substances, conditions, even sex-and so a term or an ex-
pression might even have several and contradictory meanings, from
which the interpreter was at liberty to choose.
From the consideration of the method by which Philo derived
from Scripture his theological views, we turn to a brief analysis of
these views.2
1. Theology.-In reference to God, we find, side by side, the
apparently contradictory views of the Platonic and the Stoic schools.
Following the former, the sharpest distinction was drawn between
God and the world. God existed neither in space, nor in time; He
had neither huinan qualities nor affections; in fact, He was without
Thus, to give only a few out of many there is the curious symbolical derivation
examples, Ruth is derived from ravah, to of Mephibosheth, who is supposed to have
satiate, to give to drink, because David, set David right on halakhic questions, as
her descendant, satiated God with his Mippi bosheth: from my month shaming,'
Psalms of praise (Ber. 7 b). Here the because he put to shame the face of
principle of the significance of Bible- David in the Halakhah.' Similarly in
names is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in Siphr6 (Par. Behaalothekha, ed. Fried-
the Hebrew): Come, behold the works mann, p. 20 a) we have very beautiful and
of the Lord, who hath made names on ingenious interpretations of the names
earth,' the word desolations,' SHaMOTH, Reuel, Hobab, and Jethro.
being altered to SHeMOTH,' names.' In 2 It would be impossible here to give
general, that section, from Ber. 3 b, to the references, which would occupy too
the end of 8 a, is full of Haggadio much space.
Scripture interpretations. On fol. 4 a


BOOK any qualities (~7rowo), and even without any name (Appos); hence,
I wholly uncognisable by man (dKarTdar'rTosV). Thus, changing the
punctuation and the accents, the LXX. of Gen. iii. 9 was made to
read: 'Adam, thou art somewhere;' but God had no somewhere, as
Adam seemed to think when he hid himself from Him. In the
above sense, also, Ex. iii. 14, and vi. 3, were explained, and the two
names Elohim and Jehovah belonged really to the two supreme Divine
Potencies,' while the fact of God's being uncognisable appeared from
Ex. xx. 21.
But side by side with this we have, to save the Jewish, or rather
Old Testament, idea of creation and providence, the Stoic notion of
God a immanent in the world-in fact, as that alone which is real
in it, as always working: in short, to use his own Pantheistic expres-
sion, as Himself one and the all' (es9 ICa To' Wra). Chief in His
Being is His goodness, the forthgoing of which was the ground of
creation. Only the good comes from Him. With matter He can
have nothing to do-hence the plural number in the account of
creation. God only created the soul, and that only of the good.
In the sense of being immanent,' God is everywhere-nay, all
things are really only in Him, or rather He is the real in all. But
chiefly is God the wellspring and the light of the soul-its Saviour'
from the 'Egypt' of passion. Two things follow. With Philo's'ideas
of the separation between God and matter, it was impossible always
to account for miracles or interpositions. Accordingly, these are
sometimes allegorised, sometimes rationalistically explained. Further,
the God of Philo, whatever he might say to the contrary, was not
the God of that Israel which was His chosen people.
2. Intermediary Beings.-Potencies (8vvacdss, Xoyot). If, in what
has preceded, we have once and again noticed a remarkable similarity
between Philo and the Rabbis, there is a still more curious analogy
between his teaching and that of Jewish Mysticism, as ultimately fully
developed in the Kabbalah.' The very term Kabbalah (from qibbel,
to hand down) seems to point out not only its descent by oral tra-
dition, but also its ascent to ancient sources.' Its existence is pre-
,ohag i. 1 supposed, and its leading ideas are sketched in the Mishnah.a The
Targums also bear at least one remarkable trace of it. May it not
be, that as Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition, so both
Eastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from one and
the same source-we will not venture to suggest, how high up-
For want of handier material I must the Kabbalah in the History of the
take leave to refer to my brief sketch of Jewish Nation,' pp. 434-446.


while each made such use of it as suited their distinctive tendencies ? CHAP.
At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening Scripture to a person, corn- Iy
pares those who study merely the letter, to them who attend only to
the dress; those who consider the moral of a fact, to them who attend
to the body; while the initiated alone, who regard the hidden
meaning, are those who attend to the soul. Again, as Philo, so the
oldest part of the Mishnah a designates God as Maqom-' the place'- oAb. V.4
the T6roS, the all-comprehending, what the Kabbalists called the En-
Soph, the boundless,' that God, without any quality, Who becomes
cognisable only by His manifestations.'
The manifestations of God! But neither Eastern mystical
Judaism, nor the philosophy of Philo, could admit of any direct
contact between God and creation. The Kabbalah solved the diffi-
culty by their Sephiroth,2 or emanations from God, through which
this contact was ultimately brought about, and of which the En-
Soph, or crown, was the spring: the source from which the infinite
light issued.' If Philo found greater difficulties, he had also more
ready help from the philosophical systems to hand. His Sephiroth
were Potencies' (8vvdpetv), Words' (Xo'ot), intermediate powers:
' Potencies,' as we imagine, when viewed Godwards; Words,' as
viewed creationwards. They were not emanations, but, according to
Plato, archetypal ideas,' on the model of which all that exists was
formed; and also, according to the Stoic idea, the cause of all, per-
vading all, forming all, and sustaining all. Thus these Potencies'
were wholly in God, and yet wholly out of God. If we divest all
this of its philosophical colouring, did not Eastern Judaism also
teach that there was a distinction between the Unapproachable God,
and God Manifest ? 3
Another remark will show the parallelism between Philo and
Rabbinism.4 As the latter speaks of the two qualities (Middoth) of
Mercy and Judgment in the Divine Being,b and distinguishes between bjer. PBe
Elohim as the God of Justice, and Jehovah as the God of Mercy il 7
and Grace, so Philo places next to the Divine Word (O9Eos X6yos),
Goodness (&/ya6Oris), as the Creative Potency (7rot 1tuc 8V Va/us),
I In short, the Ad6-os irrepuaTzics of and Rabbinic Theology.'
the Stoics. 4 A very interesting question arises:
2 Supposed to mean either numera- how far Philo was acquainted with, and
tiones, or splendour. But why not derive influenced by, the Jewish traditional law
the word from aralpa ? The ten are: or the Halakhah. This has been treated
Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, .Mercy, by Dr. B. Bitter in an able tractate (Philo
Judgment, Beauty, Triumph, Praise, u. die Halach.), although he attributes
Ibundation, Kingdom. more to Philo than the evidence seems to
For the teaching of Eastern Judaism admit.
in this respect, see Appendix II.: Philo


