Gitt of . Professor Williston Walker 1919 THE LIFE AND TIMES JESUS THE MESSIAH ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M.A.Oxon., D.D., Ph.D. Late Warburtonian Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn BXeiroficv yap apn oV io-OTrrpov iv aiviyfuan IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. SECOND EDITION, STEREOTYPED NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY 900 BROADWAY, COR. 20th STREET LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. All rights reserved to THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS, AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD THESE VOLUMES ABE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Sooner than I had expected, a Second Edition of this book has been called for. This has rendered anything beyond the most superficial revision of the text impossible. Errata, whether of the printer or of oversight, have, so far as observed, been removed— in which task I have been kindly assisted by friends; the meaning has, where it seemed desirable, been rendered more clear by verbal alterations or else by additions, and a few modifications or omissions have been made in the notes. A uniform system of transliteration has, so far as possible, also been adopted in the text ; and, lastly, some works, not read before, or published since the First Edition, have been briefly noticed. With the feelings of sincere thankfulness for the kindness with which this book has been received by all branches of the Church, only one element of pain has mingled. Although I am well convinced that no careful or impartial reader could arrive at such conclusion, it has been suggested that a perverse ingenuity might abuse certain statements and quotations for what in modern parlance are called ' Anti-Semitic ' purposes. That any such thoughts could possibly attach to a book concerning Him, Who was Himself a Jew ; Who in the love of His compassion wept tears of bitter anguish over the Jerusalem that was about to crucify Him, and Whose first utterance and prayer when nailed to the Cross was : ' Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do ' — would seem terribly incongruous and painful. Though quite a long way off, yet equally— in some sense VU1 PKEFAOE TO THE SECOND EDITION. • even more — incongruous and painful would it seem in connection with a book written by an Israelite who loves his people with all his heart, and who would gladly share their weal and woe, their good and evil report. To me, indeed, it is difficult to associate the so-called Anti- Semitic movement with any but the lowest causes : envy, jealousy, and cupidity on the one hand ; or, on the other, ignorance, prejudice, bigotry, and hatred of race. But as these are times when it is neces sary to speak unmistakably, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to point out the reasons why any Talmudic quotations, even if fair, can have no application for ' Anti-Semitic ' purposes. First : It is entirely false to regard anything in Talmudic writings about ' the Gentiles ' as applying to Christians. Those spoken of are characterised as ' the worshippers of idols,' ' of stars and planets,' and by similar designations. That ' the heathens ' of those days and lands should have been suspected of almost any abomination, deemed capable of any treachery or cruelty towards Israel — no student of history can deem strange, especially when the experience of so many terrible wrongs (would they had been confined to the heathen and to those times !") would naturally lead to morbidly excited suspicions and apprehensions. Secondly : We must remember the times, the education, and the general standpoint of that period as compared with our own. No one would measure the belief of Christians by certain statements in the Fathers, nor judge the moral principles of Roman Catholics by prurient quotations from the Casuists ; nor yet measure the Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early successors of Luther, nor Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all such cases the general standpoint of the times has to be first taken into account. And no educated Jew would share the follies and superstitions, nor yet sym pathise with the suspicions or feelings towards even the most hostile and depraved heathens that may be quoted from the Talmud. Thirdly : Absolutely the contrary of all this has been again and again set forth by modern Jewish writers. Even their attempts to explain away certain quotations from the Talmud — unsuccessful though, in my view, some of them are — afford evidence of their present repudiation of all such sentiments. I would here refer to PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ix such works as Dr. Griinebaum's ' Ethics of Judaism ' (' Sittenlehre d. Judenthums ') — a book deeply interesting also as. setting forth the modern Jewish view of Christ and His Teaching, and accordant (though on different grounds) with some of the conclusions expressed in this book, as regards certain incidents in the History of Christ. The principles expressed by Dr. Griinebaum, and other writers, are such as for ever to give the lie to all Anti-Semitic charges. And although he and others, with quite proper loyalty, labour to explain certain Talmudic citations, yet it ultimately comes to the admission that Talmudic sayings are not the criterion and rule of present duty, even as regards the heathen — still less, of course, Christians, to whom, indeed, they do not apply. What has just been stated, while it fully disposes of all ' Anti- Semitism,' only the more clearly sets forth the argument which forms the main proposition of this book. Here also we have the highest example. None loved Israel so intensely, even unto death, as Jesus of Nazareth ; none made such withering denunciation as He of Jewish Traditionalism, in all its branches, and its Representatives. It is with Traditionalism, not the Jews, that our controversy lies. And here we cannot speak too plainly nor decidedly. But that a book of this