[899] Pirqé de R. El. u. s., p. 39 a, close.
[900] Bemid. R. 18, close of the Phar.
[901] Ps. lxxii. 16.
[902] According to the last clause of (English verson) Joel iii. 18 (Midr. on Eccles. i. 9 ed. Warsh, vol. iv. p. 80 b.)
[903] Bemid. R. 14, ed. Warsh. p. 55 a.
[904] Bemid. R. 13.
[905] Yalkut on Numb. xxvii. 16, vol. i. p. 247 d.
[906] This is the more noteworthy as, according Sotah 9 b, none in Israel was so great as Moses, who was only inferior to the Almighty.
[907] Tanch., Par. Toledoth 14.
[908] Midr. Tehill. ed. Warsh. p. 30 b.
[909] Ps. civ. 1.
[910] Ps. xciii. 1.
[911] Ps. xciii. 1.
[912] Dan. vii. 9.
[913] Is. lix. 17.
[914] Is. lix. 17.
[915] Is. lxiii.
[916] Is. lxi. 10.
[917] Ps. xxxi. 19.
[918] Pesiqta. ed. Buber. pp. 149, a, b.
[919] Midr. on Ps. xviii. 36, ed. Warsh. p. 27 a.
[920] Midr. on Ps. cx. 1, ed. Warsh. p. 80 b.
[921] Ber. R. 23, ed Warsh p. 45 b.
[922] Gen. xix. 32.
[923] Ber. R. 51 ed. Warsh. p. 95 a.
[924] I am, of course, aware that certain Rabbinists explain the expression Seed from another place,' as referring to the descent of the Messiah from Ruth - a non-Israelite. But if this explanation could be offered in reference to the daughters of Lot, it is difficult to see its meaning in reference to Eve and the birth of Seth. The connection there with the words (Gen. iv. 25), God hath appointed me another Seed,' would be the very loosest.
[925] Ber. R. 2; and 8; Vayyikra R. 14, ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p. 21 b.
[926] I am surprised, that Castelli (u. s. p. 207) should have contended, that the reading in Ber. R. 8 and Vay. R. 14 should be the Spirit of Adam.' For (1) the attempted correction gives neither sense, nor proper meaning. (2) The passage Ber. R. 1 is not impugned; yet that passage is the basis of the other two. (3) Ber. R. 8 must read, The Spirit of God moved on the deep - that is, the Spirit of Messiah the King,' because the proof-passage is immediately added, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,' which is a Messianic passage; and because, only two lines before the impugned passage, we are told, that Gen. i. 26, 1st clause, refers to the spirit of the first man.' The latter remark applies also to Vayyikra R. 14, where the context equally forbids the proposed correction.
[927] It would be very interesting to compare with this the statements of Philo as to the agency of the Logos in Creation. The subject is very well treated by Riehm (Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. Br. pp. 414-420), although I cannot agree with all his conclusions.
[928] Midr. on Lament. i 16, ed Warsh. p. 64 a, last line comp. Pesiqta, p. 148 a; Midr. on Ps. xxi. and the very curious concessions in a controvesy with a Christian recorded in Sanh. 38 b.
[929] The whole of this passage, beginning at p. 147 b, is very curious and deeply interesting. It would lead too far to quote it, or other parallel passages which might be adduced. The passage in the Midrash on Lament. i. 16 is also extremely interesting. After the statement quoted in the text, there follows a discussion on the names of the Messiah, and then the curious story about the Messiah having already been born in Bethlehem.
[930] Dan. vii. 13.
[931] It will be noticed, that the cummulative argument presented in the foregoing pages follows closely that in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews; only, that the latter carries it up to its final conclusion, that the Messiah was truly the Son of God, while it has been our purpose simply to state, what was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue, not what it should have been according to the Old Testament. __________________________________________________________________