and artificial setting provided for them (e.g. iv. 21–22, ix. 50, xi. 23 f., xiii. 3-4), and the narrative of the Transfiguration (pp. 76-77) is tentatively regarded as representing originally the earliest account of the Resurrection-in which case its fortunes would be exactly the reverse of those which are sometimes ascribed to the story of John xxi. 1 f.

But, in view of his own sensible remark on p. 21, it would have been more satisfactory to have had some more adequate handling of other dubiously historical passages, such as v. 1-20, vi. 7–13 (vi. 2 is bluntly but arbitrarily pronounced unreliable), xi. 12 f. (which Klein refers to Jer. viii., cf. ver. 13; see Schwartz in Preuschen's Zeitschrift, v. 80 f.), all the more so, as even the reasons occasionally adduced elsewhere (e.g. pp. 50–51, 79) do not carry conviction with them. It is unduly sceptical to throw doubts on the Lord's Prayer (p. 98), or on x. 7, xii. 12, xiv. 20–21, 62, much more on the eveɣkaλioáμevos of x. 16 (for which he prefers to substitute the πрookaλeσáμevos of D and Syr. Sin.), or to object to xiv. 12–16 and to xiv. 38 in its present setting. The conjecture ¡7' (Saidan=Bethsaida) for the Sidon of vii. 31 has more in its favour than the deletion of ypaμμateîs in ix. 14. In x. 6 he makes the interesting suggestion that άπò àρуns ктíσews is, a reference to Genesis in the well-known Jewish manner of quotation, and x. 39 is taken to imply John's early, tragic death. But it is arbitrary to dismiss x. 45b as a μeтáßaσis eis åλλò yévos (see the recent examination of it in Dr Denney's Death of Christ, pp. 38 f.). Here as elsewhere the limitations of Wellhausen's method, which aims at exhibiting results rather than processes, serve perhaps to lend an unduly oracular and cavalier tone to his pages, just as the absence of any introduction, summing up his views on the authorship and date and object of the Gospel, obliges one to fit together incidentally scattered hints if one wishes to get any coherent idea of the principles upon which his synoptic criticism proceeds. This latter difficulty will be eased, of course, as later volumes of his commentary appear. And for this reason I shall defer any notice of the author's comments on the "Son of Man" problem (pp. 66 f.) and the chronology of the Passion week (p. 114), till I come to notice the companion volume on Matthew which has just been issued.

Meantime it is enough to describe this small book as an almost indispensable handbook to the study of the Gospels, so fascinating is its robust, incisive manner. It neither supersedes, nor will it be superseded by, other commentaries upon a larger scale, for Wellhausen goes on his own road and looks at things with his own eyes. His rare allusions to any fellowworkers will add only to the gaiety, if not to the profit, of theologians, though one is sorry to find two pages (95, 141) disfigured by unworthy gibes at Weiss. On the contrast between Mark x. 13-16 and 17-31, he aptly cites Richard II. (Act V., Scene 3). It is a pity that his Shaksperean studies did not extend to Isabella's quiet rebuke of Angelo for the abuse of a giant's strength.

DUNDONALD.

JAMES MOFFATT.

Christianity in Talmud and Midrash.-By R. Travers Herford, B.A.— London: Williams & Norgate, 1903.

THE early Christian writings, especially the New Testament, are full of references to the Jews and Judaism; so that nothing would be more natural than to suppose that the Jewish writings of the same period would have a great deal to tell us of Christians and Christianity. But it is notorious that any such expectation is disappointed. There are not half a dozen passages in these writings that contain unequivocal references to Jesus and his apostles; and there are but few unambiguous notices of the Christians. Yet the rabbis of the first three centuries, in every part of the world, must have been acquainted with Christianity, and we need not wonder that scholars should still ransack their utterances to see what they will yield.

This is what Mr Travers Herford has done. He has collected no fewer than a hundred and thirty-nine passages from Talmud and Midrash, transcribing, translating, and commenting; to say nothing of others which he quotes and makes use of. It is not his fault that the result is meagre, or that he often leaves us after all with a question whether this or that passage has any connection with Christianity at all, and if so, where we are to discover the trait in Christianity with which it deals. He attacks his problem cautiously enough. No one, whether agreeing with his conclusions or not, will accuse him of "having begged the question that he set out to answer" (p. 361). Where he is uncertain he suspends his judgment, and finds consolation for the poverty of his results in the thought that at any rate he has gathered more abundant materials for judgment than can be found elsewhere. Some future investigator, he hopes, will profit by them, and will penetrate further into the matter, should it really be possible. All honour to the man who works in this spirit, and gives us the results of his labours, long and far from light, with so much modesty!

