Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/351

313 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

313 makes no the

between the Old Testament and " Novum testamentum in veteri novo patet " that is, the Old Testa-

in

distinction

New Testament

the

Church



same

in spite of its

Having learned much of his allegorical conception from Ambrose, Origen, and Philo, while at the same time he

fiery furnace.



ment

—

abundantly allegorical or

typological.

not disinclined to allegorize for himself, the curious result is that he interprets the same image

is

even contradictorily, in divers passages. the moon is indifferently explained as representing either carnal man, the Church, or mortality the clouds are prophets and teachers, but also dark superstitions. He gives much room to the typological interpretation of His Typology, the Old Testament, which, as mentioned, contains and conceals the New Testament. Biblical history, as well as the laws contained in it, is transformed by Augustine into a Thus, Abel, history of Christianity and its tenets. Seth, and Joseph represent different aspects of Jesus: as crucified, as risen from the dead, and as Noah's Ark is the Church; in translated to heaven. the two lower stories are Jews and heathens in the

differently,

Thus





third, faith, hope,

and

love.

Augustine's lack of critical conception of the Old Testament is shown by his opposition to Jerome's undertaking to make a Latin translation of the ScripTo portray as tures from the Hebrew.

Augustine vividly as possible the dangers of such Opposes an innovation, he informed Jerome in a letter of the fierce tumult which had arisen in an African congregation, when the bishop adopted the Vulgate, rendering " ivy " instead of the Septuagint " gourd " (in Jonah and what was even of deeper importance, as iv. 6) he narrates, the bishop bad had to declare Jerome's translation faulty upon appealing to the authority of

Jerome.



a certain Jewish scholar ("Epist. Aug." 171). When, on the other hand, in another letter (82) to Jerome, Augustine suddenly declares himself convinced of the necessity for his undertaking, this must not be considered as a change of conviction on his part, for

he declares that the ruling "gourd," must be maintained erroneousness. He foresaw that he

epistle

translation,

vetus in is the concealed New, the New is the revealed Old. How little may be expected exegetically from such a standpoint can be easily understood. Not infrequently he gives rationalistic explanations of Biblical anthropomorphisms, which approximate closely to the teachings of both older and later Jewish scholars. Thus, for instance, His Sa- the statement that Creation took place tionalism. all at once, and not in six days that, in other words, " before " and " after " can not be predicated of the Creator, but only of things created (" De Genesis a Lit." iv. 56, v. 12) is found in Jewish sources (Tan., ed. Buber, i. 2) ascribed to It. Nehemiah, a tanna of the middle of the second Christian century. He explains God's speaking, as a voice "per aliquam imperio suo subditam creaturam " (I.e. ix. 3), and the same is said by Maimonides ("Moreh," ii. 33), and similarly before him by Saadia Gaon ("Emunot we-De'ot," iii., ed. Leipsic, p. 77; compare also Schmiedl, "Studien ilber Religionsphilosophie," pp. 253-256), who is followed by the majority of Jewish religious phiRationalism, however, constitutes the losophers. smallest portion of his exegesis, which is superlatet,

Augustine

would have to yield sooner or later in a struggle against a man of such upright character and learning as Jerome was acknowledged to be. On the other hand, Augustine did not despise as-

—

from African Jews who however, were the most learned of the race upon obscure passages in the Old Testament. Informa- Although the passages in which he tion from quotes directly from such Jewish sources are few, much that is of hagJews. gadic and even halakic origin points His reto at least oral communication with Jews. marks about the material of Jewish tradition are important, " quas non scriptas habent, scd memoriter tenent, et alter in alterum loquendo transfundit, quas Deuteroses vocant " (c. Advers. leg. ii. ?). This would indicate that the Jews of Africa in the beginning

sistance

not

—

among

of the fifth century possessed only an unwritten Mishnah (Deuterosis), and Rabbi's Mishnah could not therefore have been written down. The only

two Haggadot mentioned by Augustine

as definitely of Jewish origin are a legend concerning Adam's second wife (see Ginzberg, " Die Haggada bei den Kir-

and the story of Abraham in the latter, however, he may possibly have drawn from Jerome ("Quaestio" in Gen. ix.). chenvatern,"

p. 61)

The

the many rabbinical traditions that he does not describe as Jewish, the following examples may serve: Light created by God on the first day of Creation is not

Of

the earthly light (De Gen. v.); the same view is given by the Baraita in Hag. 12 and Gen. R. iii. 6. The moon was created when full, because God created nothing imperfect (Gen. ii. 31); wherefore also Adam was created as a perfectly developed man (I.e. vi. 23), which is identical with an old Haggadah ascribed in the Talmud (H u ^- 30a) to R. Joshua b. Levi, who Augustine's teaching that flourished about 230. Adam was created by God Himself directly, and not by God's word as everything else was, is also of

Jewish origin (see Ginzberg, ib. p. 21). His remarks on the Heptateuch contained much that is rabbinical, but he may have received it from His rationalistic exthe Roman deacon, Hilarius. planation of the "sons of God" (Gen. vi. 2) by win justi is that of R. Simeon b. Yohai (flourished (For the rabbinical 150; see Gen. R. xxvi. 5). sources of his statements that Noah was a hundred years in building the Ark; that he, Noah, possessed such control over the animals therein that even the lions lived on hay that Rebecca before the

birth of her sons inquired of Melchizedek concerning herself, see Ginzberg, ib. pp. 75, 77, 118.) Rabbinical influence is also recognizable in the statement that Rebecca, by means of her prophetic powers, discov-

ered Esau's plans of vengeance against Jacob (compare " Quaes!" 81 with Gen. R. lxvii. 9); and also in the interpretation in Gen. xxxvi. 31, of the word "king," as meaning Moses (I.e. exxi.), which coincides with the rabbinical interpretation of Deut. xxxiii. 5, where also the word "king" is applied to Moses. Augustine gives interpretations that can be described as halakic (I.e. Ex. 162); in agree-

ment with the Rabbis

(Bab. Pes.

5b),

he interprets