Every scholar must be aware that there are two distinct styles—_two schools_, so to speak—plainly traceable in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Elohistic and the Jehovistic. The portions belonging to these respectively are so blended together, so completely mixed up by later hands, that often all external characteristics are lost. Yet it is also known that the two schools were antagonistic; that the one taught esoteric, the other exoteric, or theological doctrines; that the one, the Elohists, were Seers (Roch), whereas the other, the Jehovists, were prophets (Nabhi),(339) and that the latter—who later became Rabbis—were generally only nominally prophets by virtue of their official position, as the Pope is called the infallible and inspired vicegerent of God. That, again, the Elohists meant by “Elohim” “forces,” identifying their Deity, as in the Secret Doctrine, with Nature; while the Jehovists made of Jehovah a personal God externally, and used the term simply as a phallic symbol—a number of them secretly disbelieving even in metaphysical, abstract Nature, and synthesizing all on the terrestrial scale. Finally, the Elohists made of man the divine incarnate image of the Elohim, emanated first in all Creation; and the Jehovists show him as the last, the crowning glory of the animal creation, instead of his being the head of all the sensible beings on earth. (This is reversed by some Kabalists, but the reversion is due to the designedly‐produced confusion in the texts, especially in the first four chapters of _Genesis_.) Take the _Zohar_ and find in it the description relating to Ain‐Suph, the Western or Semitic Parabrahman. What passages have come so nearly up to the Vedântic ideal as the following: The creation [the evolved Universe] is the garment of that which has no name, the garment _woven from the Deity’s own substance_.(340) Between that which is Ain or “nothing,” and the Heavenly Man, there is an Impersonal First Cause, however, of which it is said: Before It gave any shape to this world, before It produced any form, It was alone, without form or similitude to anything else. Who, then, can comprehend It, how It was before the creation, since It was formless? Hence it is forbidden to represent It by any form, similitude, or even by Its sacred name, by a single letter or a single point.(341) The sentence that follows, however, is an evident later interpolation; for it draws attention to a complete contradiction: And to this the words (_Deut._ iv. 15), refer—“Ye saw no manner of similitude on the day the Lord spake unto you.” But this reference to Chapter iv. of _Deuteronomy_, when in Chapter v. God is mentioned as speaking “face to face” with the people, is very clumsy. Not one of the names given to Jehovah in the _Bible_ has any reference whatever to either Ain‐Suph or the Impersonal First‐Cause (which is the Logos) of the _Kabalah_; but they all refer to the _Emanations_. It says