BOOK and Power (AMovata), as the Ruling Potency ($aoatXt cr Svatsv),
I proving this by a curious etymological derivation of the words for
'God' and 'Lord' (6~86 and Icpioso)-apparently unconscious that
the LXX., in direct contradiction, translated Jehovah by Lord
(,ctptos), and Elohim by God (ee6s)! These two Potencies of good-
ness and power, Philo sees in the two Cherubim, and in the two
Angels' which accompanied God (the Divine Word), when on His
way to destroy the cities of the plain. But there were more than
these two Potencies. In one place Philo enumerates six, according to
the number of the cities of refuge. The Potencies issued from God
as the beams from the light. as the waters from the spring, as the
breath from a person; they were immanent in God, and yet also
without Him-motions on the part of God, and yet independent
beings. They were the ideal world, which in its impulse outwards,
meeting matter, produced this material world of ours. They were
also the angels of God-His messengers to man, the media through
whom He revealed Himself.'
3. The Logos.-Viewed in its bearing on New Testament teach-
ing, this part of Philo's system raises the most interesting questions.
But it is just here that our difficulties are greatest. We can under-
stand the Platonic conception of the Logos as the archetypal idea,'
and that of the Stoics as of the 'world-reason' pervading matter.
Similarly, we can perceive, how the Apocrypha-especially the Book
of Wisdom-following up the Old Testament typical truth concern-
ing Wisdom' (as specially set forth in the Book of Proverbs) almost
arrived so far as to present Wisdom' as a special Subsistence' (hy-
postatising it). More than this, in Talmudical writings we find men-
tion not only of the Shem, or Name,' 2 but also of the Shekhinah,'
God as manifest and present, which is sometimes also presented as
* Or Rach the Ruach ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit.a But in the Targumim we
'b. 1. 0l, meet yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the
and fre.
quently in
the Talmud At the same time there is a remark- told (Mace. 24 a) that only the open-
able difference here between Philo and ing words, I am the Lord thy God,
Rabbinism. Philo holds that the creation thou shalt have no other gods but Me,'
of the world was brought about by the were spoken by God Himself. Comp.
Potencies, but that the Law was given also Acts vii. 38, 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb,
directly through Moses, and not by the ii. 2.
mediation of angels. But this latter was 2 Bammejuohad, 'appropriatum;' ham-
certainly the view generally entertained meplwrash, expositum,' separatum,' the
in Palestine as expressed in the LXX. tetragrammaton,' or four-lettered name,
rendering of Deut. xxxii. 2, in the Tar- -1n1. There was also a Shem with
gumim on that passage, and more fully twelve,' and one with 'forty-two' letters
still in Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, in the Mid- (Kidd. 71 a).
rashim and in the Talmud, where we are


Talmud.1 It is that of the Memra, Logos, or 'Word.' Not that the term
is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos.2 But it stands out as perhaps
the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God-not as in His per-
manent manifestation, or manifest Presence-but as revealing Himself,
is designated Memra. Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs
in the Targum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum 99
times, andin the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A critical analysis
shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerusalem
Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the
designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently
refers to God as revealing Himself.3 But what does this imply ? The
distinction between God and the Memra of Jehovah is marked in many
passages.4 Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from the
Shekhinah.3 Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word Jehovah; 6
nor for the well-known Old Testament expression the Angel of the
Lord;' nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of
the Talmud." Does it then represent an older tradition under, ing all
these ? 9 Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to us the
doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if words

I Levy (Neuhebr. Worterb. i. p. 374 a)
seems to imply that in the Midrash the
term dibbur occupies the same place and
meaning. But with all deference I can-
not agree with this opinion, nor do the
passages quoted bear it out.
2 The word,' as spoken, is distin-
guished from the Word' as speaking, or
revealing Himself. The formeris generally
designated by the term 'pithgama.' Thus
in Gen. xv. 1, After these words (things)
came the "pithgama" ot Jehovah to
Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not,
Abram, My Memra" shall be thy
strength, and thy verygreat reward.' Still,
the term Memra, as applied not only to
man, but also in reference to God, is not
always the equivalent of the Logos.'
3 The various passages in the Targum
of Onkelos, the Jerusalem, and the
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the Penta-
teuch will be found enumerated and
classified, as those in which it is a doubt-
ful, a fair, or an unquestionable inference,
that the word Memra is intended for
God revealing Himself, in Appendix II.:
' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'
4 As, for example, Gen. xxviii. 21, the
Memra of Jehovah shall be my God.'
5 As, for example, Num. xxiii. 21, 'the
Memra of Jehovah their God is their
helper, and the Shekhinah of their King


is in the midst of them.'
6 That term is often used by Onkelos.
Besides, the expression itself is 'the
Memra of Jehovah.'
Onkelos only once (in Ex. iv. 24)
paraphrases Jehovah by Malakha.'
8 Metatron, either = Cer& Opdvov, or
/e&T aTpatvov. In the Talmud it is ap-
plied to the Angel of Jehovah (Ex. xxiii.
20), 'the Prince of the World,' the
Prince of the Face or of the Presence,'
as they call him ; he who sits in the inner-
most chamber before God, while the other
angels only hear His commands from be-
hind the Yell (Chag. 15 a; 16 a; Toseft. ad
Chull. 60 a; Jeb. 16 b). This Metatron of
the Talmud and the Kabbalah is also
the Adam Qadmwon, or archetypal man.
9 Of deep interest is Onkelos' render.
ing of Dent. xxxiii. 27, where, instead of
' underneath are the everlasting arms,'
Onkelos has, and by His Memra was
the world created,' exactly as in St. John
i. 10. Now this divergence of Onkelos
from the Hebrew text seems unaccount-
able. Winer, whose inaugural disserta-
tion, De Onkeloso ejusque paraph. Chald.'
Lips. 1820, most modern writers have
followed (with amplifications, chiefly
from Luzzato's Philoxenus), makes no
reference to this passage, nor do his suc-
cessors, so far as I know. It is curious



* Gen. zrx.
10, 11;
Num. xxit.

that, as our present Hebrew text of this
verse consists of three words, so does the
rendering of Onkelos, and that both end
with the same word. Is the rendering of
Onkelos then a paraphrase, or does it
represent another reading ? Another in-
teresting passage is Deut. viii. 3. Its quo-
tation by Christ in St. Matt. iv. 4 is deeply
interesting, as read in the light of the ren-
dering of Onkelos, Not by bread alone is
man sustained, but by every forthcom-
ing Memra from before Jehovah shall
man live.' Yet another rendering of
Onkelos is significantly illustrative of
1 Cor. x. 1- 4. He renders Dent. xxxiii. 3
'with power He brought them out of
Egypt; they were led under thy cloud;
they journeyed according to (by) thy
Memra.' Does this represent a differ-
ence in the Hebrew from the admitted-
ly difficult text in our present Bible ?
Winer refers to it as an instance in which
Onkelos suopte ingenio et copiose ad-
modum eloquitur vatum divinorum men-
tern,' adding, ita ut de his, quas singulis
vocibus inesse crediderit, significationibus
non possit recte judicari; and Winer's
successors say much the same. But this
is to state, not to explain, the difficulty.
In general, we may here be allowed to
say that the question of the Targumim

has scarcely received as yet sufficient;
treatment. Mr. Deutsch's Article in
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible' (since
reprinted in his Remains') is, though
brilliantly written, unsatisfactory. Dr.
Davidsen (in Kitto's Cyclop., vol. iii.
pp. 918-966) is, as always, careful, la-
borious, and learned. Dr. VoZlk's article
(in Herzog's Real-Encykl., vol. xv. pp.
672-683) is without much intrinsic value,
though painstaking. We mention these
articles, besides the treatment of the sub-
ject in the Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment (Keil, De Wette-Schrader, Bleek-
Kamphausen, Reuss), and the works of
Zunz, Geiger, N6ldeke, and others,to whom
partial reference has already been made.
Fran/iel's interesting and learned book (Zu
dem Targum der Propheten) deals almost
exclusively with the Targum Jonathan, on
which it was impossible to enter within
our limits. As modern brochures of
interest the following three may be men-
tioned: Maybawm, Anthropomorphien bei
Onkelos; Gronemann, Die Jonath. Pentat.
Uebers. im Verhailtn. z. Halacha; and
Singer, Onkelos im Verhiltn. z. Halacha.
See the enumeration of these 70
Names in the Baal-ha-Turim on Numb.
xi. 16.
2 Comp. Siegfried, u. s., pp. 221-228.

