Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:49 pm
II ι. THE comparisons between Philo and Haggadah teach one lesson, which leaves no room for any doubt. I mean that Alexandrian Jewry was divided into many religious groups and sections in the days of Philo. The conditions in Palestine differed not very much from those among the Greek-speaking Jews. Otherwise, one could not account for the many similar!־ ties of the questions raised in the one place as in the other. The different groups mentioned by Philo were of various colours and bore different crests. Next to the radicals at both ends, who defended the literality of the Scriptures out of piety and reverence, there were the Jewish Marcionites who adhered to the same principle out of hatred against the Bible and the Jewish teaching of God. The Jewish scoffers in Alexandria, who are characterized by Philo as ' persons, who cherish a dis- like of the institutions of our fathers and make it their constant study to denounce and decry the Laws V were not without sympathizers and coreligionists in Palestine. Between these two groups stood the allegorists, who tried to avert the criticism and misinterpretation of the Bible, and through the Bible of the Jewish doctrine of God. If one turns to the anonymous Haggadah, there a door is opened to a mine of information on this subject from which material can be gathered, which may be of the same date as Philo, if not older. We saw above2 that the literality of Exod. xv. 3 was rejected by Philo as well as by the allegoristic school of the Haggadah; so, too, other anthropomorphistic utterances were scrutinized in the same way. Thus Exod. xiii. 21, where God is spoken of as walking. Here as in the previous case the literality of the text is confronted by teachings of the prophets, which reduce such words to absurdity. Here again, the same verses from the prophets Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel are cited to make such a notion of walking in the case of deity quite preposterous. A Haggadist, who bears a Greek, or according to other readings, a Latin name, Antigonos or Antoninus, offers an explanation, which also would do credit to Philo, when he says that such an expression means nothing else but the manifestation of God's love for Israel in delivering them from Egypt.3 Another homily is devoted to the problem of God's jealousy mentioned in Exod. xx. 5. Is there such a thing as jealousy before God ?4. Is God jealous on account of people who transgress His word and act against His will ? Does He inflict punishment on sinners by throwing stones, arrows, or slings ? Such Biblical passages, we see now, were criticized in Jerusalem as in Alexandria, as we read in Philo's words, quoted above. The answer given by Palestinian sages is on the same model and breathes the same intellectual atmosphere as that of the Greek-speaking teachers. There is no such feeling with or in the deity, and consequently the expression must not be understood literally. What does it mean ? That those who are addicted to idol worship are changing the character of the real God into that of the non-existent idols. That is to say that these idolators proclaim ideas about God which cannot be justified. They think that just as idols are jealous when their worshippers turn to other deities, so likewise God may be jealous when Hebrews turn away from Him and embrace other religions. The school of R. Ishmael preserved another view to combat the literal meaning of such a passage. God is the Lord of jealousy, but divine jealousy has no room or place in the Jewish conception of God.5 The same doctrine was taught with reference to Ps. cxxi. 4. Can one say about God that he is sleeping ? No. God has dominion and rule over sleep, but sleep is far from Him. God's jealousy was frequently discussed in the dialogues held between rabbis and various in- quirers. An interlocutor of R. Gamaliel II, who is given the title of philosopher, asked : i Why is God jealous of the idols ? There is nothing in them worth being jealous of/ He does not object to the idea of divine jealousy, but he cannot see the reason for such a feeling in the given instance. A wise man, a rich person, a hero, might be jealous of his rival's wisdom, wealth, or strength, but the idols are—especially according to Jewish teaching—of no reality at all, then why should God be jealous ? R. Gamaliel in his reply admits the jealousy of God, yet with the modification that the jealousy is not directed against the idols, but against those who adore them and ascribe divine rank to them.6 Interesting in the reply of the Patriarch is the story of a man's calling his dog by his father's name and swearing by the dog, which is a plain reminis- cence of Socrates' swearing by his dog.7 Christian Apologists frequently mention this episode in the life of the Greek philo- sopher. Somehow