Does not Christ follow essentially the same usage, as for instance in Luke xx. 37, Mark ix. 13? In reference to these passages, indeed, we are to hold fast the theological distinction between him and his apostles, that he had an insight which they had not, into the historical relations of the inspired passages, which were quoted. The proof of this statement, to which many are disinclined to give their assent, does not belong to this place. The Jewish system of instruction gave keenness to the pupil's mind in another way. The instruction was not given in the form of oral lectures, but catechetically, and so that not merely the teacher proposed questions to the scholars, but the scholars to the teachers, and to the remaining fellow pupils. We have an instance of this in the scene of the child Jesus in the temple.* And this mode of teaching was not confined merely to the rules for allegorical interpretation laid down in the Midras, but even the discourses in the synagogue might be interrupted by questions, or when the discourses were concluded, the hearer might propose some difficult inquiries, as is done even at the present day in the Jewish synagogue. A complete system of Rabbinical dialectics was formed in this way; and we need but a moderate acquaintance with the Talmudic writings, to be convinced of the great error into which Eichhorn fell, when he supposed that the dialectics of the apostle must have proceeded from the schools of heathen philosophers. So far from this, the apostle's logic bears, throughout, the impress of Judaism. This is indicated by many things, particularly by his abrupt mode of expressing himself. In general, also, the an Frequently in the Talmud is it said of the pupils, "they proposed to him the question," or "he proposed to him the question." The answers are designated by the word “ they replied." Even yet the Jews call such Socratic exercises, Kaschen, from difficult. To such questions, if the solution cannot be found, the abbreviation is applied, which is the same as to say, "The Tishbite (Elias) will solve the difficulties and questions." "His method of discussion," remarks Michaelis, very correct tithetic and piquant style of instruction that he adopted, may be ascribed to the influence of his Jewish culture. This Rabbinical education, however, as has been already expressed, had not the same character in all, schools. It depended essentially upon the peculiar mental habit of the instructor. Even in the first centuries after Christ, as well as in later periods, we find three classes of Jewish teachers. The first class had an inclination to the spiritless and literal; the second class, to a freer and more soul-moving style, like that of the Old Testament, a style in which the interest in the moral was prodominant; and the third adopted the style of mystical theosophy. We always conceive of a Jewish scribe, as one who adheres to the dead letter, and who is also, probably, a hypocrite. The opposite might be learned, with sufficient clearness, from Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. That the Pharisees are not all to be regarded as hypocrites, is evident from that well known passage in the Talmud, in Tractate Sota, which introduces seven classes of Pharisees. Five of these are hypocritical; while of the sixth it is said, they are Pharisees from love to the recompense of God; † and of the seventh, they are Pharisees from the fear of God. ‡ To this is added, in the same place," Be not afraid of the Pharisees, nor of those who are not Pharisees, but of those who are disguised so as to be like the Pharisees.” The narratives of the Jews inform us of several distinguished Israelites, who lived about the time of Christ, and possessed true virtue and piety. Of the Cabbalistic school were Honias Ben Hacana and Hanan Ben Dosa; of the school of the Pharisees were Jonathan Ben Saccai, Simeon Ben Hillel, Gamaliel the ly, in his Introduction, Part I. p. 165, "has very often that Jewish brevity, which leaves the reader many things to supply of himself, and which we see in the Talmud." We are initiated into the principles of this logic, and especially its terms, by Bashuysen, in his Clavis Talmudica Maxima, Panoviae 1714. With this also may be connected Buxtorf's Abbreviaturae. See Note H, at the close. מאהבה * מיראה + Elder, who was teacher of the apostle, and his son Rabbi Simeon.* We must suppose, indeed, that this very Gamaliel had distinguished himself by pure virtue and piety, as he stood so high among the people, although he did not adopt the principles of narrow-hearted Pharisaism. In the Acts of the Apostles it is said,† that he was "had in reputation among all the people." According to the accounts in the Talmud, which agree with this, he was called the glory of the law;" and they have the saying, "since Rabbi Gamaliel died, the glory of the law has ceased." If we may credit the account in Tractate Gittin, Fol. 36. 