Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Sorry still in bed. Wow you don't sleep

Secret Alias wrote:You can start to see a different system must have originally been in place when you start thinking about the present identification of kurios for Jesus. That can't have been original. That can't have been found in Justin's manuscripts nor Marcion's. Our system is neo-Valentinian

That's possible. I'm interested in collecting all the evidence there is and deciding based on that.

Secret Alias wrote:Sorry still in bed. Wow you don't sleep

I'm in Norway. It's 14:48.

In the original Aquila manuscripts Yahweh was written out in full root form in Paleo Hebrew where the Greek context would demand ku etc
https://books.google.com/books?id=1xyoB ... la&f=false

I assume the earliest Christian manuscripts did much the same and looked like Aquila's MSS

Got my drink on (Starbuck's). It is incredible how productive this early Renaissance interpretation of Jesus is going to be. So far we have a tradition emerging from the rabbinic texts and contemporary Jewish sources in a variety of European locales all informing various Christian writers that Jesus = ish. The Christian sources are Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), Andreas Osiander (1498?–1552), Johann Reuchlin (sometimes called Johannes) (22 February 1455 – 30 June 1522), Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563). It would seem that all were Hebraists who learned this 'truth' from the Jewish authorities they engaged. Most were kabbalists and adapted Jewish kabbalah to a new form of 'Christian kabbalah' they developed. In the case of Castellio (who was a contemporary and friend turned enemy of Calvin) he is said to have adapted Osiander's argument. But the idea cannot have started with Osiander because he and Reuchlin applied it differently and argued about the right understanding here. The idea seems to have developed from Jews.

Another example I pulled off the internet just now:

Quoting Abelard Reuchlin; “The Talmud speaks of a “certain man” (ISH PLONEE) as MAMZER, which supposedly meant one of illegitimate birth (i.e. a bastard). Ref. Herford, pg. 4, Midrash Yeb. IV. 13, Yeb. Gemara 49b. Reuchlin says; “The second (instance) appears in Sanhedrin where it speaks of PLONEE R’VO’OH LONOSOH, where it supposedly is referring to a certain man who charges another with having sodomized him.” [Ref. San. 9b] Reuchlin says that the verse is really charging the man with having fornicated with “his donkey.” And that this is so because ONUS in Greek was ‘donkey’, and that the suffix of OH (meaning “his” in Hebrew) was added. [ Also note that “A” and “O” in the royal language were interchangeable. And so, ONUS can also be seen as “ANUS”] This was done to produce an allusion to YESHU (as Jesus, and therefore to Piso). This is so, Reuchlin states, “because of the donkeys of Balaam and of Jesus.”

Apparently Pico developed a theory which identified the trinity with the Hebrew word for 'Man' (ish) from the famous passage in the Sefer haBahir:

It is also interesting to note that, a few pages later, on the margin of a quotation from the Bahir 26/18* concerning the sefirotic meaning of Ex. 15.3: “The Lord is a man of war” (ish milhamah) – where the words “a man of war” are interpreted as a reference to the three upper sefirot – one can read Pico's note: “שיא vir.” Now conclusion 11>33 reads:

By this word <שיא>, which is written Aleph, Iod, and Sein and signifies man (et significat virum) – which is attributed to God when he is called a man of war through the way of the Cabala we are perfectly admonished as to the mystery of the Trinity. It therefore seems evident that Pico identified the Trinity with the three upper sefirot and obviously interpreted the “Trinitarian” meaning of the Hebrew word for “man” as a patent allusion to the Incarnation. https://books.google.com/books?id=6qw3r ... 22&f=false

Other discussions in the book - https://books.google.com/books?id=6qw3r ... 90&f=false

I am always reminded of the many references showing the Marcionites took an interest in this same passage (Tertullian Against Marcion 4 and Ephrem's Against the Heresies:

And if they make the improbable statement that "But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above [L. 39.] allowed him, let them show us why. . . . And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and [P. 47.] Contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war -- [though he did not come], (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?"

Perhaps even more significant is that Ephrem himself echoes an argument found in the Mekhilta of R Ishmael and others from the two powers tradition. This I think is decisive with respect to the fact that Jesus = Ish. For just as Ephrem writes at the beginning of the fourth century:

He was in one place like an Old Man and the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:6) : also He became like a Mighty Man (man of war = Exodus 15:3) active and a Warrior : for judgment He was an Old Man ; for battle He was an active One. https://books.google.com/books?id=CVVaA ... 22&f=false

Compare that to what is preserved in the commentary on Exodus in the circle of R Ishmael:

The Lord is a Man of War, the Lord is His Name. Why is this said? For this reason. At the sea, He appeared to them as a mighty hero as it is said, “The Lord is a man of war.” At Sinai, He appeared to them as an old man full of mercy. It is said, “They saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:10). And of the time after they had been redeemed what does it say? “And the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). … Again it says: “I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit” (Dan 7,9). And it also says: "A fiery stream issued", etc. (v. 10). Scripture, therefore, would not let the nations of the world have an excuse for saying that there are two Powers, but declares: The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name. He it is who was in Egypt and He who was at the sea. It is He who was in the past and He who will be in the future. It is He who is in this world and He who will be in the world to come, as it is said: See now that I, even I, am He… (Deut. 32:39). And it also says: Who has wrought and done it? He that called the generations from the beginning. I the Lord, who am the first and with the last am the same. etc

The point is clearly - as Segal noted (without knowing about the Ephrem reference I might add) that there was a 'proof text' circulating in BOTH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN CIRCLES which argued on behalf of a monarchian understanding of the Pentateuch AGAINST A TWO POWERS ARGUMENT from the same scriptures - i.e. that the 'Son' (i.e. the man of War) was different from his Father (= Old Man).