it had also become known to the Rabbis. Stricter than this alleged philosopher, who discussed with R. Gamaliel the question of God's jealousy, were the Gnostics, who poured out all their contempt on the God of the Jews for His jealousy. It seems to have been a special dogma of the Ophites. The serpent said to Eve: 4 By the life of God, I am sorely grieved on your account, because you are as stupid as the beasts.... Do not be afraid ... for out of jealousy did God forbid you to eat from the fruits of the tree. . . .8 The same accusation of jealousy is repeated in the Palestinian Targum9 and by one of the foremost Haggadists of the third century,10 R. Levi, as illustrating Ophite polemics against Jewish religion. The same teacher dwells also on the contradiction between Lev, xix. 18, forbidding jealousy and vengeance, and Nahum i. 2, where God is called an avenging God. His solution retains the literal meaning of the text, which implies that God will avenge the misdeeds of his enemies, wicked people, and the nations of the world.11 A third problem which occupied the mind of the early Haggadists was the question of God's resting on the Sabbath. Here, as in the first instance, the idea is contradicted by a quotation from Isaiah, xl. 28, where we read : 1 that there is no travail, nor weariness before Him. He fainteth not, nor is He weary.' This is opposed to Exod. xx. 11, where it says: 4 And God rested on the seventh day'.12 In the Mekilta there are further quotations from Isa. xl. 29, and Ps. xxxiii. 6, showing that the term 'resting' gives no sense if spoken of the deity.13 The treatment of the subject is different in these two sources, which leads to the assumption that is fully borne out by the vast material at our disposal, that in Judea, and later in Galilee, there were two different theological systems, the one under- standing the early religious documents more literally, the other more spiritually. The first source explains the contradiction by introducing the doctrine of divine retribution for the wicked, who by their evil deeds contribute to the destruction of the Universe, which was created with toil and trouble. The theolo- gical maxim further voices the opinion that sins and trans- gression cause all the evils and ultimately the destruction of the world. The second source represents the more spiritual, allegorical interpretation of the text. Surely, they would say, these expressions, rest and work, are not fit to be applied to God. When we speak of resting or working with reference to the God- head we are employing mere figures of speech used for bringing home to human understanding the existence and greatness of God. It can be explained in this, as well as in many other instances, why both schools of thought and exegesis paid such attention to these problems, which to many thinkers may appear trivial and not worth while. However, external as well as internal reasons compelled them to enlarge on this subject. It has not yet been recognized how much Jewish theology, in the cen- turies under review, was stimulated by the polemic onslaughts directed against Judaism by the united forces of pagan religion and philosophy, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. It is the Sabbath which is attacked by all three of them. The Jews of the Diaspora were especially distinguished by their faithful and loyal observance of the Sabbath.14 No wonder that that pre- cious gift given to Israel by God became the subject of ridicule by clowns and priests alike in ancient Rome and Alexandria, wherever the poisonous hydra of Anti-Semitism lifted up its ugly head. Philo, the Church Fathers, and the Haggadah pre- served some material on this subject. One of the arrows aimed against the Jewish Sabbath touched also at the same time the Jewish doctrine of God. On the one side it was asked : 'If the law of the Sabbath is of such importance and cannot be abrogated, as taught by the teachers of Judaism, why does your God not keep it ? י On the other hand it was objected : 1 How can the Scriptures write about God resting on the seventh day ? י Philo addresses his words to such objectors, when he says in good Haggadic manner : 4 Excellently, moreover, does Moses say "caused to rest", and not "rested"; for He causes to rest that which, though actually not in operation, is ap- parently making, but He Himself never ceases making.'15 One can point to Celsus as a representative of ancient philosophy as indicating the impression made on educated and intelligent heathen readers of the Bible. 