kind, specially when received with accept ance by the Church, should call forth opposition on the part of Jewish critics — not, indeed, as to the argument, but as to minor details — is only what must be expected. And here, apart from any pro posed different applications, it may be argued that on one or another point opinions of a different kind may also be adduced from other Rabbis. Nor is it intended to convey unanimity of opinion on every point. For, indeed, such scarcely existed on any one point — not on matters of fact, nor even often on Halahhie questions. And this also is characteristic of Rabbinism. But it must be remem bered that we are here dealing with the very text-book of that sacred and Divine Traditionalism, the basis and substance of Rab binism, for which such unlimited authority and absolute submission are claimed ; and hence, that any statement admitted into its pages, even though a different view were also to be adduced, possesses an authoritative and a representative character. And this further X PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. appears from the fact that the same statements are often adduced and repeated in other documents, besides that in which they were originally made, and that they are also supported by other statements, kindred and parallel in spirit. Thus much it seemed necessary to explain. That in a book of such magnitude, for which the materials were col lected during many years, and which contains in the one department of Rabbinic literature alone (and that the most difficult and where so many different applications obtain) many thousand separate references (upwards of a thousand in only two of the Appendices), despite all labour, some slips and exceptions may be found as to quotation or rendering, — no candid or fair reader, acquainted with works in this kind of literature, would, I feel assured, deem strange. Some of them — due to printer's errors, or to oversight, or, it may be, to following learned predecessors, or to the use of inverted commas where a ver batim translation was not intended — have already been removed in the text. A rapid, although necessarily incomplete, revision has also been made, the results of which have been embodied in the explana tory notes and corrections at the end of each volume. More than this was not possible for the present edition. But I shall welcome and most gladly avail myself for the next edition of any corrections that may be suggested, in so far as they approve themselves to my judgment. And so, with great thankfulness for what service this book has already been allowed to perform, I would now send it forth on its new journey, with the earnest hope that this, as ' all our works begun, continued, and ended ' in Him, may be prevented with His ' most gracious favour,' and furthered with His ' continual help,' that so we may glorify His holy Name, and finally by His mercy ' obtain ever lasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' A. E. Oxford: June 19, 1884. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. In presenting these volumes to the reader, I must offer an explana tion, — though I would fain hope that such may not be absolutely necessary. The title of this book must not be understood as implying any pretence on my part to write a ' Life of Christ ' in the strict sense. To take the lowest view, the materials for it do not exist. Evidently the Evangelists did not intend to give a full record of even the outward events in that History ; far less could they have thought of compassing the sphere or sounding the depths of the Life of Him, Whom they present to us as the God-Man and the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father. Rather must the Gospels be regarded as four different aspects in which the Evangelists viewed the historical Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfilment of the Divine promise of old, the Mes siah of Israel and the Saviour of man, and presented Him to the Jewish and Gentile world for their acknowledgment as the Sent of God, Who revealed the Father, and was Himself the Way to Him, the Truth, and the Life. And this view of the Gospel-narratives underlies the figurative representation of the Evangelists in Christian Symbolism.1 In thus guarding my meaning in the choice of the title, I have already indicated my own standpoint in this book. But in an other respect I wish to disclaim having taken any predetermined dogmatic standpoint at the outset of my investigations. I wished 1 Comp. the historical account of these symbols in Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. d. Neii-Test. Kanons, ii. pp. 257-275. Xll PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. to write, not for a definite purpose, be it even that of the defence of the faith — but rather to let that purpose grow out of the book, as would be pointed out by the course of independent study, in which arguments on both sides should be impartially weighed and facts ascertained. In this manner I hoped best to attain what must be the first object in all research, but especially in such as the present : to ascertain, as far as we can, the truth, irrespective of consequences. And thus also I hoped to help others, by going, as it were, before them, in the path which their enquiries must take, and removing the difficulties and entanglements which beset it. So might I honestly, confidently, and, in such a matter, earnestly, ask them to follow me, pointing to the height to which such enquiries must lead up. I know, indeed, that there is something beyond and apart from this ; even the restful sense on that height, and the Happy outlook from it. But this is not within the promise of one man to give to another, nor yet does it come in the way of study, however earnest and careful; it depends upon, and implies the existence of a subjective state which comes only by the direction given to our enquiries by the true 6Br/yos (St. John xvi. 13). This statement of the general object in view will explain the course pursued in these