im H - 1 ^:^ '^xj^Zfflmi j /tj; the foufi£nfjsfitf§i^^^i^fJg0iiaj% Bought with the income ofthe Society of the Cincinnati Fund ¦MJBMMWDI . I f € Cj STUDIES IN PHARISAISM AND THE GOSPELS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS C. F. CLAY, Manager ILonJton : FETTER LANE, E.C. eirtnturai: loo PRINCES STREET iftjtt Jgorft: G. p. PUTNAM'S SONS 18nmfi»B, ((Calcutta stiS iTOaStaa: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. Stotonto : J. M. DENT AND SONS, Ltd. Ediso: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA All rights reserved STUDIES IN PHARISAISM AND THE GOSPELS BY I. ABRAHAMS, M.A. READER IN TALMUUIC, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, FORMERLY SENIOR TUTOR, JEWS' COLLEGE, LONDON FIRST SERIES Cambridge : at the University Press 1917 PEEFACE TN 1909 Mr C G. Montefiore published what may without exaggeration be termed an epoch-making Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels in two volumes. It was intended that I should have the honour of contributing a third volume, containing Additional Notes. This plan has not been fulfilled. The reason is simple. I had promised more than I could perform. The problems proved so many, so intricate, that I have found it beyond my capacity to deal with them all. But if the original design could not be fully carried out, neither was it entirely abandoned. A sajdng of Rabbi Tarphon seemed appropriate to the situation. " It is not thy part to complete the work, yet art thou not altogether free to desist from it." On this principle, Notes were from time to time written and printed, until by the year 1912 the contents of the present book were in type. Most of the Notes were actually written between the years 1908-1911. I have recently gone through the proofs carefully, and have added some references to later literature, but substantially the Notes remain as they were written several years ago. The abandonment, for the present at least, of the hope to do much more has impelled me to publish what I have been able to do. The circumstance that this volume was designed as an Appendix to Mr Montefiore 's work accounts for the inclusion of subj'ects of unequal importance. Certain Notes, natural and necessary to a consecutive Commentary, would hardly have suggested themselves V] PREFACE for a series of independent Studies. Moreover, some of the Chapters in the present book, though possibly they might pass as exegetical comments, are quite inadequate as essays. It must be remembered that it was purposed to supplement several of these Notes by further Notes on other aspects of the same problems as they presented themselves in the course of the Synoptic narratives. The author is not without hope that he may be able before long to issue a second series of Studies in which some of the omissions are rectified. In point of fact several Studies on other matters are practically written, and others definitely planned. Among the subjects to be discussed in this second Series would be: certain aspects of " Life under the Law," the " Yoke of the Command ments," "Ritual Purity," the "Traditions ofthe Elders," the "Last Supper," " Rabbinic Conceptions of Sacrifice and Prayer," the "Trial of Jesus," the "Am Ha-ares," the "Two Ways," the "Psy chology and Liturgy of Confession," and above all the " Kingdom of God," " Pharisaic Eschatology," and the " Jewish Apocalypses." This being the case, I have deferred for a later occasion any general appreciation of the Gospel teachings. Nor do I think it necessary to justify at any length the intrusion of a Jewish student into the discussion of the Synoptic problem. Mr Montefiore, as is admitted on all hands, rendered a conspicuous service both to Jewish and Christian scholars by his fi"ank and masterly exami nation of the Gospels from a professedly Jewish stand-point. Undoubtedly a (though not the) real Synoptic problem is : how to hold the balance truly between the teaching of Jesus on the one hand and of Pharisaic Judaism on the other. Obviously, then, Jewish students have both the right and the duty to attempt a contribution to this balanced judgment. Apart fi-om the fact that their studies in Pharisaic literature are inevitably more intimate, there is another very important consideration. Pharisaism was not a mere historical phase ; it has remained a vital force, it has gone on without a moment's break from the centuries before the Christian era to the twentieth century of that era. It has been PREFACE vn put to the test of time and of life. It has survived throughout an experience, such as no other religious system has undergone. Hence the Jewish student is able to apply to current criticisms of Pharisaism not merely literary tests, but also the touchstone and possibly the corrective of actual experience. There is perhaps room for yet another suggestion. Jewish students of the Old Testament have gained much from the re searches made by Christian scholars, not merely philologically and in the archaeological field, but also theologically. For the Jew has so ingrained a belief in the organic union of ritual with religion, is so convinced that the antithesis of letter and spirit is mistaken psychologically, that he needed the analytical criticism to enable him to appreciate historically the difference between the prophetic and the priestly strata in the Hebrew Bible, between the abiding principles and Messianic dreams of religion and those detailed rules of ritual and maxims of conduct by which it is sought to realize those principles and dreams in actual life. But it is just because of this that the Jew may be able to return the compliment, and help Christians to understand certain phases of the Gospels. Many modem Christians seem tom between two sides of the teaching of Jesus — his prophetic-apocalyptic visions of the Kingdom and his prophetic-priestly concern in the moral and even ritual life of his day, in which he wished to see the Law maintained in so far as it could be applied under existing circum stances. The Christian scholar, impregnated with Paulinism, sometimes appears to find these two aspects of the Gospel teachings inconsistent. Hence we have the disturbing phenomenon of waves in Christian thought, the humanists who regard Jesus as almost exclusively a moralist, and the apocalyptists who treat him as almost exclusively a visionary. The Jew sees nothing inconsistent in these two aspects. The very causes which make Christian commentaries useful for the Jew if he would understand the Old Testament, may make Jewish commentaries helpful to the Christian for understanding some aspects of the New Testament. vm PREFACE I am well aware of the many imperfections of the Studies here presented. But I do claim that I have not written apologetically .- Still less have I been moved by controversial aims. Only on rare occasions have I directly challenged the picture of Pharisaism drawn in Germany by Prof. Schtirer and in England by Canon Charles. I have preferred to supplement their views by a positive presentation of another view. In this sense only are these Studies apologetic and controversial. At all events, though I acknowledge that I have fallen far below Mr Montefiore in the faculty of un prejudiced judgment, I have never consciously suppressed defects in the Pharisaic position, nor have I asserted in behalf of it more than the facts, as known to me, have demanded. I am confident that those who are best acquainted with the difiiculties of the problems discussed will be the most lenient critics of my errors and misconceptions, I. A. December, 1916. CONTENTS PAGE I The Feebdom op the Synagogue ... 1 II The Greatest Commandment .... 18 III John the Baptist 30 IV Pharisaic Baptism 36 V The Dove and the Voice 47 VI Leaven 51 VII Publicans and Sinners . ; . . . 54 VIII "Give unto Caesar" 62 IX First Century Divorce 66 X Widows' Houses 79 XI The Cleansing op the Temple. ... 82 XII The Parables 90 XIII Disease and Miracle 108 XIV Poverty and Wealth 113 XV The Children 118 XVI Fasting 121 XVII The Sabbath 129 XVIII The Personal Use op the Term Messiah . 136 XIX God's Forgiveness 139 XX Man's Forgiveness 150 XXI The Life op the Resurrection . . . 168 Index (I) Op Names and Subjects . . . 171 (II) Op New Testament Passages . . 177 It may be well to indicate the relation of the present Chapters to the Additional Notes referred to in Mr Montefiore's work. The, correspondence is as follows: Additional Notes iu Chapters in Mr Montefiore's work. the present volume. 1 xviii. 2 iii. 3 iv. 4 V. 6 i. 7 xiii. 8 xix., XX. 9 vii. 11 vii. 12 xvi. 13 xvii. 14 xii. 15 xiv. 16 xiv. 17 vi. 18 ix. 19 IV. 20 xiv. 21 xi. 22 viii. 23 xxi. 24 ii. 25 X. I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE. The Synagogue, — that most gracious product of Jewish legalism — cannot have been the invention of the Hellenistic diaspora (as is maintained, without adequate evidence, by M. Friedlander, Introd. to Synagoge und Kirche, 1908). If it was due to a diaspora at all, it must be attributed to the exile in Babylon. This is no modern guess, for we have the statement of Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 17) that Jews applied Malachi i. 11, 12 to the prayers of the Israelites then in dispersion. We may confidently assert (with W. Bacher, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bihle, s.v. ; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem i. 364) that the Synagogue was a Palestinian institution of the Persian period. It was an institution momentous for the history of religion. "Their (the Jews') genius for the organisation of public religion appears in the fact that the form of communal worship devised by them was adopted by Christianity and Islam, and in its general outline still exists in the Christian and Moslem worlds " (C Toy, Introduction to the History of Religions, 191 3, p. 546). In the Greek diaspora the Synagogue undoubtedly became of special importance. But its connection with Palestinian models is clear. Philo's account of the services in the Greek synagogues points to the two features which distinguished the Palestinian system ; the reading and interpretation of the Scriptures, and the recitation of passages to which the assembly responded by terms of liturgical assent (cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, p. 190). These features are shown in Ezra and Chronicles, and in all the Palestinian records that Lave come down to us (as in Sirach). True, the Maccabean history makes no direct reference to the Synagogue, but the main interest in that history was Jerusalem and the Temple. None the less, the books of the Maccabees prove most clearly that the people were in possession of copies of the Scroll of the law from which they read publicly (i Mace. i. 57, iii. 48), were in the habit of gathering A. 1 2 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE for prayer (iii. 44), and above all of singing hymns with such refrains as "His mercy is good, and endureth for ever" (iv. 24). That there is little allusion in the Books of the Maccabees to places of worship is intelligible — though the silence is not absolute. It must not be overlooked that (iii. 46) Mizpah is described not as an ancient shrine or altar but as " a place of prayer " (Toiroi Trpoa-tvx^s). But the fact seems to be that the institution of the Synagogue was earlier than the erection of places of worship. In the Temple itself, the reading of the Law was conducted by Ezra in the open courts, which remained the scene of the prayer-meetings to the end, as the Rabbinic sources amply demonstrate (e.g. Mishnah Sukkah chs. iv — -v; cf. Sirach L 5 — 21 ; I Mace. iv. 55). So, too, with the first prayer-meetings in the "provinces." The meetings were probably held in the open air; and that this was the most primitive form is shown by the fact that the assemblies on occasions of national stress, even in the last decades of the existence of the temple, were held in the public thoroughfares (Mishnah Taanith ii. i). By the first century a.d. Synagogue buildings were plentiful both in the capital and the provinces. They probably came into being under the favourable rule of Simon. It must always, however, be remembered that Synagogue buildings in various parts of Palestine are possibly referred to in Psalm Ixxiv. 8, usually assigned to the early years of the Maccabean age. This is not the place to discuss the whole question, but one supreme fact must not be omitted. From first to last, there was an organic relation between Temple and Synagogue (though Friedlander, loc. cit., denies this). That there were prayers in the Temple is of course certain (Mishnah Tamid v ; Philo on Monarchy vi). Isaiah's phrase (Ivi. 7) a "house of prayer" (LXX. oTkos Tcpocrevxij^) applied to the Temple was fulfilled to the letter. It is probable that all the Greek words used in the diaspora for the Synagogue (that word itself, Proseuche and place of instruction, — ^the last occurs in the Hebrew Sirach) were derived from Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents. Certain is it that, in Palestine, no Greek terms were imported to describe the Synagogue. The real model for Palestine and the diaspora was the Temple. It was a true instinct, therefore, which identified the "smaller sanctuary" of Ezekiel xi. 16 with the Synagogue (T. B. Megillah 29b). The very word Ahodah used of the Temple service became an epithet for the service of prayer (the " Abodah of the heart," SifrS Deut. § 41). The link between Temple and Synagogue was established in Palestine by the system in accordance with which local delegacies accompanied I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 3 the priests during their course of service in Jerusalem, while at home there were simultaneously held public readings of the law (Mishnah Taanith iv. 2). The evidence from the Greek sources points in the same direction. Agatharchides of Cnidos (second century B.C.) records how the Jews spend their Sabbath in rest, and " spread out their hands and pray (evxfcrOai) till the evening." The whole context of the passage (as cited in Josephus Against Apion 1. 22) shows that Agatharchides was referring to Jerusalem. That, however, in Egypt the Synagogue imitated the Palestinian methods is clear from Philo. Even Philo's Egyptian Therapeutae have their analogue, and possibly exemplar, in the Palestinian Essenesi As regards Alexandria, Philo gives unmistakable proof of the dependence of the Synagogue on the Temple method. His account, though its force has not been adequately realized, entirely depends on the Palestinian model. He tells us how (11. 630) "the multitude listens in silence, except when it is customary to say words of good omen by way of assent to what is read." This can only refer to the recitation of passages (chiefly no doubt Psalms) by one while the rest answer by " Amen " and similar ancient liturgical responses, such as were used in the Temple. That this must refer to prayers and not to reading the law is certain, for Philo then proceeds to describe the Scriptural readings and the expositions. Yery instructive as to the connection between the Synagogues of the diaspora and the Temple is Philo's further statement that the exposition of the Scriptures was delivered by one of the priests who happened to be present (toIv Upwi/ Se Tts 6 irapuiv) or by one of the elders (rj twv yepovTcov). This picture of the activity of the priests in teaching the law is a remarkable testimony to the truth that though the Temple was essentially the home of the sacrificial ritual, its influence on life was far-reaching and beneficial. Had it been otherwise, Philo would not have eulogised the Temple and priesthood — as he does in many places. Perhaps nothing could more piquantly show how completely Jerusalem, its Temple and its services, contrived to harmonise sacrificial ritual with prayer and a manifold activity, than the quaint report given by one who lived in Jerusalem during the existence of the Temple and survived its fall. R. Joshua b. Hananya said : " When we rejoiced (during Tabernacles) at the Joy of the Water-drawing we saw no sleep with our eyes. How so ? The first hour, the morning Tamid (sacrifice), and thence to the prayer ; thence to the musaph (additional) offering, thence to the musaph prayer ; thence to the House of Study, thence to 1—2 4 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE the meal ; thence to the afternoon prayer, thence to the evening Tamid ; thence onwards to the joy of the water-drawing " (T. B. Sukkah 53 a). The Synoptists draw a pleasing picture of the freedom of teaching permitted by the Synagogue. Jesus performed this function throughout Galilee. The Fourth Gospel and Acts confirm the Synoptic record as to the readiness of the " rulers of the Synagogue " to call upon any competent worshipper to interpret and expound the Scriptures that had been read. Such instruction was usual in the Synagogue long before the time of Jesus as Zunz has shown (Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, ch. xx.), and the evidence is admirably marshalled and supplemented by Schiirer (Geschichte des jUdischen Volkes etc. 11*. pp. 498 seq.). Philo (ii. 458) describes how one would read from the book, while another, " one of the more experienced " (t<3v ifiTreipcyrdTcov), expounded. In Palestine, too, the only qualification was competence, just as for leading the services experience (cf. the b'JT of the Mishnah Taanith ii. 2) was a chief requisite. As the discourses grew in length the locale for the sermon seems to have been transferred from Synagogue to School, and the time sometimes changed from the morning to the afternoon or previous evening. We find later on both customs in force together (T.J. Taanith, i. § 2 etc.). But at the earlier period, when the discourse was brief, it must have been spoken in the Synagogue, and immediately after the lesson from the Prophets. The only two occasions of which we have a definite account of teaching in the Synagogue are, curiously enough, treated by Schiirer (11*. 533 n. 123) as exceptions. His reason fordoing so is derived from a purely philological argument. In the two cases, Luke iv. 17 and Acts xiii. 15, it is specifically recorded that the address followed the reading from the Prophets. In the first instance Jesus speaks after reading a couple of verses from Isaiah ; in the second, we are explicitly told that in the Synagogue of Antioch, after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent to them [Paul and his company], saying, "Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." We may note in passing that whereas Jesus both reads the lesson and expounds it, Paul does not seem to have read the lesson. This indicates an interesting difference in practice, for which there is other evidence. Rapoport (Erech Millin, 168) concludes from various Rabbinical passages that in the second century the reader of the Prophetical lesson was, in general, one who was able also to preach. It may be that this custom existed side by side with another method which encouraged the children to read the lessons in Synagogue (cf. L THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 5 Blau, Revue des Etudes juives, LV. 218). The two customs can be reconciled by the supposition (based on Soferim, xii. 7, xiv. 2) that when a preacher was present, he read the Prophetical lesson, and in the absence of such a one the children read it, perhaps at greater length. For the Prophetical reading was by nature a sermon, and as the service concluded with a sermon, the Prophetical lesson concluded the service when no preacher was present. It is clear from the narrative in T.B. Beza, 15 b, that the homily of the Rabbi was the end of the service, and it follows that the homily was given after the reading from the Prophets. But Schurer holds that as a general rule the discourse foUowed on the Pentateuchal lesson, and that the Prophetical reading without explanation concluded the service. True it is that the Prophetical lesson was named hafta/ra (nitasn or mtSQK), a word corresponding to demissio, i.e. the people was dismissed with or after the reading from the Prophets. But this surely is quite compatible with a short discourse, and the dismissal of the people might still be described as following the Prophetical lesson. Moreover, it may well be that the term hqftara refers to the conclusion not of the whole services but of the Scriptural readings, the Prophetical passage being the complement of the Pentateuchal section. This was the view of various medieval authorities as cited in Abudarham and other liturgists. (It is accepted by I. Elbogen in his treatise Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1913, p. 175). The oldest Prophetical lessons were most probably introduced for festivals and the special four or five Sabbaths in order to reinforce and interpret the Pentateuchal lessons, and (in the view of some) to oppose the views of schismatics. The Pharisees, owing to the con flicting theories of the Sadducees, attached to the sections from the Law such readings from the other Scriptures (particularly the " Earlier Prophets" who off'ered historical statements) as supported the Pharisaic exposition of the festival laws. (Cf. Biiehler, J. E., vi. 136 a. The same writer there cites T.B. Megilla, 25 b, T.J. Megilla, iv. 75 c, Tosefta, iv. 34 as Talmudic evidence that the reading of the haftara on the Sabbath had already been instituted in the first century of the common era). According to Abudarham, the author of a famous fourteenth century commentary on the Synagogue liturgy, the Prophetic readings grew up in a time of persecution, and were a substitute for the Pentateuchal readings when these were interdicted. On the other hand, L. Yenetianer has lately suggested (Z. D. M. G. vol. 63, p. 103) that there were no specific readings from the Prophets till the end of 6 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE the second century, and that the Prophetical lectionaries were chosen polemically in reply to lectionaries and homilies in the early Christian Church. But it seems far more probable that the baftaras were chosen for other reasons : (a) to include some of the most beautiful parts of the Scriptures, (b) to reinforce the message of the Pentateuch, and (c) to establish firmly the conviction that the whole of the canonical Scriptures (which, when the haftaras were first appointed, did not yet include the hagiographa) were a unity. (Cf. Bacher, Die Proomien der alien jUdischen Homilie, 1913, Introduction.) There does not seem to have been any interval between the two readings, in fact the reciter of the haftara previously read a few verses from the Pentateuchal lesson (T.B. Megilla, 23 a). The sermon often dealt with the substance of the Pentateuchal lesson, and the preacher frequently took his text from it. But it is initially unlikely that the sermon should precede the haftara, seeing that the latter was introduced to help the understanding of the Law. We are not, how ever, left to conjecture. For we possess a large number of discourses which were specifically composed round the haftara. Many of the homilies in the Pesiqta Rabbathi are of this class ; they are of course not, as they now stand, so early as the first century, but they represent a custom so well established as to point to antiquity of origin. The famous fast-day discourse reported in the Mishnah Taanith ii. i is based on two texts from the prophets (Jonah iii. 10 and Joel ii. 13), — both of which passages were eminently suitable as the lesson for such an occasion. Of the forty-seven chapters in the Pesiqta (most of which are compounded of many discourses) in Friedmann's edition, more than twenty are based on haftaras ; in the Pesiqta qf R. Gahana there are eleven such chapters. That these discourses followed the reading from the Prophets is shown by the recurrence of such a phrase as : " As he has read as haftara in the Prophet '' (xuia ^hfifTW no Friedmann, i b) when quoting the text expounded. (The verb d^b> is equivalent in this context to itasx, just as KHD^EJ' is another word for niDSn, and it must signify to complete the lesson rather than to dismiss the congregation.) Similar evidence that the discourse was preceded by the actual reading of the haftara is derivable from Friedmann's edition, pp. 29 a, 42 a (xujn chvn^ nt3»), 54 a, 142b (|"ija anSE' nOD "As he has written in the passage read"), 149 b (S»33n 1"35)3 INnpC HDD), 179 a (jiJW ti^pE' HDD). Perhaps the most instructive passage of all is on 172 a. Here the discourse is on the Pentateuchal text Leviticus xxiii. 24 read on the New Year I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 7 festival : " In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest unto you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets." At the end of the last Pisqa the homily runs : " Says the Holy One, blessed be He, in this world, through the trumpet (shofar) I have had compassion on you, and so in time to come I will be merciful to you through the trumpet (shofar) and bring near your redemption. Whence? From what we have read in the lesson of the Prophet (N'333 p:V3 IKlptf nDD ?)"iD): Blow ye the trumpet in Zion... for the day of the Lord cometh (Joel ii. i)." In this case it is quite clear that the discourse on the Pentateuchal te^t followed the hafta/ra. I have been at some pains to show that the New Testament accounts of the preaching in the Synagogues refer to the normal and not to the exceptional, because these accounts are the most precise we possess and it is important to know that we may rely on them completely. What then can we exactly infer as to the extent of freedom which the worshippers enjoyed not only with regard to teaching but also with regard to the selection of passages on which to speak? I do not find it possible to accept the view that the homilist was allowed a perfectly free hand, that he might open the Prophet or Prophets where he willed, read a verse or two and then address the congregation. That the readings from the Law and the Prophets were in the time of Jesus very short is fairly certain. The rule that at least 21 verses were read from the Law and the Prophets was, as Biiehler shows (J. Q. R., v. 464 seq. ; vi. 14 seq., 45), late. In the Massoretic divisions we find Sabbath lessons (Sedarim) which contain seven, eight and nine verses, and there are many in dications that the oldest haftara often comprised very few verses. This follows indeed from the very nature of the hafta/ra. It originally corresponded in substance with, and agreed often in its opening word with the opening word of, the Pentateuchal lesson. But this correspondence mostly only concerns a single verse or two, not long passages. Thus the reading Isaiah Ixi. i — 2 (Luke iv. 16) was possibly the whole of the haftara. Later on, it became usual to round off" the reading by skipping until a suitable terminating verse was reached. Let us try to define exactly what it is that Luke describes. Jesus stood up to read. Then " there was delivered unto him a book of the prophet Isaiah." The verb used for " delivered up " (iiriSoOr)) might be interpreted "was delivered unto him in addition." In that case Jesus would have first read a verse of the Pentateuchal lesson (perhaps Deut. XV. 7) and then proceeded with the hafta/ra. But it is impossible 8 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE to press the Greek verb in this way. Yet it is at all events clear that the prophet was not Jesus' choice ; it was handed to him. More over, the wording in Luke makes it almost certain that just as the book of Isaiah was not Jesus' own choice, so the passage from Isaiah was not chosen by Jesus himself. " He opened the book and found the place where it was written." The word "found" (eupci/) does not mean he looked for it and chose it, but he " found " it ready. This is implied by a change in the verbs which has I think been overlooked. We are simply told that Jesus " opened " (avoi^as) the book. Jesus does not unroll it, as he would have done had he searched for a text. (The reading d.va.TTTv^a.% is rejected by W.H., Nestle etc.) Luke on the other hand tells us that when he had finished the reading he "rolled it up." The A.Y. "he closed the book" does not give the force of the Greek (irTv^as). Thus when he has finished Jesus rolls up the scroll which he did not unroll, for it was given to him already unrolled, so that he only opened it at the place already selected and found the passage in Isaiah ready for him to read. In fact, whUe the Pentateuch was read in an unbroken order, the haftara might be derived from any part of the Prophets, provided always that one condition was fulfilled ; the passage was bound to resemble in subject- matter the Torah portion just read. As Dr Biiehler well puts it : "This is clear from the origin of the institution itself; and moreover the examples quoted by the Mishna, Boraitha and Tosefta, bear un mistakable testimony to the existence of this condition " (J. Q. R., VI. 12). It has often been pointed out that Jesus sat down (Luke iv. 20) to expound the Scriptures, and that this accords with Rabbinic custom. There is no contradiction in Acts xiii. 16, where "Paul stood up." Though Paul's exhortation follows Jewish lines in its structure, it is not an explanation of the Law. For, though the address may be due more to Luke's hand than to Paul's, it resembles the exhortations in the Books of the Maccabees ; and, at all events, so far from expounding the Law, it is an ingenious eulogy of it up to a point, and thence an argument against its sufficiency. The climax of Paul's whole speech is reached in verse 39, and the opposition which followed, from those who venerated the Law against one who proclaimed its insufficiency, cannot be regarded as any breach in that freedom of the Synagogue which he had previously enjoyed. On the other hand, Jesus expounded the Scriptures, applying Isaiah Ixi. i, 2 to himself. He seems to have combined Iviii. 6 with Ixi. i. The right to "skip'' while reading the I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 9 Prophets was well attested (Mishnah Megilla iv. 4). Being written on a Scroll, the two passages might easily be open together, and Jesus, in accordance with what at all events became a usual Rabbinic device, intended to use both texts as the key to his exposition. Such skipping to suitable passages may be noted in the Geniza fragments of haftaras in the triennial cycle. If the view here taken of the incident in Luke be correct, then we have distinctly gained evidence that, at the opening of the public teaching of Jesus, the Synagogue lectionary was becoming fixed at all events in its main principles. That this was the case with the essential elements of the service is very probable. There is no reason whatever to doubt the tradition (T.B. Berachoth, 33 a) which ascribed the beginnings of the order of service to the "Men of the Great Synod," the successors of the three post-exilic prophets, Haggai, Zecha- riah, and Malachi. The doubts which Kuenen threw on the reality of this body — doubts which for a generation caused the " Great Synod " to be dismissed as a myth — are no longer generally shared, and Dr G. Adam Smith in his Jerusalem has fairly faced the absurd position in which we are placed if we deny, to a highly organised community such as Ezra left behind him, some central legislative and spiritual authorities in the Persian and Greek periods. The two functions were afterwards separated, and it may well be (Biiehler Das Synhedrium in Jerusalem, 1902) that two distinct Synhedria, one with civil the other with religious jurisdiction, existed in the last period before the fall of the Temple. As regards the Synagogue service, it probably opened with an invocation to prayer, must have included the Shema (Deut. vi. 4 — 9, xi. 13 — 21 ; to which was added later Numbers xv. 37 — 41), a doxology and confession of faith, the eighteen benedictions in a primitive form, readings from Pentateuch and Prophets, and certain communal responses. With this Schurer (foe. cit.) is in substantial agreement. The actual contents of the liturgy long remained fluid; the fixation of the Synagogue prayers was the work of the post-Talmudic Gaonim of the seventh century onwards. Attention should be paid to a remarkable difference of language with regard to prayer and study of the Law. Nothing better brings out the real character of Pharisaism. It relied on rule and based much con fidence on the effect of good habits. But it left free the springs of emotion and the source of communion. While, then, Shammai urged (Aboth i. 15)" Make thy Torah a fixed thing " (:?3p iniin nB'y), Simon — a disciple 10 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE of Johanan b. Zakkai — proclaimed (ib. ii, i8) "Make not fhy prayer a fixed thing " (rDp in^sn E'l?n bx)- Study was to be a habit, prayer a free emotion. The true tradition of Pharisaism from beginning to end of the first century is seen from Hillel, through Johanan, to his disciples — one of whom in answer to Johanan's problem: "Go forth and see which is the good way to which a man should cleave " said : " A good heart." And the master approved this solution as the right one (Aboth ii. 13). No fixation of a liturgy changed this attitude. Prayer might be, as time progressed, ordained to follow certain forms, but within those forms freedom prevailed, as it still prevails in the most conservative Jewish rituals. With regard to reciting the Scriptures, the public reading of the Law for occasions was certainly instituted by Ezra, and continued by his successors in authority; the passages read were translated into the vernacular Aramaic (Targum). We know that the Palestinian custom, when finaUy organised, provided for a cycle of Sabbath lessons which completed a continuous reading of the Pentateuch once in every three years (T.B. Megillah, 29 b). As to the antiquity of the beginnings of this Triennial Cycle Dr Biichler's epoch-making Essays leave no doubt (/. Q. R., v. 420, vi. i). The strongest argument for this supposition is of a general character, but it is reinforced by many particular facts. Many events in the Pentateuch which are left undated in the original are dated with exactitude in the Rabbinic tradition. This is amply accounted for by the simple fact that these events are contained in the Sabbath lessons which fell normally to be read on certain dates, which Tannaitic tradition thereupon associated with those events. This argument enables us to work backwards and assume a somewhat early origin for the fixation of the readings on those particular dates. It may here be of interest to interpolate one or two instances of the light thrown on passages in the N.T. by the Cycle of lessons. Dr King (Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1904) has ingeniously shown that the association (in the second chapter of the Acts) of the Gift of Tongues with Pentecost faUs in admirably with the Triennial Cycle. The first year of the Cycle began on Nisan i, and the opening verses of Genesis were then read. The eleventh chapter of Genesis was reached at the season of Pentecost. This chapter narrated the story of Babel, i.e. the Confusion of Tongues. The Gift of the Spirit is a " reversal of the curse of Babel." A second instance may be found in the Fourth Gospel. The discourse of Jesus I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 11 regarding the Manna must, have occurred in the spring, although the date "the Passover was near" (John vi. 4) is justly held to be a suspicious reading. But the note of time "there was much grass in the place" (verse 10) is confirmed by the " green grass " of Mark vi. 39. John particularly specifies that the five loaves were made of " barley " (verses 9, 13). The new barley would certainly not be available till a few weeks after the Passover, and the poor would not have possessed a store of the old barley so late as the spring. Everything points, then, to a date soon after the Passover. Now in the second year of the Triennial Cycle the lessons for the first weeks in lyyar (end of April or beginning of May) were taken from Exodus xvi., the very chapter in which the miracle of the Manna is reported. Of course the dates of both Acts and the Fourth Gospel are uncertain. But such coincidences as these (to which others could easily be added) point to the use of good and old sources, and they at least confirm the view that, in its initial stages, a Cycle of lessons may have been already in vogue in the first century. Some obscure arguments in the Gospels might lose their difficulty if we were acquainted with the Scriptural readings with which they were possibly associated. Thus in the Sabbath incident (Matthew xii.), the argument would be more logical if Numbers xxviii. 9 — 10 and I Sam. xxi. i — 10 had been recently read in the Synagogues. "Have ye not read what David did ? " and " Have ye not read in the Law ? " (Matthew xii. 3, 5) would have a sharp sarcastic point in that case. It may weU be, again, that the Parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken during the weeks when Genesis xxv. onwards formed the Sabbath lessons. There is distinct indication from Philo (see below Note on ¦ Parables) that the idea conveyed in the Parable alluded to was con nected with the story of Esau and Jacob. Another instance is yet clearer. The discourse in the Fourth Gospel (vii. 37, 8) belongs to Tabernacles. " As the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters. But this spake he of the Spirit." The reference probably is to Zecbariah xiv. 8 (now read in the Synagogues on the first day of Tabernacles, possibly under the Triennial Cycle read later in the festival week). Zecbariah indeed has : "living waters shall go out from Jerusalem'' But as in Rabbinic tradition (T. B. Sanhedrin 37 a, Ezekiel xxxviii. 8, Jubilees viii.) Jerusalem was situated in the navel of the earth, John may be using belly as a synonym for Jerusalem. Even more significant are the words that follow: "But this spake he of the Spirit." The Ceremony of the Water-drawing (already referred 12 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE to above), which occurred on Tabernacles, was interpreted to mean the draught of the Holy Spirit (Genesis Rabba, ch. 70). Some far-reaching suggestions as to the nature of the teaching of Jesus, as found in the Fourth Gospel, in relation to the ideas of the Doreshe Reshumoth (on whom see a later Note), may be found in G. Klein's Der dltesle christ liche Katechismus und die jiidische Propaganda- Literatur (Berlin 1909). See especially the section (pp. 49 — 61) entitled "Jesu Predigt nach Johannes." My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the Fourth Gospel, is that that Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect of Jesus' teaching which has not found a place in the Synoptics. There is no reason to suppose that the freedom of teaching in the Galilean Synagogues was ever denied to Jesus. So important and dramatic an incident as such a denial must have found a mention in the Synoptists. Yet they are agreed in their silence as to an event of that nature ; of course John (xviii. 20) represents Jesus as through out, and to the last, teaching, in synagogue. The cessation of references to such teaching in Mark after the sixth chapter may be best explained on the supposition that Jesus voluntarily changed his method when he found that he no longer carried the Synagogue audiences with him. The turning point is clearly given by Mark in his account of the experience of Jesus at Nazareth. The prophet found no honour in his own country, and this loss of sympathy appears to have induced Jesus to abandon the Synagogue discourses in favour of more in formal teaching in the villages and in the open air, reverting indeed to the older practice. Prof. Burkitt (The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 68) holds that the final rupture occurred with the religious authorities in Galilee in consequence of the healing of the man with a withered hand in the Synagogue on a Sabbath (Mark iii. i). The Pharisees are said thereupon to have taken counsel with the Herodians to accuse and destroy Jesus. This was the definite breach (iii. 6). Prof. Burkitt with brilliant skill works out a scheme which accounts for Jesus spending the eight months in territory in which the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas did not run. During the greater part of the year before the last Passover Jesus "lives a wandering life in exile from Galilee or iu concealment, and his chief work is no longer that of Revivalist but of the Pastor pastorum " (op. cit., p. 89). This theory makes it necessary to explain as excep tional not only the later attempts to teach in the Nazareth Synagogue (where the failure is certainly not due to Pharisaic hostility), but also I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 13 the subsequent teaching in the villages recorded in general terms (Mark vi. 6 "And he went round about the villages teaching"; cf the parallels in Matthew and Luke) and the teaching of the crowd (Mark vi. 34). Moreover the language of Mark viii. 27 points to public teaching (outside Galilee), and (x. i) where he enters the borders of Judsea "multitudes come together unto him again, and as he was wont he taught them again." That the death of John the Baptist greatly influenced Jesus in avoiding Galilee is highly probable ; and there may have been some growing suspicion of him in the official circles of the Synagogues. But it cannot be said that there is any evidence at all that Jesus ever attempted to teach in any synagogue and was met with a refusal. Still less is there any ground for holding that " the influence of the Sanhedrin everywhere haunted " Jesus and his disciples. Prof. G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, i. 416-7) strongly maintains that this was so, though Schweitzer, Quest, p. 362, is of another opinion. My own conviction is that most of the controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees occurred in Jerusalem and not in Galilee. If the tradition of the Galilean scene be authentic, the Pharisees were Priests who had been in Jerusalem and had returned to their GalUean homes after serving their regular course. The references to Pharisees or scribes who came from Jerusalem (Mark iii. 22, Matthew xv. i) do not point to deputa tions from the capital. The language of Mark vii. i is the most explicit : " And there were gathered together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes which had come from Jerusalem and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is unwashen hands.'' This looks very much as though the Pharisees were there in quite a normal manner; it is forcing the words, here and in the other passages cited, to represent them as " deputations " or as dogging the footsteps of Jesus. Herod Antipas may have had some such designs, but the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem had neither power nor motive to take action until the scene was transferred to the capital. With regard to the effect of Jesus' discourses in the Synagogues, we are told that " he taught as one having authority " (Mk i. 22 ; Mt. vii. 29 ; Luke iv. 32). If the only version of this record were Luke's, the reference would obviously be to the authority with which the words of Jesus " came home to the consciences of his hearers " (Plummer). But the other two Synoptists agree in contrasting this " authority " with the manner of the Scribes. H. P. Chajes suggests that the real meaning is that Jesus taught in Parables (see Note on Parables below). 