Page images
PDF
EPUB

56

CHAPTER II.

JEWISH THEOLOGY.

SECTION I.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF JEWISH OPINIONS, FROM THE APOCRYPHA, THE TARGUMS, AND THE WORKS OF PHILO JUDÆUS.

THE interval between the completion of the Old Tes tament canon and the establishment of Christianity, was fraught with changes in the character of the Jewish people, more extraordinary than those of any previous part of their history. At the former period, the full development of the effects of the Babylonish captivity upon the national manners had not taken place. Upon these followed the assumption of the regal power, first by the Asmonæan Monarchs, and subsequently by the Herodian dynasty; the conquests of Alexander, and the persecutions of Antiochus; the influence of Greek literature, especially upon the Alexandrian Jews; and the establishment of the eventually devastating sway of imperial Rome. These, with a number of other causes of less note, yet still of no insignificant energy, conspired to render the character and circumstances of the Jews, at the time of our Lord's advent, very different from what they were at the restoration of Jerusalem under Arta

xerxes.

Accordingly we find in the New Testament, not only

much that in common with the rest of the sacred writings is peculiar to the style of Hebrew thought and expression, but much also characteristic of its own exclusive period and purpose. Hence many of the phrases currently employed by its writers, and by our Lord himself, are such as had been introduced into the theological and moral diction of the Jews since the completion of the Old Testament canon. For the explication of these we naturally seek the assistance of contemporary records.

Were any considerable portion extant of the Jewish writings of this period, or were the genuineness of the remains which we possess universally susceptible of satisfactory vindication, we might arrive at conclusions upon the tone and peculiarities of the then Jewish theology more clearly illustrative of the New Testament Scriptures than any for which we can at present hope. As it is, the results of our investigation are far from being commensurate to the labour and patience at which they are procured. Indeed the only sources of information of this class, not liable to serious objection, are the writings of the Apocrypha, the Targum of Onkelos, and the works of Philo Judæus.

The Apocryphal books were principally the production of Alexandrian Jews, and generally, in point of time, hold about a middle place between the completion of the Old Testament and the commencement of the Christian era. They can hardly therefore be cited as directly illustrative of the opinions of the latter period; yet they are interesting and instructive, as supplying the germs of certain opinions and modes of expression which in a subsequent age became prominent and remarkable.

The Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases of the Old Testament books, seem to have been intended for the better information of the Jewish people, when the pure Hebrew was no longer generally intelligible. It is probable that this medium of instruction was partially

resorted to soon after the ancient language had fallen into desuetude; but it was not till a later period that it came into general use. Of these books, that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel upon the Prophets claims precedence in point of antiquity. And were we assured of its genuineness and uncorrupted preservation, it would doubtless merit very high estimation. But the work now extant under the name of this author has undergone both mutilation and interpolation; and portions of it are probably wholly diverted from their original sense. Some critics, it is true, have deemed the distinction between the ancient and modern passages so conspicuous and decisive, as to allow no more doubt and difficulty in their discrimination than, in an awkwardly patched garment, there is between the original material and the subsequent additions. With respect to particular parts, there is no doubt of the correctness of this opinion; but till the complete separation is actually effected by some masterly critic and scholar, ordinary readers must be content to regard the whole as of little comparative use, except so far as its opinions meet with confirmation from less suspicious quarters. The Targum on the Pentateuch, which bears the name of Jonathan, and the fragments called the Jerusalem Targum, if indeed they are not substantially identical, are probably also the patchwork of later ages upon a ground of very respectable antiquity. And though in many parts of these there does not need much critical acumen to detect the modern Rabbinical additions, yet on the whole they are practically of even less value than the foregoing.

But the Targum of Onkelos is not liable to these exceptions. It is rather a translation than a paraphrase, and its deviations from the literal rendering of the Hebrew are comparatively rare and inconsiderable. It has none of those absurd Jewish fables by which other Targums are disfigured, and has been so highly

esteemed among the Jews as to have been commonly read in the synagogues. Nor does there seem any reason to doubt that it has descended to us in a state as uncorrupt as ancient records generally. This therefore alone, in the inquiry before us, can be regarded as decisive authority, except so far as those others may serve for its confirmation or illustration. No valid objection, it is presumed, can be alleged against the evidence which it supplies from the circumstance of its not having been written till nearly the close of the first century; since it is not easily conceivable that, within sixty years, any serious changes could have been introduced into the Jewish theology. Where indeed the Targums in general furnish any historical or doctrinal testimony to the truth of Christianity, we need not hesitate to avail ourselves of it to the utmost, since it is evident that no Jews would become parties to a fraud, in corroboration of a religion which they so determinately abhorred.

But the writings of Philo belong to the precise period respecting which we inquire, and, upon the points of which they treat, are usually sufficiently voluminous. In addition to which, their genuineness is not suspected. They are therefore, in many respects, the most valuable aids to the present part of our investigation which we can command, and will consequently be employed at some length. Respecting their celebrated author, very diverse opinions have been entertained.* The fact seems to have been, that Philo was what his countrymen have very generally esteemed him, a learned Jew, well versed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and not unacquainted with Gentile philosophy, especially with that of Plato; and that a principal design of his writings was to recommend the Institutes of Moses, as

* For some remarks on these, see Note (B).

containing the elements of all true philosophy, and the most venerable and profound mysteries of scientific and theological truth. Many of his expositions are extravagant, and were probably exclusively his own; but there is no grave reason to doubt that his leading opinions represent, not unfaithfully, the theology of the more cultivated Jews of his times.

One of the most interesting topics of inquiry suggested by these Jewish records is the proper signification of the frequently occurring term, THE WORD, the MEMRA DA JEJA of the Targumists, and the LoGoS of the Apocrypha and of Philo. This question has been, on each hand, the subject of extreme opinions. Men of sanguine minds, considering the Logos of St. John as an eminent appellation of the second Person of the Trinity, have assumed this fact as supplying an invariable law for the interpretation of writings by no means remarkable for consistency; and have hence deduced an argument for the faith of the Jews in the Deity of the Messiah, not destitute of plausibility, yet far from adequate to their conclusions.

On the other hand, the term in itself allows of a variety of acceptations, and primarily does not involve the idea of personality. It is natural therefore to expect that it would often occur without any such reference. Hence writers of a cooler and more sceptical turn have taken occasion to deny that it is ever used in a personal sense, and have cited in proof a number of passages incontestably susceptible of another signification. What is greatly to be deplored, either for want of due examination, or from their eagerness to substantiate their own opinions, the advocates of each of these extreme views have been betrayed into statements, the inaccuracy of which it requires but little investigation to detect.

As is usual in such cases, the truth lies between the

« PreviousContinue »