Yet I cannot withhold certain considerations-weighty, as I think,that may be urged against his book. He lays his basis analytically, collecting successively all the passages which he thinks are to the purpose, first those "referring to Jesus and his apostles," of which there are five-andtwenty, and then the far more numerous ones "relating to his followers,” that is to say, the Christians of the early centuries. These latter are arranged under several heads, and the whole series is numbered, the original texts being given in an appendix.

The analysis is followed by a synthesis (pp. 342–397), which contains, first, a summary of all that Talmud and Midrash teach as to Jesus; and, second, an attempt to show that by the Minîm we are to understand Christians, and specifically Jewish Christians. Some twenty years ago, when myself dealing with substantially the same subject on which Mr Travers Herford is now occupied,1 I had no hesitation in assuming in like

1 "Joden en Christenen in Palestina op het eind der eerste eeuw," Theologisch Tijdschrift, xvii. (1883), pp. 509–576. Let me warn any reader who may care to consult this essay that in the index of passages from Talmud and Midrash with which it closes

manner that the Minîm were Jewish Christians who still frequented the synagogues, but were gradually expelled from them. So far as I know, this was the view generally accepted at the time. But I had thought that since then Friedländer had demonstrated once for all that this was a mistake. Mr Travers Herford knows his writings, and with perfect justice condemns their extravagance and slovenliness. He is right, moreover, in rejecting Friedländer's own opinion that the Minîm are Gnostics. But in refuting him he has been all too prone to lapse into the old view. He admits that "the name may occasionally denote other heretics" (p. 380); but as a rule he takes the Minîm to be Christians; and this, I think, is a mistake.

Following what I take to be the most probable view, he regards D simply as the ordinary Hebrew word for "sort," and therefore as bearing a general signification; but at the next step I think he goes wrong. He argues: The Aramaic word for "sort" or "species" is it, and this suggested П, which means "to fornicate." Now "fornication," according to the well-known symbolism of the Old Testament, means unfaithfulness towards the covenant relation with the God of Israel.

זנה

Mr Herford is too well acquainted with the rabbinical caprices of etymology to lay much stress on such an argument; but after all it is of little consequence how came to signify "heretic." The word is constantly interchanged in manuscripts, editions, and parallel passages with Sadducee, Samaritan, Epicurean, and other terms of reproach. It is true that this substitution of some other word for Minîm is often due to the censors, in whose time probably it was understood to refer to the Christians. But this explanation is far from covering the whole ground. Mr Herford himself refers to passages in which he supposes Sadducees or heathen to be referred to under the designation of Minîm; see, for example, pages 249, 277, 313, 332. And if the snake of Genesis iii. and Moses are called Minîm (p. 199), it is clear that the rabbis used the word for no defined class of persons, but for heretics in general. If the word acquired any more specific meaning, the fact must be established, in the absence of any express evidence, from the applicability of all that is said of the Minîm to the Christians. But no such applicability can be shown. Only a few of the numerous passages collected by Mr Herford contain any distinct reference to the Christians. He repeats again and again (e.g. pp. 78, 285, 316, 327, 332) in different words what he says on p. 178: "The reference must be to heretics, possibly, though not necessarily, Jewish Christians; but I do not know of any heretical practice such as that described." And on the other hand a Christian usage or opinion is sometimes very distinctly referred to without the name appearing. This is the case with the references to Sunday as the day of the "Nazarines" (Nos. 58 and 59); nor are the Minîm mentioned in the proof that God has no father, son, or brother (No. 120); or in No. 10, which clearly refers to Jesus. Moreover, Mr Herford more than once finds a reference to some Christian doctrine when an error runs through all the page references, to which 112 must be added in every instance.

it is not really there. For instance, in No. 94 there is an elaborate proof that the one only God made the world without the help of any other. Mr Herford discovers a doctrine of "two powers" in the heresies here refuted, and explains it by the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but the passage itself does not specify two powers. Mr Herford speaks of "the doctrine of the two powers" as though some clearly defined heresy were indicated by the phrase. But this is not so. If, for instance, we consult the passage Mechilta 66 b. (on Exod. xx. 2), to which Mr Herford refers, we shall indeed find a mention of "the Minîm, who teach that there are two powers," but a few lines higher the very same words i'w¬ 'nw are placed on the lips of " the peoples of the world," i.e. the heathen. There is another passage on p. 301. Nothing was more natural than that the Jews should constantly come into contact with people who directly or indirectly seemed to impugn the doctrine that God is one and alone, and that we frequently encounter defences of the same. We find one such in Ber. R. on I. i., for instance, which might just as well be directed against a Jew of philosophical culture, a disciple of Philo, who assumed various Móyo by the side of God, as against a Christian who supposed God created the world through Christ. Cosmological discussions between Jews and others, or between Jews among themselves, were in the order of the day.

