affairs, the relation of chance to human freedom, and the necessity of fate; and in many cases he likewise places the rational and transcendental explanations of an event side by side, without any attempt to reconcile them. [Footnote 1: Comp. Mekilta, ed. Weiss, p. 52. This and the following Rabbinic parallels are collected by Bloch, _op. cit._] [Footnote 2: Comp. Tanhuma, xii. 4.] [Footnote 3: Comp. Eusebius, Praep. vii. 2.] [Footnote 4: Comp. Book of Jubilees, xlviii. 18, and Sanhedrin, 91a.] [Footnote 5: He probably had in mind the Greek version of the Song of Moses made by the Jewish-Alexandrian dramatic poet Ezekiel, which was written in hexameter verse.] Josephus deals summarily with the Mosaic Code in the _Antiquities_, but announces his intention to compose "another work concerning our laws." This work is, perhaps, represented by the second book _Against Apion_; or possibly the intention was never fulfilled. He does not set out the ten commandments at length, explaining that it was against tradition to translate them directly.[1] He refers probably to the rule that they were not to be recited in any language but Hebrew, though, of course, the Septuagint contained a full version. On the other hand, he describes the construction of the Tabernacle with some fulness, and dwells particularly on the robes of the priests and the pomp of the high priest. Ritual and ceremonial appealed to his public; and his account, which was based on the practice of his own day, supplements in some particulars the account in the Talmud. But unfortunately he does not describe the Temple service. He attaches marked importance to the Urim and Thummim, which formed a sort of oracle parallel with pagan institutions, and says that the breastplate and sardonyx, with which he identifies them, ceased to shine two hundred years before he wrote his book[2] (i.e. at the time of John Hyrcanus). The Talmud understands the mystic names of the Bible in a similar way,[3] but represents that the oracle ceased with the destruction of the first Temple, and was not known in the second Temple. Josephus enlarges, in a way common to the Hellenistic-Jewish apologists,[4] on the symbolism of the Temple service and furniture. "One may wonder at the contempt men bear us, or which they profess to bear, on the ground that we despise the Deity, whom they pretend to honor: for if anyone do but consider the construction of the Temple, the Tabernacle, and the garments of the high priest, and the vessels we use in our service, he will find our lawgiver was inspired by God.... For if he regard these things without prejudice, he will find that everyone is made by way of imitation and representation of the Universe."[5] [Footnote 1: Ant. III. vi. 4.] [Footnote 2: Ant. III. vii. 7.] [Footnote 3: Yer. Sotah, ix. 13.] [Footnote 4: Comp. Philo, De V. Mos. iii. 6.] [Footnote 5: Ant. III. vii. 7.]