have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis, though the distinction
of permanent, personal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet, to
complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah. In
the Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him,a while
in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages
are rendered with explicit reference to Him.
If we now turn to the views expressed by Philo about the Logos we
find that they are hesitating, and even contradictory. One thing, how-
ever, is plain : the Logos of Philo is not the Memra of the Targumim.
For, the expression Memra ultimately rests on theological, that of
Logos on philosophical grounds. Again, the Logos of Philo approxi-
mates more closely to the Metatron of the Talmud and Kabbalah. As
they speak of him as the Prince of the Face,' who bore the name of
his Lord, so Philo represents the Logos as 'the eldest Angel,' 'the
many-named Archangel,' in accordance with the Jewish view that the
name JeHoVaH unfolded its meaning in seventy names for the God-
head.' As they speak of the Adam Qadmon,' so Philo of the Logos
as the human reflection of the eternal God. And in both these respects,
it is worthy of notice that he appeals to ancient teaching.2
What, then, is the Logos of Philo ? Not a concrete personality, and
yet, from another point of view, not strictly impersonal, nor merely a pro-


perty of the Deity, but the shadow, as it were, which the light of God CHAP.
casts-and if Himself light, only the manifested reflection of God, His IV
spiritual, even as the world is His material, habitation. Moreover, the
Logos is the image of God' (saiWv), upon which man was made," or, Gen. i. 2r
to use the Platonic term, 'the archetypal idea.' As regards the
relation between the Logos and the two fundamental Potencies (from
which all others issue), the latter are variously represented-on the one
hand, as proceeding from the Logos; and on the other, as themselves
constituting the Logos. As regards the world, the Logos is its real
being. He is also its archetype; moreover the instrument (oplavov)
through Whom God created all things. If the Logos separates between
God and the world, it is rather as intermediary: He separates, but He
also unites. But chiefly does this hold true as regards the relation
between God and man. The Logos announces and interprets to man the
will and mind of God (ppp/vES Kacal 7rpoiT'rsY); He acts as mediator;
He is the real High-Priest, and as such by His purity takes away the
sins of man, and by His intercession procures for us the mercy of
God. Hence Philo designates Him not only as the High-Priest, but as
the Paraclete.' He is also the sun whose rays enlighten man, the
medium of Divine revelation to the soul; the Manna, or support of
spiritual life; He Who dwells in the soul. And so the Logos is,
in the fullest sense, Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God,
the king of righteousness (/3ao-tXE 'e 8KaLos), and the king of Salem
(I3aa XEss Eippvi7), Who brings righteousness and peace to the soul.b De Leg.
But the Logos does not come into any soul that is dead in sin.' That 25, "
there is close similarity of form between these Alexandrian views and
much in the argumentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, must be
evident to all-no less than that there is the widest possible divergence
in substance and spirit.' The Logos of Philo is shadowy, unreal, not a
Person; 2 there is no need of an atonement; the High-Priest inters
cedes, but has no sacrifice to offer as the basis of His intercession, least
of all that of Himself; the old Testament types are only typical ideas,

For a full discussion of this simi- showing, the writer of the Epistle to the
larity of form, and divergence of spirit, Hebrews displays few traces of a Pales-
between Philo-or, rather, between Alex- tinian training.
andrianism-and the Epistle to the He- 2 On the subject of Philo's Logos
brews, the reader is referred to the generally the brochure of Harnoch (Ko-
masterly treatise by Riehm (Der Lehr- nigsberg, 1879) deserves perusal, although
begriff d. Hebrierbr. ed. 1867, especially it does not furnish much that is new.
pp. 247-268, 411-424, 658-670, and 855- In general, the student of Philo ought
860). The author's general view on the especially to study the sketch by Zeller
subject is well and convincingly formu- in his Philosoohie der Gr., vol. iii. pt. ii.
lated on p. 249. We must, however, add, 3rd ed. pp. 338-418.
in opposition to Riehm, that, by his own


BOOK not typical facts; they point to a Prototypal Idea in the eternal past,
I not to an Antitypal Person and Fact in history; there is no cleansing
Sof the soul by blood, no sprinkling of the Mercy Seat, no access for all
through the rent veil into the immediate Presence of God; nor yet a
quickening of the soul from dead works to serve the living God. If
the argumentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews is Alexandrian, it is
an Alexandrianism which is overcome and past, which only furnishes
the form, not the substance; the vessel, not its contents. The closer
tl before the outward similarity, the greater is the contrast in
The vast difference between Alexandrianism and the New Testa-
ment will appear still .more clearly in the views of Philo on Cosmology
and Anthropology. In regard to the former, his results in some respects
,run parallel to those of the students of mysticism in the Talmud, and
of the Kabbalists. Together with the Stoic view, which represented
God as the active cause' of this world, and matter as the passive,'
Philo holds the Platonic idea, that matter was something existent, and
that it resisted God.' Such speculations must have been current
among the Jews long before, to judge by certain warnings given by the
*As for Son of Sirach.a2 And Stoic views of the origin of the world seem
Es iii. implied even in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (i. 7; vii. 24;
21-24 viii. 1 ; xii. 1).3 The mystics in the Talmud arrived at similar
conclusions, not through Greek, but through Persian teaching. Their
speculations 4 boldly entered on the dangerous ground,5 forbidden to
the many, scarcely allowed to the few,6 where such deep questions as
the origin of our world and its connection with God were discussed.
It was, perhaps, only a beautiful poetic figure, that God had taken of
the dust under the throne of His glory, and cast it upon the waters,
bshem. .13 which thus became earth.b But so far did isolated teachers become

I With singular and characteristic theosophic speculation, one became an
inconsistency, Philo, however, ascribes apostate, another died, a third went wrong
also to God the creation of matter (de (Ben Soma), and only Akiba escaped un-
Somn. i. 13). scathed, according to the Scripture saying,
2 So the Talmudists certainly under- 'Draw me, and we will run' (Chag. 14 b).
stood it, Jer. Chag. ii. 1. 6 It is not lawful to, enter upon the
s Comp. Grimm, Exeg. Handb. zu Maasey Bereshith in presence of two, nor
d. Apokr., Lief. vi. pp. 55, 56. upon the Merkabhah in presence of one,
4 They were arranged into those con- unless he be a sage," and understands of
cerning the Maasey Bereshith (Creation), his own knowledge. Any one who ratio-
and the Maasey Merkabhah, the chariot' cinates on these four things, it were
of Ezekiel's vision (Providence in the better for him that he had not been born:
widest sense, or God's manifestation in What is above, and what is below; what
the created world), was afore, and what shall be hereafter.'
Of the four celebrities who entered (Chag. ii. 1.)
the Pardes,' or enclosed Paradise of


