The Legends of the Jews, vol 1 | Page 5

following data must suffice for
the present.
The works of the Talmudic Midrashic literature are of the first
importance. Covering the period from the second to the fourteenth
century, they contain the major part of the Jewish legendary material.
Akin to this in content if not always in form is that derived from the
Targumim, of which the oldest versions were produced not earlier than
the fourth century, and the most recent not later than the tenth. The
Midrashic literature has been preserved only in fragmentary form.
Many Haggadot not found in our existing collections are quoted by the
authors of the Middle Ages. Accordingly, a not inconsiderable number
of the legends here printed are taken from medieval Bible
commentators and homilists. I was fortunate in being able to avail
myself also of fragments of Midrashim of which only manuscript
copies are extant.
The works of the older Kabbalah are likewise treasuries of quotations
from lost Midrashim, and it was among the Kabbalists, and later among
the Hasidim, that new legends arose. The literatures produced in these
two circles are therefore of great importance for the present purpose.
Furthermore, Jewish legends can be culled not from the writings of the
Synagogue alone; they appear also in those of the Church. Certain
Jewish works repudiated by the Synagogue were accepted and
mothered by the Church. This is the literature usually denominated
apocryphal-pseudepigraphic. From the point of view of legends, the
apocryphal books are of subordinate importance, while the
pseudepigrapha are of fundamental value. Even quantitatively the latter
are an imposing mass. Besides the Greek writings of the Hellenist Jews,
they contain Latin, Syrian, Ethiopic, Aramean, Arabic, Persian, and
Old Slavic products translated directly or indirectly from Jewish works
of Palestinian or Hellenistic origin. The use of these pseudepigrapha

requires great caution. Nearly all of them are embellished with
Christian interpolations, and in some cases the inserted portions have
choked the original form so completely that it is impossible to
determine at first sight whether a Jewish or a Christian legend is under
examination. I believe, however, that the pseudepigraphic material
made use of by me is Jewish beyond the cavil of a doubt, and therefore
it could not have been left out of account in a work like the present.
However, in the appreciation of Jewish Legends, it is the Rabbinic
writers that should form the point of departure, and not the
pseudepigrapha. The former represent the main stream of Jewish
thought and feeling, the latter only an undercurrent. If the Synagogue
cast out the pseudepigrapha, and the Church adopted them with a great
show of favor, these respective attitudes were not determined arbitrarily
or by chance. The pseudepigrapha originated in circles that harbored
the germs from which Christianity developed later on. The Church
could thus appropriate them as her own with just reason.
In the use of some of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, I
found it expedient to quote the English translations of them made by
others, in so far as they could be brought into accord with the general
style of the book, for which purpose I permitted myself the liberty of
slight verbal changes. In particulars, I was guided, naturally, by my
own conception of the subject, which the Notes justify in detail.
Besides the pseudepigrapha there are other Jewish sources in Christian
garb. In the rich literature of the Church Fathers many a Jewish legend
lies embalmed which one would seek in vain in Jewish books. It was
therefore my special concern to use the writings of the Fathers to the
utmost.
The luxuriant abundance of the material to be presented made it
impossible to give a verbal rendition of each legend. This would have
required more than three times the space at my disposal. I can therefore
claim completeness for my work only as to content. In form it had to
suffer curtailment. When several conflicting versions of the same
legend existed, I gave only one in the text, reserving the other one, or
the several others, for the Notes, or, when practicable, they were fused
into one typical legend, the component parts of which are analyzed in
the Notes. In other instances I resorted to the expedient of citing one
version in one place and the others in other appropriate places, in

furtherance of my aim, to give a smooth presentation of the matter,
with as few interruptions to the course of the narrative as possible. For
this reason I avoided such transitional phrases as "Some say," "It has
been maintained," etc. That my method sometimes separates things that
belong together cannot be considered a grave disadvantage, as the
Index at the end of the work will present a logical rearrangement of the
material for the benefit of the interested student. I also did not hesitate