14 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE This would possibly have to be compared with Philo's remark that the teaching in the Alexandrian Synagogues was by way of allegory (8ia o-u/a/3o'A.(jdi/ II. 630). More acceptable is A. Wiinsche's explanation of the claim that Jesus spoke cos iiovcrlav extui/ (JVeue Beitrdge zur ErlaiX- terung der Evangelien, Gottingen, 1878, p. no). The phrase recalls the Rabbinic idiom of speaking "from the mouth of power" (miDJn ''SD), connoting the possession of direct divine inspiration. The Pharisaic teachers certainly laid no general claim to the dignity. But the remark " he taught as one having authority " is usuaUy explained by referring to the Rabbinical method as unfolded in the Talmud — with aU its scholastic adhesion to precedents, and its technical and complicated casuistry. But this reference is not quite relevant. For the Talmudical method was the result of long development after the age of Jesus, and the question is : to what extent can we reasonably assert that the method was already prevalent before the destruction of the Temple and the failure of the Bar Coohba War of Independence (135 a.d.) drove the Rabbis into their characteristic scholasticism ? There was, moreover, all along a populcxr exegesis besides the scholastic, a form of homily specially intended for the edification and instruction of the simple and unlearned ; and it would thus be improper to contrast the simplicity and directness of Jesus with the sophistication and precedent citations of the Rabbis even if the latter features were earlier than we have evidence of. Hillel, the greatest of the predecessors of Jesus, taught almost without reference to precedent ; he only once cites ati earlier authority. Hillel's most characteristic utterances are as free as are those of Jesus from the bonds of scholastic tradition. He, too, exemplifies the prophetic independence of conventions. Naturally, the appeal to and reliance on precedents presupposes an accumulation of precedents to appeal to and rely on. Such a mass of previous rule and doctrine would only be built up gradually. (See T. J. Pesahim 39 a, where Hillel cites his teachers. In the Babylonian Talmud Pesah. 66 the citation, however, is omitted. Cf. Bacher Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Paldstinas und Bcxbyloniens, Leipzig, 1914, p. 55.) It was mainly the Amoraim of the third century onwards that made the appeal to precedent, and naturally as the precedents accumulated so appeal to them would increase, as in the modern English legal experience with regard to the citation of illustrative "cases." The earlier Jewish teaching certainly goes to the Scriptures, but so does Jesus ; and this earlier teaching (like that of Jesus) uses the Scriptures as a general I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 15 inspiration. It is only later (in the middle of the second century) that we find a strict technical reliance on chapter and verse, and in point of fact Jesus (in the Synoptists) appeals in this way to Scripture quite as much as does any of the earlier Rabbis. It was perhaps just his eclecticism, his independence of any particular school, that is implied by the contrast between Jesus' teaching and that of the Scribes. The solution may be found in the supposition that Jesus taught at a transition period, when the formation of schools of exegesis was in process of development. Hillel's famous contemporary, Shammai, does seem to have been a stickler for precedent, and his school was certainly distinguished from that of Hillel by this very characteristic. If it be the truth, further, that Shammai (as Dr Belchier conjectures) was a Galilean, then it is possible that especially in Galilee there was growing up in the age of Jesus a school which taught with close reference to particular rules and views with which Jesus had little in common. The ordinary Galilean Jew would then feel that there was a difference between the conventional style of the local scribes and that of Jesus, who did not associate himself with any particular school. On some points, however, such as his view of divorce, Jesus (if the text of Matthew xix. 9 be authentic) appears to have been a Shammaite. It is by no means improbable (Bloch, Memorial Volume, ^3i»n nSD Hebrew Section, pp. 21 seq.) that at the time of Jesus the views of Shammai were quite generally predominant, the school of Hillel only gaining supremacy in Jewish law and custom after the fall of the Temple. If that be so, Jesus, in departing from tbe Shammaite method, might weU seem to be one who taught with authority and not as one of the Scribes. At a later period the question as to the school to which a scholar belonged would no doubt influence his admissibility as preacher in a particular place. Jesus spoke without reference to any mediate authority. To the Scribes it became an ever more sacred duty to cite the original authority for any saying, if it were consciously derived from another teacher. Such reference was an obligation which attained even Messianic import. " He who says a word in the name of its author brings Redemption to the world" (Aboth — Chapter of R. Meir — vi., Megilla 15 a). Verify your quotations, is C. Taylor's comment (Sayings ofthe Jewish Fathers, 1897, Additional Note 54). The saving-power of Uterary and legal frankness goes deeper than that. Such punctiliousness assuredly cannot be attributed to the Scribes as aught but a virtue, which if it 16 I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE encouraged scholasticism, also encouraged honesty. It did more. It promoted the conception of a continuous tradition, which conception while it obscured the facts of history, and required constant criticism by those facts and also by appeal to ultimate principles as distinct from derived rules, nevertheless gave harmony to the scheme of doctrine. The view that Jesus was an original eclectic, that like Horace — though in a far frora Horatian sense — he was " nuUius addictus jurare in verba magistri," is confirmed by the difficulty of " placing " Jesus with regard to the schools of his age. The fact is not to be minimised that we are imperfectly acquainted with those schools ; we have only the sure knowledge (which is derivable from Philo and Josephus) that an amazing variety of religious grouping was in progress in the first century. But even as far as we know these schools Jesus seems to belong to none of them. It is undeniable that certain features of his teaching are Essenic. But he did not share the Essenic devotion to ceremonial ablutions. Further, he was an Apocalyptic, but he was also a powerful advocate of the Prophetic Judaism. Then, again, it is plausible to explain much of the gospel attack on the Scribes as due to contempt of the Sadducean priesthood. But R. Leszynsky (Die Sadducder, Berlin 19 12, ch. in.) finds it possible to claim Jesus as a Sadducee ! It is sometimes thought that the teaching with authority is shown by Jesus' frequent phrase " but I say unto you " (J. Weiss on Mk L 21). But this use of the phrase needs interpretation. The most interesting passage in which it occurs is Mt. v. 43 — 4 : " Ye have heard that it was said. Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you. Love your enemies." Now it is obvious that nowhere in the O.T. are men told to hate their enemies. But in the exegetical terminology of R. Ishmael (end of first century) there is a constantly recurring phrase which runs thus : " The text reads so and so. I hear from it so and so : but other texts prove that this is not its true meaning" ("iDl'? niIo'?n,..''3S J?Dlt}'). If this as Schechter (Studies in Judaism) suggests (though Bacher Die dlteste Terminologie der jUdischen Schriftauslegung, I. 190 dissents on inadequate grounds), underlies the passage just cited from Matthew, then Jesus' phrase : "Ye have heard. . . but I say unto you " would be paraUel to the Rabbinic idiom. It removes the main difficulty in regard to the hating of one's enemy, for Jesus would not be referring to any text enjoining hatred, but to a possible narrowing of the meaning of the text enjoining love. In that case, Jesus' "but I say unto you'' differs from the usual Rabbinical formula in that it introduces a personal element, but as with them, I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SYNAGOGUE 17 Jesus' exegesis really leads up to the citation and interpretation of another text (in this case: '"Ye shall be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect " ') which takes a wider sweep and illumines the particular matter under discussion. This is in full conformity with the Rabbinic method. They, too, derived the ideal of man's character from the character of God. "Be ye holy for I the Lord am holy" (Leviticus xix. 2, of which the tum in Matthew is a reminiscence) was with the Rabbis the ground text of tbe idea of the Imitation of God. It was with them the highest motive for lovingkindness and charity. (SifrS, on Levit. xix. 2). II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT. The combination of the commandments to love God and to love one's neighbour is "highly striking and suggestive." Commentators rightly see that the Scribe's question as to the Greatest Commandment was not captious, but (as Gould puts it) the Pharisee thought : " Here is possibly an opportunity to get an answer to our standing question, about the first commandment." For practical purposes of ethical monition, the enunciation both of Love God and Love thy fellow man is necessary. But on a profounder analysis the second is included in the first, as is shown in the Midrash. Man being made in the image of God, any misprision of man by man implies disregard of Him in whose image man is made (Genesis Rabbah xxiv. last words). It there fore is not at aU unlikely that such combinations as we find in the Synoptics were a common-place of Pharisaic teaching. It is true that Wellhausen — oblivious ef the occurrence of the combination in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Isaachar v. 2, vii. 5, Dan v. 3) — holds that " the combination of commandments was first effected in this way by Jesus." That excellent student of Rabbinics, Dr C. Taylor, was not so certain on this point. It will perhaps be interesting to cite what he says on the subject in one of his earlier works (The Gospel in the Law, 1869, p. 276): — It might seem that our Lord's teaching was novel in respect of ita exhibiting the twofold Law of Love as the sum of Old Testament morality. Thus, in Matt. xxii. 40, Christ is repreaented as answering to the lawyer's queation : ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' But the addition in St Mark's account (xii. ^-i) : ' Master, Thou hast said the truth,' might imply that the answer to that oft-mooted question was no new one, but rather that which was recognised as true. In another passage — introductory to the Parable of the Good Samaritan — ' a certain Lawyer ' gives the two commandments, To love God, and. To love one's neighbour, as a summary of the law. He is aaked : ' What is written iu the law ? how readeat thou ? ' And he II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 19 answers : ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy neighbour aa thy self ' (Luke X. 16, 27). But the fact that St Paul grounda thia equivalence on reaaon solely, goes far to prove that he did not regard the mere statement of it as a characteristic novelty in the Christian scheme. ' Love,' writes the Apostle, ' worketh no ill to hia neighbour : therefore love is the fulfilling of the law ' (Bom. xiii. 10). In John xiii. 34 the worda, 'A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another,' might aeem to imply that the law of mutual love was put forward as new. But the words following explain wherein lay the novelty : 'As I have loved you, etc' It is not clear why a "lawyer" (vo/iiKos) is introduced in Matthew ; Luke's frequent use of the word is more intelligible. But it seems probable that the word had become acclimatised in Hebrew — though there is only one instance recorded of it. Jose b. Halafta (second century) was so famed as a profound and ready exponent of the Law that it was said of him " his information as to the Law is ever with him " (ioy IplOJ), where several authorities see the Greek vofiLKrj (sc. eTrio-Tj/'/Ai;). Cf. Levy and Krauss s.v.; Bacher Agada der Tannaiten ii. 155. Jastrow s.v. takes another view. In- support of the identification, it may be pointed out that No/x,tKo's had become a proper name in the first century. Joesdros, son of Nomikos, was one of the four orators who were sent to attack Josephus (2 'War, xxi. 7). For the suggestion that the vo/aiko's of the Synoptics was a Sadducean lawyer, see J. Mann in J.Q.R. Jan. 1916, p. 419. Possibly the use of the term should be sought in another direction. In the primitive account of the incident, the questioner may have been, not a born Jew, but a Gentile vojomco's inclined to become, or who had recently become, a proselyte to Judaism. As wiU be shown, at the end of this note, such summaries of the Law were naturally made in the literature of propaganda or catechism. Aqiba attached, as every Jew did, the highest importance to the text in Deut. vi. 4, and he died with it on his lips (T.B. Berachoth 61 h). He further saw in martyrdom the fulfilment of the law bidding Israel love God with all his soul or Ufe. The various terms of this law are differently rendered in the LXX, Deut. vi. 5 and 2 Kings xxiii. 25, and this fact goes far to explain the dissimilar versions of the Deuteronomic text in the three Synoptics. Chajes aptly suggests (Markus-Studien p. 67) that the LXX in Deut. was influenced by Rabbinic exegesis. It there uses Siavotas for xapSias, and it elsewhere employs the former word in rendering yeser (Gen. viii. 212^ nv' O yi mNn, otl e-yKctrai 17 Stavoia tov, i Chr. xxix. 18 33^ nUKTID Ti'h, ev Stavotot KajoStas, Gen. vi. 5 137 nUETIDIX' ^31, iccll iras tk Stavoicirai iv rfj 2—2 20 II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT KapSiq, avTov). Now the Rabbinic interpretation of Deut. vi. 5 also introduced the yeser (l33^ '?33 : " With all thy heart,'' i.e. with thy two yesers, inx' ''JEJ'3, Sifre on Deut. vi. 5, ed. Friedmann 73 a). Similarly though in 2 Kings xxiii. 25 the LXX renders nKD by to-^vs in Deut. vi. 5 it uses the term Sijvaixi^, a word which, as the LXX of Ezek. xvii. 18, 27 shows, may correspond to the sense substance (l^T^), which was precisely the Rabbinic interpretation of -[MiD in Deut. vi. 5 (Sifre, loc. cit.; Ber. 61 b). A well-known passage of the Sifra (on Leviticus xix. 18, ed. Weiss, p. 89 a) runs thus : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour ti> inx ms (with Aqiba's saying in Aboth iii. 14, especially the latter part of the Mishnah, cf. i Ep. John iii. i). These citations, it will be observed, are from Jewish authorities of the end of the first or the beginning of the second century. But, as is well known, the idea that forbearance to one's fellow-man is the II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 21 basis of the Mosaic law goes back to HiUel (T.Bi Sahbath 31a; Aboth de R. Nathan ii. 26). The mere formulation of the "Golden Rule " in the negative version is far older than HUlel. So far as Jewish sages are concerned it may ultimately rest on such phrases as Psalm xv. 3, where the man who sojourns in the Lord's tent is he that doeth no evil to his neighbour (nyn inyi'? HK'y vh). The actual maxim of HiUel is found in Tobit iv. 1 5 (o /nio-eis /xijSevl Troirjcrrii). This version points to the conclusion that when HUlel used the word -\-\:irh (^]^2^h 'JD H^jn nayn nh, i' What-to-thyself is-hateful to-thy-feUow thou shalt not do "), he meant by it fellow man. In the Aramaic text of Tobit (Neubauer, Oxford, 1878, p. 8) the reading is T'3yn N^ *i1ini5 1^ ''JNDll (the Hebrew text, ibid. p. 24, runs Qnnsb TWVn vh ^6^'^3'? KJBTl lEJ'Nl)- Hillel elsewhere (Aboth i. 1 2) uses the widest possible term : he speaks of love for one's fellow-creatures (nvan riK 3nis). As is weU known, the negative form of the Golden Rule not only preceded Jesus it sur vived him. It underUes Romans xiii. 10. St Paul's remark runs : aya-irijcrei^ tov irXrjcrwv crov oSs creavTOv. y aydwrj to! ttXtjctlov Kaxbv oiiK ipyd^erai — thus the Apostle explains or rather justifies Leviticus xix. 18 by the negative form of the Golden Rule (practically as in Ps. xv. 3). Curiously enough this is paralleled by the Targum Jer. on Leviticus xix. 18 (ed. Ginsburger, p. 206), for the Targum actually inserts the negative Rule as an explanation of " thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (njK pi Ti^rh n'iomni -p]i ¦'i^h U3T jnaa i6^ I'Dpa tiinn kS " N3K n*^ nuyn i6 i? •'JD) Philo (ap. Eusebius, P. viu. 7), too, has the negative Rule, though his phraseology (d rts Tradeiv ex^alpu, p.^) ¦n-oiiiv avrov) is not verbally derived either from Tobit or from the source employed in the Didache (irdvTa Se oo-a kav 9eX.rjcrr)<; p,yj yivecrOal (TOL, Kol kripiav 6pylt,eo'0e, raSra tois aX\ot; ^•^ Troiure. Moreover, a similar saying is quoted from the Confucian Analects (Legge, Chinese Classics I. Bk. xv. 23). Jacob Bernays, on the other hand, holds that Isocrates had ng thought of a general moral application of the principle, and believes that Philo was drawing on a Jewish source (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1885, Vol. i. ch. xx.). Bernays cites Gibbon's quotation of Isocrates in his account of the Calvin-Servetus episode (Decline and Fall, ch. liv. n. 36). Here it may be pointed out that the contrasts drawn between the negative and positive forms of the Golden Rule are not well founded. One cannot share the opinion of some Jewish scholars (such as 22 II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT Hamburger) that there is no difference between the negative and positive formulations. But Bischoff (Jesus und die Rabbinen, p. 93) is equally wrong in asserting that Hillel's maxim differs from that of Jesus just as "Neminem laede" differs from "Omnes juva," or as Clough puts it in his fine satirical version of the Decalogue : " Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive officiously to keep alive." Augustine (Ccmfessions 1. xviii.) saw no objection to paraphrase the positive of Matthew vii. 1 1 into the negative id se alteri facere quod nolit pati. For the Old Testament commands in " thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself " (Leviticus xix. 18) and "ye shall love the stranger" (Deut. x. 19) are positive enough, and Hillel himself elsewhere (Aboth i. 12), as already cited, uses a quite positive (and general) phrase when he accounts as one of the marks of the peace-loving disciples of Aaron "love for fellow creatures." It would be absurd to maintain that Philo, who also, as has been seen uses the negative form, teaches a negative morality. Similarly with Tobit. The negative rule occurs in a chapter full of positive rules of benevolence : Give alms of thy substance ; Love thy brethren ; Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked ; bless the Lord thy God always — and so forth. Why should Hillel not have satisfied himself with citing the text of Leviticus xix. 18? One suggestion is given below. But a profounder answer may lie in the thought that the negative form is the more fundamental of the two, though the positive form is the fuller expres sion of practical morality. Hillel was asked to summarise the Torah, and he used that form of the Golden Rule from which the Golden Rule itself is a deduction. The axiomatic truth on which the moral life of society is based is the right of the unimpeded use of the individual's powers, the peaceful enjoyment of the fruit of his-labours, in short, the claim of each to be free from his fellow-man's injury. When we remember how great is our power of evil, how relatively small our power for good, how in Sir Thomas Browne's words, " we are beholden to every man we meet that he doth not kill us," how " the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones," it is at least a tenable theory that the negative Rule goes deeper into the heart of the problem. " Do as you would be done by " is less funda mental than Hillel's maxim, just as it is less full than the Levitical law of neighbourly love, for love is greater than doing (cf. the writer's remarks in Aspects of Judaism, ch. vi). This criticism does not dispute, however, that tlie Gospel form is a splendid working principle which has wrought incalculable good to humanity. The persistence, however. II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 23 of the negative after the pronouncement of the positive form, itself argues that the former is more basic. But neither Tobit nor PhUo, nor any other sources cited, do more than formulate the Golden Rule. Hillel not only formulates it, he describes it as the essence of the Torah, Sabb. 31a: ri^i3 niinn ^3 NiD It (" this is the whole law ") and in the Aboth d. R. Nathan, loc. cit. : nayn vb '[¦yirh -p-\:h *3d hnt no mm '?£^ n!?^3 Kin ("This is the principle, substance, of the law : what thou hatest for thyself do not to thy f eUow "), This is on the same line with the famous saying of R. Simlai (third century), but it goes beyond it. Simlai said (T.B. Makkoth 23 b — 24 a) : " Six hundred and thirteen precepts were im parted to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative (in correspondence with the days of the solar year) and two hundred and forty-eight positive (in correspondence with the number of a man's limbs). David came and established them (lit. made them sta/nd, based them, n^Dyn) as eleven, as it is written (Ps. xv.) : Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent, who shaU dweU in thy holy mountain ? (i) He that walketh uprightly and (ii) worketh righteousness and (in) speaketh the truth in his heart. (iv) He that backbiteth not with his tongue, (v) nor doeth evil to his neighbour, (vi) nor taketh up a reproach against another; (vii) in whose eyes a reprobate is despised, (viu) but who honoureth them that fear the Lord, (ix) He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not ; (x) he that putteth not out his money to usury, (xi) nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. Thus David reduced the Law to eleven principles. Then Isaiah came and estabUshed them as six (xxxiii. 15) : (i) He that walketh in righteousness and (u) speaketh uprightly; (iii) he that despiseth the gain of deceits, (iv) that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, (v) that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and (vi) shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil. Then came Micah and estabUshed them as three (Micah vi. 8) : What doth the Lord require of thee but (i) to do justice, (ii) to love mercy, and (iii) to walk humbly with thy God ? Once more Isaiah estabUshed them as two (Is. Ivi. i) : Thus saith the Lord : (i) Keep ye judgement, and (ii) do righteousness. • Then came Amos and estabUshed them as one (Amos v. 4) : Thus saith the Lord, Seek ye me and ye shaU live, or (as R. Nahman b. Isaac preferred) : Habakkuk came and made the whole Law stand on one fundamental idea (Habakkuk ii. 4) : The righteous man liveth by his faith." Such attempts to find a basic principle for the whole of the Law 24 II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT can thus be traced clearly from Hillel through Aqiba to the days of Simlai. Simlai, it will be observed, quotes the prophets as the authors of attempts in this direction, and it is interesting to note (cf. Giidemann, Ndchstenliebe, Vienna, 1890, p. 23) that while Hillel contents himself with concluding " this is the whole Law," Jesus (Matthew xxii. 40) adds the words "and the prophets." Naturally there was no intention in the Pharisaic authorities who thus reduced the Law to a few general rules, to deny the obligation to fulfil the rest of the law. HUlel's reply to the would-be proselyte, who asked to be taught the Law whUe he stood on one foot, runs : " That which thou hatest (to be done to thyself ) do not to thy fellow ; this is the whole law ; the rest is commentary ; go and learn it." Yet, the person so addressed might omit to go and learn it. Hence in Jewish theology an objection was raised to such summaries just because they would tend to throw stress on part of the Torah to the relative detriment of the rest. This feeling has always lain at the back of the reluctance to formulate a Jewish creed; even the famous attempt of Maimonides failed to effect that end. Could the legalistic spirit of an earlier period permit a thoroughgoing distinction between important and unimportant laws 1 When Aqiba and Ben Azzai spoke of neighbourly love as the greatest fundamental law (^nJ ^^3) they meant such a general or basic command from which all the other commands could be deduced. Thus (as Giidemann rightly argues, op. cit. p. 21), the Tannaitic Hebrew (^nj Sbs) does not correspond to the Synoptic Greek (peydXrj ivroky). The Rabbi was not discriminating between the importance or unimportance of laws so much as between their fundamental or derivative character. This is probably what Jesus was asked to do or what he did ; the Greek obscures the exact sense both of question and answer. That a Hebrew original underlies the Greek is probable from the use of the positive : irot'a ivToXi] p-eydXr) iv tcS v6p.ta1 It is more natural in Hebrew (cf. Giidemann, op. cit. p. 23) to find the positive thus Used as superlative (Aqiba's miriD ^Mi hh'2 = the greatest fundamental law in the Torah). But the passage from the one idea to the other is easy. Easy, but not inevitable, whether by the logic of thought or the ethics of conduct. For Pharisaism created just that type of character to which do these and leave not the others undcyne (Matthew xxiu. 23) admirably applies — a tjrpe which against all logic effected a harmony between legislative punctiliousness as to detailed rules and the prophetic appeal to great principles. The same second century Rabbi (Ben Azzai) who said (Aboth, iv. 5) " Hasten to a light II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 25 precept " also maintained that the text relating the common origin of aU the human kind was the fundamental text of the Torah (Sifra ed. Weiss, p. 89 a) and that the love of God was to be shown even unto death (Sifre, Deut. § 32). The Hebrew prophets, however, did dis criminate between the moral importance of various sides of the religious and social life, and there may have been those who in Jesus' day desired such a discrimination, and welcomed its reiteration by Jesus. In a sense, estimations of the varying importance attaching to precepts must have been in vogue at the beginning of the Christian era. If Matthew v. 19 — 20 be admitted as genuine, Jesus differentiated the precepts in this way (" one of the least of these commandments "), while exhorting obedience to all precepts alike. Philo in the context already quoted (Eusebius P. E. viii. 7) very distinctly occupies the same positi6n (Gifford's translation, p. 389). But look at other precepts besidea theae. Separate not parents from children, not even if they are captivea ; nor wife from huaband, even if thou art their master by lawful purchase. These, doubtless, are very grave and important command ments; but there are others of a trifling and ordinary character. Rifle not the bird's nest under thy roof : reject not the supplication of animals which flee as it were sometimes for protection : abstain from any harm that may be even less than these. You may say that these are matters of no importance ; but at all events the law which governs them ia important, and is the cause of very careful observance; the warnings also are important, and the imprecations of utter destruction, and God's oversight of such matters, and his preaence as an avenger iu every place. Some aspects of this problem — especiaUy with regard to the lawful ness and even obligation to sacrifice some precept in the interests of fulfilling others — will be discussed later in the Note on the Sabbath. Here it must be enough to point out the continuity of tbe theory, that while the precepts could be divided between 'light' and 'heavy,' obedience to all was equally binding. While, however, Philo bases this general obligation on the punishment for disobedience, the Pharisaic tradition rested on the reward for obedience, and placed that reward in the life after this (much as in Matthew v. 19). When we reach the latter part of the second century, we find R. Jehuda Ha-nasi definitely teaching : " Be heedful of a light precept as of a grave one, for thou knowest not the grant of reward for each precept " (Aboth, ii. i). But the very terms of the caution that one command ment is light (nS'') while another is heavy (miDPl), admit the differentia tion. Rabbi Jehuda, it wUl be noted, asserts that all the commandments must be equaUy observed, because the reward for each is unknown. 26 II. ''THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT This last clause is to be explained by the parable which is to be found in Debarim Rabba, ch. vi. and in parallel Midrashim (on the text, Deut. xxii. 7). A King hired some labourers and sent them into his Pardes (garden, estate). At eve, he inquired as to the work of each. He summoned one. " Under which tree didst thou labour ? ". — " Under this." — " It is a pepper plant, the wage is a gold piece." He aummoned another. "Under which tree didst thou labour?" — "Under this." — "It ia a white-flowered tree (almond), the wage ia half a gold piece." He summoned a third. "Under which tree didst thou labour?" — "Under this." — "It is an olive tree, the wage is two hundred zuzim." They said : " Shouldst tboij not have informed us which tree would earn the greatest reward, that we might work under it? " The King anawered : "Had I ao informed you, how would my w^ole Pardes have been worked?" Thua the Holy One did not reveal the reward except of two commandments, one the weightiest of the weighty — honour of parents (Exod. xx. 12), the other the lightest of the light — letting the mother- bird go (Deut. xxii. 7) [note the parallel here with Philo], in both of which ia aasigned the reward, length of days. Underlying the parable (as indeed is to some extent implied by the form of the Parable in the Tanhuma) must have been a more primitive one in which all the labourers receive the same reward (cf. Matt. xx. 10), in accordance with the famous saying (end of T.B. Menahoth), that not the amount of service but its motive is the decisive quaUty. So, too, with regard to the very two precepts aUuded to in the Parable, we have the view of R. Jacob (middle of the second century) as given in the Talmud (Qiddushin, 39 b). B. Jacob held that the reward for the performance of the precepts is not in this world. For he taught : Whenever, aide by aide with a Precept written in the Torah, the reward is atated, the future life (resurrection) is concerned. Of the honour to father and mother it is written (Deut. v. 16) " that thy days may be prolonged and that it may be well with thee." Of the letting go of the mother- bird it is written ' ' that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayeat prolong thy days " (Deut. xxii. 7). Behold, a father bade his aon. Ascend the tower (birah) and bring me some young birda. The sou ascended, let the mother go, and took the young. In the act of descending, he fell and died. How was it well with him, and where his length of days ? But the meaning is, that it may be well with thee in the world which is all good, and that thy days may be prolonged in a world whose duration is eternal. Gradation of precepts was, nevertheless, admitted. Certain of them were described as essential, corpora legis (mm ''S13, Aboth end of ch. iii., Hagigah i. 8, see Dictionaries, s.v. C)ij), others as less essen tial. This difference perhaps concerned rather the question as to the ease or difficulty of arriving at the Scriptural basis. Certain of these essentials related to the ritual laws committed to the (Aaronite ?) Am- II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 27 haares (T.B. Sabbath, 32). Other views of gradation concerned the moral laws : thus in one famous enumeration (i) the most important rewardable performances were honouring parents, the exercise of loving- kindness, effecting reconciliation between man and his fellow, and the study of the Torah ; and (2) the most serious punishable offences were idolatry, incest, bloodshedding, and slander ; for the former thCre was reward, for the latter punishment, in this world and in the next (Aboth de R. Nathan, i. ch. xl., ed. Schechter, p. 120). Again, the seven " Noachide " precepts were regarded as the fundamental demands of ethics (on these see Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. vii. p. 648). Further, the obligation of the priest to disregard the laws of ritual purity when engaging in the burial of the dead for whose obsequies no one else was available (niSD DO, on which see J. Mann, loc. cit.); the discussions as to the relative worth of studying the Torah and of performing the commandments ; the evaluation of the import of fear of sin and wisdom ; the supersession of the honour of parents by the higher law of reverencing God when the parents urged actions opposed to that reverence ; the metaphorical contrast of root and branch, meet us throughout the first and second centuries (cf. several citations in Mishnah Aboth, and Sifra on Leviticus xix.). This range of ideas reaches its culmination in the decision made by the famous assembly at Lydda after the Hadrianic persecutions of 135. What were the limits of conformity to the Roman demands? Rather than commit idolatry, murder, or incest a Jew must die ! (T.B. Sanhedrin, 74 a). We may suppose, however, that just as there were scruples in later ages (Hagigah 1 1 b), so not everyone in the age of Jesus was willing to admit these gradations. As Giidemann writes : " If it be asked how it came about that a Scribe should need to ask the question of Jesus, it may be rejoined that the endeavour to bring Judaism within one or a few formulas would certainly not have been agreeable to the supporters of the Zealot party. They might perceive in such an endeavour a connivance towards what we should nowadays term the liberal position, and it is undeniable that every generalisation easily renders the particulars volatUe. The ignorant, the Am-haares, might, if he heard speak of a few fundamental rules, readily persuade himself that these alone — as HUlel and similarly after him Jesus expressed themselves — comprised the ' whole Law ' ; while the demand of Hillel to regard 'the rest' as 'commentary' and to 'learn it' would be altogether ignored." The questioner of Jesus desired an opinion as to whether Jesus did or did not share this fear of reducing the Law to 28 IL THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT fundamental rules. At the same time, Jesus may well have been attaching himself to Hillel's example, while at the same time implying a moral discrimination between law and law. Yet this last point is not certain. In the Palestinian Talmud (Berachoth i. 8 [5]), R. Levi, a pupil of Aqiba, cites the Shema (Deut. vi. 4 seq.) as fundamental because the Decalogue is included within it (ni^lSa nnain mt5'J?{5' '3SD Dni ; on the connection between the Shema and the Decalogue see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Excursus iv.). It is noticeable (cf. Giidemann, op. cit. p. 22) that in Mark (xii. 29) the answer of Jesus begins with the Shema, Deut. vi. 4 (^niB" UDB'), though in Matthew the verse is wrongly omitted. It does not seem that in any extant Rabbinic text, outside the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Shema and the love of one's neighbour are associated, though there is mention of a passage in which this combination was effected by Ben Zoma and Ben Nanas with the strange addition that greater than any of these texts was Numb, xxviii. 4, possibly because of the atoning function of the daily sacrifices, or because of the association of God, Exod. xxv. 9 etc., with the Sanctuary, the divine dwelling place on earth (Introd. to the En Jacob ; see Giidemann, loc. cit., Theodor, Genesis Rabba, p. 237). In the Nash Papyrus the Decalogue is followed by the Shema; the two passages indeed stand close together (the Decalogue in Deut. v. 6 — 18, the Shema in vi. 4 — 9). The Didache (ch. i.) associates tbe combination as found in the Synoptics also with the negative form of the Golden Rule : " There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is much difference between the two ways. Now the way of life is this : First, thou shalt love God that made thee; secondly thy neighbour as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldest should not happen to thee, neither do thou to another." The Decalogue foUows. The Jewish provenance of this passage is indisputable. Taylor (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) suggests that the negative rule grew out of the Decalogue, with its many do nots. What is the general principle of the things not to do to one's neighbour ? Answer : "What-to-thyself is-hateful" (the »:d ^^y^ of Hillel). Hence its description by Hillel as the sum total of the Law. One further point only calls for remark here. It is quite natural that simplifica tions or systematisations of the Law would be most required for proselytising propaganda. It would be necessary to present Judaism in as concise a form as possible for such purposes. Hence it is not surprising on the one hand that it is to a would-be proselyte that Hillel's summary as well as a similar citation of the principle by Aqiba II. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT 29 (Aboth de R. Nathan, ed. Schechter, p. 53) is addressed and on the other that we find it in the Didache and in connection with the doctrine of the tw9 ways. Nor is it without significance that Philo's citation of the negative rule occurs in a passage in which he is selecting just those elements of the Jewish Law which were worthy of commendation and acceptance by the Greek world. (Cf. on these and several other matters the interesting work of G. Klein, Der Aelteste Christliche Katechismus und die Jiidische Propaganda^Literatur, Berlin, 1909, p. 85, and K. Kohler in Judaica, Berlin, 191 2, pp. 469 seq. The latter points to the old Jewish Didaskalia, in his view enshrining the ethics of the Essenes.) III. JOHN THE BAPTIST. The Rabbinic literature contains no reference to John the Baptist. There is, however, an interesting passage on the subject in Josephus (Antiquities, xviii., v. § 2). Some doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of this passage, but the suspicion has no firm basis. Josephus gives a favourable account of John and his work. This is d priori what we should expect, for John has decidedly Essenic leanings and the Essenes were favourites with the Jewish historian. John, says Josephus, was "a good man who exhorted the Jews to exercise virtue (dperrj), both as to justice (Sixaioo-vVr;) towards one another and piety (evcripeia) towards God, and to come to baptism (paTTTicrpQ crvviivai). For baptism (t^v pd-irricnv) would be acceptable to God thus (ouTO)), if they used it, not for the pardon of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul had been thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness'' (p.rj iirl tlvHv dpap- rdSoiv ¦TcapaiTricTU ¦)(puip,h'iiiv, aXX' £<^' dyveicx tov o-u/xaros, are ot; Kat T^s ijtv)(rji; SiKaLocrvvri irpoeKKeKaOappivrjs). People, continues Josephus, flocked to him in crowds, were stirred by his addresses, and seemed willing to follow him in all things. Herod Antipas, fearing a popular rising, seized John, sent him in chains to Machaerus, and had him put to death there. When Herod's army suffered a reverse, the people attributed the king's misfortune to God's displeasure at the ill- treatment of John. Both the recent editors of Josephus (Niese and Naber) admit this passage without question. There is a natural reluctance on the part of cautious scholars to pronounce unreservedly in its favour, mainly because of the fact that elsewhere the text of Josephus has been tampered with in a similar context. Thus Schiirer (i'. 