intoxicated I by the new wine of these strange speculations, that they CHAP.
whispered it to one another that water was the original element of the IV
world,2 which had successively been hardened into snow and then into
earth.a 3 Other and later teachers fixed upon the air or the fire as the Jer. oMag.
original element, arguing the pre-existence of matter from the use of a
the word made' in Gen. i. 7, instead of created.' Some modified
this view, and suggested that God had originally created the three
elements of water, air or spirit, and fire, from which all else was
developed.4 Traces also occur of the doctrine of the pre-existence of
things, in a sense similar to that of Plato.b b Ber. L
Like Plato and the Stoics, Philo regarded matter as devoid of all
quality, and even form. Matter in itself was dead-more than that,
it was evil. This matter, which was already existing, God formed
(not made), like an architect who uses his materials according to a
pre-existing plan-which in this case was the archetypal world.
This was creation, or rather formation, brought about not by God
Himself, but by the Potencies, especially by the Logos, Who was the
connecting bond of all. As for God, His only direct work was the
soul, and that only of the good, not of the evil. Man's immaterial
part had a twofold aspect: earthwards, as Sensuousness (aa- 9l7o-is);
and heavenwards, as Reason (vo0s). The sensuous part of the soul
was connected with the body. It had no heavenly past, and would
have no future. But Reason' (vovs), was that breath of true life
which God had breathed into man ('rvsD/ia) whereby the earthy
became the higher, living spirit, with its various faculties. Before
time began the soul was without body, an archetype, the heavenly
man,' pure spirit in Paradise (virtue), yet even so longing after its
ultimate archetype, God. Some of these pure spirits descended into

I Ben Soma went astray (mentally):
he shook the (Jewish) world.'
2 That criticism, which one would de-
signate as impertinent, which would find
this view in 2 Peter iii. 5, is, alas I not
confined to Jewish writers, but hazarded
even by De Wette.
3 Judah bar Pazi, in the second
century. Ben Soma lived in the first
century of our era.
4 According to the Jerusalem Talmud
(Ber. i. 1) the firmament was at first soft,
and only gradually became hard. Ac-
cording to Ber. R. 10, God created the
world from a mixture of fire and snow,
other Rabbis suggesting four original
elements, according to the quarters of the
globe, or else six, adding to them that
which is above and that which is below.

A very curious idea is that of R. Joshua
ben Levi, according to which all the
works of creation were really finished on
the first day, and only, as it were, ex-
tended on the other days. This also
represents really a doubt of the Biblical
account of creation. Strange though it
may sound, the doctrine of development
was derived from the words (Gen. ii. 4),
' These are the generations of heaven and
earth when they were created, in the day
when Jahveh Elohim made earth and
heavens.' It was argued, that the ex-
pression implied, they were developed
from the day in which they had been
created. Others seem to have held, that
the three principal things that were
created-earth, heaven, and water-re-
mained, each for three days, at the end


BOOK bodies and so lost their purity. Or else, the union was brought about
I by God and by powers lower than God demonss, 8ij.tuovpyot). To
'- .. the latter is due our earthly part. God breathed on the formation,

and the earthly Reason' became intelligent,' spiritual' soul (fvXI
voEpd). Our earthly part alone is the seat of sin.'
This leads us to the great question of Original Sin. Here the
views of Philo are those of the Eastern Rabbis. But both are en-
tirely different from those on which the argument in the Epistle to
the Romans turns. It was neither at the feet of Gamaliel, nor yet
from Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsus learned the doctrine of
original sin. The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so
in Messiah all should be made alive,2 finds absolutely no parallel in
Jewish writings.3 What may be called the starting point of Chris-
tian theology, the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin, through the
fall of Adam, and of the consequent entire and helpless corruption of
our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism. The reign of
physical death was indeed traced to the sin of our first parents.4 But
Ber. 81 a the Talmud expressly teaches,a that God originally created man with
two propensities,5 one to good and one to evil (Yetser tobh, and Yetser
*smh. 1 b hara6). The evil impulse began immediately after birth.b7 But it
of which they respectively developed gressions," and so on-how much more
what is connected with them (Ber. R. 12). shall He justify (make righteous-by His
I For further notices on the Cosmology merit) all generations; and this is what
and Anthropology of Philo, see Appen- is meant when it is written, "And
dix II.: Philo and Rabbinic Theology.' Jehovah made to meet upon Him the sin
We cannot help quoting the beauti- of us all."' We have rendered this
ful Haggadic explanation of the name passage as literally as possible, but we are
Adam, according to its three letters, bound to add that it is not found in
A, D, M-as including these three names, any now existing copy of Siphrl.
Adam, David, Messiah. Death is not considered an absolute
SBaynAundus Martini, in his 'Pugio evil. In short, all the various conse-
Fidei' (orig. ed. p. 675; ed. Voisin et quences which Rabbinical writings ascribe
Carpzov, pp. 866, 867), quotes from the to the sin of Adam may be designated
book Siphre: Go and learn the merit either as physical, or, if mental, as
of Messiah the King, and the reward amounting only to detriment, loss, or im-
of the righteous from the first Adam, perfectness. These results had been
on whom was laid only one command- partially counteracted by Abraham, and
ment of a prohibitive character, and he would be fully removed by the Messiah.
transgressed it. See how many deaths Neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and
were appointed on him, and on his gene- accordingly they did not die. Comp.
rations, and on the generations of his generally, Hamburger, Geist d. Agada,
generations to the end of all generations. pp. 81-84, and in regard to death as con-
( Wiinseke, Leiden d. Mess. p. 65, makes nected with Adam, p. 85.
here an unwarrantable addition in his 5 These are also hypostatised as Angels.
translation.) But which attribute (mea- Comp. Levy, Chald. W6rterb. p. 342 a;
during?) is the greater-the attribute Neuhebr. WSrterb. p. 259, a, b.
of goodness or the attribute of punish- Or with two reins,' the one, advising
ment (retribution)? He answered, the to good, being at his right, the other,
Attribute of goodness is the greater, and counselling evil, at his left, according to
the attribute of punishment the less. And Eccles. x. 2 (Ber. 61 a, towards the end
Messiah the King, who was chastened of the page).
and suffered for the transgressors, as it is In a sense its existence was neces-
said, "He was wounded for our trans- sary for the continuance of this world


was within the power of man to vanquish sin, and to attain perfect
righteousness; in fact, this stage had actually been attained.'
Similarly, Philo regarded the soul of the child as naked' (Adam
and Eve), a sort of tabula rasa, as wax which God would fain form
and mould. But this state ceased when affection' presented itself
to reason, and thus sensuous lust arose, which was the spring of all
sin. The grand task, then, was to get rid of the sensuous, and to
rise to the spiritual. In this, the ethical part of his system, Philo
was most under the influence of Stoic philosophy. We might almost
say, it is no longer the Hebrew who Hellenises, but the Hellene who
Hebraises. And yet it is here also that the most ingenious and wide-
reaching allegorisms of Scripture are introduced. It is scarcely pos-
sible to convey an idea of how brilliant this method becomes in the
hands of Philo, how universal its application, or how captivating it
must have proved. Philo describes man's state as, first one of sen-
suousness, but also of unrest, misery, and unsatisfied longing. If per-
sisted in, it would end in complete spiritual insensibility.2 But from
this state the soul must pass to one of devotion to reason.3 This
change might be accomplished in one of three ways: first, by study
-of which physical was the lowest; next, that which embraced the
ordinary circle of knowledge; and lastly, the highest, that of Divine
philosophy. The second method was Askesis: discipline, or prac-
tice, when the soul turned from the lower to the higher. But the
best of all was the third way: the free unfolding of that spiritual
life which cometh neither from study nor discipline, but from a
natural good disposition. And in that state the soul had true rest
and joy.5
Here we must for the present pause.6 Brief as this sketch of
Hellenism has been, it must have brought the question vividly before
the mind, whether and how far certain parts of the New Testament,
especially the fourth Gospel,' are connected with the direction of