4After this work', says Celsus, י He became tired like a clumsy artisan and bad worker, who needs rest in order to recuperate from his labour.'16 The whole chorus of Church Fathers joins Origen in repelling such calum- nies and misinterpretations.17 The writer of the Book of Jubi- lees does not hesitate to say that God kept the first Sabbath, just as Adam was the first among the earthly ones who observed this day.18 The same teaching is spread by the author of the Pirke of R. Elieser,19 who in so many of his teachings agrees with the Jubilees. As a reply to Christian and earlier Gnostic anti-Jewish attacks, Rabbinic apologists introduced the theory that God observes the Sabbath, just as the teaching gained ground that God observes other particular laws, as will be shown in the course of these studies.20 A fourth ancient objection was caused by the verse in Exod. xxii. 23. It says : 41 will slay you with the sword.' Does God use a sword in order to slay them ? Surely not. Then what is the meaning of the passage ? God will bring upon them those who will slay them with the sword.21 Finally, there is Exod. xv. 7, to be mentioned in this connexion. 4 Thou hast overthrown them that rise up against Thee.' Who can rise up against God ? The answer is, those who rise against God's children,22 or according to another version, against His beloved ones, they are regarded as if they rose against God Himself.23 The homilist gives instances. Amraphel against Abraham, Pharaoh against Israel, Sisera, Senacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Hiram, the king of Tyre, are meant by this designation. The Mekilta does not supply this list of individuals, whose hostility to Israel is known from the Scriptures, but instead supplies a number of Biblical verses which speak of God's enemies in a similar manner, as Ps. lxxiv. 23, lxxxiii. 2, and cxxxix. 21. The words4 those that rise up against Thee',4 those that hate Thee', and 'Thine enemies', appear meaningless if taken literally. Their meaning, therefore, had to be changed and applied to God's beloved or His people. Mekilta as well as Sifre on Numbers23 add here a long list of Soferic alterations which aim at elimination of gross anthro- pomorphisms. The vicinity of these two lists may offer a clue for the date of these early endeavours to remove or explain allegorically passages in which God is invested with human passions. Anyhow, one is justified in asserting that the allego- rical exegesis in Palestine is not much younger than that of the Greek Diaspora. The emendations of the Scribes as well as these questions and answers belong to the oldest form and material of the ancient Haggadah. It may be noted that in that age the difficulties raised were two-fold. First of all, how can one speak of God as walking, as being jealous, as sleeping or resting, as having a sword in His hand, or as having enemies ? The assertion appears even more absurd in cases where statements to the contrary can be adduced, which show that these assertions are impossible if applied to God. Here again it can be shown that we are moving on the oldest ground of the Haggadah, for, in its earliest form, the raising of con- tradictions plays a prominent part. 2. Besides these anonymous Haggadic utterances there are some, which following the same tendency and imbued with the same spirit are ascribed to R. Ishmael, a teacher of the early second century. The resemblance in method and coincidence in thought is so striking that one would be inclined to place the anonymous ones under the name of this teacher. R. Ishmael fol- lowed the teachers of the allegorical school, in opposition to his chief colleague R. Akiba, who, as we saw in an earlier chapter, preferred the literal exposition, even where anthropomorphic difficulties predominate. Here, mainly R. IshmaePs views shall be recorded and analysed. In a sermon on Exod. xii. 13 4 and I will see the blood ', the question is raised in the style which was noticed in the previous chapter : Is not everything revealed before Him ? Thereupon evidence is brought to support this assertion from Dan. ii. 22 and Ps. cxxxix. 12. The doctrine of God's omniscience is based on these verses. God knoweth what is in the darkness, and light dwelleth with Him. Further 4 the darkness hideth not from Thee \ R. Ishmael's answer would have caused joy to Philo, if he had heard it. God naturally can see everything in the Universe, but 4I will see the blood', means something quite different, namely 4 as a reward for your faithful observance of the commandment in connexion with the Paschal Lamb I will reveal Myself to you, and will have pity on you, and redeem you '.24 A second in- terpretation removes the anthropomorphism by asserting that the expression 4and I saw', does not mean seeing the blood, as the literal sense conveys, but4 and I will remember the sacrifice of Isaac, for whose sake or merit Israel shall be redeemed in a literal sense. This dissension must have divided them in their interpretation of the legal and ritual exposition of the Bible as well. A rationalist takes an attitude towards the law different from that of a mystic, who sees and perceives