CURRENT FRENCH THOUGHT.

SOURCES OF JUDEO-ALEXANDRIAN PHILOSOPHY. EUG. BERNARD (Revue de Théologie). For the Protestant Christian receiving religious instruction from the Bible alone, there is a great gap between the Old and New Testaments-between the last of the prophets and John the Baptist. But during those four or five centuries the Jewish people not only lived and acted, but also thought and wrote. They took part in the movements of thought which date from the conquest of the empire of Cyrus by Alexander the Great, and brought with them not only special faculties of mind, but also a mass of doctrine peculiarly their own. From this conjunction of Judaism and Hellenism sprang that mystical pantheism which history knows by the name of Judæo-Alexandrian philosophy. The most distinguished and representative name connected with it is that of Philo, a Jew who lived at Alexandria in the time of Christ. The influence of this philosophy upon Christian theology may have been exaggerated; it cannot, however, be denied.

A distinguished scholar, M. Henri Bois, has lately touched upon part of this wide field for investigation. He has confined his study to one canonical book, that of Ecclesiastes, and two apocryphal books, Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon.

As already mentioned, the circumstance that brought together Judaism and Greek civilization was the conquest of Persia by Alexander. He was the champion of Hellenism: his dream was to unite Greeks and barbarians, and accustom them to the benefits of the same civilization. A great mass of Jews welcomed him joyfully and entered his service. They flocked to the city he founded as the centre of the commerce of the Mediterranean, and there they came into contact with Greek life and thought. Henceforth Palestine and Alexandria were the two great centres of the Jewish religion and civilization. In Alexandria the Greek language superseded the Hebrew, and a translation of the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek became necessary. And so Hellenic influences penetrated Jewish thought and modified conceptions of the world, of life, and of religion.

In spite of the learning and ingenuity spent in the effort by Tylor, Plumptre, and Pfleiderer, it is impossible to prove satisfactorily that the author of the book of Ecclesiastes had come under the influence of Greek philosophy. The traces of Hellenism in the Septuagint are, however, incontestable. We find it in the aversion displayed for the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament, and in the use of terms which recall the Platonic theories of ideas and of uncreated matter. Greek philosophy in this way came to be bound up with the sacred books which every devout Jew held to be inspired and authoritative. The book of Ecclesiasticus is not in its entirety a Hellenistic or Alexandrian production. The influence of Greek philosophy is discernible only here and there in isolated places. In its treatment of the doctrine of wisdom, we have a link between the teaching of the books of Proverbs and Job and the doctrine of the Logos treated of by Philo-in other words, between pure Hebraism and the true Judæo-Alexandrianism. The anonymous author of the Wisdom of Solomon is the true precursor of Philo. His work is one of the most important documents of Judæo-Alexandrianism. Both in form and matter the work of the pseudo-Solomon reminds one of Greece. There is occasional, almost involuntary, use of Hebrew parallelism; but there is abundant evidence of the influence of Greek poetry. The author applies the allegorical method to all history, just as Plato and the Stoics applied it to the interpretation of the works of Greek poets. M. Bois enters into a very full investigation of the doctrines contained in the Wisdom of

Solomon, and makes it clear both that it is distinctly the outcome of a Hebrew mind saturated with Greek philosophy, and also that it contains almost all which afterwards characterized Judæo-Alexandrianism.

We conclude, then, that the influence of Hellenism is not discernible in Ecclesiastes; that it is incontestable, though of varying importance, in the Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon. If in the two former documents it is sporadic and external, the third, on the contrary, contains, either formally expressed or in germ, the greater part of the principal ideas of Judæo-Alexandrianism. Philo's work was to develop, to arrange, to systematize. The pseudo-Solomon is emphatically the representative of Philonism before Philo.