Mr Herford is too prone, I think, to assume that every name corresponds to a sharply defined conception, and that the several designations reflect a carefully co-ordinated set of ideas. Thus he argues, on p. 366, that in T. Sanh. xiii. 4, 5, four classes of men are sharply rebuked, Minîm, apostates, traitors, and Epicureans, and therefore Minîm cannot be a general designation of all unfaithful Jews. "The construction of the sentence forbids us to assume that Minîm is the genus of which the other three are species." Certainly the three last classes are not grammatically subordinated to the first; but does it follow that Minîm are not traitors, nor apostate Epicureans? Read on a little further. These four sets-the Minîm and the rest—are not the only ones condemned to Gehenna. The same fate befalls "those who lied concerning the Tora, and those who depart from the ways of the congregation, and those who have lied concerning the resurrection of the dead," etc. Are we to suppose that none of these could be described as Minîm, apostates, and so forth, because they are enumerated co-ordinately with them?

Mr Herford's identification of the Minîm with the Jewish Christians seems to rest on a misapprehension of the religious conditions of the first and second centuries. He writes as if, at that period, a set of well-defined religions stood over against each other, which is not the case. In that age of awakened religious life all manner of Western and Eastern religions surged together, and were often merged in the most weird combinations. Judaism itself was anything but united. The rabbinical, the philosophical, and the apocalyptical schools were widely severed on certain points, and the rabbis themselves had often such fierce disputes that they set each other under the ban, thus proclaiming each other heretics; nay, more than

once fell to blows, and supported their injunctions by the sword. Meanwhile the Gospel of Jesus, sometimes with the constant use of his name, sometimes with very sparing reference to it, was making its influence felt; and communities were being formed amongst all kinds of heathen and all kinds of Jews, mostly amongst Greek-speaking populations, some of whom had come under Philo's influence. The distinction between Pagan Christians and Jewish Christians is far too crude; and no man can say who were heretics in the eyes of the rabbis or of the Jews.

Here is an example. On p. 199 Mr Herford discusses a passage1 in which certain not very comprehensible specimens of Minuth are mentioned. It is asserted, for instance, that whoever sets the tephillim upon his forehead or his palms is in the way of the Minîm. It is not easy to see what this can have to do with Christianity. Further on (p. 202), Mr Herford devotes a passing notice (though without transcribing the text) to another portion of the same passage which enumerates other reprehensible practices, which, though not expressly called Minuth, are evidently equally to be rejected. Thus, if a man says, "Thy love extends to the nest of the bird," silence is to be enjoined upon him. It is easy to see what is disapproved of here, viz. the implicit symbolical interpretation of Deuteronomy xxii. 6; for anyone who adopts this interpretation implies that, literally understood, the command has little or no importance, and that its significance lay in its teaching that God's love extends to everyone and everything. Now this was exactly the view, not indeed of Philo himself, but of many of his followers; and it was likewise the view of the writer of 1 Cor. ix. 8, who taught that Deuteronomy xxv. 4 did not mean that God concerned himself about men, but that the ministers of the Gospel should receive their hire. Well, then, the man who, for taking this view, was to be silenced in the synagogue, might be a Christian, it is true, but he might equally well be a Jew who had never so much as heard of Christianity. In one case no less than in the other he might be called a po, for he did not interpret the law according to the halacha, any more than did he who applied the tephillim in an unusual way.

Minîm are heretics in general. Some of them, no doubt, may have been Christians, as were those referred to in the passage from Jerome which Mr Herford (p. 378) triumphantly cites as an unimpeachable witness for his view. It is doubtless true that the Palestinian Jews about the year 400 were acquainted with but few Minîm who were not Christians, or inclined to Christianity; but this proves nothing as to the use of words three centuries earlier.

p.

On 332 sq. Mr Herford cites, "without comment, some few passages which merely allude to Minîm, but contain nothing of importance for the study of them." This does the passages in question scant justice. Some of them are important enough. Is it of no interest, for example, to read in B. Bathra 28a that a certain rabbi would not turn to the east in These men are surely

prayer "because the Minîm teach concerning it"? 1 Meg. iv. 8, 9 (Ber. v. 3).