PALESTINIAN AND ALEXANDRIAN EXEGESIS. APPENDIX II. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AND RABBINIC THEOLOGY. (See vol. 1. pp. 42, 45, 47, 53.) (AD vol. i. p. 42, note 4.) In comparing the allegorical Canons of Philo with those of Jewish traditionalism, we think first of all of the seven exegetical canons which are ascribed to Hillel. These bear chiefly the character of logical deductions, and as such were largely applied in the Halakhah. These seven canons were next expanded by R. Ishmael (in the first century) into thirteen, by the analysis of one of them (the 5th) into six, and the addition of this sound exegetical rule, that where two verses seem to be contradictory, their conciliation must be sought in a third passage. The real rules for the Haggadah-if such there were-were the thirtytwo canons of R. José the Galilean (in the second century). It is here that we meet so much that is kindred in form to the allegorical canons of Philo. Only, they are not rationalising, and far more brilliant in their application. Most taking results--at least to a certain class of minds-might be reached by finding in each consonant of a word the initial letter of another (Notariqon). Thus, the word MiSBeaCH (altar) was resolved into these four words, beginning respectively with M, S, B, CHI: Forgiveness, Merit, Blessing, Life. Then there was Gematria, by which every letter in a word was resolved into its arithmetical equivalent. Thus, the two words, Gog and Magog 70, which was the supposed number of all the heathen nations. Again, in Athbash the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were transposed (the first for the last of the alphabet, and so on), so that SHESHAKH (Jer. xxv. 26; li. 41) became Ba BeL, while in Albam, the twenty-two Hebrew letters were divided into two rows, which might be exchanged (L for A, M for B, &c.). = In other respects also the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian mode of interpretation. There was at least ingenuity, if not always truth, in explaining a word by resolving it into two others, or in discussing the import of exclusive particles (such as 'only,' 'but,' ' from '), and inclusives (such as 'also,' 'with,' 'all'), or in discovering shades of meaning from the derivation of a word, as in the eight synonyms for 'poor'-of which one (Ani), indicated simply the poor'; another (Ebhyon, from abhah), one who felt both need and desire; a third (misken), one humiliated; a fourth (rash from rush), one who had been emptied of his property; a fifth (dal), one whose property had become exhausted; a sixth (dakh), one who felt broken down; a seventh (makh), one who had coine down; and the eighth (chelekh), one who was wretched-or in discussing 659 APP. II APP. II such differences as between amar, to speak gently, and dabhar, to speak strongly— and many others.' flere intimate knowledge of the language and tradition might be of real use. At other times striking thoughts were suggested, as when it was pointed out that all mankind was made to spring from one man, in order to show the power of God, since all coins struck from the same machine were precisely the same, while in man, whatever the resemblance, there was still a difference in each. 2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable God and God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so much in the theology of Philo in regard to the intermediary beings'-'Potencies' --and the Logos, occurs equally in Rabbinic theology, though there it is probably derived from a different source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked and striking avoidance of all anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts for the designation of God by two classes of terms, of which, in our view, the first expresses the idea of God as revealed, the other that of God as revealing Himself; or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a state, the other an act on the part of God. The first of these classes of designations embraces two terms: Yegara, the excellent glory, and Shekhirah, or Shekhintha, the abiding Presence. On the other hand, God, as in the act of revealing Himself, is described by the term Memra, the 'Logos,the Word.' A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms Yegara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and upward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim, and even by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by side (as for ex., in the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in PseudoJonathan, Gen. xvi. 13, 14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3; Hagg. i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet. i. 17, to the voice from the excellent glory' (rns μeyadoñpeñoûs dóέns) must have been to the Yegara. The varied use of the terms Shekhinah and Yegara, and then 1 Comp. generally, Hamburger, vol. ii. pp. 181-212, and the History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 567-580, where the Rabbinic Exegesis is fully explained. 