INTERPRETATION OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON. C. BRUSTON (Revue de Théologie).— A slight modification of the theory that the Song of Solomon celebrates the constancy of a Shulamite shepherdess to a former lover, in spite of the temptations of a court, takes away the only serious argument which has been alleged against it. Why should we identify the spouse of the third act (chap. iii. 6, v. 1) with the Shulamite ? If the spouse were the Shulamite, one could not understand why she should leave the palace in Jerusalem to be immediately brought back again with great pomp; or why "threescore valiant men, each with his sword upon his thigh,” should be required to defend her on her journey from the village of Shulem, or Shunem, through the kingdom of Solomon. But further, Solomon plainly says whence his new spouse comes, and why the armed escort is needed (iv. 8). She comes from the region of Lebanon and Hermon, a country infested by wild beasts. She is, therefore, a foreign princess, probably from Phoenicia, as Ps. xlv. celebrates the marriage of Solomon to a daughter of Tyre. Then, too, Solomon addresses her as "my sister, my spouse," words inapplicable to a country maiden, but appropriate for a princess. In v. 2 the shepherd in the same way addresses the Shulamite as "my sister." The compliments paid by Solomon to the new spouse coincide to a great extent with those he had paid to the Shulamite. This would indicate inexplicable poverty of imagination on the part of so great a poet, if these compliments had been paid to the same person. The coincidence is intentional. The author wishes to show how contemptible and absurd' is the sensual love of a polygamist, who lavishes indiscriminately the same commonplace sorts of flattery on different women.

The plan of the drama is as follows: It shows us how a beautiful young girl of Shulem, or Shunem, in the plain of Jezreel, is given up by her brothers to Solomon in exchange for a vineyard of his, of which they are the keepers. She is brought to the royal palace in Jerusalem, gains the esteem of Solomon, remains invincibly faithful to the shepherd whom she loves, offers inflexible resistance to all the solicitations of the king in spite of all the advice and all the ridicule of the women of the harem, and is at last allowed to return home.

The scene of the first, second, and fourth acts is laid in the royal palace at Jerusalem; the third in a street of that city, and the fifth in the village of Shulem.

The poem is, therefore, a panegyric on true, pure, disinterested, and constant love, and consequently on monogamy. It is a work of the highest moral significance, and is worthy of its place in Holy Scripture. "Something would be wanting to the Bible," says Niebuhr, "if there were not in it some expression of the deepest and strongest feelings of humanity." The simplicity, integrity, and constancy of the Shulamite make her a noble example. She might have lived in the abundance, luxury, and ease of a royal palace. All she needed to do was to feign from time to time a love for the king which she did not feel, and to forget the young man whom

she loved and who was worthy of her. But she would not condescend to such baseness. Let them give her back her cottage, she prefers it to the palace of Solomon. She will go again to tend the vines, if need be she would break stones on the road, rather than become degraded in her own eyes. The young may well keep the Shulamite in mind, and imitate her simplicity, constancy, uprightness, purity, and courage.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF JOHN XVII. 5 AND VIII. 58. A. WABNITZ (Revue de Théologie).-Prof. Wendt in his Lehre Jesu treats these words as expressing the authentic teaching of Jesus concerning Himself. He inquires whether in them Jesus. really claims for Himself personal pre-existence, or whether the context in which they are found does not require another meaning to be given them. He grants at starting that the two phrases of the first passage," with thine own self” (πapà σeauTŲ) and "with thee" (wapà σol), ought to be taken in the same sense, i.e., as having a local signification. But he denies that the second of them means more than the pre-existence of His glory with God as a reward to be bestowed upon Him in due time. He says that in the New Testament a heavenly treasure or glory is often spoken of as something laid up or prepared for the recipient before the foundation of the world (Matt. xxv. 24 et passim). In other words, Jesus here speaks of the glory which He asks from God, not as something possible, but as certain. The whole passage