The conflict between these two impulses Theology.'
constituted the moral life of man. 6 The views of Philo on the Messiah
I The solitary exception here is 4 will be presented in another connection.
Esdras, where the Christian doctrine of This is not the place to enter on the
original sin is most strongly expressed, question of the composition, date, and au-
being evidently derived from New Tes- thorship of the four Gospels. But as re-
tament teaching. Comp. especially 4 gards the point on which negative criticism
Esdras (our Apocryphal 2 Esdras) vii. has of late spoken strongest-and on
46-53, and other passages. Wherein the which, indeed, (as Weiss rightly remarks)
hope of safety lay, appears in ch. ix. the very existence of the Tubingen
2 Symbolised by Lot's wife. School' depends-that of the Johannine
$ Symbolised by Ebkier, Hebrew. authorship of the fourth Gospel, I would
The Sabbath, Jerusalem. refer to Weiss, Leben Jesu (1882: vol.i.
5 For further details on these points pp. 84-139), and to Dr. Salmon's Introd.
see Appendix II.: Philo and Rabbinic to the New Test. pp. 266-365.


BOOK thought described in the preceding pages. Without yielding to that
I school of critics, whose perverse ingenuity discerns everywhere a
' sinister motive or tendency in the Evangelic writers,' it is evident
that each of them had a special object in view in constructing his
narrative of the One Life; and primarily addressed himself to a special
audience. If, without entering into elaborate discussion, we might,
according to St. Luke i. 2, regard the narrative of St. Mark as the
grand representative of that authentic narration' (&Sjryo-ts), though
not by Apostles,2 which was in circulation, and the Gospel by St.
Matthew as representing the 'tradition' handed down (the *rapdSoo-ts),
by the Apostolic eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,3 we should
reach the following results. Our oldest Gospel-narrative is that by
St. Mark, which, addressing itself to no class in particular, sketches
in rapid outlines the, picture of Jesus as the Messiah, alike for all
men. Next in order of time comes our present Gospel by St.
Matthew. It goes a step further back than that by St. Mark, and
gives not only the genealogy, but the history of the miraculous birth
of Jesus. Even if we had not the consensus of tradition, every one
must feel that this Gospel is Hebrew in its cast, in its citations from
the Old Testament, and in its whole bearing. Taking its key-note
from the Book of Daniel, that grand Messianic text-book of Eastern
Judaism at the time, and as re-echoed in the Book of Enoch-which
expresses the popular apprehension of Daniel's Messianic idea-it
presents the Messiah chiefly as the Son of Man,' the Son of David,
the Son of God.' We have here the fulfilment of Old Testament law
and prophecy; the realisation of Old Testament life, faith, and hope.
Third in point of time is the Gospel by St. Luke, which, passing back
another step, gives us not only the history of the birth of Jesus, but
also that of John, the preparer of the way.' It is Pauline, and
addresses itself, or rather, we should say, presents the Person of the
Messiah, it may be 'to the Jew first,' but certainly 'also to the Greek.
The term which St. Luke, alone of all Gospel writers,4 applies to

I No one not acquainted with this 2 I do not, of course, mean that the
literature can imagine the character narration of St. Mark was not itself de-
of the arguments sometimes used by rived chiefly from Apostolic preaching,
a certain class of critics. To say that especially that of St. Peter. In general,
they proceed on the most forced per- the question of the authorship and source
version of the natural and obvious of the various Gospels must be reserved
meaning of passages, is but little. But for separate treatment in another place.
one cannot restrain moral indignation on I Comp. Mangold's ed. of Bleek, Einl.
finding that to Evangelists and Apostles in d. N.T. (3te Aufl. 1875), p. 346.
is imputed, on such grounds, not only 4 With the sole exception of St. Matt.
systematic falsehood, but falsehood with xii. 18, where the expression is a quota-
the most sinister motives, tion from the LXX. of Is. xlii. 1.


Jesus, is that of the irais or servant' of God, in the sense in which
Isaiah had spoken of the Messiah as the Ebhed Jehovah,' servant of
the Lord.' St. Luke's is, so to speak, the Isaiah-Gospel, presenting
the Christ in His bearing on the history of God's Kingdom and of the
world-as God's Elect Servant in Whom He delighted. In the Old
Testament, to adopt a beautiful figure,' the idea of the Servant of the
Lord is set before us like a pyramid: at its base it is all Israel, at its
central section Israel after the Spirit (the circumcised in heart), re-
presented by David, the man after God's own heart; while at its apex
it is the Elect' Servant, the Messiah.2 And these three ideas, with
their sequences, are presented in the third Gospel as centring in Jesus
the Messiah. By the side of this pyramid is the other: the Son of
Man, the Son of David, the Son of God. The Servant of the Lord of
Isaiah and of Luke is the Enlightener, the Consoler, the victorious
Deliverer; the Messiah or Anointed: the Prophet, the Priest, the
Yet another tendency-shall we say, want ?-remained, so to
speak, unmet and unsatisfied. That large world of latest and most
promising Jewish thought, whose task it seemed to bridge over the
chasm between heathenism and Judaism-the Western Jewish world,
must have the Christ presented to them. For in every direction is
He the Christ. And not only they, but that larger Greek world, so
far as Jewish Hellenism could bring it to the threshold of the Church.
This Hellenistic and Hellenic world now stood in waiting to enter it,
though as it were by its northern porch, and to be baptized at its
font. All this must have forced itself on the mind of St. John, re-
siding in the midst of them at Ephesus, even as St. Paul's Epistles
contain almost as many allusions to Hellenism as to Rabbinism.3
And so the fourth Gospel became, not the supplement, but the com-

First expressed by Delitzsch (Bibl.
Comm. Ui. d. Proph. Jes. p. 414), and then
adopted by Oddler (Theol. d. A. Test.
vol. ii. pp. 270-272).
2 The two fundamental principles in
the history of the Kingdom of God are
selection and development. It is surely
remarkable, not strange, that these are
also the two fundamental truths in the
history of that other Kingdom of God,
Nature, if modern science has read them
correctly. These two substantives would
mark the facts as ascertained; the adjec-
tives, which are added to them by a
certain class of students, mark only their
infevences from these facts. These facts
may be true, even if as yet incomplete,

although the inferences may be false.
Theology should not here rashly inter-
fere. But whatever the ultimate result,
these two are certainly the fundamental
facts in the history of the Kingdom of
God, and, marking them as such, the
devout philosopher may rest contented.
3 The Gnostics, to whom, in the opinion
of many, so frequent references are made
in the writings of St. John and St. Paul,
were only an offspring (rather, as the
Germans would term it, an Abart) of
Alexandrianism on the one hand, and
on the other of Eastern notions, which
are so largely embodied in the later


