APP.

together with several fragments. Passing over two large fragments, which seem to
have originally formed the chief part of the Introduction to Book III., we have
(1) the two first Books. These contain part of an older and Hellenist Jewish
Sibyl, as well as of a poem by the Jewish Pseudo-Phocylides, in which heathen myths
concerning the first ages of man are curiously welded with Old Testament views.
The rest of these two books was composed, and the whole put together, not earlier
than the close of the second century, perhaps by a Jewish Christian. (2) The
third Book is by far the most interesting. Besides the fragments already referred
to, vv. 97-807 are the work of a Hellenist Jew, deeply imbued with the Messianic
hope. This part dates from about 160 before our era, while vv. 49-96 seem to
belong to the year 31 B.C.
The rest (vv. 1-45, 818-828) dates from a later period.
We must here confine our attention to the most ancient portion of the work. For
our present purpose, we may arrange it into three parts. In the first, the ancient
heathen theogony is recast in a Jewish mould-Uranus becomes Noah; Shem,
Ham, and Japheth are Saturn, Titan, and Japetus, while the building of the Tower
of Babylon is the rebellion of the Titans. Then the history of the world is told,
the Kingdom of Israel and of David forming the centre of all. What we have
called the second is the most curious part of the work. It embodies ancient heathen
oracles, so to speak, in a Jewish recension, and interwoven with Jewish elements.
The third part may be generally described as anti-heathen, polemical, and Apoca-
lyptic. The Sibyl is thoroughly Hellenistic in spirit. She is loud and earnest in
her appeals, bold and defiant in the tone of her Jewish pride, self-conscious and
triumphant in her anticipations. But the most remarkable circumstance is, that
this Judaising and Jewish Sibyl seems to have passed-though possibly only in parts
-as the oracles of the ancient Erythræan Sibyl, which had predicted to the Greeks
the fall of Troy, and those of the Sibyl of Cuma, which, in the infancy of Rome,
Tarquinius Superbus had deposited in the Capitol, and that as such it is quoted
from by Virgil (in his 4th Eclogue) in his description of the Golden Age.

Of the other Sibylline Books little need be said. The 4th, 5th, 9th, and 12th Books were written by Egyptian Jews at dates varying from the year 80 to the third century of our era. Book VI. is of Christian origin, the work of a Judaising Christian, about the second half of the second century. Book VIII., which embodies Jewish portions, is also of Christian authorship, and so are Books X. and XI.

III. The collection of eighteen hymns, which in their Greek version bear the name of the Psalter of Solomon, must originally have been written in Hebrew, and dates from more than half a century before our era. They are the outcome of a soul intensely earnest, although we not unfrequently meet expressions of Pharisaic self-righteousness. It is a time of national sorrow in which the poet sings, and it almost seems as if these 'Psalms' had been intended to take up one or another of the leading thoughts in the corresponding Davidic Psalms, and to make, as it were, application of them to then existing circumstances. Though somewhat Hellenistic in its cast, the collection breathes ardent Messianic expectancy, and firm faith in the resurrection, and eternal reward and punishment (iii. 16; xiii. 9, 10; xiv. 2, 6, 7; xv. 11 to the end).

IV. Another work of that class-' Little Genesis,' or 'The Book of Jubilees'— has been preserved to us in its Ethiopic translation (though a Latin version of part

1 Comp. for example, ix. 7, 9.

2 This view which, so far as I know, has not been suggested by critics, will be confirmed by an attentive perusal of almost every 'Psalm in the collection (comp. the first

three with the three opening Psalms in the Davidic Psalter). Is our Psalter of Solomon," as it were, an historical commentary by the typical 'sage'? And is our collection only a fragment?

PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.

of it has lately been discovered) and is a Haggadic Commentary on Genesis. Professing to be a revelation to Moses during the forty days on Mount Sinai, it seeks to fill lacunæ in the sacred history, specially in reference to its chronology. Its character is hortatory and warning, and it breathes a strong anti-Roman spirit. It was written by a Palestinian in Hebrew, or rather Aramæan, probably about the time of Christ. The name, 'Book of Jubilees,' is derived from the circumstance that the Scripture-chronology is arranged according to Jubilee periods of forty-nine years, fifty of these (or 2,450 years) being counted from the Creation to the entrance into Canaan.