438), after presenting a forcible though incomplete argument in favour of the passage, adds: "Since, however, Josephus in other places was certainly subjected to interpolation by a Christian hand, one must not here III. JOHN THE BAPTIST 31 place too absolute a reliance on the authenticity of the text." On the Jewish side, though his leanings are in favour of the authenticity, S. Krauss (Das Leben Jesu nach jUdischen Quellen, Berlin, 1902, p. 257) remarks : "The question as to the genuineness of the John- passage has not yet been decisively settled ; the passage is anyhow open to suspicion." But, on the whole, the authenticity of the reference is accepted by scholars, Jewish and Christian. Thus to cite only two instances, H. St J. Thackeray (Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, p. 471) passes judgment in these words : "There is no reason why it should not be accepted as genuine"; and K. Kohler (Jewish Encyclopedia vn. p. 218) does not even mention the controversy, but uses the passage without any question. The passage in Josephus referring to John the Baptist rests, of course, on a different footing to the "testimony to Christ" (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. iii. § 3). The authenticity of the latter has been recently maintained with much plausibility by Profs. F. C. Burkitt (Theologisch Tijdschrift, 19 13, xlvii. pp. 135—144), A. Harnack (Internationale Monatsschrift, June, 1913, pp. 1038-1067), and W. E. Barnes (Companion to Biblical Studies, 1916, p. 34). But it remains very difficult to accept Josephus' " testimony to Christ " as genuine, at all events as it stands ; the reference to John the Baptist may well be so. It seems to me that a Christian interpolator must have brought that passage into closer accord with the Gospels. I do not refer merely to such differences as the motive assigned for putting John to death. Josephus assigns fear of political unrest ; the Gospels, the personal animosity of Herodias. But, as Schiirer is careful to point out, these motives are not absolutely incompatible. Much more significant is the sUence of Josephus as to any connection between John and Jesus. This, of itself, is almost enough to authenticate the passage. Gerlach has called attention to this fact in his book Die Weissagungen des AUen Testaments in den Schriften des Mavius Josephus (Berlin, 1863, p. 113) and Origen had long ago done the same thing. Origen (c. Gelsum I. xlviii.) says : " The Jews do not associate John with Jesus." Gerlach misuses this statement, for Origen is not making an independent assertion, but (as the context shows, cf. op. cit. xlvii.) is basing his generalisation on the passage in Josephus. Origen, by the way, who cites this passage, has no knowledge of the supposed "testimony to Christ" (see, however, Burkitt, as already cited); the two passages stand, as said above, on quite different footings. That Jews other than Josephus may have taken a favourable view 32 ' III. JOHN THE BAPTIST of John's work is indicated also by several passages in the Gospels. Luke, it is true, asserts (vu. .30) that the Pharisees and the lawyers (scribes) rejected John, and refused to accept his baptism. But this is in opposition to the statement of Matthew (in. 7) : " [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism," and Mark (i. 5) implies no Jewish opposition to his caU to baptism. Moreover, all three Synoptics (Mark ii. 18; Matthew ix. 14; Luke V. 33) represent the disciples of John as associated with the Pharisees in fasting. Thus just as Josephus assures us that the Pharisees were not opponents of the Essenes (as they were of the Sadducees) so there was no violent division between John and the Pharisees; the assumption that the Jews rejected John belongs to the later conception (whether originating with John himself or not) that John was the forerunner of Jesus. That John's own disciples did not accept this conception is thus asserted by Prof. Adeney (The Century Bible, St Luke, p. 185): "These [the disciples of John] then hold together and keep up their customs after their master has been removed from them, and in spite of the appearance of the new Prophet, thus declining to follow John's own teaching in pointing on to Christ. We meet such later at Ephesus (see Acts xvui. 25, xix. 3)." Cf . also the remarks of Prof. Lake, The Earliest Epistles of St Paul, 191 1, pp. 108, etc. Still more important is another point to which Gerlach caUed attention, and to which Naber has more recently again referred. There is a real difference between the nature of John's baptism as described by Josephus and the Gospels. Mark (i. 4) introduces John as proclaiming a "baptism of repentance for remission of sins" (/3a7mtr/io /xeravotas eh decriv dpapTiwv). But in Josephus this significance of bap tism is specifically dissociated from John. Not only is this deliberate, it is clearly controversial. As Naber argues (Mnemosyne xiii. 281), it is scaircely credible that Josephus was ignorant of the Christian baptism which was "for the remission of sins." Naber suggests, then, that in the passage in which Josephus refers to Jesus, the historian cited the Christian baptism with expressions of disapproval, and as this was displeasing to Christian readers, the passage was altered. On the other hand the John passage was left standing, and the controversial /Xl} cTTi Tiviuv dpapTaStov rrapairijcrei •)(piap,evu>v remained. If this be so, it may well be that Josephus really has preserved for us the exact nature of John's baptism. But before saying a word on that, it is necessary to turn to a question of language. III. JOHN THE BAPTIST 33 In his first editions Graetz accepted Josephus' account of John as authentic. But in his later editions of the Geschichte der Juden he strongly contends that the passage is spurious. He urges that Josephus would not have described John as the "Baptist" (to3 eiri- Kakovp.evov ^(jtttio-toS) without further explanation. Graetz does not see that it is possible to regard these three words as an interpolation in a passage otherwise authentic. But it is not necessary to make this supposition. For it is quite in Josephus' manner to use designa tions for which he offers no explanation (cf. e.g. the term "Essene"). And the meaning of " Baptist " is fully explained in the foUowing sentence, Josephus using the nouns ySairrto-is and ;8a;rTio-/xo's to describe John's activity. The terminology of Josephus, I would urge, makes it quite unlikely that the passage is an interpolation. For, it will be noted (a) Josephus does not use ^aTma-pM which is the Usual N.T. form; (6) he does use the form ySairrto-is which is unknown to the N.T. ; (c) he uses jSaTrncr/xos in a way quite unlike the use of the word when it does occur in Mark (vii. 4) or even in Hebrews (ix. 10). It is in fact Josephus alone who applies the word j8a7rTio-ju.ds to John's baptism. Except then that Josephus used the epithet PaimcrTq's (which may be interpolated) his terminology is quite independent of N.T. usage. It is true that Josephus uses the common LXX. word Xow when describing the lustrations of the Essenes, but the verb ^Sairrt^u) was quite familiar to Jewish writers. It is rare in LXX. but is curiously enough found precisely where bathing in the Jordan is referred to, in the significant passage 2 Kings v. 14 : "Then went he down and dipped himself (c/SaTrTio-aro) seven times in Jordan'." Significant, too, is the fact that Aquila, who translated under Aqiba's influence, uses ^airTit,io where the LXX. uses pditTta (Job ix. 31; Psalm Iviu. 3). In the latter place the verb is also used by Symmachus, who further introduces it into Jer. (xxxvni. 22). To Josephus himself the verb was so famiUar that he even makes a metaphorical use of it. In describing the masses of people " flocking into the city " he says i^d-TTTicrav Tyv ttoKiv. Another point on which a few words are necessary is John's relation ' Cheyne, Eneycl. Biblica eol. 2499, represents John the Baptist "who was uo formalist" as using the Jordan in spite ofthe Eabbinic opinion that "the waters of the Jordan were not pure enough for sacred uses." But the Jordan water waa only held insufficiently clean for one apeciflo purpose : the ceremony of the Eed Heifer (Parah viii. 9). No Eabbi ever dreamed of pronouncing the Jordan unfit for the rite of baptism. A. 3 34 III. JOHN THE BAPTIST to the Essenes. That Josephus means to identify him with that sect is clear. For the very words he uses of John are the terms of entry to the Essenic confraternity. In Wars ii. viii. § 7 Josephus reports : "If he then appears to be worthy, they then [after long probation] admit him into their society. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, in the first place that he wUl exercise piety towards God, and next that he will observe justice towards men " (irpuyrov fiev evcre^T^creiv to Oeiov, eireiTa to. irpos dvOpunrov? BUaia Siat^uXafetv). The other terms used of John by Josephus (dperr/, dyveia) are also used by him of the Essenes. The Gospels attribute to John Essenic characteristics. The account of John in Mark i. is more than merely illustrated by what Josephus says in his Life § ii. : " When I was informed that a certain Bannos Uved in the desert, who used no other clothing than grew on trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by day and by night, in order to preserve purity (irpis dyvelav), I became a follower of his." John's asceticism is not identical with this, but it belongs to the same order. It is quite untenable to attempt, as many are now tending to do, to dissociate John altogether from Essenism. Graetz seems right in holding that John made a wider appeal than the Essenes did by re laxing some of the Essenian stringency : their communism, their residence in separate colonies, their rigid asceticism. John, like another Elijah, takes up the prophetic rdle. He calls to the Jews to repent, in expectation of the Messianic judgment perhaps. Pharisaic eschato logy, in one of its tendencies, which rising in the first century became dominant iu the third, connects the Messianic age with repentance. There is, however, this difference. The formula of John (or Jesus) was : Repent for the Kingdom is at hand. The Pharisaic formida was : Repent and the Kingdom is at hand. Pharisaic eschatology did not, however, ally this formula to the baptismal rite. John associates his prophetic call with baptism, partly no doubt in relation to the meta phorical use of the rite in many parts of the O.T., but partly also in direct reliation to the Essenic practices. He treats baptism as a bodily purification corresponding to an inward change, not as a means of remitting sins. Cheyne, who takes a different view as to the Essenic connection of John, expresses tbe truth, I think, when he writes as follows (Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 2499) : " He led them [his followers] to the Jordan, there to give them as representatives of a regenerate people the final purification which attested the reality of III. JOHN THE BAPTIST 35 their inward change." Then he adds in a note : " No other exegesis seems reasonable ; Josephus, as we have seen, sanctions it. The true baptism is spiritual (Psalm li. 7 [9]). But it needs an outward symbol, and Johanan [John], remembering Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, and having prophetic authority, called those who would know themselves to be purified to baptism. It is no doubt true that baptism was regularly required of Gentile proselytes, but Johanan's baptism had no con nection with ceremonial uncleanness." It is interesting to note the use made in Pharisaic circles of this same text in Ezekiel. " Said R. Aqiba [end of first and beginning of second century a.d.] : Happy are ye, O Israel ! Before whom do you cleanse yourselves ? Who cleanseth you ? Your Father who is in Heaven ! As it is written, And I will sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean." On the question of Baptism in general see next Note. On John's references to the Pharisees see note on Pharisees. John we are told in a difficult passage (Matt. xi. 13; Luke xvi. 16) was the end of the Law and the Prophets. He certainly was faithful to the Law and a worthy upholder of the olden Prophetic spirit. But except in the sense that, in the Christian view, he was the last to prophesy the Klingdom in the spirit of the Law and the Prophets, John was the end of neither. When John died the ' Law ' was only in the first stages of its Rabbinical development. And from that day to this there have never been lacking in the Jewish fold men who, in accord with the Prophetic spirit, have made a direct appeal to the hearts of their brethren on behalf of repentance and inward virtue. IV, PHARISAIC BAPTISM. Unnecessary doubt has been thrown on the prevalence of baptism as an initiatory rite in the reception of proselytes during Temple times. Schiirer, while exaggerating the number of ablutions prescribed by Pharisaic Judaism, rightly insists (iii^ 131) that both d priori, and from the implications of the Mishnah (Pesahim, viii. 8), proselytes must have been baptised in the time of Jesus. The heathen was in a state of uncleanness and must, at least as emphatically as the Jew in a similar state, have undergone the ritual of bathing. Only in a state of ritual cleanness could the new-comer be received " under the Wings of the Divine Presence " — a common Rabbinic phrase for prose- lytism (e.g. T.B. Yebamoth, 46 b) directly derived from the beautiful terms of Boaz' greeting to Ruth, the ideal type of all sincere proselytes : " The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust." So, too, Jesus, after his baptism, sees the spirit of God descending as a dove. The symbolism of the Holy Spirit by a dove is a notion found in Rabbinic books (see below note on " the Dove and the Voice "). But I think it is more fully explained when it is brought into con nection with the figure that the proselyte comes under the Wings of the Divine Presence. Thus the fact that, in the Gospels, baptism precedes the metaphorical reference to the bird, strengthens the argument in favour of the early prevalence of the baptism of proselytes. Yet it can hardly be said that the evidence so far adduced proves the case. Schiirer (loc. cit.) and Edersheim (II. Appendix xii.) think that the Mishnah (cited above) does establish the point. But Dr Plummer, while conceding that "the fact is not really doubtful," asserts that "direct evidence is not forthcoming'' (Hastings, Dictionary ofthe Bible, I. 239). The Mishnah cited (to which Eduyoth, v. 2 is parallel) de scribes a difference of view between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. If a man has " been made a proselyte " on the fourteenth of Nisan and IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM 37 has then been baptised, (must he wait seven days before he is regarded as " clean " or) may he eat the Paschal lamb the same evening 1 (The suggestion of Bengel, Ueber das Alter der jud. Proselyten-taufe, p. 90, that the bath was not a proselyte-bath is groundless.) This Mishnah certainly implies that the baptism of proselytes occurred while the Paschal lamb was stUl being offered, i.e. during Temple times. But the passage does not quite prove this, for it is just possible that the discussion is merely scholastic. On turning, however, as neither Schurer nor Edersheim has done, to the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta, it becomes certain that we are dealing with historical fact and not with dialectics. (See T. J. Pesahim, viii. last lines ; Tosefta, Pesahim, vu. 13, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 167.) "Rabbi Bleazar ben Jacob says: Soldiers were Guards of the Gates in Jerusalem ; they were baptised and ate their Paschal lambs in the evening." Here we have an actual record of the conversion of Roman soldiers to Judaism on the day before the Passover (an altogether probable occasion for such a step), and of their reception by means of baptism. This Eleazar ben Jacob the Elder is one of the most trustworthy reporters of Temple events and rites, which he knew from personal experience. (Of Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i\ p. 63.) "The Mishnah of R. Eleazar is a small measure, but it contains fine flour " (T.B. Yebamoth, 49 b) was the traditional estimate of the value of this Rabbi's traditions. The exact date of this incident cannot be fixed. Graetz places it in the year 67 a.d. If that be so, then we are still without direct evidence that proselytes were baptised half a century earlier. But the prob ability is greatly increased by this historical record. It is noteworthy that, according to Bacher's reading of this account, baptism without previous circumcision seems sufficient to qualify the heathen proselyte to eat the Paschal lamb This is directly opposed to the Law (Exodus xii. 48). Later on there was indeed found an advocate for the view that baptism was sufficient (without circum cision) to constitute a proselyte (T.B. Yebamoth, 46 a). But it seems more reasonable to suppose that R. Eleazar ben Jacob takes it for granted that the Roman soldiers were circumcised before baptism. In the corresponding Mishnah, and in the whole context in the Tosefta, this is certainly presupposed. The predominant and almost universal view was that in Temple times three rites accompanied the reception of proselytes : circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice (T.B. Kerithoth, 81 a). After the fall of the Temple the first two of these three rites were necessary (ibid. 9 b). In the case of women, when 38 IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM sacrifices could not any longer be brought, the sole initiatory rite was baptism. It may be that as women were of old, as now, the more numerous proselytes, baptism came to be thought by outside observers as the only rite in all cases. Thus Arrian, in the second century, naraes baptism as the one sufficing ceremony which completely turns a heathen into a Jew (Dissert. Epictet. ii. 9). The baptism by John resembles the baptism of proselytes in several points, among others in the fact that both forms of baptism are administered, not performed by the subject himself At all events, the proselyte's bath needed witnessing. In Mark i. 9 the repentant are baptized vtto ^Iwdwov. But in Luke iii. 7, where the ordinary text (and Westcott and Hort) has jSawTLcrOrjvai vir avrov, the Western text has paTrTicrdfjvai ivco-inov airrov (probably as Prof. Burkitt has suggested to me = 'niDlp). In the Pharisaic baptism of proselytes, at all events, the presence of others was entirely due to the necessity of witnessing (Yebamoth, 47 a). Sometimes a causative form, sometimes the kal form, of the verb tabal is used in tbe Rabbinic texts ; but in the case of male prose lytes there seems to have been no act on the part of the witnesses. In the case of women, the witnesses (three dayanim) stood outside, and other women " caused her to sit down " (i.e. supported her) in the bath up to her neck. The male proselyte stood, with the water up to his waist (Yebamoth, 46-48; Gerim, ch. i.). In all cases, the bathing was most probably by total immersion (for the evidence see the writer's article in tbe Journal of Theological Studies, xii. 609, with the interesting contributions by the Rev. 0. F. Rogers in the same periodical, xii. 437, xiii. 411). Total immersion is clearly implied by the Zadokite Fragment (edited by Schechter, 1910, ch. xii.). If that fragment be a genuine document of the second century B.C., its evidence for the total immersion of the priests is of great weight. In the Talmud the bath in such a case had to be at least of the dimensions 1x1x3 cubits, sufficient for total immersion (ISIJ h'Sfif Dn3 n?iy, Eruhin, 46). The bathing of the niddah (menstrual woman) was by total immersion, and we have the definite statement of a baraitha (Yebamoth, 47 b) that the rules for the bathing of proselytes (male and female) were the same as for the niddah. In only one case of baptism did the bystander participate actively. On entering Jewish service, a heathen slave was baptised. If he claimed that such baptism was for complete proselytism (nyvy Dc'?) he became free. But in order to make it clear that the baptism was not for this purpose, the owner IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM 39 of the slave was required to seize hold of him while in the water (D*D3 IDpn?), as a clear indication that the baptism was not a complete proselytism ( Yebamoth, 46 a). Obviously in cases of proselytes the baptism would be the perfectly free, unfettered and unaided act of the proselyte himself. But there is, it is often said, this difference between Johannine and Pharisaic baptism : the former was a moral, the latter a physical purification. Josephus, it has been shown, hardly regarded this con trast as essential. Nor, in the case of the proselyte-bath, can it be doubted that the two ideas are welded together. In the older Rab binical Uterature we do not, it is true, find any specific reference to a baptism of repentance. The phrase first meets us in the Middle Ages. A thirteenth century authority for the first time distinctly speaks of the man who bathes for penitence' sake (nSIETl Qih ^aiti), and of bathing in general, as an essential of repentance (D'3E'n ^3E' n^»3D3 D*3"n). See Shihbole Halleket, § 93 (ed. Venice, fol. 41 a). Apparently this rule that " all penitents are baptised " is traced to a passage in the Aboth de R. Nathan (see the Tanya, § 72 ; ed. Venice, p. 102 b). But though the passage in the Aboth (ch. viii.) does not easily bear this implication (the text as we have it is certainly corrupt), we can carry the evidence five hundred years further back than the thirteenth century. In the Palestinian Midrash Pirke de R. Eleazar, compiled about 830, Adam's repentance after expulsion from Eden consists of bathing, fasting and confession (op. cit. ch. xx.). Older still is the passage in the Apocryphal (and not obviously Christian) Life of Adam and Eve, which represents the repentant Adam as standing for forty days in the Jordan (Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament, p. 512; Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, Oxford, 1913, p. 134). Earlier still is (probably) the famous passage in the fourth SibyUine Oracle (iv. 165 seq.) which, even in its present form, must belong to the first Christian century (c. 80 a.d.). In iii. 592 there is a reference to the morning lustrations (cf. the morning bathers of T.B. Berachoth, 22 a. On this and other aUied points see S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, Leipzig, 1910-1912, i. pp. 211, 217, 229, 669; 11. p. 100; III. p. 360). But in iv. 165 there is a direct association of repentance with bathing. I quote Terry's rendering with some emendations : Ah ! miserable mortals, change these things. Nor lead the mighty God to wrath extreme; But giving up your swords and pointed knives, 40 IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM And homicides and wanton violence, Wash your whole body in perennial streams, And lifting up your handa to heaven seek pardon For former deeda and expiate with praise Bitter impiety ; and God will give Repentance ; he will not destroy ; and wrath Will he again restrain, if in your hearts Ye all will practise precious godlineas. This, it will be noted, is an appeal to the heathen world. It falls well within the range of the Jewish Hellenistic literature, and there is no necessity for assuming a Christian authorship. Water was a syj8j6oZ of^ repentance stiU_earlier. The Targum to I Samuel vii. 6 (cf. Midrash, Samuel and Yalkut, ad loc, and T.J. Taanith, ii. § 7) explains the action of Israel at Mizpah in that sense. The text does indeed associate in a remarkable way a water- rite (of which nothing else is known), fasting, and confession as elements in repentance : " And they gathered together to Mizpah, and drew water and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the Lord." Ascetic rites (such as fasting) were ancient accompaniments of the confession of sin, as in the ritual of the day of Atonement ; and the association of asceticism with cold bathing is at least as old in Judaism as the Essenes. In the Didache fasting precedes baptism (vii. 4), but it is not clear how early the Synagogue introduced the now wide-spread custom of bathing on the Eve of the Day of Atonement in connection with the confession of sins. Talmudic is the rule "A man is bound to purify himself at the festivals" (T.B. Rosh Hashana, 16 b), no doubt with reference to ceremonial uncleanness. But Leviticus (xvi. 30) lays it down : " From all your sins before the Lord ye shall be clean " on the Day of Atonement, and the same word (niHD) which here means spiritually clean also signifies physically and ritually clean. "Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings " (Isaiah i. 1 6) is one characteristic text of many" in which the prophets make play with the metaphor. The Sibylline call to actual baptism of the sinning Greek world is obviously based on this very passage. Another passage, to which great importance was justly attached in Rabbinical thought, is Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 — 27 : "I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM 41 I wiU put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them." Here we have, together, all the main ideas of Pharisaic baptism ; and it is noteworthy that this passage from Ezekiel is extensively used in Rabbinic homilies. Such passages as these attest the early association between physical and moral purification, such as meets us in the Johannine baptism. And the ideas are close. Whoever invented the epigram " Cleanliness is next to Godliness," it is a fair summary of Pharisaic conceptions on thelsiibfect under discussion. Throughout the Psalms of Solomon " to be clean " is identical with " to be forgiven." Tn~Rabbinic Hebrew, as in BibUcal, the same word means physically and spirituaUy clean. To "repent" is to "be purified." (Cf. the inD'^ K3n of T.B. Yoma, 38 b, and the phrase " before whom do you cleanse yourselves ? " i.e. repent of your sins, of the previous Note.) Sin is, conversely, un cleanness. There is no need to quote Biblical instances of the use. In Rabbinic Hebrew the very strong word (mD) which literally means "to be putrid" is a common term for "to sin." A very remarkable figure of speech is attributed to Hillel. He bathed his body to keep clean that which was made in the image of God (Levit. Rabba, xxxv.). The connection between sin and atonement by bathing is brought out in the Midrash on Ps. li. 4 on the text, "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity." The Midrash comments : " Hence, whoever commits a transgression is as though he was defiled by contact with a dead body," and he needs sprinkling with hyssop. Here the reference is clearly to moral not to ritual transgression. In 2 Kings v. 14 we are told of Naaman that after his leprosy was healed " his flesh came again like the flesh of a Uttle child"; and so the proselyte on his baptism "became like a little child" (T.B. Yebamoth, 22a, 48b). On the text " Be thou a blessing " (Gen. xii. 2) the Midrash (playing on the similar words ^^^3 "blessing'' and n3i"i3 "pool") comments: " As yonder pool purifies the unclean, so thou bringest near the far off and purifiest them to their Father in Heaven " (Genesis Rabba, xxxix. § 11). And those thus brought near are created anew. "He who makes a proselyte is as though he created him" (ibid. § 14) — thus conversion is a re-birth. In this sense the lustrations of Exodus xix. 10 were regarded as physical accompaniments of the approaching revelation on Sinai, when all the world was made anew. Man's re pentance is the cause, too, of the creation of the new heavens and the new earth of Isaiah Ixvi. (Yalkjit, Isaiah, § 372). There are shades 42 IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM of difference in this idea of renewal, especially as concerns the nature of man. John's baptism seems to have this point in common with the Pharisaic baptism of proselytes — it was a baptism once for all. For the proselyte had, in the Pharisaic view, adopted Judaism com pletely; and, like one born physically a Jew, he could not thereafter evade the responsibilities of the religion which he had freely accepted, just as he shared its hopes. Benedictions usually preceded the per formance of precepts. Not so with the tebilah, baptism, of the proselyte. It was only as he ascended from the bath that he said : " Blessed art thou who hast sanctified us by thy commandment and commanded us concerning tebilah " (T.B. Pesahim 6 b). It may well be, as Bousset states (Die Religion des Judenthums im neutestamentliche Zeitalter ed. 2, 1906, p. 230) that there was nothing sacramental in Pharisaic baptism. But, like the performance of the whole Law, it was a consecration. Pharisaic baptism, then, agreed with what seems to have been the primitive Christian view that it was once for all, though in the case of a revert, and of a slave seeking freedom, tebilah would be again necessary, febilah, however, did not ensure sinlessness, or the abrogation of the power to sin. That consummation was reserved for the Messianic age. If, however, Christian baptism was the intro duction to the Kingdom, then no doubt baptism would carry with it the hope of sinlessness. (On the problem of sin after Christian baptism, and the apparent reversion to the Jewish theory of repentance, see Prof K. Lake, The Stewardship of Faith, London, 191 5, p. 181). John seems to imply also that the consequent change of mind (p.eTdvoia) was also "once for all." In the Rabbinic theology such a permanent amelioration of the human character was not possible, at least in the earthly life. Men might move the stone from tbe mouth of the well, but it had to be replaced, and the "evil inclination" (Ye?er hara) returned to where it had been and needed expulsion again and again (Genesis Rabba, Ixx. § 8). God will in the end destroy the evU Yeser, but in human life the struggle is incessant and the Yeser leads to sin daily (T.B. Qiddushin, 30 b). " In this world," says God to Israel, "ye become clean and again unclean; but in the time to come I will purify you that ye never again become unclean " (Midrash, Tan huma, Mesora, §§ 17 — 18). Contrariwise (as perhaps John's baptism intends), repentance brings the Messiah near (T.B. Yoma, 86 a, b. Cf. Montefiore, Jewish Quarterly Review, xvi. p. 236 and references there given). The renewal of man's nature by repentance, unlike the re-birth IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM 43 by conversion, is continuous and constant. It is a regular process, not a catastrophe. Israel is compared to the Angelic hosts. " As they are renewed day by day, and return, after they have praised God, to the fire from which they issued, so too the Israelites, if their evil passions ensnare them in sin, and they repent, are forgiven by God year by year and granted a new heart with which to fear him" (Midrash, Rabba, Shemoth xv. § 6; Echa on v. 5). In Ezekiel's phrase, God sprinkles pure water on Israel and puts His spirit within him. By the middle of the second century the " last of the Essenes," Phineas ben Jair, treats " purification " as what Dr Schechter weU calls " one of the higher rungs of the ladder leading to the attainment of the holy spirit" (Studies in Judaism 11. p. no). But the connection between water and the Holy Spirit can be traced much closer than this. In the Hebrew Bible the word "to pour out" ("ISC'), properly applicable only to liquids, is applied to the Divine Spirit. "In those days I will pour out my spirit on all flesh " (Joel iii. i [ii. 28] ; cf. Ezekiel xxxix. 29). In Rabbinic Hebrew the word which means " to draw " liquids (3SB') is often used of drawing the holy spirit. In Isaiah xii. 3 we have the beautiful image : " With joy shall ye draw water from the wells of salvation." With all of this compare Genesis Rabba, Ixx. § 8 (on Genesis xxix. 2 seq.). "Behold there was a well in the field: that is Zion ; lo there were three flocks of sheep : these are the three pilgrim feasts ; from out of that well they drew water : from thence they drew the holy spirit." SimUarly the " Place of the Water-drawing,'' referred to above in Note I., is explained as the place whence " they drew the holy spirit" (T.J. Sukkah, v. § i). There is no ground then for the emphatic statement of Dr S. Krauss (Jewish Encyclopedia, 11. 499) that "The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John that the one who would come after him would not baptise with water but with the Holy Ghost." The idea must have seemed quite natural to Jewish ears, as is evident from the parallels quoted above. It must be understood that some of these parallels (especially the last, which is not older than the third century) are cited not as giving the origin of the phrase in the Gospels, but as illustrating it. Such illustrations may be used irrespective of their date in order to discriminate from specifically un-Jewish ideas, those ideas which are found in the New Testament, and are found again in Jewish circles later on. It is important to know the ideas that recur. And, of course, the parallels 44 IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM may often be older than the first citation in which they are now to be found. On the other hand, some borrowing from the Gospels must not be dismissed as impossible or unlikely. An idea once set in circulation would become general property, and if it fitted in with other Jewish ideas might find a ready hospitality. It is weU to make this plain, though I do not for a moment think that in baptism we have a case in point. The Rabbis have no hesitation in saying that prayer replaced sacrifice, but they never hint at the thought that baptism replaced the proselyte's sacrifice, as some writers suggest. My main contention is that the recurrence or non-recurrence of New Testament ideas and expressions is the surest test we have of their essential Jewishness or non-Jewishness. The test is not perfect, for parallels are occasionally missing to very Judaic ideas, and on the other hand alien ideas did occasionally creep into the theology of Judaism inadvertently. Often again, the usages and ideas of the New Testament stand between Old Testament usages and later Rabbinic ; in such cases they are valuable links in the chain. This is emphatically the case with the New Testament references to Synagogue customs. A good instance is also the metaphor of baptism with fire which, though absent from Mark, occurs in both Matthew and Luke. Fire in the Old Testament is not only capable of being " poured out " Uke water, but its capacity in this respect becomes the basis of a second derived metaphor: ''He hath poured out his fury like fire" (Lament ations ii. 4). Fire is the natural element for purging, and is frequently used in the Old Testament in the two senses of punishing and refining. In the phrase "baptism by fire" we have thus two Old Testament ideas combined ; fire is poured out, and it is used as a purifying and punitive agent. Some see in the baptism by fire an allusion to illumination. The light of day was removed by Adam's sin and restored on his repentance (Genesis Rabba, xi. ; T.B. Aboda Zara, 8 a). The illuminative power of repentance is already found in Philo (Cohn and Wendland, § 179): "From the deepest darkness the repentant behold the most brilliant light." In the Testament of Gad (v. 7, ed. Charles, p. 154) we read: "For true repentance after a godly sort driveth away the darkness and enlighteneth the eyest" The same illuminating function is (on the basis of Psalm xix. 8) often ascribed, of course, to the Law, which further (with reference to Deut. xxxiii. 2) is also typified by fire. But the context in which baptism by fire occurs in the Gospels precludes all thought of fire as an iUuminant. In the SibyUine passage quoted above, the gracious promise of pardon IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM 46 after true repentance on immersion in water has a harsher sequel. If there be no repentance with baptism, there shall be destruction by fire. For the Oracle continues (iv. 70) : But if, ill-disposed, ye obey me not, But with a fondness for strange lack of sense Receive all these things with au evil ear, There shall be over all the world a fire And greatest omen with sword and with trump At sunrise ; the whole world ahall hear the roar And mighty aound. And he ahall burn all earth, And destroy the whole race of men, and all The cities and the rivers and the sea ; All things he'll burn, and it shall be black dust. Fiery baptism is a purging process, and in Luke (iii. 17) is associated with the winnowing fan ("but the chaff he will burn "). The context is equally clear in Matthew (iii. 12). This is a frequent Old Testament usage. The idea is carried out most fully in a saying of Abbahu (end of third century). Schottgen has already cited this parallel from T.B. Sanhedrin, 39 a. Abbahu explains that when God buried Moses, he bathed himself in fire, as it is written: "For behold the Lord will come with fire" (Isaiah Ixvi. 15). Abbahu goes on to say, "By fire is the essential baptism," and he quotes : " All that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water" (Num. xxxi. 23). Thus baptism by fire is the divine analogue to man's baptism by water. Man could not bear the more searching test. One other phrase needs annotation : baptising in or into the name of Christ. It is a difficult expression, but so are all tbe Rabbinic metaphors in which the word "name" occurs. (Cf. my article on " Name of God " in Hastings, Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, vol. IX.) Part of the significance of the Gospel expression is seen from the corresponding late Hebrew (Gerim i. 7): "Whoever is not a proselyte to (or in) the name of heaven (d*DB' DEfb) is no proselyte." (Cf. for tlie phrase, Koheleth Rabbah on Eccles. vii. 8 end.) In this context the meaning is that the true proselyte is baptised for God's sake, and for no personal motive. It is a pure, unselfish act of submission to the true God. But in the Talmud (e.g. T.B. Yebemioth, 45 b, 47 b last lines) there is another phrase, which throws light on this. Slaves, on rising to the rank of freemen, were re-baptised, and this slave baptism was termed a baptism to or in the name of freedom (inriK' DB'^ or t'lin p DB'b). A fine contrast and complement of baptism in the name of freedom is the proselyte's baptism in the name 46 IV. PHARISAIC BAPTISM of heaven, or in its Gospel form — baptism in the name of Christ. The Christian phrase, it is strongly contended by many, has a magical connotation. But if so, (and it is hardly the case unless magical be interpreted as equivalent to mystical), it was an acquired rather than a primitive connotation. The explanation suggested comes near that which regards baptism into the name as a Roman legal term, implying that the newcomer is admitted on the roll of the patron's clients or dependents. Never, surely, was a legal term more transfigured, both in Church and Synagogue. Y. THE DOVE AND THE VOICE. From two opposite sides the Rabbinic parallels to the Dove have been minimised, by Dr Edersheim jand Dr Abbott. The former, in order to expose the "mythical theory," insists with "warmth of language " that the whole circumstances connected with the baptism of Jesus " had no basis in existing Jewish belief." The latter, in pursuance of his view that the " Dove '' arose from a textual misunderstanding, argues equally that there was no extant Jewish symbolism which could justify the figure. But the doubt would have been scarcely possible had the two ideas, the Dove and the Heavenly Voice, been treated together. It must not be overlooked that in several passages the Heavenly Voice (Heb. BcUh-Qdlj Daughter of the Voice) is represented as piping or chirping like a bird. The notes of a bird coming from aloft often unseen would naturally enough lend themselves to mystic symbolism in connection with the communication of a divine message. There are two clear instances of this use of the verb "chirp " with regard to the Bath-Qol in the Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah. In one (on Eccles. vii. 9) we read : " I heard the Daughter of the Voice chirping (nSVSSDj and saying : Return O back- sUding children (Jer. in. 14)." Even clearer is the second passage on Eccles. xii. 7, though the text explained is verse 4 of the same chapter : "And one shall rise up at the voice of a bird. Said R. Levi, For 18 years a Daughter of the Voice was making announcement and chirping (nsXSVD) concerning Nebuchadnezzar." (It is possible that in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sabbath vi. 9, we have another instance, and that we should correct nXXIDD, which is the reading of the text there, to naxaSD). The evidence goes further. For while in these passages the Heavenly voice is likened to the soft muttering of a bird, in one place the BatlirQol is actually compared to a cfe)ue. This occurs in the Babylonian Talmud, Berachoth fol. 3 a): "I heard a Bath-Qol moaning as a dove and saying : Woe to the children through whose iniquities I laid waste My Temple." It is this association of the bird and the heavenly voice that may underlie the Gospel narrative of the baptism, and at once illustrate and 48 V, THE DOVE AND THE VOICE authenticate the symbolism of the Synoptists. There is no need to enter here at length into the question of the Bath-Qol, for Dr Abbott (From Letter to Spirit, Book ii. and Appendix iv.) has admirably collected the materials. It is surely supercritical to question the antiquity of the Bath-Qol in face of the evidence of Josephus (Antiquities, xiii. x. 3) and of the Rabbinic tradition concerning Hillel: "There came forth a Bath-Qol and said : There is among you a certain man worthy of the Holy Spirit, but the generation is not worthy thereof " (Jer. Sota ix. 12, otherwise 13). Dr Abbott aptly compares Mark i. 7. The whole passage in Mark fits in with the belief that in the absence of the direct inspiration of prophets by the Holy Spirit (after the death of Haggai, Zecbariah and Malachi), the Bath-Qol took its place (loc. cit.). The Synoptists, like the Rabbis, never report a direct message from God. In the Rabbinic literature the dove is for the most part an emblem of Israel, its gentleness, fidelity, its persecution, its submission (H. J. Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker, ed. 3, p. 44, has collected some useful materials on the symbolism of the Dove in other literatures). Here is a characteristic Rabbinic passage (Midrash Tanhuma, p. Tesave : cf. ed. Buber, Uxod. p. 96), "Israel is compared to a dove (Canticles i.). As the dove knows her mate and never forsakes him, so Israel, once recognising the Holy One as God, never proves faithless to him. All other birds, when they are about to be slaughtered, wince, but the dove holds out its neck to the slayer. So there is no people so willing as Israel to lay down its life for God. Just as the dove (after the flood) brought Ught to the world, so God said unto Israel, who are likened to the dove. Take olive oil and light my lamp before me.'' It has been suggested (R. Eisler in the Quest, July 1912) that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a second Noah, and that he would inaugurate the era by a punishment and a purification by a new flood. If the evidence were sufficient to support this view (Eisler quotes Zech. xiv. 2, Joel iii. [iv.] 18, and Ezekiel xlvii. i) we might see a Messianic reminiscence of Noah's dove. Elsewhere other points of comparison are made (Berachoth 53b, etc.). As "the wings of a dove covered with silver and her leathers with yellow gold" (Ps. Ixviii. 13) are the bird's means of escape from danger, so is Israel saved by the Law, the pure words of the Lord which are " as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times " (Ps. xii. 7). But, as Wiinsche well remarks (Neue Beitrdge, p. 501) the very comparison of suffering Israel to a dove may have influenced the growth of the metaphor as applied to the Messiah, whose function it was to save Israel. The " Spirit of God " of the Cosmogony V. THE DOVE AND THE VOICE 49 in Genesis is thus sometimes (as we shall see later) compared jtoji dove, sometimes to the spirit of the Messiah, who will not come until Israel deserves the boon by Repentance (Genesis Rabba, ch. ii., ed. Theodor, p. 17; Yalqut on Gen. i. 2). The identity is carried farther. In the Bible God is said to have borne Israel on Eagle's wings, to protect Israel as a parent bird protects its nest (Deut. xxxii. 11); more generally (Isaiah xxxi. 5 ) : "as birds flying so will the Lord of hosts protect Jerusalem." Nay more, just as the Divine Presence goes into exile with Israel, so God himself is, with Israel, compared to a troubled bird (though not a dove), driven from its nest (the Temple) while the wicked prevail on earth (Midrash on Ps. Ixxxix., Yalqut § 833). It is quite in keeping with this whole range of ideas to find the Targum (Canticles ii. 12, etc.) interpreting as the "voice of the Holy Spirit of Salvation" the text, the "voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land." (Cf. alfo Sifre on Deut. § 314, with reference to Canticles ii. 8.) Now it is obviously near at hand to find the main source of the comparison of the Holy Spirit to a bird in Genesis i. 2, " And the Spirit of God brooded (as a bird) upon the face of tbe waters." We are happily not called upon to discuss the origin of the idea in Genesis itself and its relation to the " world-egg." The Jewish commentators (even on Jeremiah xxiu. 9) recognise no other meaning for the verb used in Genesis CP"^), except brooding or moving as a bird. It is well here to cite Rashi's note on the Genesis passage: "The Spirit of God was moving : the Throne of Glory was standing in the air and moving on the face of the waters by the Spirit of the Mouth of the Holy One blessed be he, and by his Word like a dove that broods on the nest, in French acoveter." This idea is derived by the commentator partly from the Midrash Conen (JelUnek, Bet Hamidrash, ii. 24: "And the holy spirit and the holy Presence was moving and breathing on the water "), but chiefly from the famous incident concerning Ben Zoma, a younger contemporary of the Apostles. I have cited Rashi's adoption of it to prove that some moderns have misread the Talmud when they regard the Rabbis as deprecating Ben Zoma's idea. If anyone understood the spirit of the Talmud it was Rashi, and the fact that he (like other Jewish commentators) adopts the simile of the dove is of itself enough to show that Ben Zoma's simile was not considered objectionable. More over, the passage relating to Ben Zoma is too frequently reproduced in the Rabbinical sources for it to have been held in the disrepute which has strangely been assigned to it by those who would like to expunge this very clear parallel to the dove of the Synoptists, for it is obvious A. 4 60 V. THE DOVE AND THE VOICE that we have not only a comparison to tbe dove, but also to its appearance "on the face of the waters," which fits in so well with the baptismal scene at the Jordan, the dove descending as " Jesus, when he was baptised, went up straightway from the water. " Even without the Ben Zoma analogue one could hardly doubt that the Synoptists must have had Genesis i. 2 in mind. The Ben Zoma incident is reported in the Talmud (Hagiga 15 a) as follows : " Rabbi Joshua the son of Hananiah was standing on an ascent in the Temple Mount, and Ben Zoma saw him but did not stand before him. He said to him : Whence comest thou and whither go thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He replied, I was considering the space between the upper waters and the lower waters, and there is only between them a mere three fingers' breadth, as it is said, and the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters like a dove which broods over her young but does not touch them. Rabbi Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is still outside ; for, ' and the Spirit of God was hovering ' — when was this ? On the first day. But the separation was on the second day." There are several variants of the passage, but this on the whole seems to me the most original in the important reference to the dove. (Bacher, Agada der Tanaiten, ed. 2, Vol. I., p. 423, holds the Tosefta Hagiga ii. 5 and Jer. Talm. Hagiga reading more original because the allusion to the Temple is an anachronism.) Some of the variants either suppress the dove or replace it by an eagle, citing Deut. xxxii. 