BOOK plement, of the other three.' There is no other Gospel more Pales-
I tinian than this in its modes of expression, allusions, and references.
'-- Yet we must all feel how thoroughly Hellenistic it also is in its cast,2
in what it reports and what it omits-in short, in its whole aim;
how adapted to Hellenist wants its presentation of deep central
truths; how suitably, in the report of His Discourses-even so far
as their form is concerned-the promise was here fulfilled, of bringing
*St. John all things to remembrance whatsoever He had said.a It is the true
Light which shineth, of which the full meridian-blaze lies on the
Hellenist and Hellenic world. There is Alexandrian form of thought
not only in the whole conception, but in the Logos,3 and in His
presentation as the Light, the Life, the Wellspring of the world.4
But these forms are filled in the fourth Gospel with quite other sub-
stance. God is not afar off, uncognisable by man, without properties,
without name. He is the Father. Instead of a nebulous reflection
of the Deity we have the Person of the Logos; not a Logos with
the two potencies of goodness and power, but full of grace and
truth. The Gospel of St. John also begins with a Bereshith '-but
it is the theological, not the cosmic Bereshith, when the Logos was
with God and was God. Matter is not pre-existent; far less is it
evil. St. John strikes the pen through Alexandrianism when he lays
it down as the fundamental fact of New Testament history that the

A complement, not a supplement, as
many critics put it (Ewald, Weizssicker,
and even Hengstenberg)-least of all a
rectification (Godet, Evang. Joh. p. 633).
2 Keim (Leben Jesu von Nazara, i. a,
pp. 112-114) fully recognizes this; but I
entirely differ from the conclusions of
his analytical comparison of Philo with
the fourth Gospel.
I The student who has carefully con-
sidered the views expressed by Philo
about the Logos, and analysed, as in
the Appendix, the passages in the Tar-
gumim in which the word Menmra oc-
curs, cannot fail to perceive the im-
mense difference in the presentation of
the Logos by St. John. Yet M. Renan,
in an article in the Contemporary Re-
view' for September 1877, with utter
disregard of the historical evidence on
the question, maintains not only the
identity of these three sets of ideas,
but actually grounds on it his argument
against the authenticity of the fourth Gos-
pel. Considering the importance of the
subject, it is not easy to speak with
moderation of assertions so bold based

on statements so entirely inaccurate.
4 Dr. Bucher, whose book, Des Apo-
stels Johannes Lehre vom Logos, deserves
careful perusal, tries to trace the reason of
these peculiarities as indicated in the
Prologue of the fourth Gospel. Bucher
differentiates at great length between the
Logos of Philo and of the fourth Gospel.
He sums up his views by stating that in
the Prologue of St. John the Logos is pre-
sented as Cne fulness of Divine Light and
Life. This is, so to speak, the theme, while
the Gospel history is intended to present
the Loges as the giver of this Divine Light
and Life. While the other Evangelists
ascend from the manifestation to the
idea of the Son of God, St. John descends
from the idea of the Logos, as expressed
in the Prologue, to its concrete realisation
in His history. The latest tractate (at
the present writing, 1882) on the Gospel
of St. John, by Dr. Ofiiler, Die Johann.
Frage, gives a good summary of the argu-
ment on both sides, and deserves the
careful attention of students of the ques-


Logos was made flesh,' just as St. Paul does when he proclaims the CHAP.
great mystery of God manifest in the flesh.' Best of all, it is not IV
by a long course of study, nor by wearing discipline, least of all by
an inborn good disposition, that the soul attains the new life, but by
a birth from above, by the Holy Ghost, and by simple faith which is
brought within reach of the fallen and the lost.'
Philo had no successor. In him Hellenism had completed its
cycle. Its message and its mission were ended. Henceforth it
needed, like Apollos, its great representative in the ChristianChurch,
two things : the baptism of John to the knowledge of sin and need,
and to have the way of God more perfectly expounded." On the -Acts xiii.
other hand, Eastern Judaism had entered with Hillel on a new stage.
This direction led farther and farther away from that which the New
Testament had taken in following up and unfolding the spiritual
elements of the Old. That development was incapable of transfor-
mation or renovation. It must go on to its final completion-and be
either true, or else be swept away and destroyed.

I cannot agree with Weiss (u. s., p. to the Apostle's mind, as evidenced in
122) that the great object of the fourth 'his Epistle, but the object in view could
Gospel was to oppose the rising Gnostic not have been mainly, nor even primarily,
movement. This may have been present negative and controversial.




BOOK WE have spoken of Alexandria as the capital of the Jewish world in
I the West. Antioch was, indeed, nearer to Palestine, and its Jewish
population-including the floating part of it-as numerous as that
of Alexandria. But the wealth, the thought, and the influence of
Western Judaism centred in the modern capital of the land of the
Pharaohs. In those days Greece was the land of the past, to which
the student might resort as the home of beauty and of art, the time-
hallowed temple of thought and of poetry. But it was also the land
of desolateness and of ruins, where fields of corn waved over the
remains of classic antiquity. The ancient Greeks had in great measure
sunk to a nation of traders, in keen competition with the Jews.
Indeed, Roman sway had levelled the ancient world, and buried its
national characteristics. It was otherwise in the far East; it was
otherwise also in Egypt. Egypt was not a land to be largely in-
habited, or to be civilised' in the then sense of the term: soil,
climate, history, nature forbade it. Still, as now, and even more
than now, was it the dream-land of untold attractions to the traveller.
The ancient, mysterious Nile still rolled its healing waters out into the
blue sea, where (so it was supposed) they changed its taste within a
radius farther than the eye could reach. To be gently borne in bark
or ship on its waters, to watch the strange vegetation and fauna of
its banks; to gaze beyond, where they merged into the trackless
desert; to wander under the shade of its gigantic monuments, or
within the weird avenues of its colossal temples, to see the scroll of
mysterious hieroglyphics; to note the sameness of manner and of
people as of old, and to watch the unique rites of its ancient religion
-this was indeed to be again in the old far-away world, and that
amidst a dreaminess bewitching the senses, and a gorgeousness
dazzling the imagination.1
I What charm Egypt had for the of their mosaics and frescoes. Comp.
Romans may be gathered from so many Friedlinder, u. s. vol. ii. pp. 134-136.


We are still far out at sea, making for the port of Alexandria- OHAP.
the only safe shelter all along the coast of Asia and Africa. Quite V
thirty miles out the silver sheen of the lighthouse on the island of
Pharos '-connected by a mole with Alexandria-is burning like a
star on the edge of the horizon. Now we catch sight of the palm-
groves of Pharos; presently the anchor rattles and grates on the
sand, and we are ashore. What a crowd of vessels of all sizes, shapes,
and nationalities; what a multitude of busy people; what a very
Babel of languages; what a commingling of old and new world civi-
lisation; and what a variety of wares piled up, loading or unloading!
Alexandria itself was not an old Egyptian, but a comparatively
modern, city; in Egypt and yet not of Egypt. Everything was in
character-the city, its inhabitants, public life, art, literature, study,
amusements, the very aspect of the place. Nothing original anywhere,
but combination of all that had been in the ancient world, or that
was at the time-most fitting place therefore to be the capital of
Jewish Hellenism.
As its name indicates, the city was founded by Alexander the
Great. It was built in the form of an open fan, or rather, of the
outspread cloak of a Macedonian horseman. Altogether, it measured
(16,360 paces) 3,160 paces more than Rome; but its houses were
neither so crowded nor so many-storied. It had been a large city when
Rome was still inconsiderable, and to the last held the second place
in the Empire. One of the five quarters into which the city was
divided, and which were named according to the first letters of the
alphabet, was wholly covered by the royal palaces, with their gardens,
and similar buildings, including the royal mausoleum, where the body
of Alexander the Great, preserved in honey, was kept in a glass coffin.
But these, and its three miles of colonnades along the principal high-
way, were only some of the magnificent architectural adornments of
a city full of palaces. The population amounted, probably, to nearly
a million, drawn from the East and West by trade, the attractions of
wealth, the facilities for study, or the amusements of a singularly
frivolous city. A strange mixture of elements among the people,
combining the quickness and versatility of the Greek with the gra-
vity, the conservatism, the dream-grandeur, and the luxury of the
Three worlds met in Alexandria : Europe, Asia, and Africa; and

'This immense lighthouse was square recorded repairs to this magnifalent
up to the middle, then covered by an structure of blocks of marble were made
octagon, the top being round. The last in the year 1303 of our era.