describes the glory as a recompense for His work on earth, and it is inconsistent with this to think of His earthly life as a mere episode, after which He received simply what He had before. But in answer to this we may say that if the two phrases describe a local presence with God, as Wendt grants, since Jesus is the subject of the second sentence ("I had with thee"), the question of pre-existence is undoubtedly answered in the affirmative. The use of the same preposition in both phrases forbids us to think that in the one case glory in the presence of God is asked for, and in the other a glory predetermined in the mind of God is referred to. The parallel suggested in the reward prepared for disciples does not hold good. In their case, they are themselves to lay up treasure in heaven; it is on this condition alone that they will possess it (Matt. vi. 20; Mark x. 21). To the argument that Jesus. only asks as a recompense the glory which had been already reserved for Him in the eternal purpose of God, we answer that the idea of recompense is not excluded by that of restoration. For if Jesus had once been in possession of the glory which He now asks, He had not been in possession of it as Messiah, i.e, as man, as one who had accomplished the work of redemption, and for whom the glory, which as preexistent Son of God He had given up, was the supreme reward. And then, too, we may ask, How could Jesus have known that glory" with God,” i.e., at His right hand, was reserved for Him, a glory essentially and exclusively Divine, if He had not been conscious of being more than man? It is nothing less than an anticipation of sitting upon the very throne of that God, at a distance from which, according to the Jewish belief of the time, even archangels and angels stood, or before which they were prostrated in eternal adoration? Is it conceivable that this anticipation should be cherished by one who had not the assurance that He had been, before His earthly life, the object of a glory belonging to God alone? We cannot admit it.

The second text examined by Wendt (John viii. 58), "Before Abraham was I am," is explained by him to mean that Jesus claimed to have been the object of the Divine purpose or Divine love before the existence of Abraham, or, in other words, that His earthly existence had been decided on beforehand by God-that it was in the mind of God before the existence of the patriarch. The conception, says

Wendt, is highly idealistic, for it is so strongly expressed as to seem to imply that the speaker himself had lived before the time of Abraham. And an explanation of the terms in which it is cast is asserted to be found in an habitual way of speaking on His part, in which things are judged, not according to their value or significance before men, but before God. But what claim to superiority over Abraham could be based upon a merely ideal existence from eternity in the mind of God? Was not the existence of Abraham, too, foreseen and foreordained by God before the creation of the world? How could Jesus have said that He, as Messiah, had existed in the mind of God before Abraham? Then again, the phrase "I am" is inappropriate to describe an ideal pre-existence. Would He not have said “I was " if He had meant to imply something other than a real and personal existence? Does not the present tense imply necessarily that the two existences, that before Abraham and that upon the earth, did not differ in their real, personal character-that they were the continuation the one of the other? The Jews who heard Him believed that He was guilty of blasphemy. This sin did not lie either in a claim to be the Messiah, or in the assertion that He had been the object of the thought of God in the time before Abraham. Neither of these statements constituted blasphemy. The Jews understood Him to have asserted clearly and categorically His real divinity, i.e., His real and personal pre-existence before the historical existence of Abraham.

SUNDAY IN CHURCH.

THE MORNING LESSONS.

FIFTH SUNDAY AFTER
EPIPHANY.

COMPARATIVE OBEDIENCE AND

PERIL.

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard, &c.MATT. xxi. 28-32.

THE primary application of this parable is seen on the face of it. 1. In Jewish society, in the time of our Lord, two classes of men were prominent - the formal religionists, and the openly ungodly-the one enjoying a large measure of popular esteem, and the other subjected to general reproach. 2. Both of them were seriously at fault in the sight of God; one class was pretending to an obedience which it did not render, the other was defiantly refusing to obey. 3. To the latter class, that of the publicans and sinners, there came an hour of repentance, submission, and obedience. When John came "in the way of righteousness," worldly men and guilty

women

were filled with shame, and they entered the kingdom of God through the gateway of pure and lasting penitence. But the other class-that of the pretentious but

insincere Pharisees-held on their way in sinful obduracy, untouched by the truth of God. 4. To the mortification of many in his audience, to the surprise of many more, to the encouragement (it may be) of some seeking souls, Jesus Christ gives His decisive preference to the disregarded penitents rather than to the pious pretenders of His day. He even speaks of them as doing the will" of God. He says that they are the first to enter the kingdom of God. Here, as elsewhere, "the last are first, and the first are last." As the truth of the parable affects ourselves, we see :

66

I. GOD'S CONSTANT REQUIREMENT OF US. To every one of us our Father is saying, "Son, go work to-day in My vineyard." 1. The world is His vineyard; we all must stand somewhere within His domain. 2. We are all His offspring; He has not only Sovereign, but Fatherly right to our service. 3. He sends us forth, enjoining on us that we put out our powers in His service. This "work" to which He summons us all is large and comprehensive. It includes the culture of our own spirit, the ordering of our life by His commandments, the bearing witness to His truth both by word and deed, the active service of our kindred and of our kind in every