1 1 (where the same verb ^HT is used of an eagle). Such a harmonisation shows the hand of an editor, and the dove would not have been introduced later. Dr Schechter (Studies in Judaism, 11. p. 113) is convinced that the dove is the original reading. Now tbe theory that by the phrase " Ben Zoma is still outside " it was implied in this " fragment of a Jewish Gnosis" (as L. Low, Lebensalter, p. 58 suggests) that he had not yet returned to the orthodox path. is quite untenable. Other passages show that the meaning is : Ben Zoma is still out of his senses. He had pried too closely into the problems of creation, and had fallen into such perplexity that he confused the work of the first with that of the second day. At all events, the figure of the dove is not asserted to have originated with Ben Zoma, there is nothing in the passage to imply that it was regarded as an innovation, or that Ben Zi)ma's idea was unorthodox or heretical. Of course it is quite true, as Dr Abbott urges, that the Rabbinic figure does not imply that the Holy Spirit appeared visibly as a dove, but that the motion and action of the Spirit were comparable to the motion of a dove over her young. VI. LEAVEN. The term leaven ("iS^if = Gk. ^vp.rj) is used in N.T. as a symbol of " corruption." Something of the same idea is found in a well-known Rabbinic passage to be discussed later. As to the O.T. conception of leaven, an excellent account is given by A. R. S. Kennedy in Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 2754, "In the view of all antiquity, Semitic and non-Semitic, panary fermentation represented a process of corruption and putrefaction in the mass of the dough.'' Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 109) has the same idea. PhUo, on the other hand, has the idea with a some what different nuance. To him, leaven symbolises the puffing-up of vain self-conceit (Frag, on Exod. xxiii. 18), or the vice of insolence (on Levit. ii. 11, de offer, vi., Mangey 11. 255). It is probable, too, that the Roman satirist Persius (i. 24) also implies by fermentum "vanity" rather than "corruption." Later Jewish moralists (cf. Zohar on Gen. xlvii. 31) have made extensive use of the leaven metaphor (especiaUy with reference to the prohibition of leavened bread |>Dn on Passover). As, however, " leavened " bread was in itself more palatable as an article of food than unleavened, the metaphorical use of "leaven" sometimes expresses an improving process. Kennedy (loc. cit.) puts it rather differently : " In the N.T. leaven supplies two sets of figures, one taken from the mode, the other from the result, of the process of fermentation. Thus Jesus likened the sUent but effective growth of the ' Kingdom ' in the mass of humanity to the hidden but pervasive action of leaven in the midst of the dough" (Mt. xiu. 33). It is probable, however, that the parable also takes account of the result ; the leavened mass of humanity, through intrusion of the leaven, attains a superior moral condition, just as the leavened bread is a more perfect food than unleavened. Paul applies the process in the opposite sense. Just as " evil company doth corrupt good manners'' (i Cor. xv. 33), so "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump " (i Cor. v. 6 ; Gal. v. 9). The latter idea is Rabbinic (Succah 56 b) both on this side ( Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbour 4.— 2 52 VI. LEAVEN 13''3{5'^ ''IN yB*"!^ *1S<) and on the reverse side, for the righteous extends virtue and its consequences to his neighbour (Happy the righteous, happy his neighbour 13»3B''? 31D pHs"? 31D). But the Rabbinic idea does not associate itself with leaven, but with the plague-spot, which appear ing in one house, compels the demolition of the next house (Mishna, Negaim xii. 6; Sifra on Levit. xiv. 40; Weiss 73 b). A very close parallel to Paul's proverb (p.i,Kpa t,vp7) oXov to (^vpajna t,vp.oT) is found in Hebrew (rh)-M noy y'ona tayion llNtyn -|ErN3), but this occurs in a fifteenth century book (Abraham Shalom b. Isaac's neve shalom xi. 2), and is possibly a reminiscence of i Cor. But the sentence is not very recondite, and may be independent of Paul. The permanence of the effect of leaven in the mass is found in Yalqut Ruth § 601, where the leaven is said to cling to proselytes up to 24 generations. Most notable of all metaphorical applications of leaven is its association with man's evil tendencies or inclinations (y\n iv). The chief references in Rabbinic thought are two, both of which are alluded to in the passage about to be quoted from Weber. The latter (in his JUdische Theologie) identified the evil inclination with the body. On p. 221 (ed. 2 p. 229) he writes: That the body is impure, not merely as perishable, but because it is the seat of the evil impulse, we see from what is said in Num. Eabba xiii. (Wiinsche p. 312) : God knew before he created man that the desire of his heart would be evil from his youth (Gen. viii. 21). "Woe to the dough of which the baker must himself testify that it is bad." Thia Jewish proverb can be applied to the Jewish doctrine of man. Then the dough is the body, which God (the baker) worked and shaped, and the impurity of the body is grounded in the fact that it is the seat of the yeser hara', which is in the body that which the leaven is in the dough (nD'y3t}' lINtJ*), a fermenting, impelling force (Berachoth 17a). But, as Prof. F. C. Porter rightly comments, Weber's view is not well founded. This is Prof. Porter's criticism ("The Yeger Hara,'' in Yale Biblical and Semitic Studies, p. 104). Here the identification of tbe dough with the body, in distinction from the aoul, ia miataken. The dualistic psychology is supplied by Weber, not suggested by the source. God's judgment upon man in Gen. viii. 21 is likened to a baker's con demnation of his own dough. The proverb is also found in Gen. Eabba xxxiv. (Wiinsche, p. 152) as a saying of E. Hiyya the Great (Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten II. 530). The comparison of the evil impulse with leaven is an entirely different saying, which should not be connected with the other. But in this case alao the dough is man, human nature, not the body. It ia the prayer of R. Alexander (Berach. 17a); "It is revealed and known before thee that our will is to do thy wiU. And what hinders? The leaven that is in the dough and servitude to the Kingdoms. May it be thy will to deliver ua from their hand." VI. LEAVEN 53 Matthew (xvi. 1 2) interprets the " leaven of the Pharisees " to mean "teaching of the Pharisees," an interpretation which Allen (p. 175) rightly rejects. Luke (xii. i) interprets it of "hypocrisy." Mark (vni. 14-21) gives no explanation, but reads "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." It wUl be seen that this reading strangely agrees with the words of R. Alexander's prayer : " the leaven that is in the dough (= the leaven of the Pharisees) and servitude to the Kingdoms (= the leaven of Herod)." Two things impede man : the evil yeser and the interference of alien rule. Both these preventives to man's advance will vanish with the coining of the Kingdom. With the advent of the Messiah the evil yeser will be finally slain (see refs. in Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 290); and in the second place with the Kingdom of heaven Israel triumphs over Rome (Pesiqta K. 50 a; Pesiqta R. 75 a). There is a striking saying attributed to R. Joshua b. Levi, who belongs to the first half of the third century. It is obvious that the parable of the leaven requires a favourable application of the symbol. R. Joshua carries this application to the extent of likening leaven to peace. "Great is peace, in that peace is to the earth as leaven to dough; for had not God set peace in the earth the sword and the wild-beast would have depopulated it" (Pereq ha-Shalom, beginning; Bacher, Agada der Paldstinensischen Amorder I. 136). The exact force of R. Joshua's comparison is not clear. He bases his idea on Leviticus xxvi. 6 : and it is possible that he had in mind the thought found in the Sifra on that text (ed. Weiss, p. 1 1 1 a). " I will give peace in the land " and (in the usual translation) " I will make evil beasts to cease." So R. Judah interprets. But according to R. Simeon the meaning is that God will not destroy evil beasts, but will render them innocuous ; for "the divine power is better seen when there are in existence evils which do not injure '' (comparing Isaiah xi. 6 — 8). In this sense, peace would be not inert, but an active agency ; a ferment of the good against the evil. The idea of stirring, agitating (tJi and Dy3), is not only applied to the evil yeser. It is also used of the good yeser. "Let a man stir up his good yeser against his bad" (T. B. Berachoth, 5 a); " rouse thy [good] yeser and thou wilt not sin '' (Ruth Rabbah, towards end). Peace is thus the leaven, stirring up the good yeser, to strive against hostile forces. If Peace is to have her victories, she must fight for them. VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS. The Roman taxes and custom duties and their mode of coUection are admirably described by Schiirer (i. § 17) and Herzfeld (Hamdels- geschichte der Juden des Alterthums, § 47). The taxes proper were in Roman times collected by state officials, but the customs were farmed out to publicani. In maritime places these were particularly onerous, and Herzfeld ingeniously cites the proverbial maxim ('Aboda Zara, 106) " Woe to the ship which sails without paying its dues " in illustration of Matthew ix. 9, 10. That the demands of the publicani and their underlings were often excessive is natural enough, and — especially when the officials were native Jews (cp, Biiehler, Sepphoris, pp. 13, 40, etc.) — the class was consequently the object of popular resentment. It is not the case (as Schurer assumes) that the Jewish authorities connived at frauds on the regular revenue. At all events the trick permitted in the Mishnah (Nedarim, ui. 4) was interpreted by the Talmud (Nedarim, 28 a) as having reference not to the authorised taxes but to the arbitrary demands of unscrupulous extorters or inventors of dues. " The law of the Government is law '' — on which see Note VIII — is used on the Talmudic folio just quoted as making it impossible that the Mishnah (which permits one to evade "murderers, robbers, confisoators and tax-gatherers " by falsely declaring tbe property coveted to be sacerdotal or royal property) can refer to lawful taxes. We have already seen that the tax-gatherers are associated with robbers and murderers (cp. also Baba Qama, 113 a). Hence they were regarded as unfit to act as judges or to be admitted as witnesses (Sanhedrin, 25 b). An early baraitha made a tax-gatherer ineligible as haber ; in the older period the disqualification did not cease with the abandonment of the occupation, afterwards this particular severity was mitigated (Bechoroth, 31 a). It is clear from the last quotation that the publican might sometimes be a man of learning. Yet this con demnation was not universal. Baya (or Mayan) the tax-gatherer (or VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS 55 his son), who was charitable to the poor, was publicly mourned and honoured at his death (Sanhedrin, 44 6; J. Hagiga, ii. 2). So, con cerning the father of Ze'ira (Sanhedrin, 25 b) a favourable report is ' made. There is also a (late) story of Aqiba (or in another version Johanan b. Zakkai), teUing how the Rabbi with eagerness reclaimed the son of an oppressive tax-gatherer, teaching him the Law, and bringing peace to the father's soul (Kallah, ed. Coronel, 4 b. For other references see Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. i. p. 310). The association in the Gospels of the two expressions Publicans and Sinners is paraUel to the combination of "publicans and robbers" in the Rabbinic literature. The " sinners " were thus not those who neglected the rules of ritual piety, but were persons of immoral life, men of proved dishonesty or followers of suspected and degrading occupations. Tbe Rabbis would have been chary of intercourse with such men at all times, but especially at meals. For the meal was not regarded simply as a satisfaction of physical needs. It was a service as weU, consecrated by benedictions ; it was also a feast of reason. The keynote of this is struck in the saying of R. Simeon (Aboth, iii. 3) : " Three who have eaten at one table and have not said over it words of Torah, are as if they had eaten sacrifices of the dead (idols), for it is said : All tables are full of vomit and filthiness without place (Maqom)." This last word is taken in its secondary sense to mean the Omnipresent, God. "But," continues R. Simeon, "three who have eaten at one table, and have said over it words of Torah, are as if they had eaten of the table of God (Maqom), blessed be he, for it is said: This is the table that is before the Lord" (Ezekiel xii. 22). This conception is exemplified also in the table-discourses of Jesus to his disciples, and Ues, to some extent, at the bottom of institution of the Eucharistic meal. In Jewish life this idea that the table is an altar gained a firm hold and led to a whole system of learned readings, devotions, and most remarkably, of hymns during meals, the Passover home-rites being but a conspicuous example of a daily Jewish usage. Just, then, as later on Christians would not share the Eucharistic meal with notorious evil-livers, so the Jewish Rabbi at various periods would (with less consistent rigidity) have objected to partake of any meal with men of low morals. So, also, Jesus' disciples are exhorted (Matthew xvui. 17) to treat certain offenders as "the GentUe and the Publican" with whom common meals would be impossible. The Essenes held a similar view as to the exclusion from their table of those who did not share the Essenic principles. 56 VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS When, then, we find that the "pure-minded in Jerusalem would not sit down to a meal unless they knew who their table-companions were to be" (Sanhedrin, 23a), the motive was neither pride nor exclusiveness, but a desire that the meal should not degenerate into mere eating and drinking. They would wish to be assured of the presence of fit comrades for learned and edifying discourse. They would not readily accept invitations to banquets at all, " the student who is always found at other people's tables profanes the name of God " (Yoma, 86 b, Aboth de R. Nathan, i. xxvi.). The Rabbis were convivial, but not gluttons ; and many of them would never eat outside their own homes except at a " meal of duty," i.e. a semi-religious function, such as a marriage festivity. Instructive is the incident recorded as having occurred in Jerusalem c. 65 a.d. At the feast held on the circumcision of Elishah b. Abuyah, among those present were Eleazar b. Hyrqanos and Joshua b. Hananyah. While the other guests were partaking of meat and wine, these two sat "stringing together," like pearls on a cord, the words of the Scriptures. (Qoh. R. on viii. 8 ; see Bacher, Prooemien etc., p. 9.) To such men, a meal was not a mere occasion for eating and drinking. The reluctance to eat with the 'Am ha-ares was of a different origin ; fears as to neglected tithes etc. arose (cf. Biiehler, Der Galildisch Am-haares 162, 208). Similarly, with regard to joining the heathen at table, fear of mixed marriage came to the fore (cf. A. Wiener, Die jUdischen Speisegesetze, Breslau 1895, pp. 430 seq.; W. Elmslie on 'Abodah Zarah v. 5, with references there given). It is clear from the context that such joint meals did take place. But with all this there weut a unique sense of obligation to the poor and the miserable. Isaiah (Iviii. 7) had spoken of the duty " to bring the poor that are cast out to thy house," and from the middle of the second century B.C. it was laid down as a duty to entertain at meals "the children of the poor" (Aboth, i. 5), to which category were later added "those who were distressed in soul" (Aboth de R. Nathan, 11. xiv.). It is not at all the case that a Pharisee would have declined to receive even "sinners" at his own table. But he might have refused an invitation to join them at their table, where the ritual and atmosphere could hardly fail to be uncongenial. Probably the Pharisees exaggerated the force of evil example (cf. Hermas Mand. x. i. 4 against <^tA.tats iOviKUK). We frequently find in the second and third centuries regulations due to a sensitive repugnance to placing oneself in a position of suspicion. (This is the meaning of some passages quoted by Dr Biiehler in his essay on VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS 57 "The Political and Social Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris," ch. in. § 5.) On the other hand especial eulogy was expressed of those who defied suspicion and remained untainted in an environment of temptation (Pesachim, 113 a). But for the most part the Pharisees entertained an exaggerated fear both of the danger of actual moral lapse, and even more of the loss of repute from suspicion of such lapse, likely to be incurred by association with dishonest men or unchaste women. It was, however, a defensible theory of conduct, and one which most educationalists of the present day accept. We sometimes find Rabbis prepared to defy suspicion and temptation when engaged in what we now call rescue work, but such cases are rare. Moreover, as the women who were the unchaste associ ates of unchaste men were chiefly foreigners, the Rabbis felt no strong impulse towards putting their heads in the lions' dens. But, to return to my main point, it is unnecessary to cite the Rabbinic passages in which men are warned of the personal dangers of associating with men or women of low morals. Some passages have already been quoted in Note VI. (Of. also C Taylor's Note on Aboth i. 8 [7].) Another common saying was that though the evil yeser of idolatry had been slain, the evil yeser of unchastity was very much alive (Yoma, 69 b ; 'Aboda Zara, 1 7 6). There was much lack of courage, but less taint of self-righteousness, in the efforts of the moralist to preserve men from temptation and contagion. Luke's Pharisee who thanked God that he was not as the Publican (Luke xviU. ri) must have been an exceptional case, one of the weeds of rituaUsm, not one of its ordinary or natural fruits. " A famiUar saying in the mouth of the Rabbis of Jabneh," says the Talmud (Berachoth, 1 7 a), " was this : I (who study the Law) am a creature (of God), and my fellow man is a creature (of God). My work is in the city, his in the field ; I rise early to my work, he rises early to his. Just as he cannot excel in my work, so I cannot excel in his. Perhaps thou wilt say : I do much and he does little (for the Torah). But we have learned (Menahot, no a), He who offers much and he who offers little are equal, provided that each directs his heart to Heaven." The penitent publican's prayer "God be merciful to me a sinner," as well as his gesture ("he smote upon his breast") are essentially Pharisaic ; it is interesting to see Luke introducing this last ritualistic touch in an attack on ritualism. The Pharisee placed the repentant sinner on a higher pedestal than the out-and-out saint (Berachoth, 346). This was expressed in another way by saying that God honours the 58 VIL PUBLICANS AND SINNERS repentant. Again, " Broken vessels are a disgrace for a man to use, but God loves the broken heart " (Midrash, Levit. Rabba, vii. 2 ; Mid, Tehillim on xviii. 2). A penitent pubUcan, like any other repentant sinner (cf. the fine passage on the harlot in Philo, On Monarchy ii, 8), would find a ready welcome to the arms of the Rabbi. True it was held difficult for a publican to repent (Baba Qama, 94 b), but by repent is meant in the context to make restitution. The victims of the publican's oppression were not easily identifiable, and it was not in the sinner's power to undo the wrong which he had inflicted. Besides, the community must not connive at such plundering by manifesting over-readiness to take back payment from ill-gotten gains. The Rabbis would have scornfully rejected the cynical principle pecunia non olet. But though the community might decline the preferred restitution, God would accept ; man might justly reject, yet the sinner must do restitution (anonymously) for God's sake. On the basis of this same passage (Baba Qama, 94 — 95) Maimonides thus accurately sums up the position : " If the robber wished to repent, and the thing actually stolen being no longer in existence, offered to repay the value of the stolen thing, it is an ordinance of the sages that they must not accept the money, but they lielp him and pardon him, so as to make near unto the penitent the right way ; yet if one received the money from him he would not forfeit the approval of the sages" (Hilchoth n^TJ, i. 13). And even though the Scripture says the opposite (Proverbs xxi. 27 : "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination"), the gift- offerings of sinners were accepted in the Temple in order to encourage them to repent (Hullin, 5 a ; Pesikta R., 192 a). r'^'^There was in the Pharisaism of all ages a real anxiety to make the return of the sinner easy. It was inclined to leave the initiative to the sinner, except that it always maintained God's readiness to take the first step. Jesus in his attitude towards sin and sinners was more inclined to take the initiative. Yet, until the modern epoch of a new humanism, society has worked by reprobation rather than attraction, and the practical methods of Western communities in dealing vrith criminals have been as harsh as the methods of any other system. And Rabbis did often act in the same spirit as Jesus. In the first place if a genuine Pharisee ever thanked God that he was not as the publican, he would only have done so in the spirit of the famous utterance : " There, but for the grace of God, goes John Baxter." Thus a first century Rabbi (Nehunya ben Haqana) utters a prayer in which he contrasts the happier lot of the speaker — who frequents the VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS 59 house of study — and the less happy lot of someone else — who frequents theatre and circus (Berachoth, 28 a). This prayer is simply a grateful recognition for good fortune; it in no sense implies (except quite in directly) that the speaker prides himself on being a better man. His lines have been cast in happier places. Such prayers and such an attitude are moreover an encouragement to right living. They aim at showing that virtue has its abundant reward in a sense of duty done and in the confident hope of future bliss. And here arises the real difficulty. Praying for sinners (i.e. for other people), fussy efforts at rescuing outcasts (i.e., again, other people) may come very close indeed to "pharisaic" self-righteousness. These psychological problems are so complex that they transcend the grasp of most theologians, and the latter are driven to look at the problems incompletely and therefore erroneously. One might put it generally by asserting that the Rabbis attacked vice from the preventive side ; they aimed at keeping men and women honest and chaste. Jesus approached it from the curative side; he aimed at saving the dishonest and the unchaste. The Rabbis thought that God loves the prayers of the righteous ; they held that all the divine sympathy was not expended on the petitions of the sinner. But the association of the sinner with the righteous — in prayer and fasting — was necessary to make religion a real thing (Kerithoth, 6 b). And as regards actual, practical intrusion into the life of the sinner, there is much in the Rabbinic literature urging men to seek the active reclamation of the erring. " He who does not pray for his neighbour or bring him to penitence himself will suffer " (Midrash Jonah). As Maimonides puts it (on the basis of several Talmudic passages, Ber. 126 etc.): "Whoever has it in his power to prevent others from sinning, yet leaves them in their stumbling, has no forgiveness" (Teshuba, iv. 2; Deoth vi.). So far does this counsel go, that the Israelite is required to press his reproof and his efforts at reclamation on the sinner though the latter revile and even strike his monitor (Erachin, 166). Thoroughly in accord with Rabbinic teaching (Sifra on Leviticus xix. 17) is the Targum rendering of that same text : " Thou shalt rebuke thy neighbour and not receive punishment for his sin " which your active reproof might have prevented. His sin becomes your sin. The parable of Moses and the stray sheep which he seeks in the desert and bears in his bosom (Midrash, Shemoth Rabba, ch. ii.) points the same moral. This idea is already found in the Psalter, " I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant " (Ps. cxix. 176). So, Ps. xxxiv. 14, "Seek peace and pursue it," was held by the Rabbis 60 VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS to compel men to go about the world as peace-makers. Perhaps the most apt citation in this connection (the subject is further discussed in the note on Forgiveness) is the manner in which Jewish homilists set up Aaron as an ideal character. There can be no question here but that this idealisation is earUer than the Gospel criticism of the Pharisaic indifference to "sinners.'' We meet with its germ in Malachi ii. 6, where Levi is eulogised in the words "he did turn away many from iniquity." These words were applied specifi cally to Aaron (Aboth de R. Nathan, i. xii.), and HUlel already has the saying : " Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind, and bringing them near to the Torah'' (Mishnah Aboth, i. 12). Here is the same spirit as "the Ught of the law which was given to lighten every man " (Testament, of Levi, xiv.). This "bringing men near" appUes to proselytism, but in Rabbinical literature it is again and again used of active labour in rescuing sinners. Nitai the Arbelite cautioned against association with the wicked (Aboth, i. 7, on the relation between this and i. 12 see Jewish commentaries). But this was not the only view held. Aaron, we are told, would offer friendly greetings to the wicked (Johanan b. Zakkai, we are told, Ber. 17 a, punctiliously greeted heathens in the market-place), who would thus be shamed from their sin (Aboth de R. Nathan, loc. cit.); he would go out on the roads at night, intercept those who were about to transgress, and with soft, affectionate words of intimate comradeship, would divert them from their intention (Buber Tanhuma, Numbers, p. 10), and thus "all Israel loved Aaron, men and women," To "bring another man near" to the Torah was to create a soul (Aboth de R. Nathan, 11. xxvi.). This ideal, pre- Christian in Rabbinic literature, was also post-Christian. There is the oft-cited case of R. Meir (to whom was due a first draft of the Mishnah). Hard by his abode lived men who were violent criminals, and they so troubled Meir that he prayed for their extinction. But his wife Beruria checked him, and at her instigation he admitted that it was better to pray for their conversion (Berachoth, 10 a). Meir, it will be remembered, was noted for his persistent friendship to his heretic and sinful master and friend, Elisha ben Abuya, for whose return to the fold he so tenderly exerted himself Even more to the present point is the conduct of R. Ze'ira. In his neighbourhood were robbers and highway men, but Ze'ira showed them intimate friendship, so that they might be brought to penitence, which indeed came about in their sorrow at the Rabbi's death (Sanhedrin, 37 a). Pathetic, too, is the idea of VII. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS 61 R. Joshua ben Levi that the Messiah would eventually be found at the gates of Rome, among the sick poor, binding up their wounds (Sanhedrin, 98). And so the story might be continued. The Rabbis could see the good in all men, and might exalt above those of spotless reputation one engaged in what they considered unsavoury and demoralising occupa tions. Gazing over the crowd, Elijah picked out as assured of the future life a jailor, who had cared for the morals of bis prisoners (Ta'anith, 22 a). On occasion of a drought in Judsea, people reported to Abbahu that they knew a man whose prayers for rain were infallible. His popular name was Pentekaka (lit. the man of Five Sins). R. Abbahu interviewed him, inquired as to his means of livelihood, whereupon Pentekaka said that his name corresponded to his profession. " I am occupied with harlots, I clean the theatre, I carry the vessels to the bath, I amuse the bathers with my jokes, and I play the flute." But, asked the Rabbi: "Have you ever done a good thing in your life?" Pentekaka answered: "Once I was sweeping out the theatre and I saw a woman standing between the pillars, bitterly weeping. I spoke to her and ascertained that her husband was a prisoner, and she could only buy his freedom by sacrificing her chastity. So I sold my bed and my pillow and all my possessions, and I gave the money to her, bidding her go ransom her husband and not sell her honour to strangers." Hearing such words from such a man, Abbahu exclaimed : " Thou art the man fit to pray for us in our hour of trouble " (Talmud Jer. Ta'anith, i. 2). VIIL "GIVE UNTO CAESAR." To Samuel of Nehardea (c. 165 — c. 257 a.d.) belongs the honour of formulating the principle which made it possible for Jews from the early middle ages onwards to live under alien laws. Jeremiah had admonished his exiled brothers : "Seek ye the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it ; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace." It grew necessary to become more explicit, and the Rabbis proclaimed a principle which was as influential with the synagogue as " Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's " became with the Church. " The law of the government is law " (dina dmalchutha dina, T.B. Baba Qama 113b; Baba Bathra 54 a; Gittin 10 b ; Nedarim 28 a) said Samuel, and ever since it has been a religious duty for the Jews to obey and accom modate themselves as far as possible to the laws of the country in which they are settled or reside (cf. my remarks in Encyclopaedia Britannica, ed. 1 1, vol. xv. p. 404). " To Jeremiah and Mar Samuel," says Graetz, "Judaism owes its possibility of existence in a foreign country " (Geschichte der Juden, iv. 2, iii.). What Mar Samuel, however, did was not to devise a new principle, but to give that principle the precision of law. Very much in the history of civilization has depended on the power of moralists to concentrate a theory into an epigram ; the sayings of Jesus and Samuel are apt illustrations. Long before Samuel, however, the same attitude prevailed. At the period of the disastrous Bar Cochba insur rection, when Roman law and Roman administration were bitterly resented, the Rabbinic teachers impressed on their brethren the absolute duty of paying the taxes imposed by the Government. According to the statement of Johanan ben Zakkai (Mechilta on Exodus xix. I, ed. Friedmann, p. 6i b top) the Romans, after the destruction of the Temple, imposed the enormous tax of fifteen shekels ; and though the exact significance of this is doubtful, it may have been VIIL "GIVE UNTO CAESAR " 63 a tax on leases ; we know that the Roman imposts were very con siderable (cf. Biiehler, The Economic Conditions of Judcea after the destruction of the Second Temple, 1912, pp. 62 seq.). Yet it was held obligatory to pay these taxes with the utmost scrupulosity, in so far as they were lawfully imposed, and were not the whimsical exactions of the publicans (T.B. Baba Qama 113 a; Nedarim 28 a; Tosefta, Nedarim iii. 4 ; Semah ii. 9 where evasion of taxation is denounced as equivalent even to murder, idolatry, incest, and profanation of the Sabbath). Nor does the evidence extend only to the Hadrianic period. It goes back even further. On the text in Ecclesiastes viii. 2 (" I counsel thee. Keep the king's command, and that in regard of the oath of God"), the Midrash (Tanhuma on Genesis viii. 16, Noah § 10; ed. Buber, p. 33) comments thus : " The Holy One said unto Israel, I adjure you tliat even though the (Roman) Government decrees against you harsh decrees ye sball not rebel against it for anything that it decrees, but keep the king's command. But if it decrees against you to abandon the Torah and the commandments and deny God, then do not obey it, but say unto it : I keep the king's laws only in those things which are necessary for the government." The Midrash goes on to cite the conduct of Daniel's three friends who assure Nebuchadnezzar : " In so far as duties and taxes are concerned, in all that thou decreest upon us, we will obey, and thou art our king, but to deny God — we have no need to answer thee in this matter... we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up '' (Daniel viii. 16). The difficulty of this compromise was twofold. First, bad government is incompatible with the Kingdom of God (Schechter, Some Aspects of Rahbinie Theology, p. 106), and the Roman Government was often deserving of inclusion in the category of bad government. Secondly, the tendency of Roman emperors to assert their divine status, and to found their authority on a theory somewhat approaching that of divine right, made Roman rule in general obnoxious to Jewish sentiment. Nevertheless, as Tacitus admits, the Jews were long patient under the irritation ; they rebelled only when chronic irrita tion was transformed into specific provocation : " Duravit tamen patientia Judseis usque ad Gessium Florum procuratorem ; sub eo bellum ortum." That occurred iu the spring of 66 a.d. Some of the previous procurators had so far studied Jewish susceptibilities as to strike (probably employing Jewish workmen) coins of special designs for local circulation in Judsea. There were on these no figures of 64 VIIL "GIVE UNTO CAESAR" animate objects, but only ears of corn, palm-trees or branches (?), the cornucopia, diota, covered vase, or wreath. In 35 a.d. Pontius Pilate struck coins decorated simply with the laurel wreath and the lituus or augur's wand (T. Reinach, Jewish Coins, ed. Hill, p. 41). At a much later period we find a Rabbi (Nahum b. Simai) described as remarkable for bis "holiness" because "he never looked upon the form of a coin" (Pesahim 104 a and parallels in Bacher, Agada der Paldstinensischen Amorder in. 616); this probably refers, however, to coins on which were figures of the emperors. Very clearly belonging to the period of the Vespasian war is the saying recorded in the Mishnah, Aboth iii. 2. The authority cited is Haninah (Hananiah), the prefect of the priests, who was a con temporary of Johanan ben Zakkai, and like him a member of the peace party. " Pray for the peace of the kingdom," said Haninah, " since but for the fear thereof men would swallow one another alive." This may allude specifically to public prayer on behalf of the ruler (see Ezra vi. 10 ; Baruch i. 11 ; I. Mace. vii. 33 ; Philo, Leg. ad Caium, xxiii., xiv.; Josephus, War 11. x. 4; T.B. Yoma 69a; I. Timothy ii. I, 2, and cf. Schurer ii. § 24 ; Singer, Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England iv. 103). It is interesting to add a conjecture made by Dr Bacher. We have no record of the precise liturgical phraseology of the prayer for the Government unless Dr Bacher has discovered it in the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (11. ch. xxxi. p. 68, ed. Schechter). By a slight emendation of the text, the words of the prayer would be : "May it (the Roman Government) rule over us for aU time" (D'D^n '?3 1J3 nt3^1£5' KnHB' Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, ed. 2, vol. i. p. 52). But though thus prepared to obey Rome and abide by all its lawful regulations, there was to be no compromise when Caesar infringed the sphere which appertained to God. This distinction we have already seen in the Midrash, but we find the same very clearly expressed in the pages of history. Josephus records several instances of the readiness of the Jews to suffer death rather than admit the images of Caesar (e.g. War 11. ix. 3). Most nearly illustrative of the subject before us is the passage in which the historian describes what took place when Caius Caesar (who succeeded Tiberius as emperor in 37 a.d.) sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statues in the Temple ; he was to slay any who opposed this step, and to enslave tbe rest of the nation (War 11. x. i). Petronius marched from Antioch southwards towards Judsea ; but when he reached Ptolemais in Galilee VIII. "GIVE UNTO CAESAR" 65 he was met by a deputation of Jews. Prevailed upon by the multitude of the supplicants, he summoned a meeting of all the men of note to Tiberias, where he declared unto them the power of the Romans and the threatenlngs of Caius, and also pronounced their petition un reasonable. " For as all the nations subject to Rome had placed the images of the emperor in their several cities among the rest of their gods, for them alone to oppose it was like the behaviour of rebels, and was insulting to the emperor.'' Josephus then proceeds as foUows, and the passage may usefully be cited in full (§§ 4, 5) : — And when they insisted on their law, and the custom of their country, and how it was not lawful for them to put even an image of God, much lesa of a man, in any profane part of their country, much less in the Temple, Petronius replied, "And am I not also bound to keep the law of my lord? For, if I transgress it and spare you, I shall justly perish. And he that sent me, and not I, will war against you; for I am under command as well as you." Thereupon the whole multitude cried out that "they were ready to suffer for their Law." Petronius then tried to quiet their noise, and aaid to them, "Will you then make war against the Emperor ? " The Jews aaid that they offered sacrifices twice every day for the emperor and the Roman people; but if he would set np his statues, he must first sacrifice the whole Jewish nation ; and they were ready to expose themselves to be slain with their children and wives. At this Petronius felt both astonishment and pity on account of their invincible regard to their religion, and their courage which made them ready to die for it. Petronius yielded, and incurred the censure of Caius, but the latter's death in 41 intervened to save him from the consequences of his complacency to the .lewish steadfastness towards their God, and his own disobedience towards Caesar. Philo (Leg. ad Caium xxxii., xxxvi.) narrates the same circumstances at greater length ; but he, too, records that the Jews willingly and even enthusiastically accepted the sovereignty of Caius, in all matters except the proposed " innova tions in respect of our Temple;... the honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws (of Judaism)." Caius well represents the opposite case when he retorts (xliv.): "Ye are haters of God, in that ye deny me the appellation of a god," though he was generous enough to attribute this blindness to the Jews as a misfortune rather than as a fault: "These men do not appear to me to be wicked so much as unfortunate and foolish, in not believing that I have been endowed with the nature of God." This misfortune and unwisdom the Jews never abandoned, and thus were always protagonists in the refusal to give unto Caesar that which is God's. IX. JEWISH DIVORCE IN THE FIRST CENTURY^. Social conditions in Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era were bewilderingly complex. Restricting our attention to the question of marriage, we find at the one extreme a sect (the Essenes) which advocated celibacy, and possibly at the other a sect (the Zadokites) which forbade divorce, or at all events remarriage. Then there were the aristocrats of the court circle who had adopted Roman ways. For instance, Josephus records two instances in which women of the Herodian house (Salome, 25 B.C., and Herodias, contemporary with John the Baptist) divorced their husbands, and paralleled the excesses denounced by Juvenal in his sixth satire (Mark x. 1 2 may be directed against such Ucentiousness). The Pharisaic Judaism of the same period regarded marriage as the ideal state, yet freely permitted divorce. If the ideal were shattered it seemed to accord best with the interests of morality to admit this, and afford both parties to the calamity a second chance of lawful happiness. The marriage bond should be inviolable, but must not be indissoluble. The progress of law and custom in Jewry tended not to modify the theoretical ease of divorce, but to increase its practical difficulties. The Gospel view was that the Deuteronomic divorce was a concession to human weakness, a lowering of the earlier standards of Genesis which held marriage to be indissoluble. The Rabbinic reading of history was different. The Pentateuch introduced the formality of the written 1 This Note was written at short notice, to comply with the urgent request of tbe late Lord Gorell, Chairman of the Eoyal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. The Note waa presented to the Commission, and the author was examined on November 21, 1910. I received valuable help from Dr M. Berlin. For varioua reasons it aeems best to leave the Note without substantial change. Hence it ia impossible to allude to the intereating views of Prof. L. Blau published in 191 1 — 1912. In his Jiidische Bhescheidung und der jiidische Scheidebrief, pages 45 — 72 of Part I are devoted to an exposition of the New Testament passages on Divorce, with Eabbinic and other parallels. IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 67 Letter of Divorce, and Rabbinism regarded this as an advance in civilization, not a retrogression. The Deuteronomic divorce was a restriction of the earlier right or power of the husband to discard his wife at will and with scant ceremony. Rabbinism contrasted the decent formalities of the Mosaic Code with the arbitrary indelicacy of primitive custom (Genesis Rabba ch. xviii.). The Pentateuch, however, contemplates the husband as alone having the right to effect .a divorce. In the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi the wife had some power of initiative, and when recently the Egyptian papyri of the fifth century B.C. were discovered, it was thought that these Aramaic documents showed the Jewish woman in possession of the same status as man in regard to initiating divorce. Closer study, however, shows that at most the woman of the papyri could claim a divorce, she could not declare one. This condition remained unaltered in the first Christian century. Josephus (Antiq. xv. viii. 7) distinctly asserts : "With us it is lawful for the husband to do so (i.e. dissolve a marriage), but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot marry another, unless her former husband put her away." In two cases the husband's right of divorce was abrogated by the Pentateuch (Deut. xxu.), if he ravished a virgin or if he falsely accused his wife of ante nuptial incontinence. In the first case the man was compelled to wed the woman in an indissoluble union, in the second case he could not divorce his wife. In later Rabbinic law a divorce if pronounced was technically valid ; the Biblical law, however, does not deal with such a case, and tbe wife was immune from divorce. But what was her position ? The option rested with her. She could compel her husband to retain her, or she could accept a divorce. Philo declares (ii. 313 Kai p-eveLv Te diraXXdTTecrdai, this last word being Philonean for divorce) that she could divorce him, but it is not probable that the law ever agreed with Philo's view. At most the injured wife may have been entitled to move the court to compel her husband to write her a Letter of Divorce. The situation reminds one of Meredith's Diana of the Grossways. We are in possession of a clear piece of evidence as to the Jewish progress in divorce law in the period preceding the Christian era. In Matthew xix. 10 the disciples after hearing Jesus' declaration on the indissolubility of marriage, object : " If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." Here, the difficulty of divorce is treated as a bar to wedlock. This is the man's point of view. What of the woman's? Now in the first century b.c. it would seem that, 5—2 68 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE from the woman's side, the facility of divorce was a bar. In face of the ease with which a husband could whistle off his wife, women refused to contract marriages, and men grew grey and celibate (T. J. Kethuboth, end of ch. viii. ; T. B. Kethuboth 82b, Tosefta xii.). Thereupon the Pharisaic leader, Simon b. Shetah, the reputed brother of Queen Alexandra, enacted that the wife's Kethubah or marriage settle ment was to be merged in the husband's estate, that he might use it as capital, but that his entire fortune, even such property of his as had passed into other hands, should be held liable for it. This effectively checked hasty divorce (cf 'Erubin 41 b), and indeed the rights of wives under the Kethubah were throughout the ages a genuine safeguard to their marital security. In respect to holding property and possessing independent estate the Jewish wife was in a position far superior to that of English wives before the enactment of recent legislation. Another point of great importance was this. Jewish sentiment was strongly opposed to the divorce of the wife of a man's youth, and men almost invariably married young. The facilities for divorce seem mostly to have been applied or taken advantage of in the case of a widower's second marriage (a widower was expected to remarry). " What the Lord hath joined, let no man put asunder" represented the spirit of the Pharisaic practice in the age of Jesus, at all events with regard to a man's first marriage. It is rather curious that while in the Gospel so much use is made of the phrase of Genesis "one flesh" to prove marriage indissoluble, no reference is made to another verse in the same context "It is not good that the man should be alone" which obviously requires marriage and not celibacy. It may be that Jesus, anticipating the near approach of the Kingdom, was teaching an " interim " ethic, which would have no relation to ordinary conditions of life (cf. the view that Angels do not marry Enoch xv. 3 — -7, Mark xii. 25 and the later Rabbinic maxim that in the world to come there is no piocreation (Berachoth 17a)). But it is more likely that he was laying down a rule of conduct only for his own immediate disciples, declaring that " all men cannot receive this saying." That, however, a belief in the divinity of the marriage tie was compatible with a belief that the tie could be loosened, is shown by the course of Jewish opinion. The Rabbis held with Jesus that marriages are made in heaven (see Jewish Quarterly Review, 11. 172), and several Old Testament phrases point to the same roseate view. Of the marriage of Isaac and Pi-ebecca it is written " the thing proceedeth from the Lord " (Gen. xxiv. 50). " Houses and Riches are the inheritance of fathers," says the author of Proverbs IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 69 (xix. 14), "but a prudent wife is from the Lord." Again, " Fear not," said the Angel to Tobias (Tobit vi. 17), "for she was prepared for thee from the beginning." The Pharisees fully accepted this amiable theory of divine fatalism. "God," said the Rabbi, "sitteth in heaven arranging marriages." Or it was more crudely put thus : " Forty days before the child is formed a heavenly voice proclaims its mate " (T. B. Moed Qaton i8b ; Sota 2 a). In the Middle Ages, beUef in the divine arrangement of marriage affected the liturgy, and on the sabbath foUowing a wedding, the bridegroom proceeded to the synagogue with a joyous retinue, and the congregation chanted the chapter of Genesis (xxiv.) in which, as shown above, the patriarch's marriage was declared as ordained by God. Naturally this belief in the pre-ordainment of marriage must have strengthened the Jewish objection to divorce. "For I hate divorce, saith the Lord" (Malachi ii. 16) was a verse much honoured in Pharisaic thought, and Malachi's protest gave rise to the pathetic saying : " The very altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife of his youth," and to the sterner paraphrase "He that putteth her away is hated of the Lord" (T. B. Gittin 90. Cf. Prov. v. 19 ; Eccles. ix. 9 ; Ecclus. vii. 26, yet see also xxv. 26). But though divorce is hateful, continuance of the marriage bond may be more hateful still. Perfect human nature could do without divorce, but it could also do without marriage. Adam and Eve, it has been well said, went through no marriage ceremony. The formalities of marriage are not less the result of human imperfection than is the need of divorce. Were it not for the evil in human nature, said the Rabbis (Gen. Rab. ix. ; Eccles. R. iii. 11), a man would not marry a wife — not that the married state was evil, on the contrary, it was held to be the highest moral condition — but the passions which are expressed in the marital relationship are also expressed in the lower lusts. We may also perhaps read another idea into this Rabbinic conception. X needed the marriage bond to limit his own lusts and also to ward off Y. And just as, in this sense, man's evil side requires a marriage contract, so in another sense his good side demands the cancellation of the contract, if its continuance be degrading or in harmonious. Hence, though the strongest moral objection was felt against divorce, and though the vast majority of Jewish marriages were terminated only by death, the Pharisaic law raised no bar to divorce by mutual consent of the parties, just as marriage, despite its sacred associations, was itself a matter of mutual consent. It should be 70 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE remembered that in the Jewish document of divorce no ground for the act is defined, the husband simply declares his wife thenceforth sui juris and free to re-marry. She could, and often did, re-marry her husband, unless he had divorced her for unchastity, or unless she had in the meantime contracted another marriage. In the time of Jesus it was not necessary for a divorce by mutual consent to come before a regular court or Beth Din of three Rabbis, as later became the practice. The whole ceremony could, at the earlier period, be gone through privately, in the presence of two witnesses. An expert Rabbi was, however, probably required to ensure the proper drawing up of the document, and the due fulfilment of the legal delivery to, and acceptance by, the wife. Thus if Joseph of Nazareth and his betrothed bride had mutuaUy consented to a divorce, there is no reason in Jewish law why he should not have "put her away privUy" (Matthew i. 19). There is little ground for thinking that such divorces by mutual consent were either frequent or productive of social evils, though it may be that the woman's assent was occasionally extorted by harsh measures.. But though the Rabbis could oppose no legal bar to divorce by mutual consent, it was their duty to exhaust every possible expedient of moral dissuasion. Aaron, in Hillel's phrase (Aboth i. 12), was the type of the peace-maker, and this was tradi tionally explained (Aboth de R. Nathan, ch. xii.) to mean that his life-work was, in part, the reconciliation of estranged husbands and wives (see above. Note VII). But the case was different when one of the parties to the divorce was unwUling to assent, or when one party had something to gain by treating the other party as unwilling. From the eleventh century it has been customary in Jewish law to require that in all cases the wife shall assent to the divorce, except where her misconduct or failure could be shown to be sufficient cause why the marriage might be forcibly dissolved by the husband. But this condition of the woman's assent was not necessary at the beginning of the Christian era, when neither Rabbinic sanction nor the wife's consent was obligatory. The rule in the first century was (Yebamoth xiv. i) : "A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a man only with his will." If, however, the wife contested the divorce, it is highly probable that the husband had to specify his reasons and bring the matter before a regularly constituted Beth Din. This was certainly the case if he suspected her of adultery (Sota i. 3 — 4). The accusing husband took his wife before the local Beth Din or court of three, and after a first IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 71 hearing two Rabbis would conduct the accused to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, which alone could deal finaUy with such charges. If she confessed, she forfeited her marriage settlement and was divorced ; otherwise the ordeal of the waters (Numbers v.) was appUed. We may well suppose that in other cases, especially such as involved a stigma on the wife, the matter would be made a matter of public inquiry if she so claimed. It is only thus that we can fully explain the different views taken at the early period as to lawful grounds of divorce. The schools of Hillel and Shammai differed materially (Gittin, end) : the former gave the husband the legal right to divorce his wife for any cause. Cf. Matthew xix. 3, Josephus Antiq. iv. vni. 23 (" for any cause whatsoever "). Philo uses similar language (Spec. Laws, Adultery, ch. v.). The school of Shammai limited the right to the case in which the wife was unchaste. The "schools " or "houses " of HiUel and Shammai belong to the first century. It is uncertain whether this particular difference of opinion on divorce goes back to HUlel and Shammai themselves, and thus to the very beginning of the Christian era. It is barely possible that the teaching of Jesus on the subject led to further discussion in the Pharisaic schools, and that the rigid attitude of Jesus influenced the school of Shammai. This, however, is altogether improbable, for the view of the latter school is derived from Deuteronomy (xxiv. i) by a process which closely accords with the usual exegetical methods of the Shammaites. Matthew v. 32 (as the text now stands) with its Xoyov iropvelas is certainly derived from the school of Shammai, for the text of Deut. xxiv. I reads ~at nny, and it was the school of Shammai who turned the words round into niiy "131 (Gittin ix. 10), which corresponds in order with the text of Matthew. HiUel's language : " even if she spoiled his food," is of course figurative, and may point to indecent conduct, a sense which similar metaphors sometimes bear. HiUel was a teacher noted for his tender humaneness ; it was he who popularised in Pharisaic circles the negative form of the Golden Rule before Jesus stated it positively. Hence, it is not just to speak of his view on divorce as "lax" or "low," even if (as no doubt later Rabbinic authority assumed) HiUel used this forcible language to preserve as inalienable the ancient norm that a husband possessed complete right to divorce his wife for any cause. For it must be observed that his "lax" and "low" view of divorce was also a more rigid and elevated view as to the necessity of absolute harmony in the marriage state, StUl, his view (or its interpretation) did produce a condition of sub- 72 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE jection in the woman's status, and left room for much arbitrariness on the part of the husband. Yet 'Aqiba who went beyond Hillel in maintaining the husband's arbitrary powers ("even if he find another woman more beautiful "), was in fact no friend of divorce, for he applied the severest rules in estimating the pecuniary rights of the wife under the marriage settlement. "Sell the hair of your head to pay it," said 'Aqiba (Nedarim ix. 5) to a would-be divorcer who com plained that the payment of the heavy demands of the settlement would impoverish him. As D. Amram in his excellent book on the subject of The Jewish Law of Divorce (Philadelphia, 1896) puts it, neither Hillel nor 'Aqiba was making law, they were stating it, " regardless of their personal views or opinions " (p. 37). It is true, however, that their statement of the law helped to make and perpetuate it for future times. The injurious effect was much miti gated, though never theoretically removed, by subsequent modifications. We can trace the gradual incidence of restraining enactments and customs. Already in the year 40 a.d. we find various reforms intro duced by Gamaliel, who ordained e.g. that the Get oc divorce letter must be subscribed by the witnesses, and withdrew from the husband the right to cancel the Get unless the wife or her attorney were present (Gittin iv. 2). Such canceUation was made before Gamaliel's reform ; the husband would locally constitute a Beth-din of three Rabbis ad hoc. Though, as stated above, the divorce itself needed no Court, many questions (as to settlements etc.) arising out of the divorce would have to be brought before the Beth-din. There were, indeed, certain grounds on which husband or wife could claim the help of the Court in effecting a divorce against the other's will. In all such cases, where the wife was concerned as the moving party, she could only demand that her husband should divorce her ; the divorce was always, from first to last, in Jewish law the husband's act. The matter was not, however, always left to the parties themselves. "Joseph being a righteous man, and not willing to expose her to shame, determined to divorce her secretly." This implies that Joseph had no option as to discarding his wife. Cf. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, p. 454. This work contains an excellent analysis of the various Gospel passages on divorce, see pages 235 — 242, 454, 508 — 510, 688—692, 1000 — I. To return, if the husband suspected his wife of unchastity while betrothed to him, he was compelled, as a " righteous man," to divorce her (betrothal was so binding that divorce was necessary to free a betrothed couple). His only option was between IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 73 divorcing his bride privately with her consent, or formulating a charge of infidelity against her, thus subjecting her to public disgrace as well as divorce. Divorce was not in itself a disgrace, seeing that it might occur on grounds involving no moral stigma. The case was aggravated by the circumstance that Mary was with child, until Joseph, in Matthew's account, received the assurance that his whole suspicion was erroneous. The wisdom books and the Rabbinic doctors agreed in regarding adultery as peculiarly heinous when it resulted in the birth of a child (Ecclus. xxiii. 23, Hagiga i. 7). The offence was a three-fold sin : against God, against the husband, against the family (Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie des Judenthums I. 258). In Jewish law adultery was the intercourse of a married woman with any man other than her husband. Though his conduct was severely reprobated, and at all events in later centuries gave his wife a right to claim a divorce, a man was not regarded as guilty of adultery unless he had intercourse with a married woman other than his wife. For though monogamy had become the prevalent custom in Jewish life long before the Christian era (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, vm. p. 657), the man could legally marry several wives, and sometimes did so. Thus an unmarried and un- betrothed woman with whom a married man had intercourse might become his wife ; indeed such intercourse could be legally construed into a marriage. By the Pentateuchal law the penalty for adultery was death. But this law can never have been frequently enforced. It needed eye-vritnesses (hence the "taken in the very act" of John viii. 4). More over, as Dr Biiehler has pointed out, the husband would hesitate to charge his wife, and the detected adulterer would offer heavy compensation to save his own life which was forfeit. The husband could privately divorce his wife, she naturally losing all her rights under the marriage settlement. A charge of adultery would have to be public, and tried before the central court. It is not probable that the death penalty for adultery was inflicted at all in the age of Jesus. The Jewish courts had lost the general power of capital punishment in the year 30 a.d. (T. J. Sanh. 1 8 a, T.B. 41 a). The Mishnah cites a single case which would fall within the age of Jesus, but it does so doubtfully (Sanh. vii. 2), and Josephus' casual assertion that the penalty for adultery was death is rather an antiquarian note than a record of experience (Apion ii. 25). On the other hand it would seem that the ordeal of the bitter waters, as applied in case of suspected adultery of the wife, was still prevalent, for the Mishnah records (Sota ix. 9) that the ceremony was only 74 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE abolished during the Roman invasion (circa 70 A.D.), though Queen Helena of Adiabene — a proselyte to Judaism in the first century a.d. — sought to restore the practice (Yoma iii. 10, Tosefta Yoma ii. 3). It is interesting to note that 'Aqiba — whose view on divorce was so " lax " — nobly said of the ordeal : " Only when the (accusing) husband is himself free from guilt will the waters be an effective test of his wife's guilt or innocence" (Sifre, Naso 21; Sota 47b). With this may be usefully compared the fine utterance (John viii. 7) : " He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her " (Jemsh Encyclopedia, I. 217 ; Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion, i. 130, from my article there I have taken some passages). The abolition of the ordeal is attributed by the Mishnah to the great prevalence of adultery, and it may be that, just as on the inroad of Hellenism some unsettlement of native morals occurred in the towns and among the wealthy (this being all that the attacks on harlotry and unchastity in the Wisdom Literature implies), so in the disturbed conditions due to the Roman regime a temporary laxity of morals intruded itself. The Rabbis held adultery in the utmost detestation. Not all a man's other virtues could save the adulterer from Gehenna (T. B. Sota 4 b). Unchastity drives away from man the Divine Presence which dwells only in the chaste soul. It is impossible, however, to attempt to collect here the mass of Pharisaic maxims against such offences. In the year 135 a.d., at the crisis of the disastrous revolt against Hadrian, a meeting was held at Lydda. The assembly was attended by several famous Rabbis (includ ing 'Aqiba), and the question was discussed as to the extent of conformity with Roman demands which might justifiably be made rather than face the alternative of death. The result is a remarkable testimony to Jewish abhorrence of unchastity. It was decided (Sanh. 74 a) that every Jew must surrender his Ufe rather than commit any of the three offences : idolatry, murder, or gillui 'ardyoth, a phrase which includes both adultery and incest. The penalty for proven adultery, when the capital punishment was abolished, was mitigated into the divorce of the woman (the husband having no option); the wife also lost all her rights under the marriage contract, and was not permitted to marry her paramour (Sota v. i). The husband could, nay must, divorce her on suspicion, but her settle ments would be intact. It would therefore be to his advantage sometimes to prefer a public charge against her. The male adulterer was scourged, but was not compelled to divorce his own wife unless she insisted. In general, when the Mishnah speaks of "compeUing" the IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 76 husband to execute a BUI of Divorce, the Court could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him, and had practically unlimited power to force him to deUver the necessary document freeing his wife. By a legal fiction which undeniably had moral justification, the act would still be described as voluntary on the husband's part. But in case of his determined contumely, there would be no redress, as the Court could not of its own motion dissolve a piarriage, though it could pronounce a marriage ab initio void. The secular courts might be used to enforce the desire of the Beth-din (Gittin ix. 8). But the Beth-din could not be induced to return the compliment, and validate a divorce pronounced in a Roman Court (Gittin i. 5). For the whole tenour of Jewish divorce depended on the theory that divorce was the act only and solely of the husband, and no Beth-din could validate a divorce which was the act of any court, and not of the husband, in the prescribed forms. Moreover, on matters affecting marriage and divorce the Jewish courts would be most jealous of external interference. In modern times, however, the London Beth-din would refuse to sanction or validate a divorce which had not been previously effected in the civil courts of the country. Other consequences followed from the theory that divorce was the wUling act of the husband. The divorce of the insane husband of a sane wife would be impossible (Yebamoth xiv. 1), as he could not execute the deed of divorce. Nor could the insane wife of a sane husband be divorced by him, because she stood in all the greater need of his protection. (If the insanity were proved to have existed before marriage, the marriage could be pronounced initially void, for the marriage of the insane was illegal.) It should here be pointed out that though the sane husband could divorce his sane wife on a variety of grounds, and in the first century could do so without the intermedia tion of a Court, he could not secure himself against the divorced wife's claims for maintenance unless he satisfied the Court that the divorce had been properly executed, and that the wife's just rights had been satisfied. In that sense, the Courts would have a power to revise his personal acts, even in the early period under review. Apart also from legal duties, the husband was expected to show every possible con- siderateness to his divorced wife. She was, of course, no longer under his jurisdiction, she was sui juris, and her husband lost the usufruct of her estate. This last fact was a constant preventive of arbitrary divorce (T. B. Pesahim 113 b). But the husband was expected, as a humane son of Israel, to save his divorced wife from penury. "It is 76 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE related of Rabbi Jose the Galilean (about loo a.d.), that after his divorced wife had remarried and was reduced to poverty, he invited her and her husband into his house and supported them, although when she was his wife she had made his life miserable, and his conduct is the subject of Rabbinical laudation. 'Do not withdraw from thy flesh,' said Isaiah (Iviii. 7); this, Rabbi Jacob bar Aha interpreted to mean, ' Do not withdraw help from thy divorced wife ' " (Amram, op. cit. p. 11 o). If the divorced woman retained charge of infant children, the former husband not only had to maintain her, but he was also required to pay her for her services. But, in general, as to the custody of the children, the regulations were extremely favourable to the wife, who was treated with every conceivable generosity. These regulations, however, except as concerned the infant up to the time of weaning, were not formulated so early as the first century. It is clear that a husband was very reluctant to divorce his wife if she were also the mother of his children. Though it was held a duty to divorce an "evil woman" — an incura'ole scold and disturber of the domestic peace — nevertheless if she were a mother, the husband would waive his right and endure his fate as best he might ('Erubin 41 b). We have already seen that the insane husband was incompetent to deliver a BUI of Divorce. In certain other cases of disease — though not of mere infirmity — the wife could claim a divorce. If she became deaf-mute after the marriage, he could divorce her; if he contracted the same defects he could not divorce her (Yebamoth xiv.). If the husband fell a victim to leprosy the wife could claim a divorce, and in the second century the Courts could enforce a separation in such cases against the vrill of the parties, unless the latter satisfied the authorities that there would be no continuance of sexual intercourse. The wife could claim a divorce in other cases of loathsome disease, as well as when the husband engaged in unsavoury occupations which rendered cohabitation unreasonably irksome (Kethuboth vii. 9). In those cases the wife retained her settlements. The husband could divorce the wife with loss of her settlements if she transgressed against the moral and ritual laws of Judaism, and some Rabbis of the first century held that the same rule appUed if the wife made herself notorious by her indelicate conduct in public. If he became impoverished and unable, or if he were un willing, to support her adequately, if he denied to her conjugal rights, she could by rules adopted at various times claim the right to her freedom (Kethuboth v. 8 — 9), indeed such treatment on his part was a breach of the contract made in the marriage deed. Similar rights IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE 77 accrued to the wife — some of these concessions belong to a considerably later period — if he restricted her liberty, if he became an apostate, if he committed a crime which compelled him to fly the country, if he violently and persistently ill-treated her, if he refused marital rights, and if he were openly licentious in his Ufe. In case of desertion, the wife could not obtain a divorce ; though, in order to presume his death, the Court would waive some of its usual strictness as to the reception of evidence. If the whereabouts of the husband were known, the local Court would use every effort to compel him to return or grant a divorce. The excellence of intercommunication between Jewish settle ments would enable the Court to trace him. But the Court could not grant a divorce to the wife if the husband had merely vanished and left no trace, unless they saw valid ground for presuming death. The persecutions, to which the Jews were subjected, compelled many men to leave home in search of a livelihood, and in the Middle Ages, out of love and consideration for his wife, the husband would some times give her a conditional divorce which would become effective if he failed to appear within a stated term. It is said that in ancient times a Jewish soldier, on going to active service, delivered such a divorce which would be valid if he died on the field. The effect would be to save his widow from the levirate marriage, from which as a divorcee she was free. In course of time the position of the woman was continuously improved, generation after generation of Rabbinical jurists endeavouring to secure to her an ever greater measure of justice and generosity. The wife's barrenness, after ten years' married life, was a ground for divorce (Yebamoth 64 a); later on it was disputed whether the Court should leave the man to foUow his own feeling in the matter, or whether it should compel him to divorce his wife, or alternatively (in countries where monogamy was not demanded by law) marry an addi tional wife. PhUo gives us reason to think that at the earlier period husbands were reluctant to make use of their power to divorce a barren wife. But childless marriages were regarded as a failure, and the point gave much trouble at various epochs. It was a reUgious duty to beget offspring, this was the fundamental purpose of marriage. We very rarely come across a celibate among the well-known Pharisees. Ben-'Azzai (Tos. Yebamoth vni. 4, Sota 4 b etc., cf. J. E. 11. 672) was a rare exception. He belongs to the beginning of the second century, and he remained unmarried though he denounced celibacy. When a colleague remonstrated with him, pointing out the inconsistency between 78 IX. FIRST CENTURY DIVORCE his conduct and his doctrine, Ben-'Azzai replied: "What shall I do? My soul clings in love to the Torah (Law); let others contribute to the preservation of the race." But it was not beUeved that this prime duty to society could be vicariously performed, and every Jew was expected to be a father. The act of sexual intercourse was consciously elevated by this view from an animal function to a fulfilment .of the divine plan announced at the Creation. From this brief summary it will be seen that the Jewish law of divorce must be judged in relation to the general principles of social and domestic ethics. Rules for marriage and divorce cannot be appre ciated apart from many other factors. Jewish teaching and training were directed towards producing moral sobriety, continence, purity. It did this by word and deed, by formulating moral maxims and fostering moral habits. Society usuaUy attacks the problem at the wrong end ; it penalises marital offences instead of making those offences rare. The ancient Synagogue dealt with the youth and maid in the formative period of their lives. The Jewish law of divorce applied to a society of firm domestic solidarity, it was the law of a society in which young marriages predominated, and the contracting parties entered into a life-long wedlock straight from a pious and virtuous home, a home in which harmony and happiness were the rule, and the relations between husband, wife and children were distinguished by a rarely equalled and never surpassed serenity and reverence. As a saying (certainly not later than the first century) runs (Yebamoth 62 b): "Our masters have taught. He who loves his wife as himself, and honours her more than himself; who leads his sons and daughters in the straight path, and marries them near their time of maturity; — to his house the words of Job apply (v. 24): Thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace." With much of this ideal the modern world has lost sympathy, but the Judaism of the first century maintained it, and built on it a moral structure which stands hieh among the manifold attempts to erect an effective discipline of life. X. WIDOWS' HOUSES. That in all ages, and not inconspicuously in our own, men are tempted to make undue use of their influence over wealthy women in the cause of religious institutions is a familiar fact. In the second century, in Sepphoris, the women resented the duty of supporting scholars (Baraitha in Pesahim 49 b). But, on the other hand, we have the testimony of Jerome that Jewish women were not only among the regular performers of this obligation, but were eulogised by him on this very ground, " Ex quo apparet eum de aliis Sanctis dixisse muUeribus, quae juxta morem Judaicum magistris de sua substantia ministrabant, sicut legimus ipsi quoque Domino factitatum " (Adversus Jovinianum i. 277 ; cf. A. Biiehler, Sepphoris, p. 75). These last words of Jerome are a striking reminder of the unequal measure with which the Pharisees and their opponents are judged, not by Jerome but by more recent writers. The influence exercised by the early preachers of the Gospel over women is well attested, and held the reverse of blameworthy. When, then, Josephus complains of the " great infiuence over women " which a certain Pharisaic faction possessed (Antiq. xvii. ii. 4), it is scarcely just to endorse his con demnation, or to forget two points : (a) he distinctly speaks of a faction only (popwv), carefully avoiding the word by which he usuaUy designates the main body of the Pharisees (alpecreis) ; (b) his animosity is directed against the political activity of this faction, who committed what to Josephus was the height of iniquity, in that "when all the rest of the people gave assurance by oath of their good-will to the Emperor and to the King's government, these very men would not swear, who were more than 6000 ; and when the King imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras' wife paid the fine for them." Moreover, it must be remerabered that such charges were part of the ordinary invective of controversy. In the Psalms of Solomon (see particularly Ps. iv.) the Pharisees themselves make a very similar 80 X. widows' houses attack on the Sadducees. In the Assumption of Moses, again, the Pharisaic author (vii. 6) assails either the zealots of his own order or the priestly caste in the words that they are " devourers of the goods of the poor," sapng they do so out of mercy (misericordiam, according to Charles the word means justice). Colani's contention that this last phrase is to be explained by the decree of the Sanhedrin (Kethuboth 50 a) in the second century forbidding a man to give more than one-fifth of his fortune and income to the poor is monstrous. The decree of the Sanhedrin was due to the excessive generosity which led men to impoverish themselves in the cause of charity, with perhaps (as Dr Kohler ingeniously suggests) some intentional opposition to the Essenic communism and to such ideas as Matthew xix. 21 (J. E. in. p. 668). The Talmiid gives the former reason, and in any event the expression " devourers of the goods of the poor " cannot be explained by any such incident. Dr Charles thinks the Sadducees are attacked ; if so, one must not assume that the attack of their critics was just. The poor no doubt often felt the pressure of the taxes imposed on them, and there is a late Midrash (Shohar Tob on Ps. i., cf. Yalqut) in which a biting satire is put into the mouth of Korah. He adduces the case of a widow who is deprived of her crops and sheep by the many demands made on her slender resources by the priests. Certainly the Pharisees were themselves the most severe critics of the possible abuses of their own system. When, however, M. Friedlander remarks (Die religiosen Bewegungen inner halb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu, p. 112) that the Pharisees themselves said quite as severe things as did Jesus about certain abuses (" schlimmeres wahrlich hat auch Jesus nicht von diesen Weltverderbern ausgesagt"), he misses the significance of this fact. If the Pharisees were thus critical, then it is manifestly unjust to treat the criticism as though it could apply against Pharisaism as a whole. To justify the words " which devour widows' houses '' as a descrip tion of average scribes, would require much more evidence than has ever been adduced. " Widows were known there (in Jerusalem), it appears, who had been reduced from comfort to beggary by giving up their means to religious uses at the suggestion of scribes " (Menzies on Mk xii. 38, p. 229). The text hardly requires us to make this assumption. But then there comes the incident of the Widow's mites. " She of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living " (Mk xii. 43). This sacrifice is eulogised, and justly. Yet the acceptance of such a gift might be denounced by a hostile critic as a " devouring " of the widow's substance. Jesus, however, praises it, just as the X. widows' houses 81 Pharisaic Scribe does in the story (cited by Schottgen). A priest who had scorned a certain woman's handful of flour was rebuked in a vision overnight: "Despise her not; it is as though she offered her life" (Leviticus Rabba iii. § 5). It need hardly be added that the Pharisees attached much importance to the exiguous gifts of the poor (cf. the passages adduced by Schottgen on Mark, p. 251 ; Baba Bathra 10 a; Leviticus Rabba in., where the poor's offering of two doves is preferred to King Agrippa's thousand sacrifices IDlp *jy ^B* ]2'\p; see also Wiinsche, p. 402, he quotes : Numbers Rabba xiv., Mishnah, Menahoth xiii. i; and add Pesahim 118 a). On the other hand, Gould (Mark xii. 40) suggests that "the devouring of widows' houses would be under the forms of civil law, but in contravention of the Divine law of love.'' But the forms of civil law were by no means harsh on widows. The prevalent custom in Jerusalem and Galilee was to allow a widow to remain in her husband's house, and be maintained from his estate during the days of her widowhood (Mishnah, Kethuboth iv. 12). In Judsea (apart from Jerusalem) the widow might be compelled to receive her settlement, and then leave the house. Such a rule might have pressed hard in certain cases. Strong language is used in a late passage in the Palestinian Talmud against those who help the " orphans " to take this harsh course against " widows " (T.J. Sota on iii. 4). But on the whole the widow was well protected by the Jewish civil law (see L. N. Dembitz in the Jewish Encyclopedia, xii. p. 514). The example of the widow of Zarephath was held up for imitation (Cant. R. ii. 5, § 3) and Jerome's praise would well apply to such a case. But to "devour widows' houses" was no common failing of those who based their lives as the Pharisees did on the Scriptures which so often and so pathetically plead the widow's cause. Moralists in all ages have had to repeat this urgent appeal, and there was no doubt adequate ground for such a homily in the age of Jesus. But the Pharisaic teachers were keenly alive to their duty in all periods to take up the cause of the widow. And they expressed themselves emphatically on the subject again and again ; nowhere, perhaps more forcibly than in their saying Exodus R. ch. xxx. (3"pn^ btlJ 1^S3 t^tUn ^3), "He who robs the widow and orphans is as though he robbed God himself." XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. From a not unreasonable point of view the dignity and worth of the Temple in relation to national life must be considered as enhanced and not diminished by the association of that life with the Temple environment. The sacro-sanctity of the inner courts would be, as it were, humanised by the secularisation of the more remote precincts. To many a modern mind it is attractive rather than repellent to read of the popular uses to which the Temple was sometimes devoted. The famous celebration of the semi-religious function of the Water-Drawing, during the Feast of Tabernacles, with its deep spiritual significance allied to merry, carnival-like rites, is a case in point. Modern writers are too apt to confuse Pharisaism with Puritanism ; more than half of the contrasts imagined between Hellenism and Hebraism arise from this same confusion. Josephus, moreover, records the holding of even more pronouncedly secular assemblages within or close to the Temple precincts (War i. xx; ii. i, xvi; v. v). The tendency to treat the modern Synagogue as a place formally restricted to purposes of worship was a reaction which is happily breaking down, especially in America, where so many of the so-called Jewish reforms are reversions to ancient traditions. " But indeed in those days nearly every priest must have been a trader." With these words Dr G. A. Smith concludes his brilliant account of the Temple Revenues, Properties and Finance in the first century of the Christian era (Jerusalem, Vol. i. p. 366). But surely the same might be said with equal validity of the governing bodies of many a Church and University in our own times, without implying that the financial side of these institutions was unduly prominent. The question always is : what is the implication ? There is little ground for the supposition that the people were, in general, oppressed by the Temple financial arrangements. The Temple, again, was made a place of safe deposit for private money, but no trading was involved. XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 83 and the authorities who speak of these deposits in the Temple almost explicitly state this. Thus the stores alluded to in II. Maces, iii. were, as Dr Smith points out, "laid up for the relief of widows and fatherless children," and in part belonged to Hyrcanus son of Tobias. "It was," writes the same authority (II. Maces, in. 12), "altogether impossible that [by confiscating this money] such wrongs should be done unto them that had committed it to the holiness of the place, and to the majesty and inviolable sanctity of the Temple, honoured over all the world." The priests would clearly have no financial operations at all in relation to such funds, while Josephus (War vi. v. 2) when he says that in the Temple treasuries "the rich had built themselves store- chambers there " refers to a time of stress, when the Temple would, as a fortified place, be an obvious asylum. Again, here, however, the language of Josephus does not suggest that the priests in any way traded with the money. From the same historian's earlier account of the Parthian raid on Jerusalem (TFar i. xiii. 9) it may be gathered that private persons were not in normal times in the habit of using the Temple treasury as the store-house of their property. It is scarcely worth while citing the mass of facts available to show that sacred edifices have in many ages been used as safe-deposits, without neces sarily incurring any suspicion of the taint of commercialism. The presence in the Temple precincts of money-changers — for a fuU account of whose operations see S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, 191 1, II. 411 — is generally conceded to have been an arrangement designed for the advantage of the pUgrims. The Temple-tax of half a shekel had to be paid in definite coinage. It could not be paid in ingots, but only in stamped coins (T.B. Berachoth 47 b with reference to Deut. xiv. 25; cf. Sifre aA loc). It must not be paid in inferior alloy but in high grained silver (T.B. Bechoroth 5 1 a). Again and again we are informed that the only coins accepted were Tyrian (Mishnah, Bechoroth vni. 7 ; Tosefta, Kethuboth xiu. 3, ed. Zuok. p. 275), which indeed were so emphatically the legal tender in the Temple that they were termed Jerusalemite as well as Tyrian. But it is not quite clear which Tyrian coins were meant. T. Reinach points out that among the conditions imposed on the vanquished Jews by Antiochus Sidetes was the withdrawal of the right of coining silver, though the striking of small bronze coins, intended for local circulation, was intermittently con tinued. This was in 134 b.c. But "very few years after the surrender of Jerusalem, in 126 B.C., when the civil war was waging between the sons of Demetrius II and the usurper Alexander Zebinas, the wealthy 6—2 84 XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE town of Tyre seems to have snatched from one of the pretenders to the throne the practical acknowledgment of its independence and the right to issue a silver coinage of its own. The Tyrian coinage, which lasted for almost two centuries, consists mostly of shekels (staters), bearing as types the head of the town God Heracles and the Ptolemaic eagle ; their legend Tyre the holy and inviolable (Tvpov lepov Kal dtrvXov) seems to be imitated from the Yerushalem Kedoshah of Simon's shekels. The dates are reckoned from the new era of 126 b.c. These coins, notwith standing their heathen types and Greek lettering, were of so exact a weight and so good an alloy that they enjoyed a large circulation in Judsea, and were even officially adopted as sacred money, that is to say the Rabbis decided that the annual head-tax of one [half-Jshekel due from every Israelite to the Temple treasury was to be paid in Tyrian money." It is strange enough that while the bronze coins circulated in Judsea should conform scrupulously to the tradition and represent nothing but inanimate objects, the payment of Temple dues should not only be accepted but required in coins containing figures on them. Reinach meets this objection by the suggestion that " once thrown into the Temple treasury, all gold and silver coins were melted down and transformed into ingots " (T. Reinach, Jewish Coins, ed. Hill, 1903, pp. 20 — 23). At all events, while the coins most current in Syria were the Roman tetradrachms and denarii (such a silver denarius is referred to in Matthew xxii. 15), the Temple demanded payment on the Phoenician standard (cf. Krauss, op. cit, p. 405), and the money changer for this (and for other reasons) was therefore an actual necessity. In passing it may be remarked that there is no ground for supposing that the ordinary business of money-changing went on in the Temple. In the N.T. the word KoXXvpLCTrr'i<; is always used in describing the scene of the cleansing of the Temple, and it must be interpreted to mean the receiver of the qolbon (|i3Slp), or fee for changing other currencies into Temple currency and exclusively for Temple use. When Mark (xi. 16) adds the detail that Jesus "would not allow any one to carry a vessel through the Temple," the meaning no doubt is that he sided with those who ordained that the Temple must not be made a public thoroughfare (T.B. Yebamoth 6 b). Others went further, and forbade frivolous behaviour outside the Temple precincts and in the neighbourhood of the Eastern Gate (Berachoth 54 a). Similar rules were applied to the Synagogues (Megillah 27 — 28), and one may cite the regulation in Cambridge against carrying trade parcels through XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 85 the College precincts. That Jesus is applying an established rule and not innovating is confirmed by the fact that he cites old prophetic texts (Isaiah Ivi. 7, Jer. vii. 11) in support of his attitude. Granting, then, that certain commercial operations were necessary for tbe maintenance of the Temple or convenient for those who had occasion to present themselves in its courts, there was nothing in such circumstances inherently censurable. If there was a sort of market within the Temple enclosure, it is impossible to assent to Dr Eders- heim's easy conclusion : " It needs no comment to show how utterly the Temple would be profaned by such traffic." On the contrary, it needs much comment to show this. Equally exaggerated is Lightfoot's characterisation of the money-changer's profit as "unholy gain." Gould, in his note on Mark xi. 1 7, clearly sees that such attacks imply not merely an invective against an illegitimate use of the Temple, but a thorough-going antipathy to trade as such. Yet if the money-changer were necessary his profits were not " unholy.'' The labourer is worthy of his hire. Thus, there was considerable labour, and that of an expert kind, involved in the examination of animals to pronounce them perfect or blemished, and a fee was naturally charged (Mishnah, Bechoroth iv. 5). These fees as well as the profits of the money-changers were strictly limited by law and usage. Dr Edersheim seriously over estimated the gain. "If we compute the annual Temple-tribute at about £75,000, the bankers' profits may have amounted to from £8000 to £9000, an immense sum in the circumstances of the country." We have, on the other hand, the clear statement that the profit was only one in twenty-four or one in forty-eight (Tosefta, Sheqalim i. 8, ed. Zuok. p. 174; Maimonides, Sheqalim iii. 7 ; Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie 11. 413). Even if we take the higher estimate, that of Rabbi Meir, Edersheim has overrated the changer's earnings by three to one. Nor is it at aU certain that this profit found its way regularly into private pockets. The Babylonian Talmud (Menahoth 108 a) has no suggestion of the secular destination of the changer's gain. Maimonides (loc. cit.) decides that the profit was used for the Temple purposes. Here he was foUowing the tradition of Meir. In the Jer. Talmud there is indeed an opinion expressed that the money-changer himself took the profit. But this opinion is only one among several, and very probably refers to tbe provincial money-changers and not to those in the Temple. From the fifteenth to the twenty-fifth of Adar the money-changers set up their "tables" in every country place (Mishnah, 86 XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE Sheqalim i. 3), and it is probable that the banker received the com mission of one in twenty-four for himself. Schwab, in his French translation of the Palestinian Talmud (Vol. v. p. 268) inserts the words " en province," which is a manifest impropriety, for though this may be the sense, the words do not occur in the text, which runs as follows : — " To what use were tbe qolbons turned ? R. Meir says, they were added to the fund of the sheqalim ; R. Lazar says, they were employed for free-will offerings — nedabah ; R. Simeon of Shizur (Saijur) says, they provided with them gold-plates and covering for the Holy of Holies ; Ben Azzai says, the bankers took them as their profit ; and some say they used them for the expense of keeping the roads in repair " (T.J. Sheqalim, chapter i. last lines). The roads were put in order at the beginning of Adar (Mishnah, Sheqalim i. i). This association of the repair of the roads with Ben Azzai's view may justify the conclu sion that he was referring to provincial and not Jerusalem transactions (the scene of the money-changing was transferred to the Temple on Adar the twenty-fifth ; Mishnah, Sheqalim i. 2). In the parallel passage in the Tosefta, however, the words about the repair of the roads are wanting. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence is in favour of the verdict that the gains of the exchange were devoted to public and not to private ends. When once the money had been paid over to the Temple treasury, it was held unlawful to use it to gain profit even for the Sanctuary (at least this wag Aqiba's view, Mishnah, Sheqalim iv. 3); but as the qolbons were paid before the money was actually received by the Sanctuary, they would not be profit directly made by the use of tbe sacred funds as capital. We may conclude that besides the ordinary traders in money- changing, there were also operators of a less commercial type. The former would not have been permitted to carry on their trade in the Temple precincts ; the latter were only authorised in the outer Court of the Temple between the 25th of Adar and the 1st of Nisan, an interval of about one week (Mishnah, Sheqalim i. 3. Cf. D. Oppenheim, Literaturblatt des Orients, Vol. x. 1849, p. 555). As, in this case, the profits were destined for public and sacred uses, and the operator received no gain from the transactions, it would seem likely that the money-changing for purposes of the Temple-tax was performed by officials of the Temple, that is by the priests. This would ensure that in normal circumstances the people would be fairly treated, and it was only under the aristocratic regime of the Temple's last decades that we hear of oppression. This occurred less with regard to the XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 87 money-changing than with regard to the prices of pigeons and so forth for the sacrifices, the actual buying and selling of which moreover do not seem to have been normally carried on within the Temple precincts (cf. Oppenheim, cyp. cit. p. 556). When oppression occurred, the popular defenders of the people in such cases were the Pharisaic leaders. We find on record the action of various Rabbis which lowered the prices of pigeons even to the point of modifying the law on the subject (Mishnah, Kerithoth i. 7, where by reducing the number of pigeons to be brought by women tbe price of the birds was lowered by Simeon ben Gamliel from a gold denarius to half a silver denarius — that is to one-fiftieth of the original price). An earlier Rabbi (Baba ben Buta, contemporary with Herod) actually brought in 3000 sheep so that offerers might have animals for use. But Edersheim adds to the latter story a detail absent from the source he quotes (T.J. Hagigah ii. 3). Baba ben Buta found the Temple desolated as he termed it, but not because the grasping priests had limited the supply to maintain a high price, but because it was a festival and the ruling priests held that it was not lawful for private offerings to be brought on a holy day. The question was one at issue between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and Baba 'ben Buta, though a disciple of the latter, in this detail followed the decision of the former. But there is evidence enough that certain rapacious priestly famiUes were detested by the people (witness the case of the House of Hanan) and that the Pharisees themselves denounced such practices (T.B. Pesahim 57 a). WhUe, then, it is impossible to agree that the whole of "this traffic, money-changing, selling of doves, and market for sheep and oxen was in itself, and from its attendant circumstances, a terrible desecration'' (Edersheim), there might well have been occasions on which indignation such as that of Jesus would be justified. But we must not magnify an exception into the rule. The danger always lies in this tendency to confuse a system with its abuses. This, as it seems tb me, is an error made by many commentators on the Gospels, who seek to expand the often-enough just criticism of Jesus against abuses, into an unjust condemnation of the whole Pharisaic system. It is fair enough for the anti-Nomists to criticise and judge Pharisaism as a religion based on Law ; but there is no justice in refusing to consider the legalistic point of view and its possible merits. Still less is it fair to confuse legaUsm with externalism, or to assume without close examination of each instance that the moral abuses, which seem superficially inherent in a legalistic system, were really the logical result of the system, or did actually occur in 88 XI. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE Pharisaism as lived by those who believed and rejoiced in it. (R. Travers Herford's Pharisaism, its Aim and its Method, London 1912, appeared after the present volume was mostly in type. Other wise frequent reference would have been made to this brilliant and successful attempt to do justice both to Jesus and to the Pharisees.) The Cleansing of the Temple is a good case in point. And, therefore, I venture to repeat here what I wrote at an earlier date, when pleading for a revision of this tendency where the judgment on Pharisaism is concerned (Jewish Quarterly Review, 1899, p. 641). "Externalism needs the most careful watching, and ritual is always in need of freshening under the inspiration of the ideas which lie behind it. But Pharisaism was not rituaUsm. I, and many Jews with me, have no resentment whatever against the general spirit of the criticism to which the Law was subjected by Jesus, against his healthy onslaught against externalism. When Jesus overturned the money-changers and ejected the sellers of doves from the Temple he did a service to Judaism But were the money-changers and the dove-sellers the only people who visited the Temple ? And was everyone who bought or sold a dove a mere formalist? Last Easter I was in Jerusalem, and ' along the fagade of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre I saw the stalls of the vendors of sacred relics, of painted beads and in scribed ribbons, of coloured candles, gUded crucifixes, and .bottles of Jordan water. There these Christians babbled and swayed and bargained, a crowd of buyers and sellers in front of the Church sacred to the memory of Jesus. Would, I thought, that Jesus were come again to overthrow these false servants of his, even as he overthrew his false brothers in Israel long ago. But I will also tell you what I did not think. I did not think that the buying and selling of sacred relics was the sole motive which brought thousands of pUgrims to Jerusalem ; I did not say : Here is the whole of the Gospel, this is its inevitable end, its sure outcome. I knew that there is more in Christianity than this, that there are other Christians than these. Nay, as I turned away, I thought that perhaps if I had the insight to track a dealer in relics to his inmost soul, I might after all flnd there a heart warm with the love of Christ." It must finally be remembered that the payment of the Temple-tax was a privUege as well as a burden. It was the typical illustration of the democratic basis of Jewish life. The daily sacrifices being for all Israel were paid for by aU Israel. " All Israel were partners in this " (Pesiqta Rabbathi x, ed. Friedmann, p. 33 b). An individual might XI, THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 89 not claim the privilege to pay for the whole cost of the continual offerings (see Friedmann's note ad loc.) : all Israel must share in the burden and the privilege. In estimating the effect of the Temple dues on the popular life this element must not be overlooked. It colours the whole estimate we have to form of the system. There were amenities as well as sacrifices involved in the sacrificial institution. It was not founded on exaction nor corrupted by peculation. These were the occasional abuses of a regime which, on the whole, secured popular enthusiasm for a beloved tradition. XII. THE PARABLES. "The parable became a truth, proved upon the pulses of men." These words, used by a modern writer in another connection, aptly characterise the abiding significance of the New Testament Parables. A vast amount of religious and literary genius has been directed, throughout the ages, to the worthy object of extracting the fullest meaning from the Parables attributed to Jesus. But far more effective has been the process by which these Parables have been "proved upon the pulses of men." It is generally felt that Jesus was not the originator of the method of teaching by Parables. Eveh JiiUcher, who advances so strenuous a plea for the originality of tbe contents of the New Testament Parables, does not claim — of course in presence of the Old Testament Parables cannot claim — that the method was a new creation (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I. 164). Bousset roundly asserts that, though as an exponent of the Parabolic art Jesus "spoke" whUe the Rabbis "stammered," nevertheless "Jesus owed the vehicle on which he mainly relied in his popular preaching — the Parable — to the Synagogue and the Scribes " (Jesus, p. 30). And, again, " There can be no doubt that he first learned such a manner of teaching in the Synagogue. All that has come down to us in the way of Parables from Rabbinic tradition — later though they undoubtedly are — bears so close a re semblance both in form and matter to the Parables of Jesus, that no idea of accident can be entertained. And since any influervce of Jesus upon the later Jewish Rabbinism is out of the question, we can only assurae that Jesus caught the form of his Parabolic speech from the Scribes in the Synagogue" (op. cit. p. 43). On both the points raised in this last sentence Bousset is probably right, but he has gone beyond the evidence in the vigour of his statement, for we know very little as to the contemporary style of Synagogue homily. It is, however, true that just in the case of ideas which affect the folk XII. THE PARABLES ' 91 influence is most likely to be exercised without the consciousness of imitation. Ziegler (Die Konigsgleichnisse des Midrasch, 1903, Intro duction) rightly maintains that many Parables must have been part of the common fund (Gemeingut) of the people, and that Jesus may have drawn upon and added to this common fund. Jesus had no need to take his Parables from other Agadists, just as other Agadists had no need to take their Parables from Jesus. But as Ziegler judiciously sums up the matter, p. xxii : " It is indeed conceivable that Jesus employed much that he had heard from his teachers ; it is also possible that sundry Parables of Jesus became popular, lived on in the mouth of the folk, and thence were taken over by later Agadists, without the least inkling on their part as to the identity of their author, just as to-day Heine is inadvertently quoted by the most pronounced Heine- phobes — yet it is out of the question to assert anything like a systematic influence of one side on the other." There must have been a large Jewish stock of fables and parables floating about long before they were set down in writing (Fiebig, AltjUdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1904, 25), and it is possible that both the Tannaim and Evangelists drew from the stock. Close comparison of the Gospel Parables with the most similar of the Rabbinic nearly always reveals dissimilarity amid the similarity. Though in his earlier work just cited, Fiebig falls short of justice to the Rabbinic Parables as a whole, I fully agree with a conclusion which he reaches in his later work (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, Tubingen, Mohr 191 2), which appeared after this Note was in type. Fiebig is clearly right when he claims that the Gospel Parables are marked by characteristic features which testify to an original and exalted personality in their authorship, or at least in their adaptation. Yet the hand of the editor has been at work, and it is scarcely possible to formulate canons of criticism by which the genuine Parables of Jesus may be distinguished from the rest. It would be delightful could we accept fully the view of the Rev. J. W. Hunkin (Journal of Theological Studies, XVI. 381) that "the parables have been transmitted in the Synoptic tradition very nearly in the form in which they were spoken by Jesus. " But without going this length, it is obvious that some of the Synoptic Parables point to a strong personality. And the same is true of the Rabbinic Parables. Amid the sameness one detects individualities. HiUel, Aqiba, Meir, Joshua b. Levi, Abbahu, are to a certain extent as distinct in their Parables and Similes as in their doctrines, and if they drew on the common stock of their people's lore. 92 XII. THE PARABLES reinforced as that stock was by accretions from the lores of other folk, they made their borrowings, as their inventions were, personal by the genius with which they applied them to living issues. All authorities are agreed that there can have been no direct, literary borrowing by the later Rabbis from the books of the New Testament. Thus Prof. Burkitt suggests (J. T. S. xv. 6i8) that Matthew vii. 24 — -7 is the ultimate source of the Rabbinic contrast of two forms of building in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan xxiv. The parallel is not close in detail, and an examination of the variant in the second recension of the Aboth xxxv. renders it remotely possible that we have here a confused reminiscence of some Philonean ideas on the Tower of Babel (Mangey, i. 420). The Rabbis were, moreover, fond of comparing the various aspects of the study and performance of Law to firm and infirm structure such as a tree with many and few roots (Mishnah, Aboth iii. 22). But if there were borrowing in the particular case before us, Prof. Burkitt is clearly right in holding that " it was probably second-hand, i.e. from one of the Minim," and that the Midrash "put it down to Elisha ben Abuya [tbe heretic] to avoid offence." Similarly, if it be the case that the Talmud (Me'ilah 17 b) borrowed from a Christian source the story of an exorcism, the borrowing must have been unconscious. (But see on this interesting point the discussion in the Revue des Ftudes Juives vii. 200, x. 60, 66, xxxv. 285.) Another instance of greater curiosity concerns the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the literary sense this is original to Luke. But some of the phraseology seems traceable to Ahiqar, and the root idea is Philonean (G. Friedlander, The Grace of God, 19 10). Now, the text of the Talmud must at one time have contained a passage reminiscent of the Parable. For in a Genizah MS. (published by L. Ginzberg in Gaonica, New York, 1909, ii. 377) Aha, the famous eighth century Gaon, quotes Sanhedrin 99 a in a version no longer fully extant in the Talmud texts. To illustrate the Pharisaic principle that the penitent sinner stands on a higher level than the completely righteous, Abbahu cites the parable of " a king who had two sons, one of whom ordered his way well, while the other went out to depraved living " nv) nmn'? nv insi 31123 iSn nnx d*33 'jc ci"?] n"? vnt^' ibiob This looks like a reminiscence of Luke's Parable, and it may have been removed from the Talmud text by scribes more cognisant than Abbahu was of the source of the story. Dr Ginzberg, who recognised the XII. THE PARABLES 93 similarity, takes another view. His words (op. cit. p. 351) are : "The source for the parable... is not known to me. Obviously R. Aha must have had it in his text of the Talmud.... In any event, it is the short, original form of the New Testament parable of the prodigal son." And here reference may be made to another instance. The Gospel Parable of the Sower is introduced by the medieval Jewish adapter of the Barlaam and Josaphat romance. Abraham b. Hisdai wrote his Hebrew version (Ben ha-melech we-hanazir) under the title " King's Son and Nazirite," or as moderns prefer to render the Hebrew title " Prince and Dervish,'' in the thirteenth century. The tenth chapter contains the Parable of the Sower at great length. The main idea, comparing the propagation of Wisdom to the Sower, must have occurred in the original Indian of Barlaam (J. Jacobs, Barlaam and Josaphat, 1896, p. cxi). A well-known Indian paraUel, moreover, is found in the Sutta Nihata (cf. P. Carus, Gospel of Buddha § 74); this is clearly more primitive than the Gospel version. Yet Abraham b. Hisdai gives us a form, tbe details of which are for the most part bodily derived from the New Testament, a fact of which he was assuredly unaware. The over-working of the Indian original of Barlaam by a Christian redactor must have already occurred in the recension of the romance used by the Hebrew translator as his base. (On the problem of the rela tion of the Hebrew to other versions of Barlaam see M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters, Berlin, 1893, § 532.) With regard to another suggestion of Rabbinic borrowing, the case is different. It has been argued that the beautiful Parable of the Blind and Lame (see below) is not Rabbinic, but Indian. The Indian parallels cannot, however, be the source of the Rabbinic Parable as it now stands. In the Indian (E. Leumann, Die Avasyaka-Erzdhlungen, Leipzig, 1897, p. 19) a lame man gets on a blind man's back and together they escape from a forest fire. This is not a source for the Rabbinic Parable, which diffeis totally in idea. Nor can I be per suaded by Dr M. James (J.T.S. xv. 236) that the version of the Parable (much closer to the Rabbinic than the Indian is) found in Epiphanius (ed. Dindorf, 11. 683) is older than the Rabbinic. The Christian form seems to me derived from the latter. Finally I may refer to the Parable of the Three Rings, made famous by Lessing in his Natham, der Weise. There are many parallels to this, some using it as a vindication of Christianity, others of ItaUan scepticism. In the Hebrew Chronicle of Solomon ibn Verga, it is a pathetic plea for tolerance by an oppressed faith, and M. Gaston Paris firmly maintains 94 XIL THE PARABLES that if not originally Jewish, the Parable is presented in its original form by the Hebrew Chronicler (Revue des Etudes Juives xi. 5). Naturally, the preceding jottings — to which others might be added — are not designed as a formal discussion of the problem of borrowing. They may, however, serve as an indication of the vast amount of research, literary and historical, yet remaining to be undertaken before the problem can be seriously considered. One thing is clear ; the result cannot but be a triumph for humanism. That Buddha could be made a hero for Christian and Jew is not the least of the episodes in that triumph. Free trade in good stories corresponds to the common experience and common aspiration of mankind. We have, in the readiness of men to adopt other men's superstitions, a sad comment on the universality of the lower elements in human nature. But the adop tion by one and all from one and all of beautiful Parables is a mark of the universality of the higher elements. It is of itself a beautiful Parable " to preach the simple brotherhood of souls that seek the highest good." We must try to get closer to another aspect of the historical problem. The Parable was used by Old Testament writers with perfection of art. The Tannaim, from the latter part of the first Christian century onwards, make a far more extensive use of the method. But, in between, the later Biblical writers, the authors of the Pre-Christian Jewish Apoca lypses (with the possible exception of Enoch) and such a representative Alexandrian as Philo have no parables. In one of his early works (Markus-Studien, 1899, p. 11), an able Jewish scholar, H. P. Chajes, concludes that in the age of Jesus the Parable was an unusual device, and that it had not yet won the place which it afterwards filled in the Rabbinic method of popular instruction. He even suggests that this is the original meaning of the Evangelists' discrimination between the teaching of Jesus and that of the Scribes. " He taught as one having authority " should read " he spoke in Parable." (Underlying the Greek text COS i^ova-lav exiav is the Hebrew Ke-moshel — ^K'D? — which Dr Chajes would emend to be-mashal — '^'P?.) Dr Chajes proceeds (p. 12) : It will easily be retorted, How could the mere use of Parables have made so striking a sensation, seeing that the Mashal (Parable) plays so prominent a rdle among the Rabbis? Yes, among the Ra,bbis; but it is extremely doubtful whether this was yet the case in the age of Jesus. A real Agadic activity cannot be posited before the epoch of Hillel, and no Parable can with certainty be assigned to that teacher. XII. THE PARABLES 95 It was only at a later period, after the destruction of the Temple, that the Parable attained high honour, as we already find it to be the case with Johanan ben Zakkai, Joshua ben Hananya, and especially Meir (cf. Mishnah, Sota, ix. 15 ; T. B. Sanhedrin, 38 b, last lines). This argument scarcely survives examination. One Rabbinic source. ascribes to HiUel (and, in some readings, also to his contemporary Shammai) a mystic knowledge of the language of the hUls, the trees, the beasts and the demons, and a special predilection for parables or fables (Soferim, xvi. 9). The authenticity of this ascription is doubted by Bacher (Agada der Tannaiten, i. 10, notes 3 — 5). But the only ground for this suspicion is the fact that the Talmud (T. B. Sukkah, 25 a) makes the same remark concerning Johanan ben Zakkai. Soferim, seems to present the older tradition, for while it equally ascribes this knowledge to Johanan, it also carries the statement back to Hillel, whose disciple Johanan was. Weiss, the author of the History of Jevrish Tradition (in Hebrew) Dor dor vedorashav, i. 157, throws no doubt on the trustworthiness of the passage in Soferim. That Hillel's thought sometimes ran in the direction indicated appears also from the Mishnah (Aboth, iv. 8), for Hillel said: "The more women, the more witchcraft" — he may therefore have had an academic interest in demonology as Soferim, asserts. And it is otherwise quite clear that at all events part of the statement in Soferim must be true, for we have abundant evidence that HiUel was fond of Parabolical forms of speech (cf. Weiss, op. cit. pp. 160 seq.). That Hillel was interested in folk-lore is demonstrated by the anecdotes told of him (T.B. Sahbath 31a, Aboth de R. Nathan xv.). Again, in the last reference, in his interview with a would-be proselyte, Hillel is recorded to have compared the study of the details of the Temple service to the etiquette at an earthly Court. This comes very near an actual Parable. So, too, there is a compressed Parable in Hillel's striking enunciation of the doctrine of retribution: "He saw a skull which floated on the face of the water, and he said to it, Because thou didst drown (others) they drowned thee, and in the end they that drowned thee shall be drowned" (Mishnah, Aboth, ii. 7). Another of Hillel's phrases : " He who serves himself with the tiara perishes " (ib.) is a figurative condemnation of the self-seeker's appropriation of the Crown of the Torah. Illustrating the covenant of love between God and Israel HiUel said : " To the place that my heart loves my feet carry me. If thou coroest to My house, I will come to thine ; but if thou comest not to My house I vrill not come to thine" 96 XII. THE PARABLES (Tosefta, Sukkah, iv. 3). There are several other such sayings recorded of HiUel ; and frequent mention is made of his wide acquaintance with popular lore as weU as his readiness to enter into familiar conversation with the common folk. All of this goes to confirm the authenticity of tbe tradition reported in Soferim, as cited above. Besides this, there are quoted in Hillel's name two actual Rarables — rudimentary, but bearing unmistakably the Parabolical stamp. Bacher fully accepts the authenticity of these Parables though they occur in a somewhat late Midrash (Leviticus Rabba, Ixxxiv.). Chajes adduces no adequate ground for suspicion. The first of the two Parables referred to is as foUows : Hillel's disciples were walking with him on a certain occasion, and when he departed from their company they enquired "Whither goest thou?" He answered, " I go to fulfil a religious duty."—" What duty ? "— " To bathe in the bath-house."— " Is this, then, a duty?"— "Ay," replied Hillel; "the statues of kings which are set in theatres and circuses — he who is appointed concerning them cleanses and polishes them; he is sustained for the purpose, and he grows great through intercourse with the great ones of the kingdom. I, created in the image and likeness of God, how much more must I keep my body clean and untainted." Ziegler (op. cit. p. 17) agrees with Weiss and Bacher in holding this passage a genuine saying. The authenticity is guaranteed (as Bacher argues) on linguistic grounds, for whereas the preceding passage is in Hebrew, the second Parable which immediately foUows is in Aramaic, and this very intermixture and interchange of Hebrew and Aramaic is charac teristic of several of Hillel's best authenticated utterances. The second Parable is this : again Hillel is walking with his disciples (the parallel to the journeys of Jesus in the company of his disciples may be noted); he turns to part from them, and they ask his destination. "I go home," said Hillel, " to render loving service to a certain guest who sojourns in my house." — " Hast thou then a guest ever in thy house ? " — " Is not the unhappy soul a sojourner within the body ? To-day it is here, and to morrow it is gone ! " At this point a general remark may be interpolated. While rendering these and other Rabbinic Parables, the translator feels himself severely handicapped. Not only were the New Testament Parables elaborated by the Evangelists far more than the Talmudic were by the Rabbis, but the former have been rendered with inimitable skill and felicity, while the latter have received no such accession of charm. Even Herder's paraphrases of Midrashim are turgid when XII. THE PARABLES 97 compared with the chaste simplicity of style and form under which the New Testament Parables appear in the Vulgate, and- even more con spicuously in Luther's Bible and the Anglican versions. These versions are, from the point of view of literary beauty, actually im provements on the Greek, just as the Hebrew of the twenty-third Psalm has gained an added grace in the incomparable English rendering with which we are all familiar. No one has done as much for the gems of Rabbinic fancy. They have remained from first to last rough jewels; successive generations of artists have not provided increasingly be coming settings to enhance their splendour. But even so some modem writers have been unfairly depreciatory of the Rabbinic Parables, for while there is a considerable number of no great significance, there are some which are closely paraUel to those of the New Testament, and some others which may be justly placed on the same high level. There are no more beautiful Parables than that of the blind and the lame (Sanhedrin, 91 a — b, Mechilta, rhvi U.), which may be summarised thus : A human King had a beautiful garden in which were some fine early figa. He aet in it two watchmen, one lame and the other blind. Said the lame man to the blind, "I see some fine figs, carry me on your shoulders and we will get the fruit and eat it." After a time the owner of the garden came and asked after bis missing figs. The lame man protested that he could not walk, the blind that he could not aee. So the master put the lame man on the blind man's back and judged them together. So God brings the soul and casts it iu the body (after death) and judges them together. It is difficult to understand why the excellence of such Parables should be contested. Fiebig (p. 88) objects that it is very improbable that a king should employ the lame and the blind as watchmen. One wonders why not, seeing that in the East particularly the old and the decrepit are much used for such sedentary work. It may be that the difficult passage II. Samuel v. 6 implies the employment of the blind and lame as sentinels of the citadel. Undoubtedly the idea of the watchmen is necessary for the Rabbinic Parable— which is not a mere adaptation of the Parable which Dr James cites. In the Epiphanius parallel (J.T.S. loc. cit.) the King is described as possessing among all his subjects only two men unfit for military serrice, this is surely not less improbable than the lame and blind watchmen. Besides, there are many improbabilities in the New Testament Parables also (as e.g. the refusal of a king's invitation to a banquet. Matt. xxii. 2 ; in Luke xiv. 16 the banquet however is given not by a king but by "a A. V 98 XII. THE PARABLES certain man"). Such improbabilities are not defects in Parables at all. We might have been spared some inept criticism of the New Testament Parables, had due notice been taken of the wise Rabbinic maxim : Do not apply your logic to a Midrash. Again, it is sometimes said that the Rabbinic Parables fall below those of the New Testament in that the latter deal with far greater subjects. Sin and Grace, Prayer, Mercy, Love, the Kingdom of Heaven (Fiebig, p. 105). That in the enormous mass of Rabbinic Parables many treat of trivialities in a trivial fashion is true ; but simplicity must not be confused with insignificance. There is a quality of homeliness about many of the Rabbinic Parables, a quality inherited from the Bible, with its Ewe-lamb and its Song of the Vineyard. It is this quality tha^t distinguishes the Jewish from the ordinary Eastern Parable ; the former, far less than the latter, merely illustrates a maxim. Many Oriental Parables are expanded Proverbs, but the Rabbinic Parables cannot as a rule be compressed into a Proverb. As to subject matter, very many of them are directed to most of the subjects which Fiebig enumerates, and to other funda mental problems of life and death and the hereafter. Thus the Parable quoted above of the lame and the blind expresses the unity of body and soul, or rather the truth that a man is a single product of dust and spirit. The persistence in later Jewish thought of the belief in the bodily resurrection was in part, at least, due to the impossibility of separating body and soul, even in the aspect of immortality. The following summary from the excellent article by Dr J. Z. Lauterbach (Jewish Encyclopedia, ix. 513 a) is a just though of course incomplete statement of the subjects of the Rabbinic Parables : In the Talmud and Midrash almost every religious idea, moral maxim, or ethical requirement is accompanied by a Parable which illustrates it. Among the religioua and moral tenets which are thus explained may be mentioned the following : the exiatence of God (Gen. E. xxxiv. i); his manner of retribution, and of punishing sins both in this world and the next ('Ab. Zarah, 4 a, Yalq. Lev. 464, Sabb. 152 a); his faithful governance ('Ab. 2arali, 55 a, Sanh. 108 a) ; his impatience of injustice (Suk. 30 a) ; hia paternal leniency (Ex. R. xlvi. 6) and his relation to Israel (ib. xlvi. 4, Ber. 32 a) ; Israel's sufferings (Ber. 13 a) ; the folly of idolatry ('Ab. Zarah, 54 b — 55 a); the Law as the guardian and faithful protector in life (Sotah, 21 a); the sin of murder (Mechilta, niT', 8); the resurrection (Sabb. 91 a); the value of benevolence (B. B., 10 a) ; the worth of a just man for his contem poraries (Meg. 15a); the failure of popularity aa a proof of intrinsic value (Sotah, 40 a) ; the evil tendency of freedom from anxiety (Ber. 32 a) ; the limitations of human knowledge and understanding (Sanh. 39 a) ; the advantage frequently resulting from what seems to be evil (Niddah, 31 a) ; conversion (Sabb. 153 a); purity of aoul and ita reward (iJ. 152 b). XII. THE PARABLES 99 This list could be much extended, but it suffices to demonstrate that the depreciation of the Rabbinic Parables, on the ground of triviality of motive, is a mere aberration of criticism. It can, therefore, hardly be maintained with Fiebig (op. cit. p. 87), that "the manifold situations of human life are only sparingly and pallidly depicted " in the Rabbinic Parables. It is, on the other hand, a sound discrimina tion (p. 83) that there are in the Rabbinic literature a vast number of royal Parables. HUlel and Johanan b. Zakkai present somie examples (Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 1. 73, 81). Most of the royal Parables, however, belong to the period later than the fall of Bethar in 135, and they only begin to predominate with Domitian in the hands of Agadists like Meir and Simon b. Yohai (Ziegler, p. xxiii). By that time the interest of Jewish moralists in good government as part of the idea of the Kingdom of God (cf. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, ch. vii.) led them to portray under royal metaphors the relations of God to man, and they did this both by way of contrast and similitude. Some of the oldest Parables in which the heroes are kings, perhaps dealt in their original forms with ordinary men, and kings was probably substituted for men in some of them (both Rabbinic and Synoptic) by later redactors. One point deserves close attention. It is not possible to assent to Fiebig's characterisation that " in comparison with the Synoptic Parables, it strikes one that the processes of Nature — sowing and harvest, growing, flowering and fruitage, were taken Uttle account of [in the Rabbinic Parables]," In the latter, besides many Parables treating of trades, handicrafts, seafaring, school-life, domestic affairs, there are many comparisons drawn from the fields, vineyards, streams, flowers, trees, fruits, birds, beasts, and other natural objects. This is perhaps more noticeable in those phases of the Agada which do not assume the form of narrative Parables, but it is frequent in the latter also, and the Rabbinic examples agree with the Synoptic in treating of nature under cultivation rather than in a wild state. With regard to the harvest, Schweitzer holds that the reference in the New Testament Parables is eschatological, pointing at all events to a definite note of time ; this particular harvest in the last year of Jesus' life is to be the last harvest on earth, and the Kingdom is to follow it immediately. In Joel iii. 13, Isaiah xvii. 5—11, as well as in the Jewish Apocalypses (e.g. Baruch Ixx.), the harvest is synonymous with the judgment. This is not altogether convincing, for it is curious that the images of the sower and the mustard seed — the harvest and 7—2 100 XII. THE PARABLES the full-grown tree, processes of long maturation — should express the idea of a sudden consummation and nothing more. The idea of the harvest in the Synoptics is probably a composite one, the standing corn is regarded as food for the sickle, whether it be the sickle of an angry Master or of the human reaper of the accumulated reward of long drawn out endeavour. If the expression "the harvest is large but the labourers are few " (Matt. ix. 37 — 38, Luke x. 2 ; cf. John iv. 36) were the authentic exordium to the mandate to the disciples in Q, we have here the harvest used in quite a different sense from the Apocalyptic. Both these uses meet us in Rabbinic. In the first place, with regard to the passage just cited, there is a Rabbinic parallel nearer than is generaUy supposed, though so long ago as 1847 Zipser suggested it (Literaturblatt des Orients, 1847, "ol. 752). In the Mishnah, Aboth ii. 19 (20), occurs a saying which in Dr Taylor's rendering runs thus : " R. Tarphon said, ' The day is short, and the task is great, and the workmen are sluggish, and the reward is much, and the Master of the house is urgent. He said. It is not for thee to finish the work, nor art thou free to desist therefrom; if thou hast learned much Torah, they give thee much reward ; and faithful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of thy work, and know that the recom- pence of the reward of the righteous is for the time to come.' " Dr Taylor sees in this Mishnah points of contact with the Parable of the Vineyard in Matt, xx., "where the otKoSeo-n-oTijs (Master of the house) says to the labourers whom he finds unemployed, Ti uSe ecTTTjKaTe oXrjv rrjv -qpepav dpyol ; ('Why stand ye here all day idle?')." The first part of this Mishnah is usually taken to correspond to the "ars longa vita brevis" of Hippocrates. But it is a very plausible suggestion of Zipser's that the first clause of the Hebrew has been wrongly punctuated. It is commonly read l!?i5 ^^"'^ ("the day is short"), whereas the true reading should be "iVi? Di'!