And if you look at the context of the Ephrem statement we can even go further. Ephrem's idea is to explain God the Father putting on the name 'man':

Let us praise Him that put on the names of the members: who named Himself ears to teach that He heard us, who surnamed Himself eyes to shew that He saw us ; the names only of things did He put on. And as there is not in His Essence wrath or repenting (cf. Genesis 6:6 Yahweh repented of his creating Adam), He put on the names of them (i.e. men) for our weaknesses sake. Let us know, that unless He had put on the names that belong to such things (i.e. men), it were not possible for Him to speak with us that were men. By what was ours He approached to us. Names did He put on that were ours (i.e. man) that He might put on us that which is His (God). For when He asked and put on our form, and as a father with his sons', so spake He with us childish creatures ; lo ! that likeness did the Invisible One put on, and yet He put it not on; He stripped it off, and yet He stripped it not off; and though He had it put on, yet He had it stripped off! He put it on to assist us, He stripped it off when He changed. For as He stripped off or put on every form, He taught that this was not the likeness of His Essence; for the Invisible One shadowed that Essence forth in things visible.

He was in one place like an Old Man and the Ancient of Days of Days : also He became like a Mighty Man active and Warrior : for judgment He was an Old Man ; for battle He was an active One. ... etc

These difficulties only arise if you posit a monarchian view of the godhead - i.e. if there is only one God. These difficulties of having an anthropomorphic 'Man' God and the invisible Father disappear in a position that understands there to be two powers.

This idea is expressed in another hymn and directed clearly against the Marcionites who again maintain Jewish beliefs (i.e. God being divided between 'justice' and 'goodness'):

His Names admonish thee, how and what thou shouldest call Him. One He hath taught thee, that He is; another that He is the Creator: He hath shewed thee that He is also good: He hath informed thee that He is just also Father likewise hath He named, and called Himself. The Scriptures are an assay furnace : and the fool why should he babble? Assay in the midst of His furnaces His Names and His distinctions. Praises be to Thee from all, who
confess Thee without scrutinizing !

2. For He hath Names perfect and appropriated: also He hath Names borrowed and transient, which He suddenly clad on, and suddenly put off, as that 'He repented,' or as- ' forgot,' and * remembered.' As then thou hast asserted that He is Just and Good rely upon his as a Parent, and believe that He is a Creator. Be warned by His perfect and holy Names, for if thou deniest one of them, they will all have flown away and departed. They are linked one
into another, and they bear up all things ; as do the pillars of the world, water, fire, and air. If one of them were to cease to exist, then would tbe world be nigh to falling to ruin.

3. The Jews change the Names of God, yet they are not able to live upon the multitude of [their] surnames [for Him]. Because they rejected the one Name, they have been rejected in the many. The Names that that people put away and threw aside, in them are the Gentiles baptized. And who is able to untie those Names which have made a trench between us and that people One cause alone made that people rejected, and he that untieth it, buildeth Jerusalem. For it was not because they did not scrutinize, that the Jews were rooted out, but because they did not believe by the Son. Search for a cause which rooted up Jerusalem, and see that it hangeth over them until they cease to strive.

One could argue that 'Jesus' is the human name the Jews stumbled over. But the better explanation clearly has to do with the idea of God taking human shape and being Man.

And who wrote this original proof text that shows up inserted into the Mekhilta of the circle of R Ishmael AND Ephrem? Good question. My guess Alexander of Aphrodisias

47. The most important names or titles of God are gathered by Marmorstein, I, pp. 56 - 137 with profuse reference. An interesting agadic epithet for God is ish, "man," and doubly interesting because this homily is said to have been preached in Tarsus, the home of Paul, by Nahum b. R. Simai who used Ex. 12:3 either in a Pesah sermon or a sermon on Shabbat haga-dol, "the Great Sabbath," the Sabbath prior to Pesah. Nahum, (also known as Menahem, e.g. at B. Pes. 10^a), is dated to the second-third century, and is likely engaging in anti-Christian polemic. He was known as a great pietist, considered "a wholly holy man" (P.A.Z. U2c). At P.R.K. 5:17 he is reported to have preached in Tarsus that "they shall take unto them, each person (ish) , a lamb," means that they should take unto them The Man (God), the Holy One, who is called "the Man of War" (Ex. 15:3). Nahum went on to explain how one takes God unto oneself: with the two lambs offered up daily in the Temple; for Ex. 12:3 mentions lamb twice, as does Ex. 29:39 which ordains the two daily lambs. The argument is hardly vigorous after TO A.D. since Jews no longer offered up the two lambs in the Temple, but it is evidently designed to argue that there is not just one lamb (Jesus) who absorbs all sin, but that the Paschal lamb, prefiguring the lambs of the Temple, and their recall at Pesah time, is the mode of expiation. "To take God unto oneself" signified becoming one with God, enjoying expiation, an experience which becomes possible when one engages in the surrogate for the lamb offering, the Seder, and the daily doing of acts of benevolence as ben Zakkai stressed (see Chap. 2 above). The term makom was used for God in the oldest literature. It is reported at M. Mid. 5:^ that it was part of a liturgical formula recited when a priest was found to be proper for the priestly service in the days of the Temple. This indicates it was in use during the first century. So too a passage of Mekh. II, Ulf. to Ex. 15:6 uses makom throughout, except where it quotes scripture. "Heaven," having been attributed to Antigonus of Sokho of the second century B.C., is apparently of very early usage (M. Ab. 1:3). [Sigal Emergence of contemporary Judaism p. 182]

