Skip to main content

Full text of "[untitled] The Jewish Quarterly Review, (1899-10-01), pages 158-162"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world byJSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


connexion it makes between the various principles, while in certain 
directions it adds certain bonds of union which other systems either 
repudiate or do not recognize at all. Thus, to take one example, the 
conception of Morality as Law, as I call it, or EthicaUty as Legality, 
in Professor Lazarus's phiuse, is a conception repudiated by Pauline 
Christianity, and yet interpenetrates the whole of Jewish life and 
morality. It is because Professor Lazarus's treatise brings out into 
due prominence these combining principles which weld together the 
elements of morality into a definitely Jewish system, that I regard it 
as of such importance in the history of Jewish speculation. 

Joseph Jacobs. 


Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. Vol. II. 
Feign— Kinsman. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1899. 

The second volume of the Edinburgh Dictionary of the Bible carries 
on to the beginning of the letter K the same principles displayed in 
the first volume, and already commented upon in these pages. As 
before, special, and it would seem unnecessary, attention is paid to 
the English terminology of the Authorized Version. No Jewish 
names appear in the very extensive list of contributors, and Jewish 
scholarship is but slightly represented in the Bibliography in the 
treatment of the Realien, where it might be thought no sectarian 
influences need be feared. On the other hand, there seems to be 
less tendency to present what I called "minced manual" to the 
student ; and the articles on the Hexateuch, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, 
are by no means so statistical as that on Exodus, though Genesis and 
Kings are filled with lists, the exact object and value of which 
it is somewhat difficult to see. The volume is distinguished, owing 
to the eccentricities of alphabetical arrangement, by an exceptional 
number of articles on the archaeology of the Old Testament : Food, 
Garden, Gate, Glass, Hair, Headband, Hunting, Hospitality, Jewel, 
and King, fall within the limits of the volume, and go over a large 
section of Old Testament life. It would be impertinence for any one 
person to profess to criticize contributions to the whole field of 
theology by some of the most distinguished theologians of the day. 
I will content myself, as on a previous occasion, with pointing to 
a few cases where Jewish research and Jewish conceptions are not 


adequately represented in the new Bible Dictionary. A few notes, 
following the alphabetical order of the articles, may possibly be of 
use in a future revision of the Dictionary. 

I must, however, make an exception in my comments on the 
longest, and in many ways the most important article in the volume, 
that devoted to "Jesus Christ," which is contributed by the Rev. Prof. 
Sanday, of Oxford, and runs to no less than one hundred columns. 
It is needless to say that Jews are interested in watching the develop- 
ment of Christian opinion about Jesus, both from the historical 
and the theological standpoint, from both of which the contrasting 
position held by Jews of the past and of the present forms a portion 
of the treatment. In particular, the alleged superiority of the 
Christian position, as against the so-called narrowness of the Phari- 
sees, has been contested time after time by Jewish writers, and it is 
of interest to watch how far their protests have aiFected Christian 
opinion. It is pleasant to report a distinct improvement in tone in 
Prof. Sanday's article. In his treatment of the state of religious 
thought and life in Palestine at the beginning of the first century, 
Prof Sanday recognizes the diflSculty and delicacy of his task, 
and adds : — 

" It is too apt to seem like an indictment of the Judaism of 
nineteen centuries, which not only on general grounds, but specially 
in view of the attitude of some Jewish apologists of the present day. 
a Christian theologian will be loth to bring." 

And he does more than recognize the difiiculty; he attempts to over- 
come it. While he adds a section on the darker side of contemporary 
Judaism — an almost necessary section, if the claims of Christianity 
are to be adhered to— he has by a pleasing novelty devoted a section 
to the brighter side of contemporary Judaism, which, according to 
him, consists in the fact that, after all, Judaism is a continuation 
of the religion of the Old Testament, that certain portions of the 
New Testament and of the Apocryphal literature are based on Jewish 
documents, and that the Talmud contains many grains of fine wheat 
among its chaff. We should have more confidence in Prof. Sanday's 
right of judgment on this latter point, if he had not allowed it to be seen 
that he considers Akiba's date a hundred years before the true one. 
Still, it is a new phenomenon for even this much to be allowed, and 
it is clear that the work of Mr. Montefiore in particular has exercised 
a beneficial influence upon current theological speculation on this 
point, so important to Jews. Here, as elsewhere, la viriU est en 
marche. Prof. Sanday draws attention to what he calls the " special 
seed-plot " of Christianity in the importance attributed to the poor in 
the Psalms. It is to be regretted he was not acquainted with the 


work of the late M. Isidore Loeb on this subject, which would have 
convinced him that this was a special seed-plot for even Pharisaic 
Judaism. And when we come to details it is found that many 
conceptions hitherto claimed exclusively for Christianity are, in like 
measure, common to Judaism, and therefore derivative from the 
former religion. Even at the outset, the kingdom of God preached 
by John and Jesus is recognized to have been distinctively Jewish. 
It might have been also recognized in this section that even the 
supernatural surroundings of the baptism are Jewish in form: the 
voice from heaven corresponded to the "Daughter of the Voice," 
familiar in Rabbinic writings. On the other hand, in speaking of 
the method of Jesus, Prof. Sanday grants that the parable was derived 
from the Rabbis, though he naturally claims a higher value for those 
of Jesus. When one comes to the contents of Jesus' teaching, 
Prof. Sanday allows that the God-Father and the Kingdom of God are 
substantially Jewish conceptions, and while he denies that the latter 
is identical with the theocracy of the Old Testament, he is equally 
frank in denying that it is identical with the Christian Church of any 
age. According to him, its peculiar note is that of victory through 
suffering ; but if so, the founder of Christianity is rather " Isaiah " 
than Jesus. Prof. Sanday owns, with considerable frankness, that 
there is little evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in any utterance 
of Jesus, but on the other hand, he contends that it is indirectly 
involved in the references to God as " my Father." He takes up 
a similar cautious position with regard to the miracles. In his 
remarks upon the events of the last week of Jesus' life. Prof. Sanday 
is equally judicial. He does not decide either for or against the 
ingenious suggestion that the Last Supper was the Seder service, 
even though the first day of Passover was on the succeeding Sabbath 
(see J. Q. R., V, 680 seq.). He states against any evidence that in 
the last hours the Pharisees as a party were identified with the 
accusation of Jesus before the Roman procurator. 