God everywhere, walking and standing, praying and working. His- torical conditions favoured the victory of R. Akiba. R. Akiba's theology as opposed to that of R. Ishmael is expressed in many controversies which they had on many important subjects, as e.g. Exod. xii. 2, which is interpreted by R. Akiba in a literal sense. God has shown unto Moses the New Moon. According to R. Ishmael such a thing is out of the range of possibility. Moses has shown the New Moon to the Israelites.37 This was one of the three things which God showed to Moses with His finger. These things are the New Moon, the making of the lamp, and the prohibition of unclean animals. Secondly, on Exod. xx. 18, R. Ishmael taught that they saw the visible, and that they heard what could be heard. R. Akiba favours the more literal exposition that they could hear the visible, and could see that which was conveyed to them by the ear. Everything which came out of the mouth of the Geburah was immediately engraved on the tablets.38 Thirdly, the name Elohim in Exod. xxii. 27 is taken by R. Ishmael as meaning 'judges,, R. Akiba again renders it literally, ' God'.39 A further dispute between these two teachers is connected with their attitude to esoteric studies, the Maaseh Bereshith and Maaseh Merkabah. The same applies to the public discussion of the Laws concerning prohibited marriages תוירע. R. Akiba, who took all these texts in their literal meaning feared that they might have grave consequences if treated in public; not so R. Ishmael, whose allegorical method was a safe-guard against such possible misinterpretation.40 There is a further controversy between these two teachers, which throws light on the one side on the principal antagonism of these two masters, and on the other side illuminates their relation to earlier Jewish Hellenistic thought and religion. R. Akiba expounded the word םיריבא in Ps. lxxviii. 25 as food of angels. He may have known the Greek version as used by the author of the Sapientia Salomonis. When R. Ishmael heard this interpretation, he became indignant and objected on the ground that angels have no food and, consequently, there is no eating in heaven. The meaning of the word is to be derived by the change of 41םיריבא into םירבא. It is a food, which is absorbed by the limbs. R. Ishmael as an allegorist concurs with the teaching of Philo, who likewise explains all actions or feelings ascribed to God, but which are too human, as carried out by angels. His words may be translated here, for they throw welcome light on the development of the Rabbinic allegorists as well. 'The unique or sole God is surrounded by numberless forces destined for the salvation of the world. . . . There is in the air a chorus of invisible holy, bodyless souls, the partners of the divine beings. The Scriptures call them angels. This whole host of angels is arranged in perfect order, is devoted to the service of the Most High, and ever ready to obey His command. For in heaven there is no negligence of duties. Just as in the case of a human king it is meet that ministers or officers should carry out functions and duties which cannot be performed by the king himself without loss of prestige ; truly the Father of the Universe needs no creatures for His service, yet he deputes and commissions, for the sake of decency or dignity, some of the inferior power to discharge certain functions or duties, without investing them with independent will or initiative/42 These words of Philo guided all allegorists before and after his time. They corroborate the experience of the student of Rabbinic texts that R. Ishmael, or Pappus, and others made room in their theological teaching for angels and spirits, when they found themselves faced with anthropomorphic passages in the Bible, so that they substituted for the name of God that of an angel or spirit. Yet the angels of the allegorists were different from those who lived in the speculations of the theological trend of mind. R. Ishmael and his forerunners in introducing a question on a difficult passage of the Bible use the term ]כ רמול לשפא יכו, meaning: 4How is it possible to say thus ? \ whilst R. Yose ha-Gelili when facing anthropo- morphic passages, asks: ]D רמול ךתעד לע הלעת יכו? meaning, 4 how can one entertain even the thought of saying such a thing ? י Surely, R. Akiba would never dream of using such language even when reading the most irrational verse in the Scriptures. The difference between the earlier anthropomorphic and the allegorical schools can be detected in the anonymous Haggadah in many instances. Thie anthropomorphic school explains the difficulty about God being a man of war, in which a close parallel between Philo and the earlier Palestinian allegorical school has been established above,48 in different ways. To the literal interpretation, the difficulty is not 4 is it at all possible