Jetsira, or Book of the Creation, dates, in its present form, from about the eighth century: the Sepher ha Zohar, or Book of Splendor, owes its existence to R. Moses of Leon in the thirteenth century. False interpretations of Zohar. The Jetsira develops a It follows, from what has been already said, that little stress can be laid on the passing coincidences between the Kabbalistic books and the New Testament. In their fundamental principles, the two present a total contrast. system of pantheism utterly at variance with Christianity; and the same pantheism lies at the basis of Zohar. At the same time speculations on the Divine Nature are. necessarily so vague, that recent theologians have found in Zohar the whole of Christianity. The two natures of Messiah, and His threefold office, are said to be symbolized in the tree of the ten Sephiroth, and in the Chariot; and those more abstruse questions as to the Person of Christ, which agitated and divided the Church, are said to be anticipated and decided in the mystical dogmas of Simeon ben Jochai. 1 Zunz, 165, who gives numerous examples of later idioms and words. The Talmud contains a reference to a Sepher Jetsira, which Zunz supposes to be an error for Halcoth Jetsira mentioned elsewhere (p. 464 n.). Popular tradition ascribes its authorship to R. Akiba, or even to Abraham. In the absence of an exact criticism of its composition it is impossible to fix the date of its first elements. Cf. Jellinek, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Kabbala, i. Leipsic, 1852. 2 This has been satisfactorily established by Jellinek in his tract, Moses ben Schemtob de Leon und sein verhaltniss zum Sohar, Leipsic, 1851. The warm approval of Jost is sufficient to remove any lingering doubt as to the correctness of Jellinek's conclusion: A. Jellinek und die Kabbala, Leipsic, 1852. Cf. Zunz, pp. 404 f. Jellinek detects the presence of nine different authors in the present work (Jost, p. 10); and it is impossible not to hope for some clear results from his later studies. The other opinions as to the origin of Zohar are given by Joel, Die Religions-philosophie des Sohar, 1849, pp. 61 ff. 3 Schöttg. ii. pp. 294 ff.; 350 ff.; 366 fr. His arguments rest on the convertibility of the terms Shekinah, Metatron, etc., with Messiah, which seems to be unwarranted. Messiah is comparatively rarely mentioned by name, and where the title occurs there is little to justify the identification. Cf. Schöttg. ii. pp. 267, 278, 289, 412, 413. The most remarkable passage (p. 341) seems to have but little of a Christian tone. The passages here referred to maintain expressly the twofold Messias-the Son of David and the Son of Ephraim: cf. p. 360. Authentic Messianic traditions. The direct and unquestionable traditions as to Messiah, which are embodied in Zohar, are more interesting. He is to be revealed first in Galilee,1 coming from the garden of Eden; and a star in the East is to herald His approach: the land which was first laid waste by invaders is to receive first its consolation.2 He is to spring from the race of Boaz and David ;3 and the dove which brought to Noah the tidings that the flood had abated shall hover over Him, and place a crown upon His head. To Him the little ones shall be gathered, and He shall collect the captives from all the corners of the earth.5 He shall enter Jerusalem, according to the prophet, riding on an ass ;" and "drink the cup" of suffering as men ; and Messias, the son of Joseph (or Ephraim), shall die, and rise again; and the dead shall be raised. 6 The indirect influence of these speculations. But while it is impossible to show that the mysticism which gave this form to the doctrine of Messiah after the Christian era had led to any clear conception of a suffering Saviour before His Advent,' it unconsciously prepared the way for a true recognition of His Divine nature. Even in the Pentateuch there are traces of a revealed as well as of a hidden God, of one on whom man may look and still live, of an angel (Maleach) who exercises the functions of deity. This conception of the external manifestation of the Deity was Christian, from the summary of his teaching. An answer of Glæssner is appended, with a rejoinder of Schöttgen, but nevertheless his case seems quite insufficient. In note (2) at the end of the chapter some account of the later Samaritan Christology is given. 9 Friedrich's refutation of Bertholdt's argument in support of the anteChristian doctrine of a suffering Messiah, may be added to the other references which have been given on this subject: Discuss. de Christol. Samar. Lib. Lips. 1821, pp. 12 ff. followed in the later books by a corresponding representation of His invisible energy. In the Book of Proverbs, Wisdom (Khokma, oopia) appears in some degree to fill up the chasm between God and the world; and in the Apocryphal writings this mediative element is apprehended with greater distinctness, but at the same time only partially, and with a tendency to pantheistic error. Meanwhile the growing belief in an angel-world, composed of beings of the most different natures and offices, gave consistency to the idea of a Power standing closer to God than the mightiest among the created hosts. The doctrine thus grounded fell in exactly with the desire of the philosophic interpreters of Scripture to remove from the text the anthropomorphic representations of the Supreme Being; and with varied ingenuity and deep insight into the relations of the creature and the Creator, the finite and the Infinite, they constructed the doctrine of the Word (Memra, λόγος). IV. The doctrine of the Word. The belief in a divine Word, a mediating Power by which God makes Himself known to men in action and teaching, was not confined to any one school at the time