stress upon the deep meaning of the patriarch’s change of name.[116] “He who calls Abraham Abram,” said Bar Kappara, “transgresses a positive command” [Hebrew:  mtsva ’sha].  “Nay,” said Rabbi Levi, “he transgresses both a positive and a negative command (and commits a double sin).”  Clearly this was a test-question and an article of faith, possibly because the letter [Hebrew:  h], which was added to the name, was a letter of mystical import in the opinion of the age.  Both the rejection of the literal and the rejection of the allegorical value of the Bible, Philo regarded as impious, and he had to struggle against opposite factions that were one-sided.  The true son of the law believes in both [Greek:  to hreton] and [Greek:  to en hyponoiais].[117] Seeing that the Bible was the inspired revelation of God, who is the fountain of all wisdom and knowledge—­this is Philo’s cardinal dogma—­it is not to be supposed, on the one hand, that it was silent about the profoundest ideas of the human mind, or, on the other, that it contained ideas opposed to right reason and truth.  Yet at first sight it seemed to lack any definite philosophy and to offer anthropomorphic views of God.  Hence the true interpreter must use the actual words of the sage as metaphors, following the maxim, “Turn it about and about, because all is in it, and contemplate it and wax grey over it, for thou canst have no better rule than this."[118] The principle upon which Philo, Saadia, Maimonides, and in fact the whole line of Jewish philosophical exegetes have worked, is that the “words of the law are fruitful and multiply”; or, as the Bible phrase runs, “The Torah which Moses commanded unto us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.”  It is the separate inheritance of each generation, which each must cultivate so as to gather therefrom its own fruit.

The Halakah is the outcome of this devotion in one aspect, the philosophical exegesis in another.  In the one case Jewish jurisprudence and the body of legal tradition, in the other, philosophical ideas inspired by outer civilization, are attached to the text of the Bible by ingenious devices of association.  The device is partly a pious fiction, partly a genuine belief; in other words, the teachers honestly thought that there was respectively a hidden philosophical meaning in the Bible and an oral tradition, supplementary to the written law and arising out of it; but on the other hand they would not have urged that their particular interpretation alone was portended by the Scriptures.  This is shown in the Talmud by the fact that different rabbis deduced the same lessons from different verses, and contrary laws from the same verse; in Philo by the fact that he often gives various interpretations of one text in different parts of his work.  All that was claimed was that knowledge and truth must be primarily referred to the Divine revelation, and all law and practice to the authority of the Mosaic code.  Philo, then, in the same way as the rabbis,