I will have to reformat this but Marmostein's essay is a treasure trove of information and of interest for individuals at the forum who want to know Philo's system (sorry about the paragraph situation)

JEWS' COLLEGE PUBLICATIONS, No. 14 THE OLD RABBINIC DOCTRINE OF GOD II. ESSAYS IN ANTHROPOMORPHISM BY A. MARMORSTEIN, PH.D., RABBI

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMEN HOUSE, E.C. 4 London Edinburgh Glasgow New York Toronto Melbourne Capetown Bombay Calcutta Madras HUMPHREY MILFORD PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY

JEWS' COLLEGE PUBLICATIONS, No. 14 THE OLD RABBINIC DOCTRINE OF GOD II. ESSAYS IN ANTHROPOMORPHISM BY A. MARMORSTEIN, PH.D., RABBI OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD 1937
Page 2
INTRODUCTION THE five essays presented here as a second part of the Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God cover merely some of the aspects of Rabbinic teachings and speculations on the subject of an- thropomorphism and anthropopathism. In selecting certain problems connected with the doctrine of God in Judaism of the first centuries of the C. Ε. I was guided mainly by three principles: At what stage of Jewish history was objection raised to crude anthropomorphism and anthropopathism among the Jews, under what influences did such a movement arise, and where did it originate ? Long before such a move- ment can be traced in post-Biblical literature Prophets and Psalmists arose in Israel who strongly and eloquently raised theirvoice against popular beliefs in God's corporeality, human forms of the deity, His needs and passions, His partial know- ledge and imperfect justice. Yet their words did not dispel the clouds of criticism of exaggerations and narratives which attribute to God human limbs and human feelings. Neither critics, nor defenders of the Bible were fully aware of the great difficulty faced by all anthropomorphic religions, namely, that of harmonizing the highest conception of God's spirituality with man's shortcomings, of beholding and grasp- ing the existence and rule of an entirely spiritual being. This problem formed a stumbling block which caused and will cause great danger to religious truth and enlightenment. It is, there- fore, necessary to trace this fight between anthropomorphic and anti-anthropomorphic conceptions of the deity in early Judaism of the first centuries. The general view that the movement originated on Hellen- istic soil cannot be maintained, since the earlier Hebrew sources betray the prevalence of such tendencies as found in later Hellenic writings. Besides, similar questionings of an- thropomorphic and anthropopathic passages of the Bible can be discovered also on Palestinian soil. Furthermore both movements, one in favour of the literal, and the other in favour of the spiritual understanding of the Bible, are equally represented in both camps and countries. It is true that his- torical evidence is more favourable for the earlier date of this treatment of the subject in Egypt rather than in Palestine. Yet, this may be due to the lack of documents on Palestinian soil in the pre-Mishnaic period, or to the uncertainty still prevail- ing whether Palestinian Jews exercised their influence on the Jewry of Alexandria and the rest of the Diaspora, or whether, vice versa, the latter shaped the ideas and teachings of the former. However that may be, the contact between them can be established and their common interest in the Bible plainly recognized. Religion and origin overbridged the considerable gulf of language and culture that cut asunder the two sections, and the bond uniting them, their monotheism and their Scriptures, was stronger and more intimate than accidental and external incongruities. This can be shown by Philo's reflections on assimilation—probably with special reference to his own nephew who deserted his God and his people, joined the Romans, and later led Rome's Imperial legions against Jerusalem—which would put some of our present-day champions of Jewish nationalism to shame. He says in his Life of Moses (Bk. I, ch. vi, par. 31, Loeb edition, vi, p. 294): « They nevertheless look down on their relatives, relations, and friends and set at naught the laws under which they have been born and bred, and subvert our ancestral customs to which no blame can justly be attached, by adopting different modes of life, and, in their contentment with the present, loose all memory of the past.' These are words of an enlightened and experi- enced sage condemning unhealthy assimilation. Secondly, I have tried to prove that the division between the pro- and anti-anthropomorphic theologians depends on the attitude taken towards the Biblical text. The strict literalist does not object to any kind of anthropomorphism, whilst the anti-anthropomorphist strives to divest the letter of its possible crudeness and corporeality. Here again it is almost impossible to decide with certainty whether the exegetical method produced the theological divergence, or whether, vice versa, theology influenced exegesis. Those who believe that allegorical methods of exegesis owe their very existence to apologetic and anti-anthropomorphic motives, will answer this query in the affirmative, others, like I. Heinemann in his essay, Altjüdische Allegor istik, Breslau, 1935, may reverse this process. But neither the question, nor the solution, is so simple as all that, since many cross currents and many serious obstacles held up the straight and unchecked develop- ment of the doctrines and conceptions of the deity in Israel. The numerous sects, which arose among the Jews, preached and taught many queer and quaint things, which had to be challenged by the official leaders of religious thought, and led either to a fierce combat of ideas, or to a modification of the then established theological views. Traces of this spiritual fight can be found in some chapters of these essays. The difference of exegetical method reveals itself not only in the substance, but also in the form, of Biblical interpretation. The terminology used by the school of pro-anthropomorphic teachers, who, as was stated, were literalists, was necessarily different from, if not entirely opposed to, that of the allegorists. This can be shown to be a fact from our literary documents. Another outcome of this religious split within the schools of Judea and Galilee was the controversial struggle about the value of the Haggadah, strictures against writing and study- ing Haggadic lore, its supremacy or inferiority in relation with the Halakah. No wonder that anti-anthropomorphic Hagga- dists who looked askance at Biblical anthropomorphism would raise a rather emphatic protest and utter their full disapproval of anthropomorphic Haggadoth with slight or no Scriptural support at all. This fundamental difference of view, described and discussed in these essays, had important, far-reaching repercussions on other problems and branches of Rabbinic theology as well. Thus, cosmology and anthropology, the relation between God and the world, the relation of God to man, the conception of the imitation of God, and other problems, took a characteristic shape in one school and an opposite form in another. One took an affirmative, the other a negative stand, to these questions, according to the light in which they taught of God and His word as embodied in the Bible. The consecutive parts of this work will prove the truth of this assertion. Here, a general remark may suffice. This diversity of opinion and teaching, however, did not affect the unity of Judaism, or endanger the purity of doctrine, for the foundation of Israel's religion was safeguarded by the unshakable belief in the existence and unity of God which permeated all sections of the Jewish community. Only when and where dualistic and trinitarian theories crept into the synagogue and schools, there and then the very existence of Judaism was shaken and imperilled, and sectarianism wrought havoc in the rank and file of our people. That the victims of such heretic and sectarian movements were not even more numerous, although no doubt there may have been many of them, is entirely due to the preaching and teachings of the saintly and wise Haggadists whose sayings are described and analysed in the following pages. However great the distance in time and space between them and our contemporaries, however different the outlook of the Jew in the twentieth century may be compared with that of the Jew in the first three or four centuries, there are many puzzles which are still unsolved, as there are many ideas and views of those teachers recorded here which are still, and will for ever remain, vital forces for all generations to come. The Bible, without the monumental contributions of the Haggadah and Halakah, remains a book sealed with seven seals. A. MARMORSTEIN. LONDON July 30, 1936