|! ("to-day is harvest" — there is no need to emend to T'Vi? as the Gezer Calendar Stone, published in the Quarterly Statement of the P. E. F., Jan. 1909, gives us several times over the spelling -ixp for "harvest"). This is confirmed by another word in the saying, " Master of the House," for the Hebrew equivalent n''3n ^i;3 often means "landowner" (cf. Dr A. Buchler, Sepphoris, p. 38, etc.) just as the oiKoSto-iroVjjs of Matthew does (this equivalence of the Hebrew and Greek just quoted was noted by Dr Taylor, and has been elaborated I think by Dr Nestle). The whole of Tarphon's saying would thus have an agricultural setting. It may be pointed out in passing that this is XII, THE PARABLES 101 not the only parallel between sayings of Tarphon and the New Testament. Compare the "mote" and "beam" of Arachin, i6 b with Matt. vii. 3 (there seems no reason for doubting with Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, i. 351 n., the authenticity of this saying as one of Tarphon's). Tarphon lived during the existence of the Temple (T. J. Yoma, iii. § 7, 38 d), and was thus a contemporary of the Apostles. He was a strong opponent of the Jewish Christians (Sabbath, 116 a), and hence his name was used by Justin Martyr (whose Tryphon = Tarphon) as a typical antagonist. It is impossible that Tarphon would have taken his similes from Christian Sayings, and the parallels point unmistakably to the existence of a common and ancient source. The whole Mishnah is more elaborate than most of the passages in Aboth and we may conclude that Tarphon is not the author of the opening clauses but only of their interpretation in terms of studying the Law. These opening clauses however, when juxtaposed with Matt. ix. jy — 8j present under the figure of the harvest a very different idea from the Judgment. It is the goal of effort rather than the starting point of doom, the reward of life rather than the precursor of death. There is nothing apocalyptic about this, nothing catastrophic. " The king does not stand (in satisfaction) by his field when it is ploughed, or when it is hoed, or when it is sown, but he stands by it when it is full of corn for the granary," said R. Simon (Tanhuma Miqes on Gen. xxvUi. 13). On the other hand there are some Rabbinic passages in which the harvest is a type of the Judgment in the sterner sense (Leviticus Rabba, xviii. § 3). Several of the New Testament Parables are clearly inconsistent with a firm beUef in the immediate approach of the end ; there is no "interim morality" in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14 — 30, Luke xix. 12 — 27, cf. Mark xiii. 34 — 37). It is improbable, however, that the same Jesus who said " Be not therefore anxious for the morrow" (Matt. vi. 34), and "Sell all thou hast" (ib. xix. 21), should have cried " WeU done, good and faithful servant " to those who had traded with their capital. To the idea of this story we have a Rabbinic parallel, but not in Parable form ; it is cited as an incident (Debarim Rabba, in. § 3), and in some particulars the moral is other than in the New Testament. For, after all, the five and the two talents were risked, and might have been lost in the trade. In the Midrash incident this objection does not suggest itself. This is the incident referred to : " R. Phineas ben Jair [second half of second 102 XII. THE PARABLES century] lived in a certain city of the South [Lydda?], and certain men went to support themselves there. They had in their possession two scabs of barley, which they deposited with him. These they forgot and left the place. And R. Phineas ben Jair went on sowing them year by year ; he made a granary for them, and stored them. After seven years these companions returned to claim their scabs. Immedi ately R. Phineas ben Jair recognised them, and he said to them. Come, take your stores. Lo, from the faithfulness of flesh and blood thou recognizest the faithfulness of the Holy One, blessed be He." (This last clause reminds one of the " faithful servant.") In Rabbinic parallels to several others of the Synoptic Parables the inferiority is not always on the Rabbinic side as JiiUcher in particular thinks. In the first place the paraUels sometimes strike a note which finds no exact echo in the Synoptic examples. It is strange that Fiebig can cite (from Mechilta Beshallah, ed. Friedmann, 29 b) the foUowing as he does (op. cit. p. 34) without noting that it is a somewhat unique expression of the relation between God and man. Eabbi Absolom the Elder saya : A Parable. To what is the matter like ? To a man who was angry with his aon, and banished him from his home. His friend went to beg him to restore his son to his houae. The father replied : Thou askest of me nothing except on behalf of my sou? / am already reconciled with my son. So the Omnipresent said unto him (Moaea), "Wherefore crieat thou unto me?" (Exodus xiv. 15). Long ago have I become well disposed to him (Israel). Here then we have the idea that the Father is reconciled to his erring son even before the latter or any intercessor makes appeal, in accordance withthe text: "Before they call I will answer" (Isaiah Ixv. 24). Compare also the similar idea in the Pesiqta Rabbathi ch. v. (ed. Friedmann, p. 17b); these expressions of the Father's love seem to go even beyond the beautiful pathos of Luke xv. 20. A King ordered the men of a certain district to build a palace. They built it. Then they stood by the gate and proclaimed ; Let the King come in I But what did the King do ? He entered by a wicket door, and sent a herald to announce : Shout not, for I have already come to the palace. So, when the Tabernacle was erected, Israel aaid : Let my Beloved come to his garden ! The Holy One sent and said unto them : Why are ye anxious? Already have I come into my garden, my sister, my bride. So, too, the medieval poet Jehuda Halevi sang, though he was thinking more of the divine omnipresence : Longing I sought Thy presence. Lord, with my whole heart did I call and pray ; And going out toward Thee, I found Thee coming to me on the way. XII. THE PARABLES 103 Another note of the Rabbinic Parables (which has I think no echo in the Synoptics) is the idea of " Chastisements of love " (Berachoth 5 a) which finds expression in many comparisons, among which perhaps the following is the most characteristic (Exodus Rabba, xxi. § 5). The Midrash very pathetically puts it that God wishes Israel to cry to him, he longs to hear Israel's voice raised in filial supplication. Just as he chastises Israel to discipline him, so he tortures Israel to force from him the prayer which Israel refuses to yield while free from racking pain. The divine ear yearns for the human voice. This profound, mystical thought, is expressed with both quaintness and tenderness in the following Parable : Why did God bring Israel into the extremity of danger at the Eed Sea before saving him ? Becauae he longed to hear larael's prayer. Said R. Joshua ben Levi, To what is tbe matter like ? To a king who was once travelling on the way, and a daughter of kings cried to him: "I pray thee, deliver me out of the hand of these robbers ! " The king obeyed and rescued her. After a while he wished to make her hia wife ; he longed to hear her aweet accenta again, but ahe was silent. What did the king do ? He hired the robbers again to set upon the princeaa, to cauae her again to cry out, that he might hear her voice. So soon as the robbers came upon her, she began to ery for tbe king. And he, hastening to her aide, said : " This is what I yearned for, to hear thy voice." Thus was it with Israel. When they were in Egypt, enslaved, they began to cry out, and hang their eyea on God, aa it is written "And it came to pass... that the children of Israel sighed because of their bondage. ..and they cried..." Then it immediately foUows : "And God looked upon the Children of Israel." He began to take them forth thence with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. And God wished to hear their voice a aecond time, but they were uuwiUiug. AVbat did God do ? He incited Pharaoh to puraue after them, as it is aaid, "Andhe drew Pharaoh near." Immediately the children of Israel cried unto the Lord. In that hour God said: "For this I have been seeking, to hear your voice, as it is written in the Song of Songs, My dove in the clefts of the rocks, let me hear thy voice; thy voice, the same voice which I first heard in Egypt. Again, the following is a gracious Parable, which, were one on the look-out for Rabbinic foils to the Gospels, might be contrasted with Matthew xxi. 9. When E. Isaac parted from E. Nahman, the latter asked for a blessing. Said B. Isaac : I wiU tell thee a Parable. A traveller was passing through a desert, and he was hungry, faint, and thirsty. He found a tree, whose fruit was sweet, whose shade was pleasant, and at whose foot there flowed a stream. He ate of the fruit, drank of the water, and aat in the shade. On his departure he said : 0 tree, 0 tree, how ahall I bless thee ? If I say to thee. May thy fruit be sweet, lo thy fruit is sweet already ; that thy shade shall be pleasant, lo it is pleasant now; that a stream shall water thee, lo this boon is thine at present. But I will say : May all the saplings 104 XII. THE PARABLES planted from thee be like thyself ! So, thou. How shall I bleas thee? With Torah? Torah is thine. With wealth? Wealth is thine. With children? Children are thine. But I say: God grant that thy offspring may be Uke thyself I (Ta'anith 6 a). Or, to turn to another idea, the following is an original note, at all events there is no full Synoptic parallel. The citation of the passage will serve also a secondary purpose ; it will again illustrate the freqiient Rabbinic habit of syncretising the Parable of idea with the application of historical incident. R. Hanina bar Idi aaid : Why are the words of the Torah (Scripturea) likened unto water, aa it is written (Isaiah Iv. i) Ho every one that thirsteth come ye to the water ? To say unto thee : Just aa water forsakes a high place and goes to a low place, so the words of the Torah find a resting-place only in a man whose character is lowly. R. Oshaya alao said : Why are the words of the Torah likened to these particular liquida, water, wine, and milk, for the text continuea : Gome ye, buy wine and milk without money ? To aay unto thee : Just as these three liquids are kept only in the simplest of vessels, so the worda of the Torah are only preserved in a man of humble spirit. It is as once the Emperor's daughter jeeringly said to R. Joahua b. Hananya : "Ho ! Glorious Wisdom in a foul veaael ! " He replied : " Ho ! daughter of him who keeps wine in an earthen pitcher !" — "In what sort of vessel should wine be kept, then?" asked the princess. — "Important people like you should store their wine in pitchers of gold and silver." — She persuaded the Emperor to follow this course, but soon men came to him to report that the wine had turned sour. " My daughter, " said the Emperor, "who told you to suggest this thing?" — She repUed that her adviser waa E. Joshua b. Hananya. The latter was called, and in answer to the Emperor's questions replied : "As she spake to me, so spake I unto her." (Taanith, 7 a; Nedarim, 50 b). Various Rabbinic parallels to New Testament Parables have been detected by various scholars. One must here remark that the similarity of idea must not be confused with identity of Parabolical treatment. Philo has no true Parables, but several of his ideas are found later on developed into that literary type. For instance, what became a favourite Rabbinic Parable, the comparison of the creation of the world to the planning of a palace (Genesis Rabba, i.), a comparison associated by Bacher with the schools of Hillel and Shammai, is already found fully developed in Philo (de opif mundi, 4, 5). Leaving the study of parallels, if the Rabbinic Parables are con sidered absolutely, without comparative reference to those of the New Testament, it is clear that they must be allowed to rank high in literature of the kind. The Parable took a very firm root in the Jewish consciousness, though for some centuries it was not transplanted from its native soil — Palestine — to Babylonia, and Rab (died 247) XII. THE PARABLES 105 scarcely presents any instances of the Mashed (Bacher, Agada der babylonischen Amorder, 1878, p. 31). But the influence of the Palestinian Midrash prevailed, and throughout the middle ages and the modern epoch, Jewish homilies have been consistently illustrated by Parables. Now, as of old, the Parable was the instrument for popularising truths which in an abstract form were not so easUy apprehensible. Professor Bacher elsewhere describes the Mashal (Parable) as " one of the most important elements of the Agada." Agada must here be understood in its widest signification : the exposition of Scripture and the application of the precepts of the Law to the elucidation of principle and the regulation of conduct. The utility and even necessity of the Mashal for understanding the Torah are variously enunciated in .a series of fine similes in the Midrash, and the passage (Canticles Rabba, i. i. 8 ; Genesis Rabba, xii. i ; Eccles. Rabba on ii. 11; T. B. Erubin, 21b footnote) may here be paraphrased in f uU : " R. Nahman said : A great palace had many doors, and whoever entered within it strayed and lost his direction (for the return). There came one of bright intelligence who [cf. Ariadne] took a clue of rope and tied one end of it to the entrance, and went in and out along the rope. Thus before Solomon arose no man could understand the words of the Torah, but all found it intelligible after the rise of this King." Further, said R. Nahman, "It is like a wild thicket of reeds, into which no man could penetrate. But there came a clever wight who seized a scythe and cut a path, through which all men could come and go. Thus was it with Solomon." R. Jose said : " it is com parable to a great case full of fruits, but the case had no handles and no one could move it. Then there came one who made handles, and everyone could move it.'' R. Shila likened Solomon's service to that of a man who provided a handle to a huge cask full of hot liquid. R. Hanina put the same thought in these terms : "It was like a deep well, full of water, and the water was cool, sweet and wholesome, but no creature could reach it to drink. A certain one came and joined rope to rope and cord to cord; he drew water from the well and drank. Then, for the first time, all could draw and drink. Thus from word to word, from Mashal to Mashal, Solomon reached the uttermost secret of the Torah. And this he did by means of the Mashal." So, the passage continues, " The Rabbis said. Let not tbe Mashal be light in thine eyes, for by means of the Mashal a man can stand in the words of the Law, for it is comparable to a king who lost gold from his 106 XII. THE PARABLES house, or a precious pearl, and found it by means of a clue worth a Roman as." There is in all this a two-fold meaning. Solomon added certain things to the Law, the Rabbis assigned to him a number of takkanoth or new regulations which made the Law practically usable ; he also popularised the Law, making it accessible to the masses by means of the Mashal. As the Midrash continues, Solomon by means of the Mashal attained to a knowledge of legal minutiae ; he also made the Law popular. " Rabbi Judan said, Whoever speaks words of Law in public (among the many) is worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest upon him, and this thou learnest from Solomon." In this analytical passage, the term Mashal is used in a very wide sense, and includes all forms of applied morality. Parable thus becomes part and parcel of the instrument for arriving at truth and for making truth prevail. Truth, to Pharisee and Evangelist alike, is the will of God, and the Parable was at its highest when seeking to understand and to do that will. The Parables of Talmud and Gospels are (so Zipser put it) derived from a common source, the systematised teaching of HiUel and Shammai. Parables were not merely an entertainment, they were not merely designed to interest the people. They were the method by which the mysteries of pro vidence and the incidences of duty were posted and iUustrated. Sometimes these mysteries and incidences are beyond understanding and when then Mark (iv. 1 1) describes the Parable as actually employed by Jesus to prevent men from understanding, the description is happUy characterised by Bousset when he calls it " preposterous," and dismisses it as "the dogmatic pedantry of a later age." The same idea is found in all the Synoptics and cannot be dismissed in this easy way. What is " preposterous " is the supposition that Jesus taught in Parable in order that men might misunderstand. This is to mistake an Oriental process of thought by which consequences are often confused with motives. (Cf. Skinner on Isaiah vi. lo.) The Parable has this danger that it may imply more than it says, and may leave behind it more puzzles than it solves. It is not an exact instrument ; it works without precision. The consequence of a Parable may be misunderstanding, or what is equivalent, partial understanding, and it is certain from the language of the evangelists that the Parables ascribed to Jesus were liable to this consequence. Hence, as it was improper to admit that Jesus used an imperfect form imperfectly, consequence was translated into intention, and the misunderstanding was described as XII. THE PARABLES 107 designed in order to prevent the Jews from turning and 'finding for giveness. Later on, when the eschatological element in the teaching of Jesus was forced into greater prominence, the supposition that the Parable was used in order to veil a Messianic secret may easily have arisen. The latter, however, cannot be the original force of the reference, for it is plain enough that many of the New Testament Parables, different though they be to explain in all their details, are absolutely simple inculcations of moral and religious truths, profound but not mysterious. XIII. DISEASE AND MIRACLE. Rabbinic Judaism took over from the Old Testament a belief that disease was a consequence of sin (Leviticus xxvi. and parallels in Deuteronomy). This theory was especially held to explain general epidemics, and also those afflictions the origin of which was at once most obscure and their effects most dreaded — such as leprosy. It is not necessary to do more than recall the cases of Miriam, Joab, Gehazi, and Job. The Rabbinic sources contain many assertions as to the relation between sin and disease. (Of. the valuable discussion in the Tosafoth to Aboth iv. II.) "Measure for Measure" applied here as in other aspects of Rabbinic theology (Mishnah, Aboth v. ii — 14). R. Ammi (of the third century, but his view was shared by earlier authorities) asserted sans phrase that there was no affliction without previous sin (Sabbath, 55 a). R. Jonathan said : " Diseases (D''y33) come for seven sins : for slander, shedding blood, false oaths, unchastity, arrogance, robbery, and envy" ('Erachin, 16 a). In particular leprosy was the result of slander (Leviticus Rabba, xviii. § 4). On the other hand, " When Israel stood round Sinai and said. All that the Lord has spoken we will do, there was among the people no one who was a leper, or blind, or halt, or deaf," and so forth (ibid. ; Sif r6 i b, the sin of the golden calf, like other acts of rebellion, caused leprosy and other diseases, Pesiqta Rabbathi vii., ed. Friedmann p. 28). Thus obedience prevented disease, just as disobedience produced it. This, to a large extent, moralised the idea : it set up the moral life as the real prophylactic. In general the principle enunciated in Exodus xv. 26 was adopted by the Rabbis, though it must be remembered that so great an authority as R. Meir altogether disputed the theory as to the connection between suffering and transgression. God's dealing with men, he held, was an unfathomable mystery. Leprosy, again, like XIII. DISEASE AND MIRACLE 109 other diseases might, in another view, merely be the beneficent earthly penalty designed to save the sufferer from tribulations in the future (Lev. R. xvii,). To exemplify the application of the "Measure for Measure" idea, the case of blindness will suffice. Nahum of Gimzu (first century) explained his blindness as the consequence of his inhumanity to a poor sufferer (Ta'anith, 2 1 a). The man who accepted bribery and perverted justice would not pass from the world unless he suffered the infliction of physical blindness corresponding to his moral lapse (Mechilta, Mish- patim, § 20, p. 100 a, Sifrd, on Deuteronomy, § 144). The case of one blind from birth was more difficult to fit into the theory, and in John ix. I Jesus denies that such an affliction was due to sin at aU. It is there explained that the congenital blindness had been imposed that it might be cured, so "that the works of God should be made manifest in him." This explanation is identical with that of Eccle siasticus xxxviii, except that Sirach appUes it to the doctor's art. " The Lord hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his miraculous works. " Disease — more particularly pestilence — was ascribed also to sins which were not punished by human tribunals. In general it was thought that sin left its material impress, and the later mystics put it that it disfigured the image of God (Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 11. 274). Two points only must be further indicated; the legal position of the leper in Rabbinic law is sufficiently indicated in the Jewish Encyclopedia vm, 10 a. (" Leprosy was not considered contagious.") The first point is that the moral stigma attaching to disease soon took a more amiable form. As Dr Schechter well puts it (Studies in Judaism, i. 269) : ' The only practical conclusion that the Rabbis drew from such theories as identify suffering with sin was for the sufferer himself, who otherwise might be incUned to blame Providence, or even to blaspheme, but would now look upon his affliction as a reminder from heaven that there is something wrong in his moral state. Thus we read in tractate Berachoth (5 a) : " If a man sees that affliction comes upon him, he ought to inquire into his actions, as it is said, Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord (Lam. in. 40). This means to say that the sufferer will find that he has been guilty of some offence." ' The second point is that though leprosy was regarded as the punish ment for the worst crimes, it was not thought lawful or right to leave the leper to his fate. Sympathy with suffering was not diminished by 110 XIII. DISEASE AND MIRACLE any theories as to the origin of the suffering. In Ecclesiasticus Rabba (on ix. 7) is told the touching story of Abba Tahna. As the sun was near its setting on a Friday afternoon, Abba Tahna was going bpme with all his worldly goods in a bag on his shoulders. At the cross-road he saw a man smitten with leprosy. The latter entreated the Rabbi in these terms : " My master, show me charity and carry me to the city." The perplexed Rabbi said: "If I leave my goods, how shaU I sustain myself and my household ? and if I leave this leper I shall commit a mortal sin." Abba Tahna conquered the suggestion of his evil inclination, left his bag, and bore the leper into the town. In the end he did not suffer for his action. But the whole passage is an effective comment on Luke x. 30. Demoniac "possession" as a cause of disease, and "exorcism" as its cure, were well known to the Rabbis. But it is certain that these beliefs and practices were uncommon in Palestine at the time of Jesus. The easy assumption to the contrary has no foundation. Though the Enoch and other apocalyptic literature has a developed demonology, and Acts xxiii. 8 implies a Pharisaic angelology, there is a remarkable infrequency of references to the subject in the Mishnah and the Tannaite literature (L. Blau, Das altjUdische Zauberwesen, p. 23). Quite early was the power attached to prayers for rain. The fact that Onias (on whom see Jewish Encyclopedia ix. 410 and refs.) stood in a ring while praying for rain has a "magical" look, but it is not clearly a charm. There is nothing of the magician or spell-worker in the picture of Onias drawn in Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 2, i). Hillel (p. 95 above) was a student of demon-lore, perhaps under Parsic influence — he was by birth Babylonian. Compare the prayer cures of Haninah b. Dosa (first century) — he had magical leanings (see J.E. vi. 214), but the female demon Agrat mentioned in his case was Persian. Persian influence reached Palestine in the first century (Darmesteter in Revue des Etudes Juives 1. 195) but became more pronounced after the Palestinian schools were superseded by the Babylonian early in the third century. Members of the Sanhedrin were expected to under stand magic in order to deal with causes in which the question arose (Sanhedrin 17 a. See refs. in Taylor, Aboth v. 9). The same Mishnah (v. 9) refers to demons, but this like Hagigah 16 a apparently belongs to tbe late second century. It is in the Babylonian Talmud that we find an appalling mass of demonology which, though it stands in rela tion to earlier beliefs, — BibUcal, Apocalyptic and Rabbinical — cannot properly be cited as applicable to the time of Jesus in the Holy Land XIII. DISEASE AND MIEACLE 111 (Perles on Bousset, p. 35. Bousset frankly admits the validity of Perles' objection in the second edition of his Religion des Judentums, p. 388, n. 4, but hardly corrects his general statements in accordance with the admission). Probably, therefore, the Pharisees were amazed at the attitude and actions of Jesus, so that it is intelUgible that Jesus was afterwards called a "magician" (Sabbath, 104b), though subsequent schools of Pharisaism would have been less amazed than his contemporaries were. It may be, indeed, the fact that the Essenes were (as Geiger supposes) " healers,'' in which case we should have a further bond between Jesus and this sect. There was between the years 150 and 450 a great increase in Jewish circles in the belief in demons and their influence. (Cf. Conybeare, Jewish Quarterly Review, ix. 87.) It is undeniable, however, that some cases of exorcism are recorded earlier. But it is curious that they are all associated with the Roman imperial family. Josephus, who makes indeed a general assertion as to demoniac possession ( Wars vn. vi. 3), only recites an actual cure by exorcism performed in the presence of Vespasian (Antiquities vm. ii. 5). So, too, the notorious instance of exorcism reported of a second century Rabbi, Simon b. Yohai, was not only performed in the case of a Roman lady of the imperial family, but actually occurred in Rome, if it be not indeed a mere reproduction of a Christian story (see p. 92 above). Again, though the Jewish exorcists (Acts xix. 13) were "strollers," yet the scene of their exploits is not Judsea but Ephesus and the impression conveyed is that they were playing with foreign fire. It does not seem, there fore, appropriate to the purpose of these Notes to enter at large into the Rabbinic parallels to New Testament ideas on demonology. (See, besides the literature already referred to, Kohler in Jewish Encyclopedia, IV. 517 b.) In the earlier period we find the physician held in high repute (Ecclus. xxxviii. i seq.), though Sirach accepts the theory that disease is connected with sin. The "confections" of the apothecary are associated with prayer in effecting a cure. Moses prays for Miriam's relief, and God is the " Healer." Tbe prayer for such divine healing found a place in tbe oldest part of the Synagogue liturgy, the eighteen benedictions, the words used being derived in part from Jeremiah xvii. 14. This two-fold conception always finds expression in Jewish thought. Prayers for the sick go side by side with the demand thai; every community shall have its doctors (Sanhedrin, 17 ; Maimonides 112 XIII. DISEASE AND MIRACLE Sanh. i. lo). Rabbinic "medicine" has very much of the "sympathetic" and the folk-cure and the exorcist about it, but there is no ground whatever for Bousset's assumption that the Rabbinic demonology arose from any supposed surrender of the divine omnipotence, and the yielding of part of his powers to demons and the like. The Rabbis considered, in one sense, every recovery from sickness as a " miracle." Said they : " Greater is the miracle that occurs when a sick person escapes from a perilous disease than that which happened when Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah escaped from the fiery furnace " (Nedarim, 41 a). XIV. POVERTY AND WEALTH. The twelve were sent forth "two by two," just as was the rule with the Jewish collectors of ahns (T.B. B. Bathra 8 b) ; indeed solitary traveUing, especiaUy at night, was altogether antipathetic to Jewish feeling. According to all three synoptics (Mark vi. 7, Matt. X. 10, Luke ix. 3) the disciples were to take nothing for their journey, no provisions, no wallet, no money. Even so did the Essenes travel, according to the report of Josephus ( War 11. viii. 4) : " They carry nothing at aU with them when they travel." The twelve were to accept hospitality wherever it was offered, and the Essenes " go (on their journeys) into the houses of those whom they never knew before," the houses, however, belong to brother Essenes. The Essenes carried weapons with them, while Matthew and Luke distinctly assert that the twelve were not even to carry a staff. This seems an improbable restriction, for the staff" (paySSos) was a common necessary for the traveller, serving at the same time as a help to walking and as a weapon. The ordinary Jewish traveller carried a staff and a bag (see Dictionaries s.v. S*lD^n)¦ Mark distinctly states that the twelve were to carry a staff (et p.ri paySSov p.6vov), and later on we find one or two of the disciples in possession of weapons (Mk xiv. 47, Matt. xxvi. 51). Luke (xxii. 38) reports that there were two swords. Luke seems to feel the contradiction between the earlier commission and this, and so inserts the passage (xxii. 35, 36) to explain the divergence. The Essenes were " despisers of riches " (Josephus, loc. cit. § 3) but they were not worshippers of poverty. "Among them all there is no appearance of abject poverty, or excess of riches," says Josephus. Theirs was a rule of equality, a regime of simple sufficiency not of common insufficiency. A life of such poverty was the natural corollary of Ufe in a society aiming at a holy life, and we find a similar rule among the Therapeutae described by Philo ; though the Therapeutae were closer to the later Christian monastics than were the Essenes. 114 XIV. POVERTY AND WEALTH That the pursuit of certain ideals was incompatible with the desire to amass material wealth is, however, a common thought of the Rabbis : " This is the path to the Torah : A morsel with salt shalt thou eat, thou shalt drink also water by measure, and shalt sleep upon the ground, and live a life of trouble the while thou toilest in the Torah. If thou doest this, happy shalt thou be and it shall be well with thee (Ps. cxxviii. 2); happy shalt thou be in tbis world, and it sball be well with thee in the world to come '' (Mishnah, Aboth vi. 4). But this implies no cult of poverty. Among the blessings prayed for by Abba Areka were "wealth and honour" (Berachoth 16 b). From time to time, ascetic movements have arisen in Judaism (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia ii. 167), and the value of such movements cannot be denied (cf. C. G. Montefiore Truth in Religion pp. 191 seq.). On the whole, however, Pharisaic Judaism had, on the one hand, too full a belief in calm joyousness as a fundamental and generally attainable ideal of life, and on the other hand too acute and recurrent an ex perience of the actualities of destitution, for it to regard poverty as in itself a good. (Cf. Note XVI below.) Even in the pursuit of the Torah, there comes a point where poverty is a preventive rather than a help. Eleazar ben 'Azariah, who succeeded the second Gamaliel as President of the Sanhedrin, and was himself wealthy (Qiddushin, 49 b), summed the truth up in his epigram : " Without food, no Torah ; without Torah, no food " (Aboth iii. 26). That destitution may be a bar to the ideal is an experience of many an idealist. After the Bar Cochba war, there was so general an impoverishment in Palestine, that the study of the Torah was intermitted. (Cf. the lurid picture drawn by Dr A. Biiehler in his essay on Sepphoris in the Second and Third Centuries, pp. 70 seq.) " God weeps daily alike over the man who could study Torah but omits to seize his opportunity, and over the man who cannot study yet continues to do it " (T.B. Hagigah 5 b). In other ways, too, the Rabbis recognised' that poverty was an evil. " Poverty in the house of a man is more distressful than fifty plagues" (T.B. Baba Bathra 116). The sufferings endured are so intense that they save a man from seeing Gehinnom ('Erub. 41 b, cf. Yebamoth 102 b). Poverty is an affliction equal in severity to aU the curses in Deuteronomy combined (Exod. Rabba xxxi.). The contrast between the earthly lot of rich and poor is found in well-known passages of the Wisdom literature. Very pregnant is the saying attributed in the Talmud to Sirach, though the passage is not found in any known text of the apocryphal book. It runs thus (Sanh. 100 b) : XIV. POVERTY AND WEALTH 115 "AU the days of the poor are evil (Prov. xv. 5): Ben Sira said, the nights also. The lowest roof is his roof, and on the highest hill is his vineyard. The rain off (other) roofs (falls) on his roof, and the soil from his vineyard on (other) vineyards" — another iUustration of the truth that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not even his Uttle shall be taken away. Poverty dogs the footsteps of the poor, putting him at a constant disadvantage (T.B. Baba Qamu 92 a). Poverty even affects the personal appearance. "Beautiful are the daughters of Israel, but poverty mars their face " (Nedarim 66 a). But though an evU, poverty was not the consequence of sin, unless that sin be the misuse of wealth (Leviticus R. xxxiv.). There is a wheel revolving in the world, and wealth ill-spent ends in poverty (Exod. Rabba xxxi.; T.B. Sabbath 151b). But the poor though deserving of human pity have no right to complain of the Divine justice. As Philo says : " Poverty by itself claims compassion, in order to correct its deficiencies, but when it comes to judgment... the judgment of God is just" (Fragments, Mang. 11. 678). In fact the Rabbinic analysis goes deeper, and makes it necessary for us to qualify the general statement that Poverty is an evil. " There is no destitution but poverty of mind" (ny''n3 x'?K »:y l''N Nedanm 41 a). Compare with this the sarcastic allusion to "the poor man who hungers but knows not whether he is hungry or not" (Megillah 16) — this is the real poverty, the lack of original insight, the absence of self-sufficiency in character. Poverty, as we have seen, may be so crushing as to destroy the victim's ideals. Far be it for an arm-chair moralist to inveigh against those who listen not to a Moses because the iron of misery has entered into their souls, so that they cannot hear for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage. But the excuse cannot be accepted. There was none so poor as Hillel, yet he worked for a half-dinar a day and paid a moiety to the door-keeper for admission to the house of study, sometimes braving the winter snow. Thus the cares of poverty are no defence against the charge of neglecting the Torah. And, continues the same Talmudic passage (T.B. Yoma 25 b), there was none so wealthy as R. Eleazar ben Harsom, yet he forsook his wealth, and with a skin of flour spent his days in the house of study. The cares of wealth are no defence. Man must rise superior to either. As the Midrash puts it (Exod. R. xxxi.) : Happy is the man that can endure his trial, for there is none whom the Holy One trieth not. The rich God tries whether his hand be open to the poor, the poor He tries whether he can calmly endure affliction. If the rich man sustain 8—2 116 XIV. POVERTY AND WEALTH his trial, and worketh righteousness, lo, he eateth his money in this world and the capital endureth for the world to come and God delivereth him from Gehinnom. And if the poor man sustain his trial and kick not against it, lo I he receives a double portion in the world to come. Then the Midrash proceeds to distinguish between the wealth which doeth evil to its owner and the wealth that doeth good to him, and so with the qualities of strength and wisdom. Suffering, indeed, was the lot of rich and poor alike. A life of unbroken pros perity was the reverse of a boon. An old baraitha (of the school of R. Ishmael) asserts that " he who has passed forty days without adver&"itj' has already received his world in this life" ('Erachin 1 6 b foot) ; one who was not afflicted would not belong to the category of Israel at all (Hagiga 5 a). Here we read the note of experience. It was Israel's lot so to suffer that it was forced to fall back on the theory that only by " chastisements of love " (Berachoth 5 a) might he obtain purification and atonement (Sifre 73 b). So, too, in another sense, the difference between men's condition — not an absolute differ ence, for wealth was accessible to aU possessed of knowledge, i.e. virtue (Sanhedrin 92 a on the basis of Proverbs xxiv. 4), while there was a ladder in men's affairs up which the poor rise and the rich descend (Pesiqta ed. Buber 12 a) or a wheel revolving to similar effect (Sabbath 151 b) — -was a means of atonement when sacrifices ceased (see quota tions p. 128 below). There is no cult of poverty neither is there a cult of wealth. Both are conditions of good and ill rather than good or ill themselves. Not the possession of wealth but too absolute a devotion to its acquisition and too ready a surrender to its temptations were feared. It was the gold and silver showered on Israel by a bountiful God that provided the material for the golden calf (Berachoth 32 a). Hillel held that increase of property meant increase of anxiety (Aboth ii. 7). Yet Rabbi Judah honoured the rich, and so did Aqiba (T.B. 'Erubin 86 a), for the rich maintain the order of the world when they turn their possessions to the service of their fellows : the rich support the poor, and the poor support the world, says the Talmud (loc. cit.) — a not inept statement of the relations between capital and labour as under stood until the inroad of recent economic theories. Equality, whether in the degree of wealth or poverty, was regarded as destructive of the virtue of charity. If all men were equal, all rich or all poor, who would perform the loving kindness of truth of Psalm Ixi. ? (Tanhuma, Mishpatim ix. innsi' \o noNi non mc *D^iy n^N DK) XIV. POVERTY AND WEALTH 117 Thus, there must be inequality. This theory, that the poor are necessary to the rich, runs through the Jewish theory of alms-giving and charity in all subsequent ages. Wealth becomes an evil when it is made the instrument of oppression (Aboth de R. Nathan ii. xxxi.), or when the acquisition of it leads to the neglect of the Torah. The poor are God's people (Exod. R. loc. cit,) and "poverty becomes Israel as a red halter a white horse" (Hagiga qh) — it sets off and augments the beauty in each case. And it moreover acts as a restraint against the abuses which luxury may induce. Extreme wealth is hard to bear (Gittin 70 a), yet charity is its salt (Kethuboth 66 b), and is more efficacious than any of the sacrifices (Succah 29 b). Yet, if wealth often leads to a materialistic Ufe, poverty may impel to unworthy pursuits (Kiddushin 40 a). The wealthy man may win Paradise like Monobazus, storing up wealth in heaven by generous use of his riches on earth (T.B. Baba Bathra 11 a). The poor man is equaUy able to attain bliss. Most of the Rabbis were poor artizans, but some were rich (Nedarim 50 a seq.). The wealthy among them scorned the idea that wealth, as such, made up any part of the man's real account (Pesahim 50 a). For, " when Solomon built the Temple, he said to the Holy One in his prayer : Master of the Universe, if a man pray to thee for wealth, and thou knowest that it would be bad for him, give it not. But if thou seest that the man would be comely in his wealth (ncys TKO), grant wealth unto him " (Exodus Rabba xxxi. § 5). To sum, again, poverty and wealth are conditions not ends. Hence the test of wealth is subjective, not objective. Who is rich? In the Mishnah (il6oiA. iii. 3), contentment is the definition of wealth. "Who is rich? he who is contented with (literally, he who rejoices in) his lot ; for it is said, when thou eatest the labour of thine hands, happy art thou, and it shall be well with thee (Ps. cxxviii. 2), happy art thou in this world and it shall be well with thee in the world to come." It may be difficult but it is not impossible for one and the same person to eat at the two tables. XV. THE CHILDREN. The passages depicting Jesus' love for children are marked by a singular tenderness and beauty. In several points there is contact here with the stories of Elijah and Elisha. There is, however, a painful contrast between the Synoptics (Mark x. 13 — 16 and parallels) and the incident of Elisha and the bears (2 Kings ii. 23). But this is a good illustration of the need to examine the judgment passed by the Pharisees on certain Old Testament incidents. What did the Pharisees make of Elisha's conduct? From the text (2 Kings xiii. 14), "Now Elisha fell sick of the disease of which he died," the inference was drawn that the prophet must previously have suffered from diseases of which he did not die. " The Rabbis have taught (in a baraitha), Elisha suffered three illnesses, one because he thrust Gehazi off with both bis hands, one because he incited the bears against the children, and the one of which he died " (T.B. Sota 47 a, Baba Mezia 87 a). Simplicity of faith, such as characterises the child's confidence in its parent, is the motive of Psalm cxxxi. " Lord, my heart is not haughty. . . Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul like a weaned child with his mother.'' The weaned child in the Orient would be old enough to run alone. Cf. I. Samuel i. 22. In 2 Mace. vii. 27 the mother of the seven martyrs speaks of suckling her child for three years, and in the Rabbinic period the average age for weaning was between the second and third year (cf. Krauss Talmudische Arc/tdologie ii p. 9 and notes p. 436). Young pupils were termed sucklings (Taanith g a). Hence the Psalmist's point of comparison is not the helplessness of the child, nor its contentment in spite of the loss of what once seemed indispensable ; but its natural readiness to return to its mother despite the fact that it no longer needed her. This Psalm (though the particular metaphor is differently explained) is thus the model for man's attitude towards God (Midrash on the Psalm quoted). David made it the guide of his life in all his vicissitudes (ibid.; cf. XV. THE CHILDREN 119 T.B. Sota 10 b). Just as only the man could enter the Kingdom who sought it as a child (Mark x. 15), so he who makes himself small (perhaps as a child jitapDn) in this world is made great (perhaps " grown up " 'pnj) in the world to come, and he who holds himself as a slave for the Torah here is made free hereafter (Baba Mezia 85 b). In the Old Testament God's relation to Israel is compared to the relation between a father and his young child. This relation was much treasured in the Midrash (see Yalqut on Jeremiah i. 5 and Hosea xi. 3 and parallels). God's nearness to the child is expressed also by the thoughts (i) that the young is without sin (xDPl Dyt3 DyD vhv nJK' p Yoma 22 b, cf. Niddah 30 b, Low Lebensalter p. 65); and (2) that the Shechinah is with the young. The whole passage which foUows has several other striking ideas which lead up to the most striking of all : " Rabbi used to despatch R. Assi and R. Ammi to visit the towns of Palestine in order to see that local affairs were well ordered. Once they went to a place and asked to see its Guardians. They were confronted with the Chiefs of the Soldiery. These, said the Rabbis, are not the Guardians of the town, they are its destroyers. — Who, then, are the true Guardians? — The teachers of the children The nations asked, Can we prevail against Israel? The answer was given, Not if you hear the voices of the children babbling over their books in the Synagogues... See how deeply loved of God the chUdren are. The Sanhedrin was exiled, but the Shechinah (Divine Presence) did not accompany its members into exile ; the Priests were exiled, but still the Shechinah remained behind. But when the children were exiled, forth went the Shechinah with them. For it is written (Lam. i. 5) : Her children are gone into captivity, and immediately afterwards : And from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed" (Echa Rabba Introd. and i, 32). The antiquity of the custom of blessing children by laying on of hands is attested by Genesis xlvui. 