of Christ's coming. It found acceptance alike at Jerusalem and Alexandria, and moulded the language of the Targums as well as the speculations of Philo. But there was a characteristic difference in the form which the belief assumed. In Palestine the Word appears, like the Angel of the Pentateuch, as the medium of the outward communication of God with men; in Egypt, as the inner power by which such communication is rendered possible. The one doctrine tends towards the recognition of a divine Person subordinate to God;1 the other, to the recognition of a twofold personality in the divine essence. The earliest Palestinian view of the Word 1. In Palestine. is given in the Targum of Onkelos. In this it is said. 1 Yet the personal Metatron was created. Cf. Dorner, i. 60. the Lord protected Noah by His Word when he entered the Ark: that He made a covenant between Onkelos. Gen. vii. 16. Gen. xv. 1; xvii. 2. he seph in Egypt. Gen. xxviii. 20. The Targum of Abraham and His Word: that the Word of the Lord was with Ishmael in the wilderness; with Abraham at Beersheba; with Isaac when went among the Philistines; with JoAt Bethel, Jacob made a covenant that the Word of the Lord should be his God. Moses, at Sinai, brought forth the people to meet the Word of God. In the Book of Deuteronomy, again, the Word of the Lord appears as a consuming fire, talking to His people from the midst of the mount, and fighting for them against their enemies; and the same image recurs in the Targum of Jonathan on the books of Joshua and Samuel. Exod. xix. 17. Deut. iii. 2; iv. 24. The later Targums. In the later Targums on the Pentateuch, the works of the Word are brought out more plainly. He creates man, and blesses him, and detects his fall. By Him Enoch is translated, and Hagar comforted. He appears to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and provides the ram for him on Moriah. He is present with Jacob at Bethel, in Haran, and in the going down to Egypt. At the Exodus He destroys the first-born of the Egyptians, and delivers His people with mighty signs, and becomes their king.1 1 In due connection with the Memra is the Shekinah, the one regarding the active operation of God, the other His visible presence. The Shekinah, however, is rarely mentioned in the Targums [e. g. Ex. xxv. 8; Num. v. 3, "the Shekinah of the Lord" (Onkelos); and more frequently in the later Targums. Cf. Buxtf. Lex. Rabb. s. v. Gen. ix. 27, already quoted, p. 111 n. 1 offers the most remarkable example of the introduction of the Shekinah], but frequently in Zohar; while the title Memra is exclusively confined to the Targums, or immediately derived from it. In some parallel passages of the Targum both terms occur. Thus in Num. xxiii. 21, Onkelos paraphrases: The Word of the Lord shall be their help, and the Shekinah of their King among them; and Pseudo Jonathan: The Word of the Lord shall be their help, and the triumphal strain of King Messias shall sound among them. Again, in Ex. xx. 24, the Shekinah in Onkelos replaces the Word of the Lord in Pseudo-Jonathan. And conversely in Ex. xix. 17; Deut. xxiii. 14, Shekinah in the PseudoJonathan answers to the Word of the Lord in Onkelos. The first of the passages just quoted has been brought forward to establish 2. In Egypt. PHILO. The variety and inconsistency Philo's views. of The representation of the nature and functions of the Word in Philo is far removed from the simplicity of this recognition of an outward Mediator. Various influences combined to modify his doctrine, and the enunciation of it is perplexed and inconsistent. The very title, Logos, with its twofold meaning, speech and reason, was a fruitful source of ambiguity;1 and this first confusion was increased by the tempting analogies of Greek philosophy in conflict with the Hebrew faith in the absolute unity of God. As a necessary consequence, the Logos is described under the most varied forms. At one time it is the mind of God in which the archetypal world exists, as the design of an earthly fabric in the mind of the architect. At another time it is the inspirer of holy men, the spring and food of virtue. At another time it is the Son of God, the First-born, all-pervading, all-sustaining, and yet personally distinct from God. At another time the conception of two distinct divine personalities yields to the ancient dogma, and the Logos, while retaining its divine attributes, is regarded only as a special conception of God, as reasoning, acting, creating. Philo's interpretations compared with those in the Targums. The contrast between the wavering conceptions of Philo and the simple statement of the Targumists is seen clearly in the pas sages where they recognize in common the presence of the identity of the Word of the Lord with Messiah, [Schöttgen iii. 5, 6; Bertholdt § 24. The passage quoted by the latter (note 3) from Targ. Jon. Is. xlii. 1, is differently given by Schöttgen iii. 431; in quo Verbum meum (majestas mea) sibi complacet]; but even if it were less equivocal it could have but little weight against the whole tenor of early Jewish writings. Not only is the proposed interpretation doubtful, but eisewhere unparalleled. It is worthy of notice that the eight names of Messiah given in the Midrash Mischle (xiith cent.) on the authority of R. Huna († 290 A.D.) contain nothing to identify Him with the Word or Shekinah. Compare the names given by Philo de confus. ling. § 28. The union of the Shekinah with Messiah is taught in Zohar. Cf. Bertholdt, § 24, n. 3. 1 The distinction is recognized in the contrast of the λόγος προφορικός and the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, de vita Μos. iii. 12 (ii. p. 154). 2 De mund. opif. § 4 ff. (i. pp. 4 ff.) The whole passage is most characteristic and instructive. |