BOOK brought to it, or fetched from it, their treasures. Above all, it was a
I commercial city, furnished with an excellent harbour-or rather with
five harbours. A special fleet carried, as tribute, from Alexandria to
Italy, two-tenths of the corn produce of Egypt, which sufficed to feed
the capital for four months of the year. A magnificent fleet it was,
from the light quick sailer to those immense corn-ships which hoisted
a special flag, and whose early arrival' was awaited a Puteoli I with
more eagerness than that of any modern ocean-steamer.2 The com-
merce of India was in the hands of the Alexandrian shippers.3 Since
the days of the Ptolemies the Indian trade alone had increased six-
fold.4 Nor was the native industry inconsiderable. Linen goods, to
suit the tastes or costumes of all countries ; woollen stuffs of every
hue, some curiously wrought with figures, and even scenes ; glass of
every shade and in every shape; paper from the thinnest sheet to the
coarsest packing paper; essences, perfumeries-such were the native
products. However idly or luxuriously inclined, still everyone seemed
busy, in a city where (as the Emperor Hadrian expressed it) 'money
was the people's god;' and every one seemed well-to-do in his own
way, from the waif in the streets, who with little trouble to himself
could pick up sufficient to go to the restaurant and enjoy a comfort-
able dinner of fresh or smoked fish with garlic, and his pudding, washed
down with the favourite Egyptian barley beer, up to the millionaire
banker, who owned a palace in the city and a villa by the canal that
connected Alexandria with Canobus. What a jostling crowd of all
nations in the streets, in the market (where, according to the joke of
a contemporary, anything might be got except snow), or by the har-
bours; what cool shades, delicious retreats, vast halls, magnificent
libraries, where the savants of Alexandria assembled and taught every
conceivable branch of learning, and its far-famed physicians prescribed

I The average passage from Alexandria
to Puteoli was twelve days, the ships
touching at Malta and in Sicily. It was
in such a ship, the Castor and Pollux,'
carrying wheat, that St. Paul sailed from
Malta to Puteoli, where it would be
among the first arrivals of the season.
2 They bore, painted on the two sides
of the prow, the emblems of the gods to
whom they were dedicated, and were
navigated by Egyptian pilots, the most
renowned in the world. One of these
vessels is described as 180 by 45 feet,
and of about 1,575 tons, and is computed
to have returned to its owner nearly
3,0001. annually. (Comp Fgsedliinder, u. s.
vol. ii. p. 131ll, &c.) And yet these were

small ships compared with those built for
the conveyance of marble blocks and
columns, and especially of obelisks. One
of these is said to have carried, besides
an obelisk, 1,200 passengers, a freight of
paper, nitre, pepper, linen, and a large
cargo of what.
3 The journey took about three months,
either up the Nile, thence by caravan,
and again by sea; or else perhaps by the
Ptolemy Canal and the Red Sea.
4 It included gold-dust, ivory, and
mother-of-pearl from the interior of
Africa, spices from Arabia, pearls from
the Gulf of Persia, precious stones
and byssus from India, and silk from


for the poor consumptive patients sent thither from all parts of CHAP.
Italy! What bustle and noise among that ever excitable, chatty, con- V
ceited, vain, pleasure-loving multitude, whose highest enjoyment was
the theatre and singers; what scenes on that long canal to Canobus,
lined with luxurious inns, where barks full of pleasure-seekers revelled
in the cool shade of the banks, or sped to Canobus, that scene of all
dissipation and luxury, proverbial even in those days! And yet, close
by, on the shores of Lake Mareotis, as if in grim contrast, were the
chosen retreats of that sternly ascetic Jewish party, the Therapeuts,a1 n the ex.
whose views and practices in so many points were kindred to those the Thera.
of the Essenes in Palestine! Art. o in
This sketch of Alexandria will help us to understand the sur- Wo\e'sl It.
roundings of the large mass of Jews settled in the Egyptian capital. vol. iv.
Altogether more than an eighth of the population of the country
(one million in 7,800,000) was Jewish. Whether or not a Jewish
colony had gone into Egypt at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, or even
earlier, the great mass of its residents had been attracted by Alexander
the Great,b who had granted the Jews equally exceptional privileges b Mommen
with the Macedonians. The later troubles of Palestine under the v. p. 4s)
ascribes tha
Syrian kings greatly swelled their number, the more so that the rather to
Ptolemy I.
Ptolemies, with one exception, favoured them. Originally a special
quarter had been assigned to the Jews in the city-the Delta' by the
eastern harbour and the Canobus canal-probably alike to keep the
community separate, and from its convenience for commercial purposes.
The privileges which the Ptolemies had accorded to the Jews were
confirmed, and even enlarged, by Julius Caesar. The export trade in
grain was now in their hands, and the harbour and river police com-
mitted to their charge. Two quarters in the city are named as spe-
cially Jewish-not, however, in the sense of their being confined to
them. Their Synagogues, surrounded by shady trees, stood in all
parts of the city. But the chief glory of the Jewish community in
Egypt, of which even the Palestinians boasted, was the great central
Synagogue, built in the shape of a basilica, with double colonnade,
and so large that it needed a signal for those most distant to know
the proper moment for the responses. The different trade guilds sat
there together, so that a stranger would at once know where to find
Jewish employers or fellow-workmen.0 In the choir of this Jewish si. .1a
cathedral stood seventy chairs of state, encrusted with precious stones,
for the seventy elders who constituted the eldership of Alexandria, on
the model of the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
It is a strange, almost inexplicable fact, that the Egyptian Jews