enquiries. First and foremost, this book was to be a study of the Life of Jesus the Messiah, retaining the general designation, as best conveying to others the subject to be treated. But, secondly, since Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, spoke to, and moved among Jews, in Palestine, and at a definite period of its history, it was absolutely necessary to view that Life and Teaching in all its surroundings of place, society, popular life, and intellectual or religious development. This would form not only the frame in which to set the picture of the Christ, but the very background of the picture itself. It is, indeed, most true that Christ spoke not only to the Jews, to Palestine, and to that time, but — of which history has given the evidence — to all men and to all times. Still He spoke first and directly to the Jews, and His words must have been in telligible to them, His teaching have reached upwards from their intellectual and religious standpoint, even although it infinitely PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xiii extended the horizon so as, in its full application, to make it wide as the bounds of earth and time. Nay, to explain the bearing of the religious leaders of Israel, from the first, towards Jesus, it seemed also necessary to trace the historical development of thought and religious belief, till it issued in that system of Traditionalism, which, by an internal necessity, was irreconcilably antagonistic to the Christ of the Gospels. On other grounds also, such a full portraiture of Jewish life, society, and thinking seemed requisite. It furnishes alike a vin dication and an illustration of the Gospel-narratives. A vindication — because in measure as we transport ourselves into that time, we feel that the Gospels present to us a real, historical scene ; that the men and the circumstances to which we are introduced are real — not a fancy picture, but just such as we know and now recognise them, and would expect them to have spoken, or to have been. Again, we shall thus vividly realise another and most important aspect of the words of Christ. We shall perceive that their form is wholly of the times, their cast Jewish — while by the side of this similarity of form there is not only essential difference but absolute contrariety of substance and spirit. Jesus spoke as truly a Jew to the Jews, but He spoke not as they — no, not as their highest and best Teachers would have spoken. And this contrariety of spirit with manifest similarity of form is, to my mind, one of the strongest evidences of the claims of Christ, since it raises the all-important question, whence the Teacher of Nazareth — or, shall we say, the humble Child of the Carpenter-home in a far-off little place of Galilee — had drawn His inspiration ? And clearly to set this forth has been the first object of the detailed Rabbinic quotations in this book. But their further object, besides this vindication, has been the illustration of the Gospel-narratives. Even the general reader must be aware that some knowledge of Jewish life and society at the time is requisite for the understanding of the Gospel-history. Those who have consulted the works of Lightfoot, Schottgen, Meuschen, Wetstein, and Wiinsche, or even the extracts from them presented in Com mentaries, know that the help derived from their Jewish references is very great. And yet, despite the immense learning and industry xiv PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. of these writers, there are serious drawbacks to their use. Some times the references are critically not quite accurate; sometimes they are derived from works that should not have been adduced in evidence; occasionally, either the rendering, or the application of what is separated from its context, is not reliable. A still more serious objection is, that these quotations are not unfrequently one sided; but chiefly this — perhaps, as the necessary consequence of being merely illustrative notes to certain verses in the Gospels — that they do not present a full and connected picture. And yet it is this which so often gives the most varied and welcome illustration of the Gospel-narratives. In truth, we know not only the leading per sonages in Church and State in Palestine at that time, their views, teaching, pursuits, and aims ; the state of parties ; the character of popular opinion ; the proverbs, the customs, the daily life of the country — but we can, in imagination, enter their dwellings, associate with them in familiar intercourse, or follow them to the Temple, the Synagogue, the Academy, or to the market-place and the workshop. We know what clothes they wore, what dishes they ate, what wines they drank, what they produced and what they imported : nay, the cost of every article of their dress or food, the price of houses and of living ; in short, every detail that can give vividness to a picture of life. All this is so important for the understanding of the Gospel- history as, I hope, to justify the fulness of archaeological detail in this book. And yet I have used only a portion of the materials which I had collected for the purpose. And here I must frankly own, as another reason for this fulness of detail, that many erroneous and misleading statements on this subject, and these even on elementary points, have of late been made. Supported by references to the labours of truly learned German writers, they have been sometimes set forth with such confidence as to impose the laborious and un welcome duty of carefully examining and testing them. But to this only the briefest possible reference has been made, and chiefly in the beginning of these volumes. Another explanation seems more necessary in this connection. In describing the Traditionalism of the time of Christ, I must have said PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XV what, I fear, may, most unwillingly on my part, wound the feelings of some who still cling, if not to the faith of, yet to what now represents the ancient Synagogue. But let me appeal to