Page:Ginzburg - The Legends of the Jews - Volume 5.djvu/12

 is reflected in the legends of a people? If this be true of legend in general, how much more so of Jewish legend, and particularly of that part thereof in which Jewish imagination expressed itself with regard to biblical events, persons and teachings. Creation, the election of Israel, the Torah, the merits of the Fathers, reward and punishment, and many similar problems, engaged the attention, not only of Jewish thought, but also of Jewish imagination. It is a well known fact that one cannot know any one thing well unless he goes beyond it and apprehends its relation to other things. To understand a people, it is not sufficient to study its thought and imagination, but also the relation of the two to one another. Almost one half of this volume is therefore intended as much for the student of Jewish religious thought as for the Jewish folk-lorist.

One of the outstanding characteristics of "the popular mind" is its conservatism and adherence to old forms. Nothing perhaps illustrates this more clearly and convincingly than the close affinity that exists between the pseudepigraphic literature and the rabbinic Haggadah, notwithstanding the centuries that lie between some of the Pseudepigrapha and the Midrashim. Fascinating as the study of the relation between these two branches of Jewish literature is, it is barely in its infancy. Jewish scholars have sorely neglected the study of the Pseudepigrapha, and non-Jewish scholars that of Rabbinics, and consequently very little has been achieved in this field of learning. The two volumes of Notes contain, besides hundreds of parallels between the rabbinic sources and the pseudepigraphic writings, also a number of lengthy studies on the Pseudepigrapha, especially on their relation to the Haggadah. To mention only two examples. To the Books of Adam, i.e. the Vita Adae and the Apocalypse of Moses, ten pages are devoted (118-128), and an almost equal number of pages is given to the Books of Enoch (153-162).

What has just been said about the relation of the pseudepigraphic literature to the Haggadah might be applied mutatis mutandis also to the affinity between Philo and the Rabbis. There are few Jewish authors about whom so much has been written as about Philo. And yet the most important problem connected with Philo is not yet solved. Was he a Jewish thinker with a Greek education, or a Greek philosopher with Jewish learning? I hope that the very numerous references in the Notes to the frequent similarity of the views held by the Rabbis and by Philo will contribute something towards the solution of this prob-