to speak of God as a man of war ?,, but, will the fact that here God is called a young warrior, whereas at the revelation He is depicted as an old sage or scribe, not con- found dualistic religious thinkers and they will proclaim that the Bible confirms a dualistic conception of deity ?49 That is all that they are concerned about. A literal exposition must face such threats and dangers. Here it was taught that God appeared with weapons. An exposition on Exod. xii. 12 will clearly show that both schools are represented in our sources one close to the other. ' And I shall pass through the land of Egypt.' An anonymous teaching endeavouring to avoid the gross anthropomorphism of the verb, namely God's walking, which, as we saw, was disliked by Hellenistic as well as by Palestinian allegorists,50 offers the translation 4 and I will pour out my anger ', &c. The verb י ת ר ב ע resembles the noun ה ר ב ע . Just as R. Ishmael, the allegorist and opponent of anthropo- morphic literality, acquiesces in speaking and reading of'God's joy ', so, for some reason to be investigated later, the idea of God's wrath and anger did not seem incompatible with the theology of this school. The opposing or rival theology, as taught by R. Judah b. liai, a pupil of R. Akiba, does not hesitate to interpret : 4 God passed from one place to another', merely adding 4 like a king who does the same.'51 The view of R. Yose the Galilean about God testing man, recurs in the following anonymous teaching on Exod. xx. 20. The text has : * in order to test you ,, which is also interpreted 4 that God came in order to magnify (exalt) you before all the nations of the world '. Here again, the opposition adds the significant technical term used by the advocates of the literacy of the text, יאלוב , viz. the verb testing is to be understood in the literal sense, and not allegorically.52 It will be necessary, before advancing further in our in- vestigation of the ancient disagreement on this subject, to consider the position occupied by R. Yose the Galilean in this controversy. One is entitled, after the evidence produced up till now, to group this scribe among the allegorical inter- preters of the Tannaitic age. Allegorists were in many respects in a queer position on several occasions, when they faced difficulties which the literalists safely ignored or passed by. A very instructive example of this observation is offered in the controversy between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba on Exod. xx. 23, יתא ןושעת אל. The former refers יתא to the image and likeness of the ministering angels, Serafim, and Ofanim that are in heaven. R. Akiba, however, translates 4 do not make Me, or of Me, a likeness, as the heathen make images of their gods \53 Something similar can be observed in the Haggadah of R. Yose ha-Gelili on Exod. xxxiii. 22, where the strong anthropomorphism could not pass without mitigation by such an allegorist as R. Yose. The verse has : 4And I will lay my hand on thee till I pass over/ A scribe who adhered to the literal interpretation of the text might have overlooked the anthro- pomorphism altogether. An allegorist could not abide by the literal meaning of such expressions. R. Yose, therefore, teaches that the expression indicates to Moses that he will be protected by special grace in dangers which he will encounter. These perils arise from the action of demons and spirits who at certain hours or on certain occasions, have power to do mischief independently of God. Here, as in the case of R. Ishmael, an angelological doctrine, a demonological concep- tion, helps to overcome an anthropomorphic difficulty.54 The very same quaint teaching is used for removing the anthropo- morphism in 1 Kings viii. 11,' and the priest could not stand in service owing to the cloud, for the glory of God filled the house of God. Why could the priest not discharge his duties and minister in the presence of God's glory ? ' R. Yose replies that the priests could not minister because there are moments when the demons and spirits are at liberty to do harm to mankind independently of their divine master, or at their own discretion. There is a third allegorical interpretation, which some texts ascribe to the same teacher. Ps. xcv. 2 ' which I swore in my anger, if they will come to my rest '. 1 Till God's anger lasts '—there was no objection to speaking of His anger, as pointed out before on p. 36, and see also further Pt. I, on pp. 196 if.