2 Besides the designations of God to which reference is made in the text, Philo also applies to Him that of rónos, place,' in precisely the same manner as the later Rabbis (and especially the Kabbalah) use the word Din. To Philo it implies that God is extramundane. He sees this taught in Gen. xxii. 3, 4, where Abraham came unto the place of which God had told him; but, when he lifted up his eyes,' 'saw the place afar off.' Similarly, the Rabbis when commenting on Gen. xxviii. 11, assign this as the reason why God is designated pip, that He is extramundane; the discussion being whether God is the place of His World or the reverse, and the decision in favour of the former-Gen. xxviii. 11 being explained by Ex. xxxiii. 21, and Deut. xxxiii. 27 by Ps. xc. 1 (Ber. R. 68, ed. Warsh. p. 125 b). 3 I think it is Köster (Trinitätslehre vor Christo) who distinguishes the two as God's Presence within and without the congregation. In general his brochure is of little real value. Dr. S. Maybaum (Anthropomorphien u. Anthropopathien bei Onkelos) affords a curious instance of modern Jewish criticism. With much learning and not a little ingenuity he tries to prove by a detailed analysis, that the three terms Memra, Shekhinah, and Yeqara have not the meaning above explained! The force of tendency-argument ation essay. could scarcely go farther than his 4 Not as Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 107 a) would have it, the Shekhinah, though he rightly regards the N.T. Soga, in this signification of the word, as the equivalent of the Old Testament. Clear notions on the subject are so important that we give a list of the chief passages in which the two terms are used in the Targum Onkelos, viz. Yeqara: Gen. xvii. 22; xviii. 33; xxviii. 13; xxxv. 13; Ex. iii. 1, 6; xvi. 7, 10; xvii. 16; xviii. 5; xx. 17, 18; xxiv. 10, 11, 17; xxix. 43; xxxiii, 18, 22, 23; xl. 34, 38; Lev. ix. 4, 6, 23; Numb. x. 36; xii. 8; xiv. 14, 22. Shekhinah: Gen. ix. 27; Ex. xvii. 7, 16; xx. 21: xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; xxxiii. 3, 5, 14-16, 20; xxxiv. 6, 9; Numb. v. 3; vi. 25; xi. 20; xiv. 14, 42; xxiii. 21; xxxv. 34; Deut. i. 42; iii. 24; iv. 39; vi. 15; vii. 21; xii. 5, 11, 21; xiv. 23, 24; xvi. 2, 6, 11; xxi. 15; xxvi. 2; xxxii. 10; xxxiii. 26. " Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. 1 it is the Yeqara and its train-the heavenward glory—which fills the Heavenly Temple. In ver. 3 we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His Shekhintha, while the splendour (Ziv) of His Yegara fills the earth-as it were, flows down to it. In ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Fegara of the Shekhinah, while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the throne of the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so especially in Ex. xvii. 16). Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jehovah speaking the words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in St. John xii. 40, these words are prophetically applied in connection with Christ. Thus St. John applies to the Logos what the Targum understands of the Memra of Jehovah. But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with reference not only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the Fourth Gospel, is to ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression Memra in the Targumim. As stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the term Memra, as applied to God, occurs 176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three classes. Those in Class I. mark where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at least doubtful; those in Class II. where the fair interpretation of a passage shows; and Class 111. where it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to God as revealing Himself, that is, the Logos. Classified List of all the Passages in which the term 'Memra' occurs in the Targum Onkelos. (The term occurs 176 times. Class III., which consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself, comprises 79 passages.) 1 CLASS I. Inapplicable or Doubtful: Gen. xxvi. 5; Ex. ii. 25; v. 2; vi. 8; xv. 8, 10, 26; xvi. 8; xvii. 1; xxiii. 21, 22; xxv. 22; xxxii. 13; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14, 18, 21, 27; Num. iii. 