(xviii. 24), to which, no doubt, others might be added. But I cannot find sufficient evidence of this
allegorical method in the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The reasoning of Hartmann (u. s., pp. 542-
547) seems to me greatly strained. Of the existence of allegorical interpretations in the Synoptic Gospels,
or of any connection with Hellenism, such as Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loesner (Obs. ad. N.T. e Phil.
Alex) put into them, I cannot, on examination, discover any evid ence. Similarity of expressions, or even
of thought, afford no evidence of inward connection. Of the Gospel by St. John we shall speak in the
sequel. In the Pauline Epistles we find, as might be expected, some allegorical interpretations, chiefly in
those to the Corinthians, perhaps owing to the connection of that church with Apollos. Comp here 1
Cor. ix. 9; x. 4 (Philo, Quod deter. potiori insid. 31); 2 Cor. iii. 16; Gal. iv. 21. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the Apocalypse we cannot here speak.
But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of sober interpretation. it is otherwise in the
letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas, to which reference has already been made.23 Here the wildest
symbolism is put into the mouth of the High-Priest Eleazar, to convince Aristeas and his fellow-
ambassador that the Mosaic ordinances concerning food had not only a political reason - to
keep Israel separate from impious nations - and a sanitary one, but chiefly a mystical meaning.
The birds allowed for food were all tame and pure, and they fed on corn or vegetable products,
the opposite being the case with those forbidden. The first lesson which this was intended to
teach was, that Israel must be just, and not seek to obtain aught from others by violence; but, so
to speak, imitate the habits of those birds which were allowed them. The next lesson would be,
that each must learn to govern his passions and inclinations. Similarly, the direction about cloven
hoofs pointed to the need of making separation - that is, between good and evil; and that about
chewing the cud to the need of remembering, viz. God and His will.24 In such manner, according
to Aristeas, did the High Priest go through the catalogue of things forbidden, and of animals to
be sacrificed, showing from their `hidden meaning' the majesty and sanctity of the Law.25
23. See p. 25.
24. A similar principle applied to the prohibition of such species as the mouse or the weasel, not only
because they destroyed everything, but because the latter, from its mode of conceiving and bearing,
symbolized listening to evil tales, and exaggerated, lying, or malicious speech.
25. Of course this method is constantly adopted by Josephus. Comp. for example, Ant. iii. 1. 6; 7. 7.
This was an important line to take, and it differed in principle from the allegorical method
adopted by the Eastern Jews. Not only the Dorshey Reshumoth,26 or searches out of the
subtleties of Scripture, of their indications, but even the ordinary Haggadist employed, indeed,
allegoric interpretations. Thereby Akiba vindicated for the `Song of Songs' its place in the
Canon. Did not Scripture say: `One thing spake God, twofold is what I heard,'27 and did not
this imply a twofold meaning; nay, could not the Torah be explained by many different
methods?28 What, for example, was the water which Israel sought in the wilderness, or the
bread and raiment which Jacob asked in Bethel, but the Torah and the dignity which it
conferred? But in all these, and innumerable similar instances, the allegorical interpretation was
only an application of Scripture for homiletical purposes, not a searching into a rationale
beneath, such as that of the Hellenists. The latter the Rabbis would have utterly repudiated, on
their express principle that `Scripture goes not beyond its plain meaning.'29 They sternly insisted,
that we ought not to search into the ulterior object and rationale of a law, but simply obey it. But