V. Among the Pseudepigraphic Writings we also include the 4th Book of Esdras, which appears among our Apocrypha as 2 Esdras ch. iii.-xiv. (the two first and the two last chapters being spurious additions). The work, originally written in Greek, has only been preserved in translation into five different languages (Latin, Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian). It was composed probably about the end of the first century after Christ. From this circumstance, and the influence of Christianity on the mind of the writer, who, however, is an earnest Jew, its interest and importance can scarcely be exaggerated. The name of Ezra was probably assumed, because the writer wished to treat mainly of the mystery of Israel's fall and restoration.

The other Pseudepigraphic Writings are:—

VI. The Ascension (ch.i.-v.) and Vision (ch. vi.-xi.) of Isaiah, which describes the martyrdom of the prophet (with a Christian interpolation [ch. iii. 14–iv. 22] ascribing his death to prophecy of Christ, and containing Apocalyptic portions), and then what he saw in heaven. The book is probably based on an older Jewish account, but is chiefly of Christian heretical authorship. It exists only in translations, of which that in Ethiopic (with Latin and English versions) has been edited by Archbishop Laurence.

VII. The Assumption of Moses (probably quoted in St. Jude ver. 9) also exists only in translation, and is really a fragment. It consists of twelve chapters. After an Introduction (ch. i.), containing an address of Moses to Joshua, the former, professedly, opens to Joshua the future of Israel to the time of Varus. This is followed by an Apocalyptic portion, beginning at ch. vii. and ending with ch. x. The two concluding chapters are dialogues between Joshua and Moses. The book dates probably from about the year 2 B.C., or shortly afterwards. Besides the Apocalyptic portions, the interest lies chiefly in the fact that the writer seems to belong to the Nationalist party, and that we gain some glimpses of the Apocalyptic views and hopes-the highest spiritual tendency-of that deeply interesting movement. Most markedly, this Book at least is strongly anti-Pharisaic, especially in its opposition to their purifications (ch. vii.). We would here specially note a remarkable resemblance between 2 Tim. iii. 1-5 and this in Assump. Mos. vii. 3-10: (3) 'Et regnabunt de his homines pestilentiosi et impii, dicentes se esse iustos, (4) et hi suscitabunt iram animorum suorum, qui erunt homines dolosi, sibi placentes, ficti in omnibus suis et omni hora diei amantes convivia, devoratores gulae (5) ... (6) [pauperum bonorum comestores, dicentes se haec facere propter misericordiam eorum, (7) sed et exterminatores, queruli et fallaces, celantes se ne possint cognosci, impii in scelere, pleni et iniquitate ab oriente usque ad occidentem, (8) dicentes: habebimus discubitiones et luxuriam edentes et bibentes, et potabimus nos, tamquam principes erimus. (9) Et manus eorum et dentes inmunda tractabunt, et os eorum loquetur ingentia, et superdicent: (10) noli [tu me] tangere, ne inquines me . . . But it is very significant, that instead of the denunciation of the Pharisees in vv. 9, 10 of

655

APP.

I

APP.

I

the Assumptio, we have in 2 Tim. iii. 5, the words 'having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.'