CONTENTS pp. 1-4 pp. 4-7 pp. 7-9 pp. 9-13 pp. 13-16 pp. 16-22 I.

PHILO AND THE HAGGADAH

1. Anthropomorphism in the Earliest Haggadah of the Diaspora . . . .
2. Philo on GocPs Repentance
3. 'Man'as a Name for God
4. Heaven and Earth as Deities
5. The Treasure in the Field
6. Adam's Creation . pp. 23-29 pp. 29-42 pp. 42-48 pp. 48-56 pp. 56-62 pp. 62-68 pp. 68-76 pp. 76-93 pp. 94-106

II. ANTHROPOMORPHISM IN THE HAG- GADAH
ι. The early anonymous Haggadah
2. The Tannai tic Haggadah between 68-135 C.E.
3. The Sermons of Pappus
4. God's Corporeality . . . .
5. The Amoraic Haggadah
6. God's Observance of the Commandments
7. God's Grief and Share in Israel's Distress
8. God's Needs .

III. VISIBILITY OF GOD .

IV. THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE SCHOOLS pp. 107-132

V. STRUGGLE BETWEEN ALLEGORY AND LITERALISM ι. The Opposition to Haggadic Studies . . pp. 133-141 2. Opposition to Literalism in the Tannaitic Age pp. 142-146 3. Haggadic Anthropomorphism . . . pp. 146-149 4. Philonic and Rabbinic Allegory. . . pp. 150-157

