fuerunt' (in Surenhusius' Βιλος Καταλλαγης pp. 57 to 88), will convince himself of the
truth of this.
In other respects also the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian mode of
interpretation. There was at least ingenuity, if not always truth, in explaining a word by
resolving it into two others,2 or in discussing the import of exclusive particle s (such as
'only,' 'but,' 'from,'), and inclusives (such as 'also,' 'with,' 'all,') or in discovering shades of
meaning from the derivation of a word, as in the eight synonyms for 'poor' - of which one
(Ani), indicated simply 'the poor;' another (Ebhyon, from abhah), one who felt both need
and desire; a third (misken), one humiliated; a fourth (rash from rush), one who had been
emptied of his property; a fifth (dal), one who property had become exhausted; a sixth
(dakh), one who felt broken down; a seventh (makh), one who had come down; and the
eighth (chelekh), one who was wretched - or in discussing such differences as between
amar, to speak gently, and dabhar, to speak strongly - and many others.3 Here intimate
knowledge of the language and tradition might be of real use. At other times striking
thoughts were suggested, as when it was pointed out that all mankind was made to spring
from one man, in order to show the power of God, since all coins struck from the same
machine were precisely the same, while in man, whatever the resemblance, there was still
a difference in each.
2. As, for example, Malqosh , the latter rain =Mal-Qash, fill the stubble.
3. Comp. generally, Hamburger, vol. ii. pp. 181-212, and the 'History of the Jewish
Nation,' pp. 567 -580, where the Rabbinic Exegesis is fully explained.
2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable God and
God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so much in the
theology of Philo in regard to the 'intermediary beings' - 'Potencies' - and the Logos,
occurs equally in Rabbinic theology, 4 though there it is probably derived from a different
source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked and striking avoidance of all
anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts for the designation of God by two
classes of terms, of which in our view, the first expresses the idea of God as revealed, the
other that of God as revealing Himself; or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a
state, the othe r an act on the part of God. The first of these classes of designations
embraces two terms: yeqara, the excellent glory, and Shekhinah, or Shekhintha, the
abiding Presence.5 On the other hand, God, as in the act of revealing himself, is described
by the term Memra, the 'Logos,' 'the word.' A distinction of ideas also obtains between
the terms Yeqara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and
upward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This
distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim, and even
by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by side (as for ex., in
the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. xvi. 13,
14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3; Hagg.
i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet. i. 17, to 'the voice from the excellent glory'
(της µεγαλοπρεπους δοξης) must have been the Yeqara.6 The varied use of the terms
Shekhinah and Yeqara, and then Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In
ver. 1 it is the Yeqara, and its train - the heavenward glory - which fills the Heavenly