—yet ' to my rest י seemed hard, and had to be rendered allegorically, namely, ' to my promised land \ss Finally, it is to be observed that the demonological theory of this teacher was also applied in solving the contradiction between Num. and Exod. The Glory of God was visible, or appeared in the cloud. What does that mean ? God is every- where present. It means, says the allegorist, that whenever Moses and Aaron were threatened by their enemies God protected them. That is the meaning of this phrase. His angels were sent to their guard, or the demons were given free hand to bring havoc on the wicked.56 This difference between the leading teachers of the pre- Bar Kochba period can be traced back to earlier times. The teachers and predecessors of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba manifest the very same tendencies in their exegetical method, and con- sequently in their theological outlook, as their pupils and successors in the schools of Judea, and later on in Galilee. R. Joshua ben Hananyah, who propagated the idea that God shares the trouble of his people, or that the Shekinah is journey- ing with Israel from exile57 to exile must be ranked together with R. Akiba and his followers. There could be established no link between R. Ishmael and this teacher, in spite of the close personal relation that according to Rabbinic biographers existed between them, namely that R. Joshua redeemed R. Ishmael from Roman captivity after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The young priest leaned more towards the opinions, and favoured the wisdom, of his bene- factor's opponents. The prophecy of the aged Levite that the captive priest would become a great teacher among his people, was verified to the letter, but the teacher developed in a dif- ferent direction. Let us turn to the exegesis and theology of R. Joshua and his opponents. R. Joshua is in favour of the literal interpretation, whilst his colleagues R. Elieser b. Hyr- kanos and R. Eleasar of Modiim, the native of the ancient Hashmonean place, adopted the allegorical method. A few instances may suffice to demonstrate this contention. Exod. xiii. 18, 'the way of the wilderness, the Red Sea', is explained by R. Elieser thus : * the way, in order to fatigue them', cf. Ps. cii. 27, 4in the wilderness in order to purify them,, cf. Deut. vii. 15, 'The Red Sea', in order to test them, cf. Ps. cvi. 7. R. Joshua, however, expounds these words dif- ferently : 4 The way,, that is the Torah, cf. Deut. v. 30, and Prov. vi. 23. 'The wilderness', in order to give them the Manna, Deut. viii. 16 ; ' The Red Sea ', in order to show them miracles and wonderful deeds, cf. Ps. cvi. 22.58 Both teachers tried to answer the question raised : ' Why did God not lead them straight into the promised land ? ' Regarding Exod. xiv. 2 there is a dispute about the mean- ing of the geographical term תוריחה י פ. R. Elieser takes it as an idol of supernatural origin, which was destined to literalists. R. Akiba taught that these angels require food, not so R. Ishmael. This difference of opinion brought about the controversy concerning the meaning of the word םיריבא in the Haggadah of the two teachers. The contention of the two teachers and their schools can further be shown in the following Midrash. We noticed above that the two masters were at variance on the exegetical value of the particles used in the Hebrew language. R. Ishmael attached no importance to them. Yet, in three instances, he admitted their usefulness. One of these is Deut. xxxiv. 6 4 and he buried him in the valley '. The subject is missing in this sentence. Who buried Moses ? R. Ishmael asked : 4 Did others bury him ? No, he buried himself.'43 R. Ishmael used his opponent's method here, in order to reject a rather strong anthropomorphic teaching. The rival school taught that the subject in this sentence is no one else but God. A preacher of the third century, R. Simlai, is credited with the following remarkable teaching : The Pentateuch begins and ends with the commandment to exercise charity. The Alpha and Omega of the Law is lovingkindness and benevolence. How does or did this Jewish teacher, who is often grouped together with Scribes and Pharisees of the crude and gross legalistic type, prove this ? He saw in Gen. i. 28 that God was pro- nouncing the blessing over the bridal couple, like a minister of religion in performing a wedding ceremony; further in Gen. ii. 22, he saw an instance of God acting as best-man by adorning the bride before the wedding ; then in Gen. xviii. 