who when her friend and beloved passes by, opens for a moment a secret window and is seen by him alone, and then withdraws herself immediately and disappears for a long time, so the doctrine only shows herself to the chosen, (¿. e., to him who is devoted to her body and soul); and even to him not always in the same manner. At first she simply beckons at the passer-by with her hand, and it generally depends upon his understanding this gentle hint. This is the interpretation known by the name . Afterwards she approaches him a little closer, lisps him a few words, but her form is still covered with a thick veil which his looks cannot penetrate. This is the so-called . She then converses with him with her face covered by a thin veil; this is the enigmatical language of 7am. After having thus become accustomed to her society, she at last shows herself face to face and entrusts him with the innermost secrets of her heart. This is the secret of the law 710.”*

There are three principles of Cabalistic interpretation: (1) Notariqon—to reconstruct a word by using the initials of many, or a sentence by using all the letters of a single word for initial letters of other words; (2) Ghematria-the use of the numerical values of the letters of a word for purposes of comparison with other words which yield the same or similar combinations of numbers; (3) Temura-the permutation of letters by the three Cabalistic alphabets, called 'Atbach, 'Albam, and Athbash.†

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 expression 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

* We give the translation of Ginsburg in l. c., p. 130; comp. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alt. Test., 1875, Jena, p. 291.

+ See Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, London, 1865, p. 131, seq.; Wogue in l. c., p. 274, seq.; Chiarini in l. c., p. 95, seq.; Siegfried in 7. c., p. 290, seq.

extreme literalists. Influenced by them Saadia intro duced 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.* Wogue attributes this rise of the lit. eral 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 (see p. 325).

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-fact passages; the Haggada method is necessary in the rhetorical parts of Scripture. The Halacha method is necessary for the deter. mination of the principles embedded in the Scriptures.

* Wogue in l. c., p. 208, seg.

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 co-operated 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 recon. cile 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.* He does not use the Hebrew text, but bases himself entirely on the LXX, 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, the sense like a fluid pervades the letter. The allegory is a wise architect which builds on the ground of the Scriptures an architectural structure.‡

*Siegfried in 1. c., p. 141, seq. ↑ De migr. Abraham xvi. ‡ De Somn. Å, ¿

The allegorical method of Philo is so well stated by Siegfried, that we shall build upon him in detail, while we pursue our own method in a more general arrange. ment. There are three rules to determine when the literal sense is excluded; (1) when anything 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 twentythree in number.* We 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

* In /. c., p. 165, seq.

word; by new combinations of words. This method was more fully wrought out by the Cabalists (see p. 303), and is the most abnormal of all the 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 Zelots. 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 use of allegory, as we see from his treatment of the tabernacle.* 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 SCRIPTURE 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 interpre