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 quat.; x. 13; xiii. 3; xiv. 11, 22, 30, 35; xx. 12, 24; xxiii. 19; xxiv. 4, 16; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26; iv. 30; viii. 3, 20; xiii. 5, 19 (in our Version 4, 18); xv. 5; xxvi. 15, 18; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 10, 20. An examination of these passages would show that, for caution's sake, we have sometimes put down as 'inapplicable' or 'doubtful' what, viewed in connection with other passages in which the word is used, appears scarcely doubtful. It would take too much space to explain why some passages are put in the next class, although the term Memra seems to be used in a manner parallel to that in class I. Lastly, the 1 As these sheets are passing through the press for a second edition, the classic edition of the Targum Onkelos by Dr. Berliner (in 2 vols. Berlin, 1884) has reached me. Vol. i. gives the text after the editio Sabioneta (of the year 1557). Vol. ii. adds critical notes to the text (pp. 1-70), which are followed by very interesting Prolegomena, entering fully on all questions connected with this Targum, historical, exegetical, and critical, and treat- 661 APP. II APP. II reason why some passages appear in Class III., when others, somewhat similar, are placed in Class II., must be sought in the context and connection of a verse. We must ask the reader to believe that each passage has been carefully studied by itself, and that our conclusions have been determined by careful consideration, and by the fair meaning to be put on the language of Onkelos. CLASS II. Fair: Gen. vii. 16; xx. 3; xxxi. 3, 24; Ex. xix. 5; Lev. viii. 35; xxvi. 23; Numb. xi. 20, 23; xiv. 41; xxii. 9, 18, 20; xxiii. 3, 4, 16; xxvii. 21; xxxvi. 2; Deut. i. 32; iv. 24, 33, 36; v. 24, 25, 26; ix. 23 (bis); xxxi. 23; xxxiv. 5. CLASS III. Undoubted: Gen. iii. 8, 10; vi. 6 (bis), 7; viii. 21; ix. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; xv. 1,6; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xxi. 20, 22, 23; xxii. 16; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxviii. 15, 20, 21; xxxi. 49, 50; xxxv. 3;. xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23; xlviii. 21; xlix. 24, 25; Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15; x. 10; xiv. 31; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 17; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxiii. 22; Lev. xx. 23; xxiv. 12; xxvi. 9, 11, 30, 46; Numb. xiv. 9 (bis), 43; xvii. 19 (in our Version v. 4); xxi. 5; xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30; ii. 7; iii. 22; iv. 37; v. 5; ix. 3; xviii. 16, 19; xx. 1; xxiii. 15; xxxi. 6, 8; xxxii. 51; xxxiii. 3, 27. Of most special interest is the rendering of Onkelos of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where, instead of underneath are the everlasting arms,' Onkelos has it: And by His Memra was the world made,' exactly as in St. John i. 10. This divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text is utterly unaccountable, nor has any explanation of it, so far as I know, been attempted. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation 'De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi Chaldaica' (Lips. 1820), most modern writers have simply foliowed (with some amplifications, chiefly from Luzatto's 'Philoxenus,' 8), makes no reference to this passage, nor do his successors, so far as I know. It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text has three words, so has the rendering of Onkelos, and that both end with the same word. In classifying the pas-ages in which the word Memra occurs in the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, we have reversed the previous order, and Class I. represents the passages in which the term undoubtedly applies to the Personal manifestation of God; Class II., in which this is the fair interpretation; Class III., in which such application is, to say the most, doubtful. Classified List of Passages (according to the above scheme) in which the term 'Memra' occurs in the Targum Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch. CLASS I. Of undoubted application to a Personal Manifestation of God: Gen. i. 27; iii. 9, 22; v. 24; vi. 3; vii. 16; xv. 1; xvi. 3; xix. 24; xxi. 33; xxii. 8, 14; xxviii. 10; xxx. 22 (bis); xxxi. 9; xxxv. 9 (quat.); xxxviii. 25; xl. 23; Exod. iii. 14; vi. 3; xii. 42 (quat.); xiii. 18; xiv. 15, 24, 25; xv. 12, 25 (bis); xix. 5,7, 8, 9 (bis); xx. 1, 24; Lev. i. 1; Numb. ix. 8; x. 35, 36; xiv. 20; xxi. 6; xxiii. 8 (bis); xxiv. 6, 23; xxv. 4; xxvii. 16; Deut. i. 1; iii. 2; iv. 34; xxvi. 3, 14, 17, 18; xxviii. 27, 68; xxxii. 