their fairness. I must needs state what I believe to be the facts ; and I could neither keep them back nor soften them, since it was of the very essence of my argument to present Christ as both in contact and in contrast with Jewish Traditionalism. No educated Western Jew would, in these days, confess himself as occupying the exact standpoint of Rabbinic Traditionalism. Some will select parts of the system; others will allegorise, explain, or modify it; very many will, in heart — often also openly — repudiate the whole. And here it is surely not neces sary for me to rebut or disown those vile falsehoods about the Jews which ignorance, cupidity, and bigoted hatred have of late again so strangely raised. But I would go further, and assert that, in re ference to Jesus of Nazareth, no educated Israelite of to-day would identify himself with the religious leaders of the people eighteen centuries ago. Yet is not this disclaimer of that Traditionalism which not only explains the rejection of Jesus, but is the sole logical raison d'etre of the Synagogue, also its condemnation ? I know, indeed, that from this negative there is a vast step in advance to the positive in the reception of the Gospel, and that many continue in the Synagogue, because they are not so convinced of the other as truthfully to profess it. And perhaps the means we have taken to present it have not always been the wisest. The mere appeal to the literal fulfilment of certain prophetic passages in the Old Testament not only leads chiefly to critical discussions, but rests the case on what is, after all, a secondary line of argumentation. In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts, but facts to point back to prophecies. The New Testament presents the fulfilment of all prophecy rather than of prophecies, and individual predictions serve as fingerposts to great outstanding facts, which mark where the roads meet and part. And here, as it seems to me, we are at one with the ancient Synagogue. In proof, I would call special attention to Appendix IX., which gives a list of all the Old Testament passages Messianically applied in Jewish writings. We, as well as they, appeal to all Scripture, to all prophecy, as that of XVI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. which the reality is in the Messiah. But we also appeal to the whole tendency and new direction which the Gospel presents in opposition to that of Traditionalism ; to the new revelation of the Father, to the new brotherhood of man, and to the satisfaction of the deepest wants of the heart, which Christ has brought — in short, to the Scriptural, the moral, and the spiritual elements ; and we would ask whether all this could have been only the outcome of a Car penter's Son at Nazareth at the time, and amidst the surroundings which we so well know. In seeking to reproduce in detail the life, opinions, and teaching of the contemporaries of Christ, we have also in great measure addressed ourselves to what was the third special object in view in this History. This was to clear the path of difficulties — in other words, to meet such objections as might be raised to the Gospel- narratives. And this, as regards principle — not details and minor questions, which will cause little uneasiness to the thoughtful and calm reader ; quite irrespective also of any theory of inspiration which may be proposed, and hence of any harmonistic or kindred attempts which may be made. Broadly speaking, the attacks on the Gospel-narratives may be grouped under these three particulars: they may be represented as intentional fraud by the writers, and imposition on the readers; or, secondly, a rationalistic explanation may be sought of them, showing how what originally had been quite simple and natural was misunderstood by ignorance, or perverted by superstition ; or, thirdly, they may be represented as the outcome of ideas and expectations at the time, which gathered around the beloved Teacher of Nazareth, and, so to speak, found body in legends that clustered around the Person and Life of Him Who was regarded as the Messiah. . . . And this is supposed to account for the preach ing of the Apostles, for their life-witness, for their martyr-death for the Church, for the course which history has taken, as well as for the dearest hopes and experiences of the Christian life ! Of the three modes of criticism just indicated, importance attaches only to the third, which has been broadly designated as the mythical theory. The fraud-theory seems — as even Strauss admits — psychologically so incompatible with admitted facts as regards the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xvii early Disciples and the Church, and it does such violence to the first requirements of historical enquiry, as to make it — at least to me — difficult to understand how any thoughtful student could be swayed by objections which too often are merely an appeal to the vulgar, intellectually and morally, in us. For — to take the historical view of the question — even if every concession were made to negative criticism, sufficient would still be left in the Christian documents to establish a consensus of the earliest belief as to all the great facts of the Gospel-History, on which both the preaching of the Apostles and the primitive Church have been historically based. And with this consensus at least, and its practical outcome, historical enquiry has to reckon. And here I may take leave to point out the infinite importance, as regards the very foundation of our faith, attaching to the historical Church — truly in this also the sKKkvcrta ©sou fwin-os, (TtvXos teal sSpalojfj,a [columna et fulcrum^ rijs aXr/dslas (the Church of the Living God, the pillar and stay [support] of the truth). As regards the second class of interpretation — the rationalistic — it is altogether so superficial, shadowy and unreal that it can at most be only regarded as a passing phase of light-minded attempts to set aside felt difficulties. But the third mode of explanation, commonly, though perhaps