able to write only in an unformed hand, I have yet written to you,' then he expressed himself very obscurely and ineptly, when he said, "you see with what long letters I have written to you with my own hand." We wonder how Usteri could have called this interpretation the most natural.

When we compare together the words of the apostle in Gal. 6: 1, “you see πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν I have written to you with mine own hand," and the words in 2 Thess. 3: 17," the salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle; so I write," should not the first thought that rises in our minds be, that Paul had the same reason for mentioning, in the former passage, the style of his chirography, that he had for mentioning the same in the latter? If we may take linos in the sense of noios, the passage is easily explained, and the one is in all respects parallel with the other. That this interpretation is absolutely inadmissible, cannot be easily maintained. According to the Greek grammarians, πηλίκον stands also for ποῖον. So likewise in all languages, the significations of the interrogative pronouns run into one another. Even the Latin style of the second (or silver) age admitted the word quanti instead of quot. However we need not by any means suppose, that ηixov expressed, in this passage, a quality that was altogether indeterminate. If the great size of his alphabetic characters were a distinguishing mark of the hand-writing of Paul, then the expression may involve a reference to this mark. 'You see with what characters, that is, with what large letters, I have written to you with mine own hand; from this circumstance you may know that this letter is genuine."2

1 See Etymologicum Magnum.

2 See note D, at the close of this Treatise.

CHAPTER II.

EARLY LIFE OF THE APOSTLE.

Influence of the instruction which Paul received in the Jewish schools.His familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures.-Mode in which he was taught to study thein.-Effect of this mode. - Resemblance between Paul and Hamann.-Socratic exercises in the Jewish schools; their influence.Character of the Jewish teachers, particularly of Gamaliel.

Let us now inquire into the influence of the instruction, which the apostle received in the capital city.

What was taught in the kind of schools in which he received his education? The instruction of the doctors of the law, and Gamaliel was one of these, consisted exclusively in the interpreting of the Scriptures. The object of this interpretation was, partly, to develop from the inspired word the prescriptions of ecclesiastical law; and partly, to connect with biblical interpretation various kinds of instruction in ethical science. The former of these systems of instruction was called the Halache; the latter was called the Agadda. As even at the present day in the academies called Medressehs, the young men among the Mohammedans are instructed in the Koran, that they may be qualified both for teachers of religion, and for lawyers; so likewise the young men among the Jews were instructed in the rules for the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, adopted by the Rabbins.3 We must not, however, conceive of this biblical interpretation, as the individual work of the Rabbi who was instructing at any particular period. It consisted rather, for the most part, in the traditions of past history, respecting the opinions and instructions of celebrated Rabbins upon the inspired word.

How much the education of the apostle availed for giving him a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, we perceive in his remarkably copious and ready use of all parts of the sacred writings, and in the additional fact that he ordinarily quotes from memory. Koppe, who regards the Epistle to the Hebrews as the production of Paul, has collected eighty-eight quotations from the Old Testament, of

1 See note E, at the close of this Treatise.

2 Acts 5: 34.

3 [Botte Hamedrasch der Rabbinen. For an explanation of the Midrasch, or Midras, see Lightfoot's Works, Vol. XII. p. 96.-TR.]

which it is thought probable that at least forty-nine were cited from memory. Koppe is also inclined to the opinion, and so likewise are more recent interpreters, as Bleek,1 and more especially Schulz,2 that every one of Paul's citations, without an exception, is made from memory. Bleek has also shown more clearly than any other, that often the apostle's memory referred not to the text of the Septuagint, but to that of the original Hebrew. This opinion receives probability from the fact that we find it confirmed in the case of John, Matthew, and other writers of the New Testament.3 That Paul was well acquainted with the Jewish traditions is evident from many passages in his writings, as for example 2 Tim. 3: 8.

The instructions, however, which were derived from the passages of Scripture produced for examination in the Jewish schools, were derived in such a way, as to increase profoundness of thought in minds which were capable of it; but more especially to increase mental acumen. Very easily, also, there would be called forth a trifling and pragmatical inquisitiveness, that would press single letters in all ways. Resemblances in words, the order in which passages of the Bible should follow each other, the nature of particular letters, alphabetical alterations, the Greek punctuation of the Targum, the sound and signification of similar words from the Aramaean and Arabic, must have served as the points to which the instructions from the Bible were attached. "But this freedom of investigation would neither falsify the Scripture, nor take away its appropriate meaning; because these exercises were adopted for the sake of free discussion, not of a blind law. The more extensive the field, that each man had for mental exercise in discussing the sacred books at the Agadda, so much the less authority could be yielded to the word of a single individual. The Agadda, therefore, had no binding authority at all, either for interpretation, or for practice."4

Most commonly, the meaning of the sacred Scriptures was investigated in four different ways. The first related to the simple historical meaning of words; the second to the higher sense, which was intended by the writers themselves, as in parables, prophetic visions, etc.; the third to the higher sense, which the writers them1 See Bleek's Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 343. * See the Halle Literary Journal, 1829, No. 104.

