[23] According to Josephus, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls into other bodies (μετεμψύχωσις), was also held by the Pharisees (comp. Antiq. xviii, 1, 3: de Bell. Jud. ii, 8, 14), restricting, however, the metempsychosis to the righteous. And though the Midrashim and the Talmud are silent about it, yet from Saadia’s vituperations against it (‏אבל אומר שמצאתי אנשים ממי שנקראים יהודים אומרים בהשנות וקוראים אותו ההעתקח‎ Emunoth ve-Deoth, vi, 7; viii, 3) there is no doubt that this doctrine was held among some Jews in the ninth century of the present era. At all events it is perfectly certain that the Karaite Jews firmly believed in it ever since the seventh century. (Comp. Frankel, Monatschrift, x, 177, &c.) St. Jerome assures us that it was also propounded among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional doctrine which was entrusted to the select few, (abscondite quasi in foveis viperarum versari et quasi haereditario malo serpere in paucis. Comp. epist. ad Demedriadem); and Origen was convinced that it was only by means of this doctrine that certain Scriptural narratives, such as the struggle of Jacob with Esau before their birth, the reference about Jeremiah when still in his mother’s womb, and many others, can possibly be explained. (περὶ ἀρχῶν i, 1, cap. vii; Adver. Celsum, i, 3.) [24] The notion that the creation is a blessing, and that this is indicated in the first letter, is already propounded in the Midrash, as may be seen from the following remark. The reason why the Law begins with Beth, the second letter of the Alphabet, and not with Aleph, the first letter, is that the former is the first letter in the word blessing, while the latter is the first letter in the word accursed, ‏למה בבית מפני שהוא לשון ברכה ולא בא״לף שהוא לשון ארירה‎ (Midrash Rabba, sec. i). [25] This view that the mere literal narrative is unworthy of inspiration, and that it must contain a spiritual meaning concealed under the garment of the letter, is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. Both the Synagogue and the Church have maintained the same from time immemorial. Thus the Talmud already describes the impious Manasseh, King of Israel, as making himself merry over the narratives of the Pentateuch and ironically asking (‏מנשוה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש בהגדות של דופי אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא אחות לוטן תמנע והמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה‎), whether Moses could not find anything better to relate than that “Loton’s sister was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi, 22); “Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz” (ibid., v. 12); that “Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field” (ibid., xxx, 14), &c, &c. And it is replied that these narratives contain another sense besides the literal one. (Sanhedrim, 99 b.) Hence the rule (‏כל מה שאירע לאבות סימן לבנים‎), what happened to the fathers is typical of the children.