2, this estimable man had gained even the esteem of Titus. There are various features of his conduct, that show how free he was from the ordinary narrow-heartedness of the Pharisees. He had on his seal a small image, which would have been rejected without doubt by the Pharisees generally. The Talmud mentions concerning him, that he took an especial pleasure in the beauties of nature, a trait which is likewise contrary to the bigoted spirit of Pharisaism. He studied Greek authors, and his freedom of spirit went so far, that he did not hesitate while at Ptolemais to bathe in an apartment where stood a statue to Venus. Being asked by a heathen, how he could reconcile this with his law, he gave the liberal and sensible answer: "The bath was here before the statue; the bath was not made for the service of the goddess, but the statue was made for the bath." The style in which we hear him speak before the Sanhedrin concerning the course to be taken with the germinating Christian religion, agrees remarkably with these features of his character. His expression, in this case, is indeed one which could not be expected from the mouth of an ordinary Pharisee. Now, such learned men among the Jews as possess this enlarged mental character, are usually the authors of beautiful moral sentences or treatises. The style too in See Note I, at the close. † Acts v. 34. which they interpret the Old Testament, is very diverse from the insipid style of the mere literal interpreters. Certainly then we may suppose, that such instruction exerted a wholesome influence upon the susceptible heart of young Paul. Religion was exhibited to him, not merely as a matter of dead speculation, but as a concern of the life. According to that interpretation of 2 Tim. i. 3, which we believe to be the correct one, Paul testifies that his ancestors practised the devout worship of God, and that they transmitted their religious influence to him. That he had preserved this pious sentiment in its purity, that he had served God according to the best of his knowledge through his whole life, that he had surpassed his contemporaries in zeal for religion, is evident from Acts xxvi. 4, 5; xxii. 3; xxiii. 1; Gal. i. 14. More than all other passages, Rom. vii. shows him to have been a Jew, who not merely bore piety upon the lips, but earnestly proposed to himself the laborious acquisition of a pure and unstained manner of life. CHAPTER III. CHARACTER OF THE APOSTLE. Doctrine of Temperaments.-Physical Temperament of Paul; of ecclesiastical reformers generally.-Influence of the Apostle's temperament upon his mental and religious character. His strictness; persecuting spirit.-Comparison between him and Luther. Penetration, comprehensive views, logical reasoning, ardour, vigour, urbanity, affection, tenderness of Paul. A CORRECT view of the peculiarities belonging to the constitution and temperament of the apostle, is desirable for all those who undertake the interpretation of his writings. There are many who are displeased with the employment of the usual names of the temperaments on this subject, as offensive ideas are included under these designations, in their popular and unscientific use. This use fixes itself on barely a single meaning, which is made disagreeably prominent. It is even held, in op position to remarks upon the temperament of the apostles, that an accurate division of the temperaments has never been made. This, however, cannot induce us to abstain from the current terminology on this subject. We are of the opinion, that the so-called four temperaments designate the four fundamental peculiarities in the nature of man, as composed of soul and body. We think the idea which Heinroth* has given of them in his Anthropology, to be a most excellent one. The representation of Heinroth, which exhibits in so able a manner the connection between the temperaments and the various national characters, religious dispositions, and studies in the arts, convinces the mind at once, that the old fourfold division of these temperaments has not been made arbitrarily. We presuppose in our present remarks an acquaintance with the section, that is now referred to, in Heinroth's Anthropology.† "We see in Paul," says Hug, 66 a temperament entirely choleric." In this decision we acquiesce only half way. We think that the peculiarities of the melancholic temperament are found in the apostle in an equal degree with those of the choleric. The melancholic temperament is everywhere characterized by this, that instead of dissipating the mind through the world that is without, it brings the mind back to the inner world, to the depths of its own bosom. On this account, there is connected with it, if not a gloomy yet a prevailing serious view of things. Not dissipated by the variety of objects in the world, the mind directs itself to the essential interests of human life, and therefore a habit of speculation, ordinarily in the form of theosophy, and also a religious feeling, are in general found to be inti mately connected with this temperament. The choleric disposition directs the mind especially to the world 4 See Note L, at the close of this Treatise. As early a writer as Albert Durer, described the apostles ac cording to their temperaments. Paul is described as melancholic, John as sanguine, &c. A treatise on the temperaments of the writers of the New Testament by Gregory is found in the Thesaurus Novus, vol. II. Amsterdam. |