3 See the discussion of this subject in Eichhorn's Bibliothek, Vol. II. 4 Zung on the Religious Discourses of the Jews. Berlin, 1832, p. 327.

selves did not intend, but which seems to have been intimated by the Spirit of God; and the fourth, to the felicitous combination of some one truth with a passage of Scripture, so as to manifest the intimate union and the relation of dependence, subsisting between the former and the latter. In the treatment of the sacred writings, it was esteemed the most important excellence to make use of the greatest possible subtlety, and thereby to give them the greatest possible copiousness of meaning. The later Rabbins boasted that they were PP, that is, they exhibited subtlety in the interpretation of the Scriptures. So likewise Josephus3 asserts, that only one thing was prized by the Jews as it should be, and that is, the man who is able to interpret rightly the duvaus of the Scriptures. "They accord wisdom to him only who clearly understands the law, and is able to interpret the power of the sacred writings." This whole method of interpretation is among us decidedly and rightly condemned, on account of its extravagances. The more disproportionately the whole spiritual life of the Jews was confined to one code of but limited extent, and to its traditional interpretation, and the more a pressing of the letter was resorted to for filling up what was wanting in the spirit, so much the more did their interpretation of the Bible become a caricature.

There are two things, however, which we must not forget. One has been noticed above, that these subtle interpretations never in any way made pretensions to restore the real meaning of the author, but claimed to be allowed merely as ingenious fancies. To such fancies we may properly apply the remark of Cicero," it is the part of an ingenious man to be able so to turn the force of a word, as to give it a different meaning from what others assign to it." The other thought is, that though monstrous and ridiculous specimens of translating and interpreting language are found in the works of most Rabbins, there are yet various exceptions. By some this method of interpreting is employed in a manner no less profound and indicative

1 The first of these modes was expressed by t, the second by 10, the third by, the fourth by . The whole four are ordinarily expressed by the abbreviation 72, paradise.

2 What Rabbi Joshua Levita, in his ninyo, says concerning the manner, in which the Jewish literati labored in the interpretation of Scripture, is very characteristic of the mental habits of the older Rabbins. 3 See his Antiquities, 1. xx. c. xi.

of genius, than is done by Hamann,1 who, in the same way as the steel upon flintstone, strikes directly upon every passage of Scripture, so as to bring from it sparks of fire. Attend for example to the following remark from him, which while it throws out highly significant allusions on all sides, expresses, at the same time, in a manner indicative of profound investigation, a thought to which we also would subscribe.2 "Because Moses," he says, "places the life in the blood, all genuine Rabbins are struck with horror at the spirit and life in the prophets; and are therefore led to sacrifice the strict meaning of words, as the only darling son was sacrificed & пagaßoln, Heb. 11: 19, and they convert into blood the streams of eastern wisdom."3

Shall we now say, that the influence of this mode of education on the mind of the apostle is manifest? Certainly every reader of the Pauline Epistles can adduce many passages in which he thinks himself able to perceive such an influence. Moreover, if we will once attend to the fact, that the characteristics just described, predominated in the writings and schools of those Jewish literati, then the influence of the apostle's early education will appear to be the key to the mode in which he treats the Old Testament. It will also be the key to the subtlety which he exhibits in many other respects.

We have besides no inclination to oppose the idea of such an influence. If in one man, James for instance, the operation of the more ascetic features of Pharisaism is conspicuous, why should not the operation of that biblical learning, which the Pharisees possessed, be conspicuous in Paul ?4 The apostles, so far as the form is con

See Note F, at the close of the Treatise.

2 [The analysis of this singularly figurative passage seems to be the following. Because Moses places the life of an animal in the blood, which may be shed, all genuine Rabbins are struck with horror at the spiritual life which is found in the prophetical writings, and therefore wish to destroy it. As Isaac was sacrificed figuratively, (èv πapaßoly), so these Rabbins sacrifice the strict meaning of words by resorting to allegory; and as the life of these passages is thus taken away, the wise instructions of the Orientals appear, under the Rabbinical commentary, to be but puerile trifling. The streams of wisdom are made dark with blood,' as so much blood has been shed, i. e. life of style destroyed by false interpretation. There seems to be a play upon the word, blood, throughout the passage.-TR.]

See Note G, at the close of the Treatise.

4 Schneckenburger, in the treatise entitled, "Were the Pharisees Religious Philosophers, or Ascetics," has made the assertion that, as Pharisees,