1 an instance of God visiting the sick and ailing ; finally in our passage of Deuteronomy a case of God burying the dead and comforting the mourners.44 All these acts of charity are frequently pointed out as the greatest virtues by which man imitates the work of his Maker.45 Some of these virtues and qualities are especially elaborated by teachers of the anthropomorphic school. R. Abbahu, whose Haggadah is exceedingly rich in anthropomorphic material as will be demonstrated in a following chapter of these essays, depicts God as blessing the bridal-couple with a cup of wine in His hands and utter- ing the prescribed blessings which were customary in the days of this Amora.46 The interpretation of the text in the narrative of Moses as meaning that God Himself busied Himself with the funeral of Moses must be older than the third century, and was propagated either by R. Akiba, the head of this school, or by his followers. This divergence of views existed also between R. Akiba and R. Yose the Galilean, another contemporary scholar. There is recorded an ancient Tannaitic dispute between these two teachers on Gen. xxii. 1, concerning the meaning of the verb R. Yose the Galilean taught that the verb means * and God exalted Abraham,, R. Akiba, however, is satisfied with the literal meaning, and translates ' and God tested \47 This interpretation of R. Akiba fully agrees with his method which adheres to the literal meaning in spite of the anthropomorphic idea conveyed by the text. He does not fear or care that a literal exegesis may raise doubts about the omniscience of God. His religious system is so firm that such trifles cannot disturb it. This may perhaps be the result of his deep religious ex- perience and his earlier intellectual endeavours. This scholar, who once tasted the spiritual fruits of the Pardes which he diligently frequented and left in perfect religious equilibrium, must have become more confirmed in the more rigid conserva- tive or literal perception of the Bible, allowing no compromise or concession of any type or to any extent. Jewish history in various periods shows similar appearances under similar con- ditions of intellectual growth and decline. Yet this school was opposed by another train of thought, like that represented by R. Ishmael and R. Yose ha-Gelili, expressing the rationalistic point of view. The very characteristic terminology used by these two teachers in their Haggadah, which, however, is surely older than their time, is an eloquent witness to their mislead the Egyptians, whilst R. Joshua saw in it a geographi- cal name.59 R. Joshua understood Exod. xiv. 15 in the sense that there was nothing left to Israel except to continue the journey, ac- cording to R. Elieser, however, Moses was reproved for wasting time in long prayer in an hour of danger.60 Exod. xv. 22 offers a very eloquent proof of the difference in the exegesis of the two masters. The text השמ ע0י ו requires some comment. R. Joshua taught that all the journeys made by the children of Israel were by God's command with the exception of this one, which was by the direction of Moses himself, as indicated in the letter of the Scriptures. Not so R. Elieser; according to him, this journey was also at the command of God, then why does the text say that Moses made Israel to journey ? It seems to say that Moses forced them to move against their wish with a stick in his hands. For they beheld the corpses of their task-masters rotting on the field, and they thought that no one of the old people was left in Egypt, so they wanted to return to Egypt till Moses forced them to go on.61 Exod. xv. 24 was expounded by R. Joshua literally, the people murmured against Moses. R. Eleasar of Modiim teaches that they rebelled against God as well.62 Similarly v. 22 is taken literally (ועומשכ), namely, they could find no water. R. Elieser, however, renders the verse allegorically, namely,4 they were fatigued in order to try them.'63 According to the alle- gorists 4 water ' stands here for 4 Torah \ The Dorshe Reshu- moth explain also the word ץ ע in v. 25 as4Torah' in opposition to R. Joshua, who understood the text literally. Moses taught them Torah, by doing so he healed the waters. Exod. xvi. 3 is taken by R. Joshua as an unjustified exaggeration on the part of the hungry Hebrews, who were starving in Egypt and wanting the necessities of life, whilst according to R. Elieser they were telling the truth. For as slaves they had access to food and drink—but lacked freedom ; in the wilderness they enjoyed freedom but lacked physical comfort.64 Exod. xvi. 4. םכל ריטממ יננה, R. Joshua stresses the literal meaning of םכל, by implying that the rain of food from heaven was only for Israel. R. Eleasar of Modiim sees in it an allusion to the merits of the fathers, which play a great part in his Haggadah.65 Similarly the anthropomorphic expression יננה is understood by R. Eleasar as 4 for the merit of the fathers I will, &c.', whilst R. Joshua favours the literal rendering by paraphrasing the sentence : 41 will reveal myself at once without delay '. Exod. xvi. 0, ׳ד ינפל. R. Joshua explains that the expres- sion ׳ד ינפל וברק means, come before judgment, cf. Is. xli. 21, whilst R. Eleasar of Modiim says that וברק indicates the revelation of the Shekinah.66 Apart from the obscurity in the interpretation of the statement of R. Eleasar, who probably tries to explain the term 4before God' as the revelation of the Shekinah—for any creature is everywhere in the presence of God—the saying of R. Joshua does not coincide with the observation that