VIII. The Apocalypse of Baruch.—This also exists only in Syriac translation, and is apparently fragmentary, since the vision promised in ch. lxxvi. 3 is not reported, while the Epistle of Baruch to the two and a half tribes in Babylon, referred to in lxxvii. 19, is also missing. The book has been divided into seven sections (i-xii.; xiii.-xx.; xxi.-xxxiv.; xxxv.-xlvi.; xlvii.-lii.; liii.-lxxvi.; lxxvii.lxxxvii.). The whole is in the form of a revelation to Baruch, and of his replies, and questions, or of notices about his bearing, fast, prayers, &c. The most interesting parts are in sections v. and vi. In the former we mark (ch. xlviii, 31-41) the reference to the consequence of the sin of our first parents (ver. 42; comp. also xvii. 3; xxiii. 4; liv. 15, 19), and in ch. xlix. the discussion and information: with what body and in what form the dead shall rise, which is answered, not as by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv.-though the question raised (1 Cor. xv. 35) is precisely the same but in the strictly Rabbinic manner, described by us in vol. ii. pp. 398, 399. In section vi. we specially mark (ch. lxix.-lxxiv.) the Apocalyptic descriptions of the Last Days, and of the Reign and Judgment of Messiah. In general, the figurative language in that Book is instructive in regard to the phraseology used in the Apocalyptic portions of the New Testament. Lastly, we mark that the views on the consequences of the Fall are much more limited than those expressed in 4 Esdras. Indeed, they do not go beyond physical death as the consequence of the sin of our first parents (see especially liv. 19: Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animæ suæ tantum; nos vero unusquisque fuit animæ suæ Adam). At the same time, it seems to us, as if perhaps the reasoning rather than the language of the writer indicated hesitation on his part (liv. 14–19; comp. also first clause of xlviii. 43). It almost seems as if liv. 14-19 were intended as against the reasoning of St. Paul, Rom. v. 12 to the end. In this respect the passage in Baruch is most interesting, not only in itself (see for ex. ver. 16: Certo enim qui credit recipiet mercedem), but in reference to the teaching of 4 Esdras, which, as regards original sin, takes another direction than Baruch. But I have little doubt that both allude to the-to them— novel teaching of St. Paul on that doctrine. Lastly, as regards the question when this remarkable work was written, we would place its composition after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most writers date it before the publication of 4 Esdras. Even the appearance of a Pseudo-Baruch and Pseudo-Esdras are significant of the political circumstances and the religious hopes of the nation.

For criticism and fragments of other Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, comp. Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test., 2 vols. (ed. 2, 1722). The Psalter of Sol., IV. Esdr. (or, as he puts it, IV. and V. Esd.), the Apocal. of Baruch, and the Assumption of Mos., have been edited by Fritzsche (Lips. 1871); other Jewish (Hebrew) O. T. Pseudepigraphs-though of a later date-in Jellinek's Beth haMidrash (6 vols.), passim. A critical review of the literature of the subject would here be out of place.

PALESTINIAN AND ALEXANDRIAN EXEGESIS.

657

APPENDIX II.

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AND RABBINIC THEOLOGY.

(See vol. i. 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 Halachah. 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 thirty-
two 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.1 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 (Notarikon). Thus, the word
MiSBeaCH (altar) was resolved into these four words, beginning respectively with
M, S, B, CH: 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 SHISHAKH (Jer.
xxv. 26; li. 41) became BaBeL, 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 (Erjon, from avah), one who felt both need and desire; a third (mesuchan mischen), 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 (dach), one who felt broken down; a seventh (mach), one who had come down; and the eighth (chalech), one who was wretched-or in discussing

1 The reader who will take our outline of Philo's views to pieces, and compare it with the XXV Theses de modis et formulis quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretari etc. soliti fuerunt' (in Surenhusius' Bißλos Karad

Aayns, pp. 57 to 88), will convince himself of
the truth of this.

2 As, for example, Malkosh, the latter rain
= Mal-Kash, fill the stubble.

APP.

II

658

APP.

II

THE TERMS YEKARA,' 'SHECHINAH,' AND 'MEMRA.'

such differences as between amar, to speak gently, and davar, to speak strongly-
and many others.1 Here 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, 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: Yekara, the
excellent glory, and Shechinah, or Shechintha, the abiding Presence. On the other
hand, God, as in the act of revealing Himself, is described by the term Memra, the
A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms
'Logos,' the Word.'
Yekara and Shechinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and up-
ward, 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 in Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-
Jonathan, 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 μeyaλoñpeñoûs dóğŋs) must have
been to the Yekara.3 The varied use of the terms Shechinah and Yekara, and then
Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. i. it is the Yekara
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 Shechintha, while the
splendour (Siv) of His Yekara fills the earth-as it were, flows down to it. In ver.
5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yekara of the Shechinah, while in
ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shechintha (which is) upon the throne of
the Yekara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so specially in Ex. xvii.

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 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, Shechinah, and Yekara have not the meaning above explained! The force of tendency-argumentation' could scarcely go farther than his

rightly regards the N. T. dóga, in this signification of the word, as the equivalent of the Old Testament 1. 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. Yekara: 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. Shechinah: 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; xxiii. 15; xxvi. 2; xxxii. 10; xxxiii. 26.