With the latter part of Prof. Sanday 's article, dealing with Christo- 
logy rather than with Jesus, Jewish critics have less to do. To use 
his words : — 

"They begin with the assumption that Christ was only man, and 
will treat all the subsequent development as reflecting the growth of 
the delusion by which he came to be regarded as God." 

This statement by itself is sufiicient to indicate the general fairness 
of Prof. Sanday's treatment, and how he recognizes the existence of 
different standpoints. His whole .article is encouraging for the Jewish 
position towards Jesus ; in many points he approaches nearer than 


any previous official writer on the subject, and on the many points 
where Jews and Christians must necessarily disagree, he is fair 
enough to allow for the possibility — and one might even say, the 
justifiability — of such disagreement. 

Reverting to the less important articles, I continue my miscel- 
laneous annotations on the same principle as the previous instalment. 

Fire. — Reference might perhaps here be made to the folk-lore uses of 
fire, which are not without their light on the doctrines of 
sacrifice and taboo generally. 

Flood. — I mention this article, merely to notice vnth somewhat 
pleased surprise that the folk-lore on this subject has been 
adequately dealt vpith, thanks to Andree's work. Mr. Lang has 
some remarks worth calling attention to in his Myfhologie. 

Food. — This very thorough article by Prof. Macalister only uses the 
Talmudic information as given in Surenhusius, which is quoted 
in the "Amsterdam Edition "— there is no other, so far as I am 
aware. Reference might have been made to the rather unsatis- 
factory monograph of Spitzer, Das Mahl bei den alten HebrSern, 
still more to the recent work of Krengel, Das HausgerSt der 

Fringes. — Reference might be here made to the fact that the knots 
on the fringes are made so as to represent the tetragrammaton 
of a gematria, and a comparison might perhaps have been insti- 
tuted with the quipu of the Peruvians. The writer of the article 
does not seem to be aware that talith is a very late word, the 
etymology of which is still doubtful. 

CaK/ee.— Some reference might have been made in this article to 
the Talmudic passages relating to the contemptuous Jewish 
opinion about Galileans. These are given in a convenient form 
in Dr. Neubauer's Geographie du Talmud. 

Gehenna. — A curt reference to the later Jewish views on this subject 
might at least have been supplemented by a reference to Ham- 
burger's article, while it is curious to find no use made of 
Schwally's book. 

Genealogy. — This is a most valuable article, bringing together all the 
genealogies of the Old Testament, with a valuable Index. No 
discussion, however, is given on the object of the more detailed 
genealogies in tribal communities, as, for example, in early 
Wales a man's genealogy represented his title-deeds. The wiiter 
does not discuss Robertson Smith's ingenious views as to the 
possible early existence of exogamy, nor, under "Caleb," the 


suggestion that Calebites were the totem Dog tribe. My sug- 
gestion that the additional names in i Esdras of the Nethinim 
and sons of Solomon's servants were derived from the second 
batch of Nethinim, has escaped the writer's notice. 

Gestures. — The fact of the existence of a gesture language, common 
to the Orientals, might have been mentioned (see Tylor, Earty 
History of Mankind). 

Glass. — Dr. Loewy's paper on this subject in the T.S.B.A. might have 
been referred to. 

Good, chief.— \i this subject was to be at all dealt with, reference 
might at least have been made to Mr. Tyler's edition of Ecclesi- 
astes, that the Greek conception of a sttmmum bonum is to be 
found in that work. 

Hair. — An opportunity has here been lost to refer to the very 
interesting folk-lore customs about hair, which throw light 
upon the Biblical passages. Wilken's tract on Hair Customs 
in South-east Asia was especially noteworthy. 

Isaac. — Beer's Leben Abrahams contains many of the Eabbinic tradi- 
tions about Isaac, and should have been referred to. The same 
remark applies to the article Ishmael. 

From these somewhat scanty annotations it will be seen that it 
is not part of the plan of the new Dictionary to make any thorough 
use of any light which either Jewish tradition or modem folk-lore 
would throw upon Biblical matters. Both omissions are to be 
regretted. It must be allowed that neither source of information 
is easily accessible to the modem theologian, and perhaps, after 
all, neither source is indispensable for such purposes of instruction 
as the new Dictionary attempts to carry out. The new volume, 
which includes the important letter J, is fuller than the first of 
longer articles, and of those devoted to New Testament subjects, 
so that in any case the sources to which I have referred were less 

Meanwhile, I should not like to leave these scattered notes without 
again expressing my appreciation of the thoroughness and widely- 
instructed scholarship with which the contributors to the Dictionary 
have carried out its plan, even though that plan is, in some respects, 
open to criticism. 

Joseph Jacobs.