BOOK had actually built a schismatic Temple. During the terrible Syrian
I persecutions in Palestine Onias, the son of the murdered High-Priest
Onias III., had sought safety in Egypt. Ptolemy Philometor not
only received him kindly, but gave a disused heathen temple in the town
of Leontopolis for a Jewish sanctuary. Here a new Aaronic priest-
hood ministered, their support being derived from the revenues of the
district around. The new Temple, however, resembled not that of
Jerusalem either in outward appearance nor in all its internal fittings.'
At first the Egyptian Jews were very proud of their new sanctuary,
*i.rix.is8 and professed to see in it the fulfilment of the prediction,a that five
cities in the land of Egypt should speak the language of Canaan, of
which one was to be called Ir-ha-Heres, which the LXX. (in theii
original form, or by some later emendation) altered into the city of
righteousness.' This temple continued from about 160 B.c. to shortly
after the destruction of Jerusalem. It could scarcely be called a rival
to that on Mount Moriah, since the Egyptian Jews also owned that of
Jerusalem as their central sanctuary, to which they made pilgrimages
Spiio, and brought their contributions,b while the priests at Leontopolis,
Mangey before marrying, always consulted the official archives in Jerusalem to
os. Ag. ascertain the purity of descent of their intended wives.c The Pales-
Ap. i.7 tinians designated it contemptuously as the house of Chonyi' (Onias),
and declared the priesthood of Leontopolis incapable of serving in Jeru-
salem, although on a par with those who were disqualified only by some
bodily defect. Offerings brought in Leontopolis were considered null,
unless in the case of vows to which the name of this Temple had been
Men. xiii. expressly attached.d This qualified condemnation seems, however,
QG. nhe strangely mild, except on the supposition that the statements we have
10 a and b quoted only date from a time when both Temples had long passed
Nor were such feelings unreasonable. The Egyptian Jews had
spread on all sides-southward to Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and west-
ward to, and beyond, the province of Cyrene. In the city of that
name they formed one of the four classes into which its inhabitants
*Srao in were divided.0 A Jewish inscription at Berenice, apparently dating
ii. 7,s2 from the year 13 B.C., shows that the Cyrenian Jews formed a distinct
community under nine rulers' of their own, who no doubt attended
to the communal affairs-not always an easy matter, since the
Cyrenian Jews were noted, if not for turbulence, yet for strong anti-

Instead of the seven-branched golden suspended from a chain of the same
candlestick there was a golden lamp, metal.


Roman feeling, which more than once was cruelly quenched in blood.1 CHAP.
Other inscriptions prove,2 that in other places of their dispersion also V
the Jews had their own Archontes or rulers,' while the special direction
of public worship was always entrusted to -the A'rchisynagogos, or
chief ruler of the Synagogue,' both titles occurring side by side.3
It is, to say the least, very doubtful, whether the High-Priest at
Leontopolis was ever regarded as, in any real sense, the head of the
/ Jewish community in Egypt.4 In Alexandria, the Jews were under
the rule of a Jewish Ethnarch," whose authority was similar to that
of the Archon' of independent cities.a But his authority 6 was stra in
JoS. Ant.
transferred, by Augustus, to the whole eldership.' b Another, pro- xiv. 7.2
bably Roman, office, though for obvious reasons often filled by Jews, lao.ed.
was that of the Alabarch, or rather Arabarch, who was set over the 5gey, i.
Arab population.7 Among others, Alexander, the brother of Philo,
held this post. If we may judge of the position of the wealthy Jewish
families in Alexandria by that of this Alabarch, their influence must
have been very great. The firm of Alexander was probably as rich as
the great Jewish banking and shipping house of Saramalla in Antioch. "o -'*0-t.
Its chief was entrusted with the management of the affairs of war. 13, 5
Antonia, the much respected sister-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius. d Ant. xix.
It was a small thing for such a man to lend King Agrippa, when his
fortunes were very low, a sum of about 7,0001. with which to resort
to Italy,e since he advanced it on the guarantee of Agrippa's wife, Ant. xviii.
whom he highly esteemed, and at the same time made provision that
the money should not be all spent before the Prince met the
Emperor. Besides, he had his own plans in the matter. Two of his
sons married daughters of King Agrippa; while a third, at the
price of apostasy, rose successively to the posts of Procurator of
Palestine, and finally of Governor of Egypt.f The Temple at Jeru- fAnt.xlx
salem bore evidence of the wealth and. munificence of this Jewish
millionaire. The gold and silver with which the nine massive gates
Could there have been any such 629). The subject is of great impor-
meaning in laying the Roman cross which tance as illustrating the rule of the
Jesus had to bear upon a Cyrenian (St. Synagogue in the days of Christ. An-
Luke xxiii. 26)? A symbolical meaning it other designation on the gravestones ra'rp
certainly has, as we remember that the avryay'yic seems to refer solely to age-
last Jewish rebellion (132-135 A.D.), one being described as 110 years old.
Ghichhad Bar Cochbaforits Messiah,first Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 345.
broke out in Cyrene. What terrible ven- X Marquardt (Rom. Staatsverwalt. vol.
geance was taken on those who followed i. p. 297). Note 5 suggests that o0vos
the false Christ, cannot here be told. may here mean classics, ordo.
2 Jewish inscriptions have also been 6 The office itself would seem to have
found in Mauritania and Algiers. been continued. (Jos. Ant. xix. 56. 2.)
1 On a tombstone at Capua (Mommsen, Comp. Wesseling, de Jud. Archont.
Inscr. R. Neap. 3,657, apud Schiirer, p. pp. 63, &c., apud kS ei er, pp. 627, 628.


BOOK were covered, which led into the Temple, were the gift of the great
I Alexandrian banker.
The possession of such wealth, coupled no doubt with pride and
self-as.ertion, and openly spoken contempt of the superstitions around,1
would naturally excite the hatred of the Alexandrian populace against
the Jews. The greater number of those silly stories about the origin,
early history, and religion of the Jews, which even the philosophers
and historians of Rome record as genuine, originated in Egypt. A
Probably whole series of writers, beginning with Manetho," made it their
about 250
B.c. business to give a kind of historical travesty of the events recorded in
the books of Moses. The boldest of these scribblers was Apion, to
whom Josephus replied-a world-famed charlatan and liar, who wrote
or lectured, with equal presumption and falseness, on every conceivable
object. He was just the man to suit the Alexandrians, on whom his
unblushing assurance imposed. In Rome he soon found his level, and
the Emperor Tiberius well characterized the irrepressible boastful
talker as the 'tinkling cymbal of the world.' He had studied, seen,
and heard everything-even, on three occasions, the mysterious sound
on the Colossus of Memnon, as the sun rose upon it! At least, so he
graved upon the Colossus itself, for the information of all generations.2
Such was the man on whom the Alexandrians conferred the freedom
of their city, to whom they entrusted their most important affairs, and
whom they extolled as the victorious, the laborious, the new Homer.3
There can be little doubt, that the popular favour was partly due to
Apion's virulent attacks upon the Jews. His grotesque accounts of
their history and religion held them up to contempt. But his real
object was to rouse the fanaticism of the populace against the Jews.
Every year, so he told them, it was the practice of the Jews to get
hold of some unfortunate Hellene, whom ill-chance might bring into
their hands, to fatten him for the year, and then to sacrifice him,
partaking of his entrails, and burying the body, while during these
horrible rites they took a fearful oath of perpetual enmity to the Greeks.
These were the people who battened on the wealth of Alexandria, who
had usurped quarters of the city to which they had no right, and
claimed exceptional privileges ; a people who had proved traitors
to, and the ruin of every one who had trusted them. 'If the
Jews,' he exclaimed, are citizens of Alexandria, why do they not
worship the same gods as the Alexandrians ?' And, if they wished
I Comp., for example, such a trenchant 3 A very good sketch of Apion is given
chapter as Baruch vi., or the 2nd Fragm. by Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg. vol. ii. pp.
of the Erythr. Sibyl, vv. 21-33. 187-195.
2 Comp. Friedlinder, u. s. ii. p

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs