by the three Cabalistic alphabets, called 'Atbach, 'Albam, and 'Athbash.1

The Peshat, or literal interpretation, is used in the Targum of Onkelos, and the Greek version of Aquila, with reference to the Law, but found little representation among the ancient Jews. The Qarites were the first to emphasize it in the eighth century. Before this time there is no trace of Hebrew grammar, or Hebrew dictionary. The Qarites threw off the yoke of Rabbinical Halacha, and devoted themselves to the literal sense and became extreme literalists. Influenced by them, Saadia introduced the literal method into the Rabbinical schools, and used it as the most potent weapon to overcome the Qarites. He became the father of Jewish exegesis in the Middle Ages, and was followed by a large number of distinguished scholars, who have left monuments of Jewish learning.2 Wogue attributes this rise of the literal method to the influence of Arabic learning at Bagdad, Bassora, and Cairo. But the Arabs and the Persians received their impulses from the Nestorian schools of Edessa and Nisibis, which mediated the transition of Greek learning to the Orient, which also from the times of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Lucius of Samosata, had been chiefly characterized by their historic method of exegesis.3

Thus in Judaism there grew up three great parties which struggled with one another during the Middle Ages. The sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament were buried under a mass of tradition that was heaped upon them more and more for centuries, until it became necessary for the interpreter who would understand the holy word itself to force his way through this mass, as at the present day one who would find the ancient Jerusalem must dig through eighteen centuries of débris under which it has been buried in the strifes of nations.

There is doubtless truth at the bottom of all these systems. There is a certain propriety in distinguishing the fourfold sense. The literal sense will not apply except to the plainest matter-of

1 See Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, London, 1865, pp. 131 seq.; Wogue in l.c., pp. 274 seq.; Chiarini in l.c., pp. 95 seq.; Siegfried in l.c., pp. 290 seq.; Etheridge, Jerusalem and Tiberias, Sora and Cordova, 1856, pp. 354 seq. 2 Wogue in l.c., pp. 208 seq.; Etheridge, l.c., p. 226.

3 P. 193.

fact passages; the Haggada method is necessary in the rhetorical parts of Scripture. The Halacha method is necessary for the determination of the principles embedded in the Scriptures. The Sodh method is necessary in the interpretation of prophetic symbolism, and the esoteric instruction of the Bible. If each of these four methods had been restricted to its own appropriate sphere in the Bible, they would have coöperated with great advantage; but where these methods are applied at the same time to the same passages with the view that the Scripture has a manifold sense; where again these methods are applied arbitrarily to all passages; where they are used to remove difficulties and to maintain traditional opinions; or where any one method is made to usurp the functions of all, there can only result as there did result in fact the utmost arbitrariness and confusion. The Bible was no longer interpreted; it was used as the slave of traditional systems and sectarian prejudices.

II. HELLENISTIC INTERPRETATION

The Hellenistic Jews were largely under the influence of the Platonic philosophy, which they sought to reconcile with the Old Testament Scriptures. The chief of the Hellenistic Jews is Philo of Alexandria. Philo was not a Hebrew scholar, but was acquainted with the Aramaic of Palestine, and probably also with the ancient Hebrew.1 He does not use the Hebrew text, but bases himself entirely on the Greek version, and uses tradition in its two forms of Halacha and Haggada, but especially the latter, which he elaborates in the direction of the Sodh or allegorical method. He distinguishes between the literal sense and the allegorical as between the body and the soul.2 The sense like a fluid pervades the letter. The allegory is a wise architect who builds on the ground of the Scriptures an architectural structure.3

The allegorical method of Philo is so well stated by Siegfried, that I shall build upon him in detail, while I pursue my own method in a more general arrangement. There are three rules to determine when the literal sense is excluded: (1) when anything 1 Siegfried in l.c., pp. 141 seq. 2 De migr. Abraham, xvi.

3 De Somn., II. 2.

is said unworthy of God; (2) when it presents an insoluble difficulty; (3) when the expression is allegorical. The last rule alone is sound, the others are a priori, and result in the imposition on the Scriptures of the preconceptions and prejudices of the interpreter. The rules of Philo's allegorical method given by Siegfried are twenty-three in number.1 I shall arrange them under four heads in a somewhat different order.

I. Grammatical allegory. An allegory is indicated in the use of certain particles; in the modifications of words by prefixes or affixes; in stress upon number of noun and tense of verb; in gender of words; in the use or absence of the article. Here grammatical exegesis is insufficient; there are mysterious hidden meanings to be found in these grammatical peculiarities.

II. Rhetorical allegory is found in the repetition of words; in redundancy of style; in reiteration of statement; in changes of expression; in synonyms; in play upon words; in striking expressions; in position of words; in unusual connections of verses; in the omission of what would be expected; in the unexpected use of terms. Here rhetorical exegesis is insufficient; there must be a hidden sense in any departure from the plain prosaic form.

III. Allegory by means of new combinations is gained by changing the punctuation; by giving a word all its possible meanings; by internal modifications of the word; by new combinations of words. This method was more fully wrought out by the Cabalists 2 and is the most abnormal of all forms of allegory.

IV. Symbolism is of three kinds of numbers, of things, and of names. This method is the most appropriate of the forms of allegory; its propriety is recognized by modern exegesis when used within due bounds.

To Philo and his school the inner sense attained by allegory was the real sense designed by God. The method of Philo was doubtless used to a great extent among the Essenes and the Zealots. There are traces of it in the pseudepigraphs and apocryphal books that were composed in the time of Philo. Josephus was also influenced by Philo, and was inclined to the 1 In l.c., pp. 165 seq. 2 See p. 432.

use of allegory, as we see from his treatment of the tabernacle.1 There is truth at the bottom of the allegorical method, namely, that human language is inadequate to convey the thoughts of God to man. At the best it can only be a sign and external representation. We must go back of the sign to the thing signified. The mistake of the allegorical method is in extending it beyond its legitimate bounds, and making every word and syllable and letter of Scripture an allegory of some kind, and in using it to escape difficulties of philosophy and theology, and in order to maintain peculiar religious views.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The writings of New Testament Scripture use and interpret Old Testament Scripture. It is important for us to determine the nature and principles of this interpretation, and its relation to the Rabbinical and Hellenistic methods.

In the Old Testament prior to the exile, the prophets use earlier writings by way of citation rather than interpretation. This use is in the nature of free reproduction and application rather than an exposition of their sense. During the periods of oral revelation and prophecy, the interpretation of ancient Scripture was of little importance. It was only when prophecy ceased, and oral revelations were discontinued, that it was necessary to ascertain the divine will by the interpretation of ancient written documents.

After the exile, Ezra introduced the more systematic study of the Scripture, and established the midrash method, in seeking for the meaning of ancient Scriptures and their application to the present. The people were assembled, and Ezra and the Levites "read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and they understood in the reading. The aim of Ezra and his associates was to make the law of God so plain that the people generally could understand it.

2

The New Testament writers constantly use the Old TestaDo they employ the methods in use by the Palestinian

ment.

1 Antiq., III. 7, 7; Siegfried in l.c., pp. 278 seq.

2 Neh. 88.

and Hellenistic Jews of their time? Different answers have been given to this question from partisan points of view. It is important to ascertain the real facts of the case. The most important use of the Scripture is ever the last and the highest in the process of interpretation, namely, practical interpretation or application; for the divine revelation has in view, above all, human conduct. This is most frequently employed in the New Testament by Jesus and His apostles. The most familiar example is in the temptation of Jesus, when He overcomes Satan by the application of the words of the law: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God;" "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God; ""Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."1 These will suffice, also, as specimens of the literal interpretation as used by Jesus.

In conflict with the Pharisees He usually employs the Halacha method as most appropriate to controversy with them, defeating them with their own weapons. Thus He employed Ps. 826, arguing from the greater to the less.

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

He used the Halacha method of arguing from the inner contrast of general and particular in Ps. 1101.

"How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?" 3

Again in the interpretation of the Sabbath law Matthew let Jesus quote from 1 Sam. 2116; Num. 289-10; Hos. 66; on the principle that Scripture passages may be used to supplement one another.

"Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of

1 Mt. 44-10.

2 John 1034-36

3 Mt. 2243-45 See p. 264.