I

Here Philo takes some people strongly to task for falling victims to misinterpretation of an anthropopathic expression in that verse. His words are : ' Again, some on hearing these words suppose that the Existent (God) feels wrath and anger, whereas He is not susceptible of any passion at all These people are most probably the same men who in the previous quotation were stigmatized as worse sinners than the wicked generation. How does Philo himself explain these passages ? Rebuke is surely no argument or justification. Indeed Philo was not satisfied with mere reproach but laid down general rules by which these and similar passages should be handled and mastered. These directions are the connecting links between the Hellenistic manner of religious thinking and Rabbinic theology, and consequently must be considered here. Philo's words seem to me of such importance for my subject that they have to be quoted in their entirety. He says : ' All the same the lawgiver uses such expressions just so far as they serve for a kind of elementary lesson to admonish those who could not otherwise be brought to their senses. Thus in the laws which deal with commands and prohibitions—laws in the proper sense of the word—there stand forth above others two leading state- ments about the cause. One that God is ־not a man (Num. xxiii. 19), the other that He is as a man, but whilst the former is warranted by grounds of certain truth, the latter is introduced for the instruction of the many, and therefore it is also said of Him4 like a man He shall train His son' (Deut. viii. 5).9 Philo teaches how to deal with two contradictory Bible pas- sages, and further how to remove the belief in God being a man. The first method was highly developed and largely elaborated by the Palestinian scribes, the latter problem requires a fuller treatment in these essays. It is noteworthy that here again Philo uses rather strong words for Bible readers who adhere to the literal meaning of the text, and does not mind condemning such a method as י the mythical fiction of the impious \ 3. Early Rabbinic texts show clearly that such Biblical pas- sages as those mentioned by Philo in which God is spoken of as Ish (שיא), required explanation and defence. In an earlier part of this work the observation was made tfrat שיא was used for the designation of God in early Rabbinic literature.10 This divine name was primarily based on Ex. xv. 3 : 4 The Lord is a man of War, the Lord is his name \ Such a Scriptural refer- ence could not be passed over in silence. Indeed in an early text the question was raised : 4 How can such a thing be said of God ? י To many readers, who were not used to poetic style, it appeared strange that God could be called a Man of War. That such a teaching is quite out of accord with old Hebrew conceptions of the divine is further demonstrated with the help of several prophetic utterances to be found in the writings of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel ; some texts adding 2 Chron. vi. 16. Jer. xxiii. 24 says: 4 Indeed, I fill heaven and earth'; Is. vi. 3 says : 4 And one calls to the other saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, full is the earth of His glory י ; and finally Ez. xliii. 2 says : * And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East and His voice was like the noise of many waters, and the earth was lit up with His glory'.11 How can God therefore be called 4 a Man of War י ? The quotation appended from Chronicles adds to the amazement of the questioners, for it says : 4 Now, therefore, Lord, God of Israel, &c., behold the heavens and the heaven of heavens contain thee.'12 The answer is such that it may have been given by Philo himself. God is no man, yet owing to GOD'S love and holiness, God sanctifies his name among His children. The scribe confirmed this doctrine by a word of the prophet, Hos. xi. 9 : 4 For I am God and not man yet in your midst holy ', which means to say that God reveals Himself as man for the sanctification of Israel. This verse is put together in another place with that in Num. xxiii. io, mentioned above in the quotation from Philo, to dispel the notion that God could be called or considered a man. A remarkable dialogue, which is supposed to take place in the last days of eschatological bliss, between the community of Israel and God, discusses several problems bear- ing on and betraying more the polemical tendencies of the age in which it was composed than those of Messianic times.13 Among the questions raised in that dialogue there is one which has a close bearing on the subject here discussed. The com- munity of Israel asks the following questions : * It is written in the book of the prophet Jeremiah (iii. 1), " Behold, if a man sent away his wife and she went and married someone else, can the former husband take her back again ? ״ י In this question God is paralleled to the שיא of the Hebrew text, and the divorced woman stands for the dispersed Jewish nation. God replies : 4 The law of the Pentateuch, forbidding the remarriage of a divorced wife by her previous husband is in force only when she marries someone else, meaning an שיא (cf. Deut. xxiv. 1-4), but not God, who is not an שיא.' In the text of the Sifre14 there is a further Scriptural reference to Isaiah 1. 1, which bears out that Israel was never divorced and never driven away by God. 4 Where is the bill of your mother's divorce which could prove that I sent her away, or to which of my creditors have I sold you ? י—asks the prophet in the name of God. These words are repeated in several pamphlets and fill volumes from the days of Isaiah up to the present day. Israel is for- saken by God, rejected, and despised. Such views are proclaimed by pious and impious readers of the Holy Scriptures, and de- fenders of religious thought against Judaism. Early Christian and late pagan readers of the Bible were delighted to discover in these anthropomorphisms some support for their ideologies. The rejection of the literal usage of this name for God, as these two instances show, is traced to the school of R. IshmaeL This school, as will be seen later, was opposed to exegetical methods followed by R. Akiba and his school who took such anthropo- morphisms literally as the identification of the Hebrew שיא with God. 4. Philo does not curtail or restrain remarks about people who took anthropomorphic teachings literally, but he asks them in sermons or public discussions the following pertinent questions : < Does Moses speak of feet and hands, goings in and goings out, in connexion with the Uncreated ? or, of His armings to defend Himself against His enemies ? For he describes Him as bearing a sword, and using as His weapon wind and death-dealing fire. His wrath, His moods of anger, His jealousy, and other emotions similar to them are spoken of by Moses, which he describes in the terms of human nature.