15, 39, 51; xxxiii. 2, 7; xxxiv. 9, 10, 11. CLASS II. Where such application is fair: Gen. v. 24; xxi. 33; Ex. vi. 3; xv. 1; Lev. i. 1; Numb. xxiii. 15, 21; xxiv. 4, 16; Deut. xxxii. 1, 40. CLASS III. Where such application is doubtful: Gen. vi. 6; xviii. 1, 17; xxii. 14 (bis); xxx. 22; xl. 23; xlix. 18; Ex. xiii. 19; xv. 2, 26; xvii. 16; xix. 3; Deut. i. 1; xxxii. 18; xxxiv. 4, 5. AN EXAMPLE OF PHILO'S METHOD OF EXEGESIS. Classified List of Passages in which the term ' Memra' occurs in the CLASS I. Undoubted: Gen. ii. 8; iii. 8, 10, 24; iv. 26; v. 2; vii. 16; ix. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; xi. 8; xii. 17; xv. 1; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xviii. 5; xix. 24 (bis); xx. 6, 18; xxi. 20, 22, 23, 33; xxii. 1; xxiv. 1, 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxvii. 28, 31; xxviii. 10, 15, 20; xxix. 12; xxxi. 3, 50; xxxv. 3, 9; xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23; xli. 1; xlvi. 4; xlviii. 9, 21; xlix. 25; 1. 20; Exod. i. 21; ii. 5; iii. 12; vii. 25; x. 10; xii. 23, 29; xiii. 8, 15, 17; xiv. 25, 31; xv. 25; xvii. 13, 15, 16 (bis); xviii. 19; xx. 7; xxvi. 28; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6, 36; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxii. 35; xxxiii. 9, 19; xxxiv. 5; xxxvi. 33; Lev. i. 1 (bis); vi. 2; viii. 35; ix. 23; xx. 23; xxiv. 12 (bis); xxvi. 11, 12, 30, 44, 46; Numb. iii. 16, 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 (ter); x. 13, 35, 36; xiv. 9, 41, 43; xvi. 11, 26; xvii. 4; xxi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 34; xxii. 18, 19, 28; xxiii. 3, 4, 8 (bis), 16, 20, 21; xxiv. 13; xxvii. 16; xxxi. 8; xxxiii. 4; Deut. i. 10, 30, 43; ii. 7, 21; iii. 22; iv. 3, 7 (bis), 20, 24, 33, 36; v. 5 (bis), 11, 22, 23, 24 (bis), 25, 26; vi. 13, 21,22; ix. 3; xi. 23; xii. 5, 11; xviii. 19; xx. 1; xxi. 20; xxiv. 18, 19; xxvi. 5, 14, 18; xxviii. 7, 9, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 35, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 68; xxix. 2, 4; xxx. 3, 4, 5, 7; xxxi. 5, 8, 23; xxxii. 6, 9, 12, 36; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 1, 5, 10, 11. CLASS II. Fair: Gen. v. 24; xv. 6; xvi. 1, 13; xviii. 17; xxii. 16; xxix. 31; xxx. 22; xlvi. 4; Ex. ii. 23; iii. 8, 17, 19; iv. 12; vi. 8; xii. 27; xiii. 5, 17; xxxii. 13; xxxiii. 12, 22; Lev. xxvi. 44; Numb. xiv. 30; xx. 12, 21; xxii. 9, 20; xxiv. 4, 16, 23; Deut. viii. 3; xi. 12; xxix. 23; xxxi. 2, 7; xxxii. 18, 23, 26, 38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 51; xxxiii. 3, 27; xxxiv. 6. CLASS III. Doubtful: Gen. vi. 3, 6 (bis), 7 (bis); viii. 1, 21; xxii. 18; xxvi. 5 (bis); Ex. iv. 15; v. 2; ix. 20, 21; x. 29; xiv. 7; xv. 2, 8; xvi. 3, 8; xix. 5; xxv. 22; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 40; Numb. vi. 27; ix. 8; xii. 6; xiv. 11, 22, 35; xv. 34; xx. 24; xxiii. 19; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26, 32; iv. 30; v. 5; viii. 20; ix. 23; xi. 1; xiii 18; xv. 5; xix. 15; xxv. 18; xxvi. 17; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 9, 10; xxxi. ¡2; xxxiii. 9. (Ad vol. i. p. 53, note 4.) Only one illustration of Philo's peculiar method of interpreting the Old Testament can here be given. It will at the same time show, how he found confirmation for his philosophical speculations in the Old Testament, and further illustrate his system of moral theology in its most interesting, but also most difficult, point. The question is, how the soul was to pass from its state of sensuousness and sin to one of devotion to reason, which was religion and righteousness. It will be remarked that the change from the one state to the other is said to be accomplished in one of three ways: by study, by practice, or through a good natural disposition (μáðŋois, äokŋois, evþvía) exactly as Aristotle put it. But Philo found a symbol for each, and for a preparatory stage in each, in Scripture. The three Patriarchs represented this threefold mode of reaching the supersensuous: Abraham, study; Jacob, practice; Isaac, a good disposition; while Enos, Enoch, and Noah, represented the respective preparatory stages. Enos (hope), the first real ancestor of our race, represented the mind awakening to the existence of a better life. Abraham (study) received command to leave the land' (sensuousness). But all study was threefold. It was, first, physical—Abram in the land of Ur, contemplating the starry sky, but not knowing God. Next to the physical was that 'intermediate' (uéon) study, which embraced the ordinary 'cycle of knowledge (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία). This was Abram after he left Haran, and that know 663 APP. II |