We have reserved to the last the consideration of the statement, that among the Jews the
Holy Spirit was presented under the symbol of a dove. It is admitted, that there is no
support for this idea either in the Old Testament or in the writings of Philo (Lücke,
Evang. Joh. i. pp. 425, 426); that, indeed, such animal symbolism of the Divine is foreign
to the Old Testament. But all the more confident appeal is made to Rabbinic writings.
The suggestion was, apparently, first made by Wetstein.33 It is dwelt upon with much
confidence by Gfrörer34 and others, as evidence of the mythical origin of the Gospels;35 it
is repeated by Wünsche, and even reproduced by writers who, had they known the real
state of matters, would not have lent their autho rity to it. Of the two passages by which
this strange hypothesis is supported, that in the Targum on Cant. ii. 12 may at once be
dismissed, as dating considerably after the close of the Talmud. There remains, therefore,
only the one passage in the Talmud,36 which is generally thus quoted: 'The Spirit of God
moved on the face of the waters, like a dove.'37 That this quotation is incomplete,
omitting the most important part, is only a light charge against it. For, if fully made, it
would only the more clearly be seen to be inapplicable. The passage (Chag. 15 a ) treats
of the supposed distance between 'the upper and the lower waters,' which is stated to
amount to only three fingerbreadths. This is proved by a reference to Gen. i. 2, where the
Spirit of God is said to brood over the face of the waters, 'just as a dove broodeth over her
young without touching them.' It will be noticed, that the comparison is not between the
Spirit and the dove, but between the closeness with which a dove broods over her young
without touching them, and the supposed proximity of the Spirit to the lower waters
without touching them.38 But, if any doubt could still exist, it would be removed by the
fact that in a parallel passage,39 the expression used is not 'dove' but 'that bird.' Thus
much for this oft- misquoted passage. But we go farther, and assert, that the dove was not
the symbol of the Holy Spirit, but that of Israel. As such it is so universally adopted as to
have become almost historical. 40 If, therefore, Rabbinic illustratio n of the descent of the
Holy Spirit with the visible appearance of a dove must be sought for, it would lie in the
acknowledgment of Jesus as the ideal typical Israelite, the Representative of His People.
33. Nov. Test. i. p. 268.
34. The force of Gfrörer's attacks upon the Gospels lies in his cumulative attempts to
prove that the individual miraculous facts recorded in the Gospels are based upon Jewish
notions. It is, therefore, necessary to examine each of them separately, and such
examination, it carefu l and conscientious, shows that his quotations are often
untrustworthy, and his conclusions fallacies. None the less taking are they to those who
are imperfectly acquainted with Rabbinic literature. Wünsche's Talmudic and Midrashic
Notes on the N.T. (Gottingen, 1878) are also too often misleading.
35. Jahrh. des Heils, vol. ii. p. 433.
36. Chag. 15 a.
37. Farrar, Life of Christ, i. p.
117.
38. The saying in Chag. 15 a is of Ben Soma , who is described in Rabbinic literature as
tainted with Christian views, and whose belief in the possibility of the supernatural birth
of the Messiah is so coarsely satirised in the Talmud. Rabbi Löw (Lebensalter. p. 58)
suggests that in Ben Soma's figure of the dove there may have been a Christian
reminiscence.
39. Ber. R. 2.