י The serious objections to the anthropomorphic and anthropo- pathic utterances of Moses which Philo compressed in a few lines may have originated either from the radical party of the community, or have been directed against the defenders of the strict letter of the Biblical narrative. It will soon be shown that the earliest Rabbinic Midrash retained many traces of simi- lar discussions among Palestinian Jews. In this paragraph, how- ever, attention may be concentrated on the reply which Philo had in store for his questioners in Alexandria. This reply is very interesting for more than one reason, and deserves fuller treatment. These are his actual words : 4 Those admitted into the infallible mysteries of the Existent do not overlay the conception of God with any of the attributes of created beings. These find a moral most pertinent in the oracles of revelation. That " God is not a man nor yet is He as the heaven or the universe. These forms are of a particular kind which present themselves to our senses, but He is not apprehensible even by the mind, save that He is.' Philo employed this illustration from the world of Mysteries and reminded his readers of the oracles, in order that he might impress those of his audience who may have been attracted by the then fashionable cult of religions. Next to the refutation, in which he fully agrees with the Midrash that God is not a man, Philo lays great stress on the denial of the false idea that God can be spoken of either as heaven or as universe. This is again an unmistakable thrust against some of his radical con- temporaries who regarded heaven or universe as deities. This doctrine refuted by Philo opens a new opportunity for observing another similarity, and at the same time a contrast, between Palestinian and Alexandrian Jewish theology. The former re־ cords a remarkable scholarly dialogue between the two leading scholars of the Judaean schools in the first decades of the second century in Palestine, R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. Unfortunately the text is in a very bad condition and calls for some elaborate treatment which must be relegated to the footnotes.15 Here follows the translation according to the revised texts. R. Ishmael says to R. Akiba : 4 Thou hast served Nahum the man of Gimzo for twenty-two years, who expounded all the particles as ,תא םג, ךא, and קר. How did he explain Gen. i. 1 D W תא? Could we have said without these particles that heaven and earth are deities ? י R. Akiba replies : 4 םימשה תא includes the creation of sun, moon, stars, and planets, and ץראה תא in- eludes the creation of trees, herbs, and the planting of the Garden of Eden.' It is obvious that R. Akiba did not become angry on being challenged by his colleague, who advanced a theory which surely would lead to the suggestion that heaven and universe are deities. Philo's words make it certain that there were circles outside the schools about a century before, in Egypt, which propagated such views. M. Joel16 has called atten- tion to Irenaeus, who mentions Gnostics holding some tenets according to which Moses hinted in the very first sentence of the Genesis at a fourfold divinity, i.e. God, beginning, heaven, and earth.17 Considering further that for many centuries Heaven (םימש) was one of the names used in Judaism for the designation of the diety 18, it is no wonder that such a con- ception should have become deeply rooted among the people, especially those who could compare the Greek with the Hebrew term. The designation of the divine power or powers was a common feature in the religious conceptions of the Persians19 as well as of the Greeks,20 and modern research has tried to trace the usage among these two peoples as far back as the Assyrian-Babylonian religious system.21 It is remarkable that in spite of these resemblances between Jewish and pagan designations of the deity, neither scribes nor people refrained from calling God by this name in devotion or in solemn speech Most characteristically R. Ishmael used his argument as a deductio ad absurdum, meaning by this to say that surely no Palestinian Jew would dare to advance such a view ; yet Philo's words unmistakably testify that among Alexandrian Jews there were elements that called for rebuke because of their belief that God is 4 heaven or universe '. 5. Finally Philo solved these difficulties more in a homiletical than in a philosophical sense. He speaks of a physician who devises the treatment of his patient according to the condition of his sickness. Or, he illustrates with the example of the con- duct towards the foolish and ill-behaved slave on the part of his master, in order to depict the relation of God to man. 4All such may well learn ', he concludes his peroration, 4 the untruth, which will benefit them if they cannot be brought to wisdom by truth.' After this he sums up with the story of the hus- bandman who whilst digging his orchard to plant some fruit trees lighted on a great treasure and thus met prosperity be- yond all his original hopes. Philo indicates that he copied this story from a much earlier source and claims for it no origin- ality. It is not certain whether the application of the parable is his own or not ; it reads : 4 So does God deliver the lovers of his eternal wisdom without toil and labour'.22 The story of the husbandman who found the treasure de- serves special treatment. It is one of the many intimate links connecting Rabbinic teaching with the Gospels and Hellenistic literature. In Philo's rendering there are some details missing which are very necessary for the understanding of the story, namely the manner of lighting on the treasure. Matthew23 has this account of the discovery of the treasure in the field in an enlarged form. 4The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hid in a field ; the which when a man hath found he hideth, and for the joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field.' It seems that in the Gospel the treasure is found in a field belonging to some one else, and it is difficult to understand what led the discoverer to light on the treasure. The Rabbinic variants do throw some light on the fuller and original form of both of these rather obscured versions. There is no doubt that all the three Jewish writers, however different they may have been in their mental outlook and their religious beliefs, elaborated an old Jewish proverb or parable, which is based on an ancient story. The Midrash preserved no less than four different applications of this proverb to various anec- dotes. The Midrash named after the school of Rabbi Ishmael preserved the original proverb and applied it to Korah. The proverb was rendered in this manner : 4 For my benefit has my cow broken its leg/24 This source is a guarantee of the antiquity of the proverb as well as of that of the anecdotes on which it is based. The teaching is that through the conten- tion of Korah and his assembly, and their ultimate downfall, Aaron and his descendants benefited and were granted the twenty-four gifts of priesthood. In other words, the proverb teaches that those whom God loves He protects and grants them His Grace even at the expense of others. The second version, in which a very characteristic anecdote is connected with this proverb, relates it to an episode in the life of the first- century scholars R. Elieser ben Hyrkanos and R. Joshua b. Hananyah.25 These two scholars visit the large and wealthy Jewish community of Antiochia to collect funds in support of their colleagues and students.26 One version has it that they were accompanied by their pupil R. Akiba.27 Here in Antio- chia lived a man called Abba Judan, who was a very liberal supporter of the Palestinian academies. At the time of this visit, paid by the scholars to the city, his financial affairs were not very prosperous. He was aware of the fact that he would be unable to contribute to the collection of the distinguished guests in his usual manner. This fact filled him with grief and shame, so that he was hiding before them. His wife who was even more charitable than her husband—by the way quite a typical characteristic in Jewish folklore28—noticing her hus- band's anxiety and distress, advised him to sell the half of his remaining field and give the price thus obtained to the col- lectors. And he did so. Next time, when he was ploughing his field, his cow fell into a pit and broke its leg; yet the very spot contained a treasure of greater value than his previous for- tune. People applied to Abba Judan the proverb : 4For my good has my cow broken its leg \ A third story links this adage with another event in the biography