\Ve find the Alexandrian method employed upon the OT as early as the Book of Wisdom and its allegorical interpretation of the manna in the Pent, (le^*"-), and of the high priest's robe as the image of the whole world (18^).
Tlie early Christians therefore found this current and acknowledged method of interpretation to their hand in the arguments they drew from the OT against the unbelieving Jews j and, in particular, St. Paul and the Paulinists, in their ellorts to turn the law itself against the law-worshipping Judaisers. Hut not till post-apostolic times, cul- minating in the times of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, does the allegorical method show itself in any luxuriance. The method of Jesus and the speakers and writers in NT is typical rather tlian allegorical, and Palestinian rather than Alex- andrian ; and, in any case, is self-restrained and free from the characteristic extravagance of rabbi and philosopher. St. Paul, in his application of the method to the command as to oxen threshing (1 Co g"-). to the rock (1 Co 10*), and to the veil of Moses (2 Co 3'""-), is both Palestinian and Alex- andrian in disregarding the original drift of the passages and incidents, treating it as noiiiipg (1 Co 9'") in comparison with the tyj)ico-allegori,,a,l interpretation ; but he is Pal. in being homiletical in his aim and not philosoiihical, and in having persons and events in his perspective rather than abstract truth. In (Jal 4''""- he openly atlirnis that Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and I-siiac, 4<rriv &>.Ki)- yopountva, i.e. are (1) spoken or written of in the Scriptures allegorical ly, or (2) inter])reted allcgori- cally (with his approval) in his own day; and, in treating them (somewhat after Pliilo s manner upon the same subject) as representing two dillerent covenants, one of the present and the other of llu future Jerusalem, he approximates to the Alex- andrian philosophical practice of allegorizing con- crete things, persons, and events into abstract ideas : but only approximates ; for not only is he clearly historical and typical in his ba:iis, and homiletical in his aim, but, if ffwrrjixei refers (as some think) to the numerical value of the letters according to the l{abbinic Gematria, he is, even here, Palestinian rather than Alexandrian in his method of interpretation. In the K/i. Id the Ucbrewn the inlluence of Philo and Alexandria comes out more definitely. The writer is an 'idealist whose heaven is the liome of all transcendental rralilics, whoso earth is full of their symbols, and these are most abundant where earth is most saircil— in the tcMiiile (or tabernacle) and worship of his people.' He 18 Alexandrian in his frequent contrasts between
66
ALLEMETH
ALMIGHTY
the inTirible (U'), impemhable (8» 9^ 12»«),.arche- v^aTXld (8^), and the visible (U'), perishable P^ world o appearance (W), the imperfect copy {^LTy^) of the former (9^ 8') ; or again between jida Xis the shadow (.da) and Cmstian^y a8
Ihe nearest earthly •Mn;>-o^""'^\'°" (\:';''»^^ f^l heavenly substance ri i^rovpiyia) (8» 10 ) . and tne alTeKory^of Melchizedek, based not on the historical personage so much as on the nature of the two ^S allusions t« him, combined with the signifi^ ] cMce of the great sUence elsewhere in the Ol as t^ hfs birth and descent, as we as of the two names Melchizedek and Salera,-all these together bring made the foundation of a logical construction of Uie person and work of Christ as an emlwdiment of the Le onceived idea.-can hardly be considered without regard to PhUo's treatment of ^lelchizedek ^ an allegory of his apparently impersonal Logo^^^ And yet, with the expression in the 1 10th 1 ^•alm be- ^e iB. ^Thou art a priest for ever after the order of MSchizedek,' we must allow Dr. Westcott a clrtefn margCi of justification when he maintainB rSe trelTment^f Melchizedek -typical ratto than allegorical ; though he appears ^ he t«o Xin.;>hen he affirms. ' There is no al'egory in this epistle.
ALLEMETH (nj^u), AV Alemeth, 1 Ch 6» ; iii™„n (ii-Svi Tos "1"*.— A Levitical city of Ben- famin "it t noic^^l ^^-ith Anathoth and is tlie i'r'ent -Almit on the hUls N. of Anathoth^ SJKi> vol. ui. sheet xvii. C- R- CoNDER.
ALLIANCE.— The attitude of the Israelites to forci^ nations varied greatly at dieferent periods nthpir history In early times alliances were Lnteed i^^ and treaties deluded without the «liXtest scruple. Even intermixture with alien races was s^ar from being tabooed, that it was one of tife principal means by which the land wes of the Jordan wa^ secured. Thus we are told that Judah married and had children by the daughter of aCanaanite(Gn 38=), the tradition e-f.^-o'lyng t.he history of the clan in a personal narrative^ A|am the condemnation of Smieon and Levi (On ^54 ) is evidently due to the violation of a treaty previously entered into with Shechem (cf. the story of the
^'^onhTis^ferloTu [hen, it may be held that trwities with Canaanitish clans were frenuent an^ genera On the other hand, they played ^n im^^rUnt part in the internal 1-tory of the Hebrews. Israel was by no means atjirst so homogeneous as is often supposed: the tnbes, ractically independent of eacl. other, were gradu- X kn it^ ogether by circun.stances. Common dangers led to common action on the part o t^'o or more of them: the leaders conferred together, or Z clUef of the strongest clan, or of the one 'noBt immediately threatened, assuiued the headship, Lnrthe waj' W.18 prepared for a close confederation The times of the Judges furnish ample evidence of l,ns, and the monarchy had no other founda ion A very curious alliance, and one that proves both ^e Useness of the Heb. confederacy and the readiness with which relations were entered no with foreigners, is th«t between T>tivu\ and Achush, king of Gath (1 S 27'). Under it, David was pre- pared to fight, on behalf of the traditional enemies of his race, against the Benjamite !<in«''o'n of feauK That he did not, was apparently due sole y to the suspicions of his fidelity entertained by the lords of the Philibtines. ,