14. The same passage (the very words of verse 21 are used) was the source of the modern Jewish custom of blessing the children especially in the home and on the Sabbath eve. " Before the children can walk, they should be carried on Sabbaths and holidays to the father and mother to be blessed ; after they are able to walk they shall go of their own accord with bowed body and shall incline their heads and receive the blessing.'' This is from a book pubUshed in 1602 (Moses Henochs' Brautspiegel ch. xliii. ). Similarly the children are taken to the Rabbi, who places his hand on the head of the children in the Synagogue and blesses 120 XV. THE CHILDREN them, especially on Friday nights. It is not easy to say how old these customs are. From BibUcal times onwards the teacher- regarded his pupils as his children, and constantly called them so. (For tbe part assigned to children in public worship see p. 4 above, and my Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 31-2. Very beautiful is the passage in Sota 30 b, in which is related how the infant on its mother's knee, and the babe at the breast, no sooner saw the Shechinah at the Red Sea, than the one raised its head, the other took its. lips from the breast and exclaimed : This is my God and I will glorifj' him.) Such customs as just described do not always find their way into literature (cf. D. Philipson in Jewish Encyclopedia iii. p. 243), and they are often far older than their earliest record. They suffice to show how fully in accord with the Jewish spirit was .lesus' loving regard for the young. In olden times, the Jewish child began to learn the Pentateuch with the Book of Leviticus. Why ? Because the sacrifices are pure and the chUdren are pure. Said R. Assi, " Let the pure come and occupy themselves with what is pure " (Leviticus Rabba vii.). XVI. FASTING. Philo did not represent Pharisaic teaching as to the relation between body and soul ; he held that they formed a dualism, while the Rabbinic view was that they constituted a unity. "Righteous ness," he says, "and every virtue love the soul, unrighteousness and every vice the body" (i. 507; cf. Drummond, Philo-Judaeus i. 23). Pharisaism, on the other hand, placed the seat of good and evil, virtue and vice, equaUy in the heart (cf. Porter, op. cit. p. 52 above). But on the subject of asceticism Philo and the Rabbis were at one. His theory would naturaUy lead, on the contemplative side, to such developments as the societies of the Essenes and Therapeutae, which belong, just as the medieval and modern Hassidic asceticisms belong, to Judaism quite as much as do any of its more normal institutions. Yet, despite his admiration for these societies, Philo steered a sane course between extremes, and so on the whole did Pharisaism. He, like them, had no love for excesses in table luxury; he, like them, thought that enjoyment was possible and laudable without excess. PhUo disapproved of the sumptuous Alexandrian banquets which took toll of the world to supply rare dainties (i. 81), but, he adds, "Do not turn to the opposite course and immediately pursue poverty and abasement, and an austere and solitary life." And, as Drummond (i. 24) summarises Philo's conclusion (on the basis of the passages quoted and of i. 549 — 51), the philosopher counselled: "On the contrary, show how wealth ought to be used for the benefit of others ; accept posts of honour and distinction, and take advantage of your position to share your glory with those who are worthy, to provide safety for the good, and to improve the bad by admonition; and instead of fleeing from the banquet-table exhibit there the virtue of temperance.'' Cf. F. C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, 1895, p. 270. This became precisely the predominant Jewish view. Maimonides (Eight Chapters iv., ed. Gorfinkle, pp. 62, 65) concedes 122 XVI. FASTING that Jewish pietists at various periods deviated into extremes of asceticism, but he diagnoses their conduct as a medicine against disease, the medicine being noxious to the healthy. " The perfect Law which leads to perfection recommends none of these things. It rather aims at man's foUowing the path of moderation " ; but in order " that we should keep entirely from the extreme of the inordinate indulgence of the passions, we should depart from the exact medium, inclining somewhat towards self-denial, so that there may be firmly rooted in our souls the disposition for moderation" (cf. Guide iii. 35). Self -discipline is not self-torture, and man's right and duty to partici pate in all lawful happiness is iUustrated in such remarks as that of Abba Areka in the famous Talmudic passage : " On the day of reckoning man will have to give account for every good which his eyes beheld and which he did not enjoy" (T.J. Qiddushin, last lines). In the first century we find, however, an unsettled condition of opinion. Whether or not it belong to the original source (it is absent from Mark), yet the outburst in Matt. xi. 18, Luke vii. 33 is an apt summary of the conflict of views. John was addicted to fasting — he had a devil ! ; Jesus was not so ascetic, therefore he was a glutton and a wine-bibber ! These passages suggest also another contrast, that presented by II. Samuel xii. 21 — 23, and Mark ii. 19, 20 (incidentally it may be remarked that the custom of a bridal pair fasting on the wedding-morn is only imperfectly traceable to a baraitha in T.J. Bikkurim iii. 65 c). II. Samuel xii. 21 — 23. Mark ii. 19, 20. Then said his servants unto him And John's disciples and the Phari- [David], What thing is this that thou seea were fasting: and they come and hast done? thou didst fast and weep say unto him. Why do John's disciples for the child, while it was alive ; but and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, when the child was dead, thou didst but thy disciples fast nbt? And Jesus rise and eat bread. And he said, While said unto them. Can the sons of the the child was yet alive, I fasted and bride-chamber fast, while the bride- wept, for I said, Who knoweth whether groom is with them ? as long as they the Lord will not be gracious unto me, have the bridegroom with them they that the child may live ? But now he is cannot fast. But the daya wiU come dead, wherefore should I fast t can I when the bridegroom shall be taken from bring him back again ? I ahall go to them, and then will they fast in that him, but he ahall not return to me. day. These passages are interesting from another point of view. They suggest (in David's saying) the addiction to fasting as a form of XVL FASTING 123 supplication, and (in the saying of Jesus) as a form of mourning. Both of these ideas are abundantly illustrated by the Old and New Testaments, and also by other evidence available from the beginning of the Christian era. Thus R. Zadok fasted for forty years to ward off the destruction of the Temple (T.B. Gittin 56 a). Fasting was always thought one of the means of causing an alleviation of calamity (T.J. Ta'anith ii. 65 b top ; cf. Mishnah, Aboth iv. 11), but this, as we shall see, was only admitted by the moralists with the condition that such fasting be associated with true repentance. In time of drought and other exceptional natural visitations public fasts were decreed during Temple times (see Mishnah, Ta'anith passim ; the rule was not, however, continued in Babylonia, T.B. Pesahim 54 b), just as was done in the Maccabean age under the stress of political crises (I. Mace. iii. 47 ; II. Mace. xiii. 12, cf. the Elephantine Papyrus ed. Sachau i. 15, p. 7). Before starting on his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, a journey Ukely to be attended with danger, Ezra, thinking it un becoming to ask for a mounted guard, calls a fast, and this is efficacious as protection (Ezra viii. 23). Such examples would naturally be long imitated. When, at the beginning of the fourth century A.n, Zeira was about to travel also from Babylon to Palestine, he fasted 100 days (T.B. Baba Mezi'a 85 a. The number is no doubt exaggerated, the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anith 66 a, speaks of Zeira's 300 fasts. Cf. Bacher, Agada der Paldstinensischen Amorder iii. 6). It is unnecessary to illustrate the prevalence of fasting as a mourning rite (cf. the fast decreed on the death of R. Judah, T.B. Kethuboth 104 a); David's action stands out from the normal idea. So, on the opposite side, does Judith's ; with certain (rather numerous) exceptions, she fasted all the days of her widowhood (Judith viii. 6. For the medieval Jewish custom of fasting on the anniversary of a parent's death see Shulhan Arucb, Yoreh Deah 402, § 12, gloss). Fasting as a penitential rite was, in the Rabbinic view, allied to sacrifice. But this idea only came to the front after the destruction of the Temple. The Talmud (T.B. Berachoth 17 a) records that R. Shesheth (third century a.d.) on fast days was wont to pray: " Master of the Universe, it is revealed before thee that while the Temple stood, a man sinned and brought a sacrifice, of which only the fat and blood was offered, and this atoned for him ; and now I have sat fasting and my fat and blood has been diminished. May it be thy wiU that it may be accounted unto me as though I had offered it on the altar, and do thou accept it from me with favour." According to 124 XVI. FASTING some Mishnaic texts, at an earlier period, while the Temple was in existence, the delegation (ma'amad) of Israelites who were appointed in association with tbe priests officiating in Jerusalem, remained in their cities and fasted four times a week during their sacrificial term (Mishnah, Ta'anith iv. 3) ; but this passage is missing in the best texts (including the Cambridge Mishnah, and the Munich codex, on which see Rabbinovicz, Variae Leetiones, Ta'anith, p. 160) and cannot therefore be relied upon. One may perceive a trace of the same idea in the preference given to fasting over alms-giving as a means of expiation ; alms-giving is a sacrifice of money, fasting of one's body (T.B. Berachoth 32 b, top). Yet it must not be forgotten that according to Mar Zutra the value of fasting lay in the accompanying alms-giving (Berachoth 6 b). Far older and more continuous than the idea of fasting as sacrifice is the association of fasting with initiation and the reception of sacred messages. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 65 b) speaks of the one who fasts in order that the spirit of purity may rest upon him (cf Exodus xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 18; Daniel ix. 3). In early Christianity this idea was more fully developed than in the Pharisaic system, for there is no exact Rabbinic parallel to Acts xiii. 2, xiv. 23. But from the Apocalypse of Baruch (v. 7, ix. 2) it is clear that in the latter part of the first century fasting was the " usual preparation for the reception of supernatural communications " (cf. Daniel ix. 3, and several instances in IV. Esdras ; see Charles on tbe Baruch passages). Jesus fasts for 40 days (Matt. iv. 2) as a preparation to his ministry. In later centuries Jewish mystics practised fasting in hope of close communion with God, in the third century already Joshua b. Levi fasted much whereupon Elijah resumed his interrupted visits (see refs. in Bacher, Agada der Paldstinensischen Amorder i. 189). On the other hand, though fasting might be regarded as a specific for the preservation of the knowledge of the Torah in a pietist's progeny (see Baba Mezi'a 85 a), nevertheless religious joy rather than a mood of sadness was the pre-requisite for the reception of the Shechinah (T.B. Pesahim 117 a), as also for entering on prayer (Berachoth 31 a). This idea must be set against the assumption that Pharisaic fasting was conducted in a dismal manner or with a sad countenance (on the basis of Matt. vi. 17). In the Testament of Joseph (iii. 4), the patriarch declares : " I fasted in those seven years, and I appeared unto the Egyptians as one Uving delicately, for they that fast for God's sake receive beauty of face" (cf Daniel i. 15). The Day of Atonement was a day of joy (Mishnah, Ta'anith iv. 8). How uncharacteristic of ivi. FASTING 126 Pharisaic piety, moreover, is the public display of fasting, may be seen from the categorical statement of the Code (Shulhan Aruch, 0. H. S^Sj 6) : " He who fasts and makes a display of himself to others, to boast of his fasting, is punished for this." On occasions of public fasts, naturally the fasting was public, for all the community assembled at devotions in the public ways (Mishnah, Ta'anith ii. i) ; it was indeed an offence for an individual to dissociate himself from the community on such occasions, perhaps because he was not personally affected by tbe calamity which had called forth the general fast (T.B. Ta'anith 11 a). But on private fasts it was the duty of the pietist to avoid publicity. It is not easy to decide the extent to which private fasts were developed at the beginning of the Christian era. In later times they became very frequent ; against bad dreams fasting was declared by Abba Areka as efficacious as fire is against fiax (T.B. Sabbath ii a). Excessive private fasting was, however, discountenanced in the second century by Jose ben Halafta, though apparently it was permitted by the general opinion (Ta'anith 22 b). From a passage in the Psalms of Solomon ui. 8, 9, it would seem that in the homes of pietists private fasting was common : " The righteous man maketh inquisition con- tinuaUy in his own house to the end to put away iniquity ; with his trespass offering he maketh atonement for that wherein he erreth unwittingly, and with fasting he afflicteth his soul." But this may refer to the Day of Atonement. The statement in Luke xviii. 12 has been held to prove that the Pharisees fasted every Monday and Thursday, but it is plausible to explain this as exceptional. "The simplest view seems to be that Luke xviii. 12 (as well as Matthew vi. 1-6, Mark ii. 11, etc.) refers to the exceptional fasts during October — November, when severe pietists fasted on Mondays and Thursdays if the rain failed. At the close of the period every one was required to fast, but the Pharisee of Luke puts himself forward as a specially strict observer of the rite, and such pietists (yehidim) fasted several Mondays and Thursdays during the drought (T.B. Ta'anith 10 a and b). Didache viii. i has the same autumn fasts in mind " (Buchler, Journal of Theological Studies, x. 268. Similarly, the trumpet-blowing before giving alms, Matthew vi. 2 etc., refers to the public fasts ; the Pharisees were much opposed to public alms-giving and took various measures to prevent the identity of the donor becoming known to the recipient — Baba Bathra 10). The Monday and Thursday fasts became more regular later on (Ta'anith 12 a), and it is possible that they go back to the age of Luke. After the destruction of the Temple, private fasts 126 XVL FASTING became frequent, though the cases of those who fasted constantly must have remained exceptional, as their cases are specifically cited (cf. Hagiga 22 b; Nazir 52 b; Pesahim 68 b). And opinion was much divided as to the laudability of the habit. Meir held that Adam was a saint in that he fasted for many years and imposed other austerities on himself ('Erubin 18 b), while Mar Samuel declared the constant faster a sinner (Ta'anith 11 a, foot). A student (talmid hacham) was forbidden to fast overmuch as it rendered him physicaUy unfit for " the work of heaven " (ibid. 11 b, top). And even in the bitter sorrow which followed immediately on the destruction of the Sanctuary by Titus, Joshua b. Hananiah, a disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai, opposed excessive asceticism, though actual fasting is not named (Tosefta, Sotah, end ; T.B. Baba Bathra 60 b). It is also probable that when Paul (II. Cor. xi. 2) refers to frequent fastings, he was referring to that kind of self-denial which is so patheticaUy described in the Mishnah (Meir — vi. 4 quoted above p. 114). On the most important aspect of fasting the Pharisaic record is peculiarly clear, though they are habitually assailed on the very subject. If there is one thing evident from the continuous record of Judaism, it is the determined effort made by prophet and scribe to prevent the fast becoming a merely external rite. The fifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah remains, of course, the most spirited homily en forcing the true significance of fasting. But there are several powerful reinforcements of the prophet's protest. Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, 26. Tosefta, Ta'anith i. 8. He that waaheth himaelf after touching If a man keep the object of defile- a dead body, and toucheth it again, ment (aherea) in hia hand, though he What profit hath he in hia washing ? bathe in the waters of Siloam and in aU the waters on earth he ia not clean. Even so a man fasting for his sins. And going again, and doing the same ; Mishnah, Yoma viii. 9, Who wiU listen to hia prayer? He who says I will siu and repent. And what profit hath he in his humilia- I wiU sin and repent, he hath no power tion ? of repentance. The passage quoted from the Tosefta also occurs in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'anith U. 65 b) in an interesting context. We have there recorded a series of actual homilies spoken on fast days. Before citing some of these, reference must be made to a more famiUar instance. The Mishnah (Ta'anith ii. i) ordains that on a fast after a continued XVI. FASTING 127 drought, all having assembled with the Ark containing the Penta teuchal Scroll in the public thoroughfare, and having sprinkled themselves (and the Ark) with ashes, the oldest present is to address the assembly iu these terms : " Our brethren : it is not said of the men of Nineveh that he saw their sackcloth and their fast, but he saw their acts, that they turned from their evil way (Jonah iii. lo), and in the prophet (Joel ii. 13) it is said: Rend your heart and not your garments." In the Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.), besides the homily referred to above, we have the address of R. Tanhum bar lUai, on the text (II. Chron. xii. 6, 7) : " Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves, and they said, The Lord is righteous. And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying. They have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them." On which the Rabbi comments : " It is not written here they fasted, but they humbled themselves, I will not destroy them." Of R. Haggai the same passage tells us that he always cited on every fast day the saying of R. Eliezer : " Three things annul the decree : prayer, alms-giving and repentance, and all three are derived from the same text (II. Chron. vii. 14) : 'If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land ' " (seek my face is defined to mean alms-giving on the basis of Psalm xvii. 15). It is manifestly unjust to charge with ritualism fasts on which such homilies were a regular feature. The main point was that neither fasting nor confessing sufficed unless with it went a practical amendment of conduct (T.B. Ta'anith 16 a). No doubt alms-giving may degenerate into an external and mechanical rite, but it was sought tq so combine it with an inward sense of sin and a conscientious aspiration towards amendment that the danger of degeneration was lessened. It was an old theory, and Tobit (xii. 8) already expresses it : " Good is prayer with fasting and alms and righteousness." A fine turn was given to the idea when the alms-giving was not regarded as a direct ageut in turning away the divine disfavour, but as an imitation of the divine nature. R. Tanhuma (Genesis Rabbah xxxiii. 3) addressed his assembled brethren on a fast day in these terms : " My children, fill yourselves with compassion towards one another, and the Holy One blessed be he will be full of compassion towards you." It must moreover be remembered that, after the fall of the Temple, Johanan ben 128 XVI. FASTING Zakkai comforted his mourning disciples with the saying that the loss of the Sanctuary by removing the sacrifices had not deprived Israel of the means of atonement. Charity remained. And the word used by Johanan for charity is not alms-giving but the bestowal of loving- kindness (QilDn ni^JSJ) and the Rabbi cites the text (Hosea vi. 6) : I desire loving-kindness and not sacrifice (Aboth de R. Nathan, ch. iv., ed. Schechter, p. ii). It was the same Rabbi who before the destruction of tbe Temple had said: "Just as the sin-offering atones for Israel, so charity (HpTX) atones for the Gentiles" (T.B. Baba Bathra lo b). XVII. THE SABBATH. In no other detail of the differences of the Gospels with the Pharisees do the latter appear to more advantage than in their attitude towards the Sabbath. As against his critics Jesus, indeed, sums up his position in the reasonable epigram : " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath '' (Mark ii. 27), but the Pharisees would have done, nay, did do, the same. In the higher sense, it is true, this principle cannot be maintained. The Philonean conception of Sabbath was that of the divine effortless activity (De Cherub, xxvi., i. 154), and man was most closely imitating the divine exemplar when he made the approach to such a state the ideal purpose of his being. So the Rabbis also taught. The observance of the Sabbath constitutes a man the partner of God in the creation of the world (T.B. Sabbath 119 b); if he keep the Sabbath man makes it (Mechilta on Exod, xxxi. 16, ed. Friedmann, p. 104); by hallowing the Sabbath, Israel brings redemption to the world (T.B. Sabbath 118); and by fulfilling the Sabbatical precepts, man bears testimony to the divine ordering of the Universe (Mechilta on Exod. XX. 17, ed. Fr., p. 70 b). In this higher sense then, man was made for the Sabbath, tbe destined purpose of his being was the establishment of harmony with the divine. God kept the Sabbath before man kept it (Jubilees ii. 18 seq), and man was made that he might fulfil on earth the custom of heaven. But in its practical appUcation to ordinary human life, the Gospel rule is salutary. Life must be fitted to religion, not religion to life ; but there can be neither religion nor life when the one is allowed to crush out the other. And tbis the Rabbis felt. The commandments were given that man might live by them (Dn3 Til Levit. xviii. 5), and this text was the basic ground of the Rabbinic permission of many acts which, in themselves, and apart from their necessity for the preservation of human life, were more or less flagrant invasions of the Sabbatical rest (T.B. Yoma, 85 b). The paraUel between the view of A. 9 130 XVIL THE SABBATH Jesus and that of the Pharisees is, however, still closer. For, as is well known, a principle almost verbally identical with that of Mark ii. 27 is found in the name variously of R. Simon b. Menasya (Mechilta on Exod. xxxi. 13, ed. Fr., p. 103 b) and of R. Jonathan b. Joseph (T.B. Yoma, loc. cit.). Both these authorities were Tannaim, the latter belonging to the beginning, the former to the end of the second century. The variation in assigned authorship suggests that the saying originated with neither, but was an older tradition. For the principle that the Sabbath law was in certain emergencies to be disregarded was universaUy admitted (T.B. Yoma 85 a), the only dispute was as to the precise Pentateuchal text by which this laxity might be justified. Such discussions always point to the fact that a law is older than the dispute as to its foundation. One Rabbi bases the principle on the text (Leriticus xviii. 5) already cited ; another— in the Talmud, Simon b. Menasya — on the text : " Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath thrcmghout their generations " (Exod. xxxi. 1 6), and the Rabbi argued that one may profane a particular Sabbath to preserve a man for keeping many Sabbaths. Then follows another suggested justification : " The Sabbath ; holy umto you " (Exod. xxxi. 14) : unto you is the Sabbath given over, and ye are not given over to the Sabbath '' (nith DniDD Dnx 136. i46> i6o> 164 Aquila 33 Asceticism 40, 114, 121 Assi 119, 120 Atonement 40, 124, 132, 145, 149, 156, 162 Augustine 22 Authority 13 Baba b. Buta 87 Bacher, W. 6, 14, 19, 50, 64, 105, 169 Banquet (Messianic) 169 Baptism ch. iii. and iv. Bar Cochba 14, 62, 114, 136-7 Barlaam and Josaphat 93 Barnes, W. E. 31, 158 Bath Qol 47 Baya 54 Ben Azzai 20, 24, 77, 160 Ben Nanas 28 Ben Zoma 28, 49, 50 Benedictions 42, 55. See also Eighteen Benedictions Bernays, J. on Golden Eule 21 Bertinoro, 0. of 152, 169 Beruriah 60, 159 Bethune-Baker, J. 140 Blaaphemy 142 Blau, L. 4, no Blindneaa 109 Bread 51 Bouaset, W. 42, 90, 91, in, n2 Buchler, A. 7, 9, 15, 54, 57, 63, 79, 100, 104 Buddha 94 Burkitt, ¥. 0. 12, 31, 38, 92 Caeaar, Give unto ch. viii. Caius 64 Capital punishment 73 Chajes, H. P. on Parables 13, 94 Charles, E. H. 124, 152, 156 Chastity .^7, 74 Cheyne, T. K. 33, 34 Children ch. xv., 4, 77, 145 Circumcision 37 Coins 64, 83 Colani 80 Commandment, Greatest ch. ii., 160 Confession 145, 162 Conybeare, F. C. in, 121 Cosmology 48, 50 172 INDEX I Creed 24 Crown (Messianic) 169 Cures, miraculous no Dalman on Messiah 136, 137 Darmesteter, J. on Persian influence in Palestine no David 23, 117, 122, 123, 134, 136, 150, 154. 165 Decalogue 28 Dembitz, L. N. 81 Demetrius II 83 Demonology 95, no Didache 21, 28, 40, 125 Disease and Siu 108 seq. Divorce ob. ix., 15 Doctors ch. xiii., 132 Dove oh. v., 36 Dreama 125 Drought 61, 123 Drummond on Philo 121, 167 Edersheim 36, 85, 87 Eighteen Benedictions 9, 143 Elbogen, I. on the haftara 5 Elephantine papyrus on divorce 123 Eleazar b. Azariah 114 Eleazar b. Harsom 115 Eleazar b. Hyrqanos 56 Bleazar b. Jacob 37 Elijah 61, 124 Elisha 118 Elisha b. Abuya 56, 60, 92 Elmslie, W. 56 Enoch no Epidemics 108 seq. Epiphanius 93, 97 Eschatology 34, ch. xxi. Essenes 3, 16, 29, 30, 32, 34, 43, 55, 66, III, 113, 121, 131, 147, 161 Eucharist 55 Eve 39, 69 Example, effects of 51, 55 Exorcism in Externalism 126, 127 Eye for Bye 154 Ezra 10, 123 Fasts ch. xvi., 6, 40 Fatherhood of God 41, 119, 139, 140, 143, 146, 148 Festivals 3, 10, n, 12, 40, 51, 133 Fiebig on Parables 91, 97, 112 Fire, baptism by 44 Forgiveness chs. xix., xx., 60 Fourth Goapel 12, 135 Friday 133 Friedlander, G. on Prodigal Son 92 Friedlander, M. on Synagogue i, on Pharisees 80 Gaon 138 Galilee 12, 15, 81, 131 Gamaliel 72, 164 Geiger, A. in, 136 Gehinnom 74, 114 Gerlach on Josephus 31 Geraonidea 132 Gibbon and the Golden Rule 21 Gibeonites 153 Ginzberg, L. on Prodigal Son 92 Gnoaia 50 God, see Fatherhood. Name of 45 ; justice of 139, 140; mercy of ch. xix., 144 ; as Friend 167 ; as Healer in Golden Calf 108 Golden Eule 21 seq. Gould, B. P. 18, 81, 8s Grace 146 Graetz, H. 23, 62, 136, 165 Giidemann, M. on Golden Rule 24, 27 Haber 54 Habus 165 Hadrian 63, 74 Haftara ch. i. Haggai, Eabbi 127 Hama b. Haninah 165, 166 Hamburger, J. 21, 73 Hanan, house of 87 Hananiah 64 Haninah b. Dosa no Harnack 31 Harvest 99 seq. Hassidim 121 Hatred 159 aeq. Healing, miraculoua ch. xiii. ; on Sab bath ch. xvii. Heathen 56, 128, 140, 151 Helena of Adiabene 74 Hellenism 74 Henochs, Mosea 119 Herod 55, 87 Herod Antipaa 12 seq., 30 Herodias 31, 66 Herford, E. T. on Pharisees 88 Herzfeld 54 Hillel 14, 21, 28, 41, 70, 71, 87, 91, 94. 95. 99. "o. "5. "6, 131, 132, 156, 168 Hippolytus 161 Hirsch, E. G. on Sabbath 133 Hiyya 52 Hofimann, D. ou heathen 151 Holiness, Law of 150 Holy Spirit 43, 49, 106, 142 Holzmann on the Dove 48 INDEX I 173 Humility 164 Hunkin, J. W. on Parables 91 Hyrcanus sou of Tobias 83 Ibn Ezra 154 Image of God 18, 20 Images 65 Imitation of God 17, 127, 129, 166, 167 Indian Parables 93 Insanity 75 Inspiration 14 Ishmael, Eabbi 16, 116 Isocrates and Golden Eule 21 Israel 48, 166 Jacob, Eabbi 26, 76, i6g James, M. on 'Blind and Lame' 93, 97 Jerome 79 Jerusalem i seq. 13, 37, 56, 64, 81 seq., ch. xi. Jesus, in the Synagogue 4 seq. 13 ; and the Kingdom 51 ; publicans and sin ners 58 ; on divorce 67 seq. ; and Temple 84 ; healing in; attitude to children n7 ; and asceticism 122, 124; and Sabbath 129 seq. ; and for giveness 142, 158, 162 Johanan b. Zakkai 10, 55, 60, 62, 64, 95. 99' "6, 127, 156, 169 John the Baptist ch. iii., 13, 32, 35, 140 Jonah 149 Jonathan, Eabbi 108, 130 Jordan, River 33, 39, 106 Jose b. Halafta 76, 125 Joaeph, as type 155 Joaeph, M. on salvation of heathens 149 Joseph of Nazareth 70, 72 Joaephua on Seota 16 ; John the Baptiat 30; "testimony to Chriat" 31; on Imagea 64 ; ou Herodian women 66 ; on divorce 67, 73 ; on Pharisees 79 ; on Temple 82, 83 ; on Onias no ; ou exorcism in; on Essenes n3, 131, 161 ; on warfare on the Sabbath 130; on Friday as Preparation 133 Joshua b. Hananiah 3, 50, 56, 95, 126 Joshua b. Levi 55, 61, 91, 103, 124 Jubilees, Book of 131, 133 Judah Halevi 102 Judah, Eabbi 25, 53, 69, 116, 123, 164 Judas Maccabeus 137 Judith 123 Jupiter 90 Justin Martyr 1, loi Juvenal 66 Kamphausen, A. 152 Kethubah 68 King, E. on the Triennial Cycle 10 Kingdom of God 51, ss, 63, 68, 99, 142 Klein, K/ on the Fourth Gospel 12 ; on Golden Eule 29 Kohler, G. on Didaaoalia 29; on John the Baptiat 31 ; on demonology in ; on Eaaenes 161 Krauss 9, 31, 43, 84, 8s, 117 Kuenen on tbe Great Synod 9 Lake, K. on Baptism 42 Lauterbach, J. Z. on Parables 98 Law, the 2, 23, 24, 67, 114 Leaven ch. vi. Leprosy 41, 108, 109 Lessing and the Three Kings 93 Leszynsky, E. on the Sadducees 16 Letter and apirit 88 Leviathan 169 Lex talionis 154 Light and heavy precepts 26 Lightfoot 85, 169 Liturgy of Synagogue 9 seq., in, 127, 143. 149. 157 , , « Love, chastisements of 147 ; love 01 enemies 160, 164 Low, L. 50, 169 Lucas, A. 148 Luria, Isaac 161 Lydda 27 Maamad 124 Maccabees i, 117, 123, 130, 157, 158 Machaerus 30 Magic no Maimonides 24, s8, 59. 8s, 121, 132. 143, 146, 149, IS3. 156, 163, 167, 168 Maun, J. 19, 27, 131, 170 Manna n, 133, 168 Marriage 68 seq. 76 Martin, G. C. 152 Mary 72, 73 Mashal ios-6. See Parable Maater of the House 100 Mattathias 130 Meals 3S aeq. Measure for measure 108, 109, 154, 164 Medicine 112 Meir, Eabbi 60, 8s, 86, 91, 95, 99, 108, 126, 142, 156, IS9, 169 Mercy chs. xix. and xx. Messiah oh. xviii., 42, 48, 49, SS. 61, 92, 107 Milton on Piedmontese iS9 Minim 92 Miriam 11 Monday, fasting on 12s Money-changers 82 aeq. Monobazos 116 Monogamy 73 174 INDEX I Montefiore, C. G. 42, 72, 114, 143, 156, Moses 23, 45, III, ns, 165 Musaph 3 Naber on John the Baptist 32 Nahman b. Isaac 23, los Nahmanides 168, 170 Nahum of Gimzu 109 Name of God 45, 142 Nash papyrus 28 Nasi 138 Nazareth 12 Nehunya b. Haqana 156, 164 Neighbour, love of chs. ii. and xx. Nineveh 127, 149 Nitai 60 Noachide laws 27 Noah 48 Nomikos 19 Obadiah of Bertinoro 152, 169 Olive 48 Onias and prayers for rain no Ordeal 71 Paris, M. Gaston 97 Parables ch. xii. Parables in New Teatament Prodigal Son 11, 92, 142 The Vineyard 26 Good Samaritan 27 Leaven 51-3 Building on Eook 92 Sower 93 Banquet 97 Eoyal Parables 99 Talents 101 Lord and debtor 163 Parables, Eabbinic Father and Son 26 Labourer and hire 26 Builder 92 Prodigal Son 92 Blind and Lame 93, 97 Floating Skull 95 Soul as Gueat 96 King's Statue 96 Eoyal Parables 99 Harvest 100 God and Israel 102 Chastisements of Love 103 The blessed tree 103 Earth as Palace 104 -Parablea on the Parable los King and erring son 142 Israel as Bride 147 Treasures in Heaven 148 Park and dog 160 King and his Petitioners 161 Wise and foolish Guests 169 Parthiana 83 Paaaover 37, 51, 133 Paul, discourse in Synagogue 4, 8; on leaven 51 ; on fasts 126 ; on forgive ness IS7 Peace s5 Pentekaka 61 Perles, F. on demonology in Perseus 51 Persian influence in Palestine no Pesiqta 6 Petronius 64 Phariaeea and reading of the Law s ; prayer and study 9 ; in Gahlee 1 2 ; Pharisaic type of character 24 ; limits of conformity to Eome 27 ; John the Baptist 32; baptism, cb. iv.; leaven of S3; meala 55; divorce 66 seq. ; moral discipline 78 ; Pharisaism and Puritaniam 82 ; angelology no; joy- ousneaa 114; treatment of children 117; faating ch. xvi. ; externalism 125; Sabbath cb. xvii.; God and man 146 ; forgiveness chs. xix. and xx. Philipson, D. on blessing the children 120 Philo on Greek Synagogues i, 3, 4 ; Prodigal Son 1 1 ; allegorical discourae 14; sects 16; Golden Eule 21; light and heavy precepts 25 ; leaven 51 ; legation to Eome 6s ; divorce 67 ; tower of Babel 92 ; absence of Parables in 104; Therapeutae 113; Poverty ns; body and aoul 121; Sabbath 129; heathen 141; blasphemy 142; God as Father 143, 148; mercy 146; Jacob and Esau 147 ; Kye for eye is4 ; forgiveness is6; imitation of God 167 Phineas b. Jair loi Plummer, A. on the preaching of Jesus 13 Pompey 130 Poor 81, cb. xiv. Porter, on Yeser 52, 121 Portia 166 Prayer 9, 57, 61, 64, 104, 123, 127, 161, 164 Prieats 3, 81, 82, 87 Propheta, readings from. See haftara Proselytes 28, 36, 41 Providence 143 Psalms, imprecatory 157 Paalma of Solomon, 41, 79, 125, 136 Publicana and Sinners ch. vii. Puritanism 157 INDEX I 175 Qimhi iS4 Qolbon 84 Eab. See Abba Arika Eabah 146 Rain 61, no, 123 Rapoport on sermons 4 Eashi 49, 152 Eeinach, T. on coins 64, 83 Eepentance 34, 39, 41, 42, 49, s8, 123, 127, 129, 142, 14S, 149 Eesurreotion 98, 167 Eetribution 144 seq. Eevenues of Temple 82 Eiches. See Wealth Eighteousneas and Grace 147 Bitualism 127 Sogers, C. F. on baptism 38 Eome S4. 62, 63, 64, 74 Eosenthal, F. 131 Royal Parables 99 Euskin on Anger 1S9 Saadiah 1S4 Sabbath ch. xvii., i, 12 Sacrifiees 3, 38, 44, 87, 88, 124, 128 Sadducees s. 32, 80 Salome 66 Samuel of Nehardea 62, 126 Samuel ha-Qatan 150 Samuel ibn Nagrela i6s Sanhedrin 9, 13, 71 seq., 80, no Saul 150 Schechter, S. on " I s^ unto you " 16 ; Holy Spirit 43; dove 50; yeser sS ; Kingdom 63 ; on disease and sin 109 ; repentance 139 ; imitation of God 106 Schools ri9 Schottgen 45, 81 Schiirer 4, 30, 36, 54 Schwab, M. on money-changers 86 Schweitzer 99 Sepphoris 79 Sermona 4 aeq. 105 Shammai 9, 15, 71, 87, 9S, 1311 iS'Z Shechinah 36, 49, 119, 120, 124, 167, 168, 169 Shekels 84 Shema 9, 28 Shesheth, Eabbi 123 Shila, Rabbi los Sibylline Oracles 39, 45 Sick, prayera for in Simeon b. Gamaliel 87 Simeon b. Menasya 130 Simeon of Shizur 86 Simeon b. Shetah 68 Simeon b. Yohai 99, in Simlai, Eabbi 23 Sin 41, 42, s8, 59, 108, 119, 142 Singer, S. on the heavenly treasure 148 Sinners. See Publicans Sirach on doctors 109 ; on poverty 115 ; on forgiveness iS3Seq. Slander 108 Slaves 38 seq. , 42, 4s, 117 Smith, G. A. i, 9, 13, 83, iso Solomon and Parables los Solomon Ibn Verga 93 Staff, traveller's 113 Steinschneider, M. 93 Steinthal 161 Stranger, laws regarding 151 Suffering 109 Sutta Nihata 93 Synagogue i seq., 9, 82, 84, 93, in, 149 Tabernacles n, 82 Table talk S5 Tacitus 63 Tahna, Eabbi no Taxes and Taxgatherers 54 seq., 63, 86 Taylor, C. 15, 18, 20, 28, S7. 'oo. loi Tanhuma 127 Temple 2, 64, 89, 95, 123, 126, 134, ch. xi. Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs 28, 44, 60, 124, is6 Thackeray, H. St J. 31 Therapeutae 3, 113, 121 Thursday fasts 12s Tiberias 6s Titus 126 Tobit 21, 69, 127 Tongues, gift of 10 Torah. See Law Toy, C. on influence of Synagogue i ; on forgiveness iS2 Two Ways 13 Tyrian coinage 83 Venetianer, L. on haftara 5 Vespasian 64, in Vindictiveness 161 Voice. See Bath Qol Water 40, 43 Water-drawing, Ceremony of 3, 82 War and the Sabbath 130 Wealth 68, ch. xiv. Weapons 113 Weber, on Yeser 52 Weiaa, I. on Hillel 95 Wellhausen on the Greateat Command ment 18 Widowa ch. x. Wiener on dietary laws 56 176 INDEX I Wildeboer on forgiveness iS2 Will of God 144 Wisdom Literature 74 Women 38, 67 seq. Wrath 1 49 Wiinsche, A. on Authority 52 Yeser 42, 52, 57, 69, 160, 161 Zadok, Eabbi 123 Zadokites 38, 66, 137 Zeira, Eabbi s5> 60, 123 Ziegler on Parables 99 Zipser on harvest 100 Zohar, the S' Zunz, L. on Jewish aermons 4 Zutra, Mar 124 INDEX II Of New Testament Passages MATTHEW i. 19 70 i. 20 73 iii- 7 32 iii. 12 4S iv. 2 124 V. 19, 20 2S V- 3'2 71 V- 38 154 V- 43-4 v6 V- 45 141 vi. 1-6 125 ¦"• " 155. 163 VI- 14. 15 164 vi. 17 124 vi. 34 loi vii. 3 loi vii. 7 141 vii. 24-7 92 yii- 29 13, 94 1=^- 14 32 P- 35 13 IX. 37~8 100, loi X. 10 113 4 ^ 13 ^- 13 35 XI. 18 122 xii. I n =4!: 3. 5 134 XIU. 1-9 93 ™i- 30 99 »"• 33 SI xui- 56 157 XV. I 13 XVI. 12 S3 xviii. 3 118 xviii. 17 SS xviii. 23-5 163 xix. 3 71 xix. 10 67 xix. 21 80, loi XX. 1-15 100 XX. 10 26 xxi. 9 103 XXI. 12 82 seq. XXll. -i QH xxii. IS 84 xxii. 21 62 seq. xxii. 40 18, 24 xxiii. 23 24 xxiii- 33 157 XXIV. 50 157 xxv. 14-30 loi XXV. 41 157 XXVI. S' 113 xxvii. 62 13 3 MARK ?• ^-8 34 1- 4. 5 32 1- 7 48 1- 21 16 ?: ^^ 13. 94 u- n I2S ii. 18 32 ii. 19-20 122 ii- 25 134 "- 27 129, 130 iu. 1-6 J2 iii- 22 13, 16 m- 29 142 i^- 3 93 IV. II 106 iv. 29 gg vi. 4 12 vi. 6 13 vi. 7 113 vi. 39 n vii. I 13 vii- 4 33 vm. 14-21 S3 viii. 27 13 X- I 13 X. 12 66 X. 13-16 118, 119 xi. 16-17 84, 85 xi- 25 155 xii. 17 62 seq. 178 INDEX II xu. 29 28 xii. 32 18 xii. 38 80 xiv. 40-43 80, 81 xiv. 47 113 XV. 42 133 LUKE iii- 7 38 iu- 17 45 iv- 17 4. 7 IV. 32 13, 94 V- 33 3^ vi- 3 '34 VI. 37 15s vii. 30 32 vii. 33 1" viii. I 13 viii. 4-8 93 IX. 3 n3 i. 2 100 i. 26, 27 19 X. 30 no xi. 4 168 xii. I 53 xiii. 14 134 xiii. 22 13 xiv. 16 97 XV. n p2 XV. 18-20 142 xvi. 16 35 xviii. XI 57 xviii. 12 125 xviii. 27 141 XX. 25 62 seq. xxii. 38 113 xxiii. 54 133 JOHN ii. 13 82 seq. iv. 36 100 vi. 4 II vii- n 13s vu. 37 n y"i- 4 73 ix. I 109 xviii. 20 12 xix. 4 >33 xix. 45 82 seq. ACTS xiii. 2 124 xiii. (5 4, 8 xiv. 23 124 xviii. 25 32 xix. 3 32 xxiii. 8 no EOMANS xii. 19-20 157 xiii. 10 21 I CORINTHIANS V- 6 SI XV- 33 SI 2 CORINTHIANS xi. 2 126 GALATIANS V- 9 51 2 THESSALONIANS i. 6-12 157 I TIMOTHY ii. 1-2 64 HEBREWS ^:.3i 157 xu- 29 157 REVELATION vi- 15. 17 157 OAMBBIDGE : PKINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERaiTY PBESS SELECTION FROM THE GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Gospels as Historical Documents. By Vincent Henry Stanton, D.D., Fellovr of Trinity College, Ely Professor of Divinity. Demy Svo. Part I ; The early use of the Gospels. 7s 6d net. Part II : The Synoptic Gospels. 10s net. To be completed in four parts. The Fourfold Gospel. By Edwin A. Abbott, F.B.A. Demy 8vo. Diatessarica, Part X. Section I. Introduction. 2s 6d net. Section II. The Beginning. 12s 6d net. Section III. The Proclamation of the New Kingdom. 12s 6d net. Section IV. The Law of the Nevy Kingdom. 12s 6d net. The Gospel History of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in a Connected Narrative in the words of the Eevised Version. Arranged by the Kev. C. C. Jambs, M.A. Third edition. Crown Svo. 3s 6d net. A Harmony of the Gospels in the words of the Revised Version, with copious references, tables, etc. Arranged by the Rev. C. C. Jambs, M.A. Third impression. Crown Svo. 5s net. The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels. By C. Taylor, D.D. Fcap 4to. 7s 6d net. The Parables of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Criticism, Hulsean Prize Essay, 1912. By L. E. Beownb, M.A., Lecturer at St Augustine's College, Canterbury. Crown Svo. 2s 6d net. Hovr Luke Twas ivritten. (Considerations affecting the Two- Document Theory with special reference to the Phenomena of Order in the Non-Marcan Matter common to Matthew and Luke.) By E. W. LuMMis, M.A., B.D. Crown Svo. 4s 6d net. The Origrin of the Prologue to St John's Gospel. By Eendel Harris. Demy Svo. 4s net. The Fourth Gospel and some recent German Criticism. By Henry Latimer Jackson, D.D. Crown Svo. 3s 6d net. Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel. By F. Warburton Lewis, B.A. Crown Svo. 2s net. The Date of St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. By Douglass Kound, M.A. Crown Svo. 2s net. Destination, Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. By H. H. B. Ayles, B.D. Crown Svo. 5s net. A Discussion of the General Epistle of St James. By E. St John Parry, D.D. Demy Svo. 5s net. Studies in the Second Epistle of St Peter. By E. Iliff Rob- son, B.D., Sixth Form Master of Felsted School. Crown Svo. 2s 6d net. [p. T. O. SELECTION FROM THE GENERAL CATALOGUE (continued) " The Son of Man," or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus. By Edwin A. Abbott, F.B.A., Hon. Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge. Demy Svo. 16s 6d net. Light on the Gospel flrom an Ancient Poet. By Edwin A. Abbott. Demy Svo. 12s 6d net. Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, being the Otium Norvicense (Pars Tertia). By Frederick Field, M.A., LL.D. Eeprinted with additions by the Author. Demy Svo. 5s net. The New Testament in the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M. A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown Svo. Cloth. 3s 6d net. Printed on India paper, 5s net. Fcap Svo. Cloth. 3s net. Printed on India paper, 4s 6d net. (Both editions may also be had in leather bindings.) The New Testament, Greek and English, being the Authorised Version arranged in parallel columns with the Revised Version and with the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorised Version with the variations adopted in the Revised Ver sion. Edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Demy Svo. Cloth, 9s net. Leather, Persian grained, 21s net. Turkey Morocco, 25s net. The Revised Version is the Joint Property of the Universities of Cam bridge and Oxford. An Atlas of Textual Criticism. Being an attempt to show the mutual relationship of the authorities for the text of the New Testa ment up to about 1000 a.d. By Edward Ardron Hdtton, M.A., Vicar of St Michael's, Hargrave. Crown Svo. 5s net. On the Origin of the Ferrar-Group, a Lecture on the genea logical relations of the New Testament MSS., delivered at Mansfield College, Oxford, Nov. 6, 1893, by J. Eendel Harris, M.A. Demy Svo. Is 6d net. Further Researches into the History of the Ferrar-Group. By J. Eendel Harris, M.A. Demy 4to. 10s 6d net. The Bible of To-day. By the Rev. Alban Blakiston, M.A. Large crown Svo. Ss net. A Companion to Biblical Studies. Being a Revised and Re written Edition of The Cambridge Companion to the Bible. Edited by W. Emery Barnes, D.D., Fellow of Peterhouse, Hulsean Professor of Divinity. With 8 illustrations and 10 maps. Eoyal Svo. 15s net. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. General Editors : A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., and E. St John Parry, D.D. With introductions, notes, and maps. Extra fcrp Svo. A complete list of the volumes with prices will be .sent on application. Cambridge University Press Fetter Lane, London : C. F. Clay, Manager 3 9002 00707 7119 #'¦-'¦