of R. Elieser b. Hyrkanos and gives the words a more spiritual meaning, more like the application made of the story by Philo. In the case of Abba Judan the charitable person is rewarded by material treasure, in the story of R. Elieser, however, with spiritual gifts, with learning. This scribe spent his early youth as a labourer in his father's fields near his native Galilean village. Thirsting for knowledge, he was kept back by his father and brothers from satisfying his scholarly ambitions. Once, while working in the field, the cow broke its leg, and the labourer out of fear of his father and brothers fled to Jerusalem, where he joined the school of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, and achieved fame and leadership among the scholars. Through this accident in the field he also was enabled to gain the greatest treasure in life, the Torah.29 Lighting on unexpected treasures is a well- known motif in Jewish legends30 as in general folklore. These stories belong to the same type and group. There is a fourth version by R. Simon ben Yohai, who compares the Egyptians after the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt to a man who sold a field, which was situated, according to one version, in a distant province, and according to another in an unseemly place. The happy buyer found there a great treasure. When the pre- vious owner heard of this, he took his own life in his grief. If we compare these four versions of the Rabbinic applica- tion of the proverb with the Gospel and Philo, we see, in spite of the discrepancies between them, some common features. The man in the Gospel sells everything, like Abba Judan, to find a treasure. Philo's husbandman like the young Elieser finds a treasure, namely the proper understanding of the Torah. The treasure comes to the discoverer unexpectedly. Such dis- coverers are the favourites, who, as Philo puts it, understand the proper meaning of the words of the Law-giver, and are not like the slow-souled dullards, taking anthropomorphisms literally. We shall see whether that was the case with R, Elieser. Yet, before doing so, another close parallel between the Haggadah and an old report in Philo's writing shall be dis- cussed here, for it has some bearing on the subject of anthropo- morphism. 6. The Haggadic material preserved in Philo deserves fuller and more detailed investigation than it has received till now. The essays and studies, which have appeared since Gfroerer and Dähne among Christians, and Fraenkel, who heads the list of modern Jewish scholars, who devoted their studies to Hellenistic writers, do not afford any precise answer to the question as to the inner relation between Hellenistic and Rabbinic Haggadah. I will show this connexion, apart from the previous instances, in another case as well. Long before Philo the question was raised and discussed among Greek Jews, why man's creation was left till the end, and did not anticipate that of all the others ? The question is based on the assumption that the more important things anticipate the less important ones in rank and order. Philo records four answers to this query, which he culled or copied from earlier teachers. The first answer amounts to this. God furnished man not only with the highest spiritual gifts, namely with a rational inner relation to the deity, but also with material gifts which prepared for him everything fit to advance a prosperous life and physical well-being. Secondly, this order of things is a safe- guard and promise that if his life and conduct are regulated and carried on virtuously, in complete accord with the divine will, then the earth will furnish him with all necessities without trouble and toil. Thirdly, this order indicates that there is a close contact and intimate relation between the beginning and end of the work of creation. There is a unity between Man and Heaven, closely joined together by eternal ties. Heaven is the best among, the celestial bodies, man represents the crown of creation among the lower creatures on earth. Finally, the sudden appearance of man on the stage of the uni- verse was most dramatically arranged, so that he should inspire with fear and awe all the already existing beasts and creatures.32 The question was raised in Palestine as well as in Alex- andria. One cannot ascribe priority to the Greek source on the ground that the theory that the greater and more excel- lent were older or more ancient than things that came later into existence was not known in the schools of the Palestinians. Considering the very strong sense of and feeling for honour and order developed in ancient Judaism, it is somewhat daring to see foreign influence in such a thought. The great con- sideration shown in life and action, in public and in private, to rank and precedence in religion and in wisdom seems to be some genuine innate growth of the Jewish character, and not to be due to extraneous thought. The amazement that the most important creature should be at the same time the last in the order of created beings, could well have been voiced first by a Palestinian Jew, who might have been quite immune from the influence of Greek intellectual activities. The 'last but not least' principle translated into Hebrew as ביבח ןורחא ןורחא is surely of a more recent date and a later development than the teaching of first things coming first.33 The question, therefore, is quite natural in the mouth of a Palestinian Jew: 4Why was man created last ? 34י If man is— and there is nothing to gainsay it—the crown of the creation, then why was he not created before all the other creatures of the world ? If the anthropocentric conception is correct, then man should head all creation. The coincidence of the question in Philo and in an ancient Barayta is not the most significant part of the resemblance between the two different sources. The agreement in the answers and explanations offered is perhaps of even greater importance for students of theology. The style and the present place of the fragment show traces of high antiquity. The latter is an unmistakable piece of evidence for its use in the procedure of the ancient courts, when criminal law was still practised in Palestine. The homily was already in those early days made use of in addressing the witnesses and appealing to their sense of responsibility and honesty. The Barayta, just as Philo, offers four different interpretations and replies. This variety in both sources, in Greek and Hebrew, is a clear testimony to the general interest taken by all sections of Jews in this perplexing question. In the Palestinian source the first view recorded leads the reader to the arena of dis- putes between scribes and Jewish believers in a dualistic religious system. Man was purposely created after all other creatures, in order that the Minim should not be able to assert that man was the assistant or partner of God in the creation of the world. In speaking of Minim most probably Gnostics are referred to, who propagated the theory of the two Gods, viz. the Highest God, and the Lower God, the Demiurgos. Yet, it is not impossible that Alexandrian Jews, who saw in the Logos the real Creator, were indicated by this designation. In any case such a solution would not appeal to Philo and we do not expect him to elabo- rate such a point of view, for it would be quite contrary to his philosophy and theology alike. The later dogma of the participation of Jesus in the work of creation is too young for our source. The second answer ascribes an ethical and moral- istic reason for the present order of things. Man was created last in order that his pride should be defeated. Man should not become proud, for even the smallest insect preceded him in creation. This has no exact parallel in Philo's list of