Neither directly nor indirectly, then, did any element of Greek culture reach Jesus.  He knew nothing beyond Judaism; his mind preserved that free innocence which an extended and varied culture always weakens.  In the very bosom of Judaism he remained a stranger to many efforts often parallel to his own.  On the one hand, the asceticism of the Essenes or the Therapeutae;[1] on the other, the fine efforts of religious philosophy put forth by the Jewish school of Alexandria, and of which Philo, his contemporary, was the ingenious interpreter, were unknown to him.  The frequent resemblances which we find between him and Philo, those excellent maxims about the love of God, charity, rest in God,[2] which are like an echo between the Gospel and the writings of the illustrious Alexandrian thinker, proceed from the common tendencies which the wants of the time inspired in all elevated minds.

[Footnote 1:  The Therapeutae of Philo are a branch of the Essenes.  Their name appears to be but a Greek translation of that of the Essenes ([Greek:  Essaioi], asaya, “doctors").  Cf.  Philo, De Vita Contempl., init.]

[Footnote 2:  See especially the treatises Quis Rerum Divinarum Haeres Sit and De Philanthropia of Philo.]

Happily for him, he was also ignorant of the strange scholasticism which was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to constitute the Talmud.  If some Pharisees had already brought it into Galilee, he did not associate with them, and when, later, he encountered this silly casuistry, it only inspired him with disgust.  We may suppose, however, that the principles of Hillel were not unknown to him.  Hillel, fifty years before him, had given utterance to aphorisms very analogous to his own.  By his poverty, so meekly endured, by the sweetness of his character, by his opposition to priests and hypocrites, Hillel was the true master of Jesus,[1] if indeed it may be permitted to speak of a master in connection with so high an originality as his.

[Footnote 1:  Pirke Aboth, chap. i. and ii.; Talm. of Jerus., Pesachim, vi. 1; Talm. of Bab., Pesachim, 66 a; Shabbath, 30 b and 31 a; Joma, 35 b.]

The perusal of the books of the Old Testament made much impression upon him.  The canon of the holy books was composed of two principal parts—­the Law, that is to say, the Pentateuch, and the Prophets, such as we now possess them.  An extensive allegorical exegesis was applied to all these books; and it was sought to draw from them something that was not in them, but which responded to the aspirations of the age.  The Law, which represented not the ancient laws of the country, but Utopias, the factitious laws and pious frauds of the time of the pietistic kings, had become, since the nation had ceased to govern itself, an inexhaustible theme of subtle interpretations.  As to the Prophets and the Psalms, the popular persuasion