he champions the literal meaning of the text. As a fact, in the Mekilta, p. 48 a, the expositions are reversed in agreement with the general tendencies of these scribes. Inverse 10 R. Joshua takes the verb ונפיו literally, explaining that they did not turn to the wilderness till the revelation of the Geburah. R. Elieser takes the meaning allegorically, that they turned to the merits of the fathers.67 The reading of the Mekilta of R. Simon, p. 76, is wrong. The anthropomorphism in verse 12 is weakened by teach- ing God's omniscience. He knows what Israel said and what the people will say in future.68 In the Mekilta of R. Simon, p. 76, this teaching is ascribed, surely wrongly, to R. Joshua. Doubtless the copyists omitted his teaching, and credited him with that of R. Elieser An instructive instance can be brought forward from the contradictory explanations by these two teachers of verse 14. R. Joshua interpreted the phrase as the hoar frost on the earth, ץראה לע רפככ קד, literally, that the Manna fell down like the frost on the earth. R. Eleasar the Modite explained that the Manna came down as a consequence of the prayers of the fathers, who sleep in the dust.69 This Haggadah is sup- plemented by an anthropomorphic legend, that God stretched out both His hands in order to receive the prayers offered by the patriarchs, which is entirely opposed to the spirit of R. Eleasar's teaching. It is evidently a later gloss. Another example: on Exod. xvii. 12: 'And the hands of Moses were heavy.' R. Joshua says that the hands of Moses were as heavy at that moment as that of a man on whose hands are hanging two pitchers of water. R. Eleasar of Modiim takes this sentence figuratively. Moses was disappointed or did not succeed immediately because he delayed the perfor- mance of his duty from that day to the next.70 Consequently the phrase does not convey the meaning that the hands of Moses became heavy, but that Moses came to grief, or pain. In a duplicate passage the view of R. Joshua is rendered thus : * The sin of Moses became so heavy on his hands that he had to return or rely on the merits of the fathers.'71 This teaching is, as we saw, a typical feature of R. Eleasar's Haggadah. One may mention some more instances to make still clearer the statement as to the difference between the two teachers. Exod. xviii. 24: 4 Moses hearkened to the words of his father-in-law and did all that Jethro said.' Thus the literal meaning is ac- cepted by R. Joshua. R. Eleasar of Modiim modifies this by saying that Moses did all God commanded him.72 3. Besides the controversies between R. Akiba and his two contemporaries, R. Ishmael and R. Yose the Galilean, there are four disputes recorded which took place between him and another scholar of his age, whose name is not so well known as that of the two scribes mentioned previously. I mean the four remarkable sermons of Pappus, or Pappayos, which met with serious criticism on R. Akiba's part. They belong to the subject under discussion in this chapter and require fuller treatment. The texts on which the sermons of Pappus are based give rise to speculation on the doctrine of God generally, and on the problem of anthropomorphism particularly. The name of the preacher is little known and was at one time identified with that of an early bishop of the Church.73 This, however, is not to be taken seriously. In the infancy of the modern science of Judaism such ingenious suggestions were frequent and permissible; now־a־days greater care and reserve is to be exercised. Whosoever this preacher may have been, his ser- mons deserve fuller investigation. He preached in public, in a Jewish synagogue, and R. Akiba, who was present on these occasions, stopped him, by telling him: 4 Enough*. This hap- pened to other preachers as well74 and makes the sermons even more interesting and instructive. The very fact that the orator is silenced in public for some reason or other points to some intellectual or spiritual crisis in the midst of that com- munity, when the divergence of views or doctrinal contention reaches such a height that the ideas or utterances of a preacher sound or are looked upon as dangerous. The order of the sermons which have to be mentioned here cannot be estab- lished, for it varies according to the sources at our disposal. The compilers of the different Midrashic collections put that sermon which has a bearing on their special text either in front or at the end of their list. I shall treat them according to the order given in the Mekilta,75 which is as follows: (a) Cant. i. 9; (b) Job xxiii. 13 ; (c) Gen. iii. 22, and (d) Ps. cvi. 20. 1· 4 To the horses of Pharaoh's chariot have I compared thee my love/ The preacher takes for granted that each member of his audience present is fully aware of the fact that Canticles - free online text ends here one hundred more pages to go