answers. Yet, it is worth while to compare the second theory in the Tosefta with the fourth in Philo. Here, the idea of man's creation is at least intended to imbue him with humility; there, however, it was staged in this way in order to overawe the stronger animal world. This contrast between Philonic and Rabbinic Haggadah is most remarkable. The last two theories reported in the Barayta bring home the idea, first that man was created last so that he shall immediately embark on his duty, the discharge and fulfilment of the Mizwah, the divine law. For this view there is apparently again no room in Hel- lenistic theology. The last, however, in the Barayta, agrees literally with the first taught by Philo. Since Philo honestly admits here that he owes these teachings to earlier systems, there can be no question regarding priority as far as Philo is concerned, but only regarding his source which is unknown at present. Adam was created last so that he should be enabled to partake of a banquet already prepared, without delay and waiting. This is illustrated in both of our sources by the story of the king's banquet. A king built and inaugurated a new palace. He invited guests for this purpose. The parable is further elaborated by an old Midrash on Prov. ix. 1 : 4 " Wisdom built her house ", that is the King of Kings, the Holy one blessed be He, who built His world in seven days by wisdom. " She hath hewn her pillars seven", these are the seven days of créa- tion. " She hath killed her beasts and mingle4 her vine", these are the seas, the streams, deserts, and the other necessities of the world. 4 4 Afterwards she hath sent forth her maidens and crieth upon the highest places of the city,י whosoever is simple may return hither ' namely, Adam and Eve.' The parable of the banquet arranged by the king in the Mid- rash has a close parallel in the words of Philo. He says: 4 Just as a host does not call to a meal before he has prepared it, and made ready everything wanted for the meal, so God pre- pared everything before inviting man to partake of it.' Philo, or his source, added another parable taken from the life of the theatre and circus, which was dear to his Greek readers. Palestinian Bible students of his generation would have found less pleasure and amusement in a picture of that sort. A ban- quet prepared for guests is a very favoured, and therefore frequent, topic in the Haggadah to illustrate and illuminate various theological doctrines, e.g. the perfection of creation,35 future reward and punishment,36 and many others.37 The authorship of this parable is ascribed in the Genesis rabba38 to R. Nehemiah. This is perfectly in accord with the ancient tradition surviving in the schools that the anonymous passages in the Tosefta go back to the teachings of this scribe.39 The parable was further developed and elaborated in the Amoraic Haggadah in several variations. R. Samuel b. Isaac compares the creation of man by God to a king, who prepared a banquet and invited many guests to partake of it. He pre- pared for them many dishes full of great delicacies, and said : 4 Whosoever eats and blesses the king, he will enjoy it, but he who eats and does not bless him, he will be beheaded by the sword.'40 Closer connexion between the Tannaitic and the Amoraic Haggadah can be established in a long sermon of R. Aibo, a teacher of the fourth century, recorded by R .Huna.41 God created man with full knowledge at the end of the creation, and not by any oversight. He was created after all creatures so that all necessities should await him when he came into this world. The angels objected to man's creation with the words of the Psalmist, Ps. viii. 8. God said to them : ' If so, all sheep and oxen wherefore were they created ? Imagine a tower full of thv, choicest things, and there are human beings going by, what is the good of filling it with all the precious dainties ? ' The angels submitted to the will of God by saying : 4 Ο Lord of the whole Universe, how glorious is Thy name over the whole world.' There is a further resemblance between the third of Philo's arguments and some Haggadic interpretations on our problem, which requires a few observations. Whether Philo and Rabbis have drawn from a common source, or, whether Philonic theories penetrated into the Palestinian schools in the third century are questions which cannot be answered at pre- sent. The fact has to be established that the question of man's place in creation was just as vigorously discussed from the pulpit in this age as three centuries before. The views and theories advanced in this context centre around Ps. cxxxix. 5. ' Thou hast formed me behind and before, and thou hast put thine hand upon me.' The gross anthropomorphism called for explanation and mitigation. Teachers like R. Yochanan b. Nap- pacha and R. Simon b. Lakish, who were by no means troubled by such utterances of the Bible, found it necessary to soften the meaning of this verse. The former rendered the text thus : 4 God has endowed man with two impulses, good and evil, therefore, says man, hast thou formed me with two formations, one leading forward, and the other backward. One enables man to inherit the world to come, the other, however, leads to punishment.' His colleague said : ' Man was created before all creatures.' The spirit of God in Gen. 1. 2, meaning the spirit of the first man, Adam, who was the first and at the same time the last of the created beings.42 Here, exactly as in Philo, we have before us the teaching which attempts to connect the beginning and the conclusion of creation, the physical with the spiritual, the creation of the body and the spirit of Adam. Even if the main purpose of the homily was to explain the anthropomorphism of the passage, yet, the preacher contri- butes at the same time some solution to the question ; * Why was man created last ? ' His reply was in short that man may have been the last as far as his physical character goes—which is in reality of minor importance—spiritually he anticipated the whole creation. There are still some indications preserved, which clearly show that this solution did not enjoy great popularity, but called for opposition. Thus R. Eleasar b. Pedath, a contemporary of these teachers, adheres to the liter- ality of our text. Adam was spiritually and physically created on the last day. The only concession which he is inclined and prepared to make is that on the last day of creation the spiritual Adam was created before the physical Adam. The spiritual part of man, his immortal soul, his spirit, anticipated the creation of the body as well as that of the animal world. Another teacher, R. Samuel b. R. Tanhum, (read perhaps : Nahmani) proves from Ps. cxlviii that the order of creation in Gen. ch. i has a complete parallel in this Psalm. Or, in other words, the things were created in the same order as that in which they are enumerated in this Psalm, where the praise of God is spoken of.43 R. Simlai is even more outspoken in his opposition to R. Simon b. Lakish who maintained that man was created first. Just as man's praise and song is the last, so his creation came after that of all the other creatures.44 It would be most tempting to investigate here the problem whether the preachers of the opposition did not reject the very basis of the question and teach that the most important things need not be first in order and rank. Many changes have taken place in contemporary Judaism which may have altered the standard conceptions of what is important and what is of no consequence in social as well as in religious life. Such an investigation, for which there is a great abundance of material, must be left for another place where the anthropological con- ceptions of the Rabbis will be described and analyzed