not always quite fairly, designated as the mythical, deserves and demands, at least in its sober presentation, the serious consideration of the historical student. Happily it is also that which, in the nature of it, is most capable of being subjected to the test of historical ex amination. For, as previously stated, we possess ample materials for ascertaining the state of thought, belief, and expectancy in the time of Christ, and of His Apostles. And to this aspect of objections to the Gospels the main line of argumentation in this book has been addressed. For, if the historical analysis here attempted has any logical force, it leads up to this conclusion, that Jesus Christ was, alike in the fundamental direction of His teaching and work, and in its details, antithetic to the Synagogue in its doctrine, practice, and expectancies. But even so, one difficulty — we all feel it — remaineth. It is that connected with miracles, or rather with the miraculous, since the VOL. I. a XVlll PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. designation, and the difficulty to which it points, must not be limited to outward and tangible phenomena. But herein, I venture to say, lies also its solution, at least so far as such is possible — since the difficulty itself, the miraculous, is of the very essence of our thinking about the Divine, and therefore one of the conditions of it : at least, in all religions of which the origin is not from within us, subjective, but from without us, objective, or, if I may so say, in all that claim to be universal religions (catholic thinking). But, to my mind, the evidential value of miracles (as frequently set forth in these volumes) lies not in what, without intending offence, I may call their barely super-naturalistic aspect, but in this, that they are the manifestations of the miraculous, in the widest sense, as the essential element in revealed religion. Miracles are of chief evidential value, not in themselves, but as instances and proof of the direct communication between Heaven and earth. And such direct communication is, at least, the postulate and first position in all religions. They all present to the worshipper some medium, of personal communication from Heaven to earth — some prophet or other channel of the Divine — and some medium for our communication with Heaven. And this is the fundamental principle of the miraculous as the essential postulate in all religion that purposes again to bind man to God. It proceeds on the twofold principle that communication must first come to man from Heaven, and then that it does so come. Rather, perhaps, let us say, that all religion turns on these two great factors of our inner experience : man's felt need and (as implied in it, if we are God's creatures) his felt expectancy. And in the Christian Church this is not merely matter of the past — it has attained its fullest reality, and is a constant present in the indwelling of the Paraclete. Yet another part of the task in writing this book remains to be mentioned. In the nature of it, such a book must necessarily have been more or less of a Commentary on the Gospels. But I have sought to follow the text of the Gospels throughout, and separately to consider every passage in them, so that, I hope, I may truthfully designate it also a Commentary on the Four Gospels — though an informal one. And here I may be allowed to state that throughout I have had the general reader in view, reserving for the foot-notes PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XIX and Appendices what may be of special interest to students. While thankfully availing myself of all critical help within my reach — and here I may perhaps take the liberty of specially singling out Professor Westcott's Commentary on St. John — I have thought it right to make the sacred text the subject of fresh and independent Study. The conclusions at which I arrived I would present with the more deference, that, from my isolated position, I had not, in writing these volumes, the inestimable advantage of personal contact, on these subjects, with other students of the sacred text. It only remains to add a few sentences in regard to other matters — perhaps of more interest to myself than to the reader. For many years I had wished and planned writing such a book, and all my previous studies were really in preparation for this. But the task was actually undertaken at the request of the Publishers, of whose kindness and patience I must here make public acknowledgment. For, the original term fixed for writing it was two or three years. It has taken me seven years of continual and earnest labour — and, even so, I feel as if I would fain, and ought to, spend other seven years upon what could, at most, be touching the fringe of this great subject. What these seven years have been to me I could not at tempt to tell. In a remote country parish, entirely isolated from all social intercourse, and amidst not a few trials, parochial duty has been diversified and relieved by many hours of daily work and of study^delightful in and for itself. If any point seemed not clear to my own mind, or required protracted investigation, I could give days of undisturbed work to what to others might perhaps seem secondary, but was all-important to me. And so these seven years passed — with no other companion in study than my daughter, to whom I am indebted, not only for the Index Rerum, but for much else, especially for a renewed revision, in the proof-sheets, of the references made throughout these volumes. What labour and pa tience this required every reader will perceive — although even so I cannot hope that no misprint or slip of the pen has escaped our detection. And now I part from this book with thankfulness to Almighty God for sparing me to complete it, with lingering regret that the a2 XX PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. task is ended, but also with unfeigned diffidence. I have, indeed, sought to give my best and most earnest labour to it, and to write what I believed to be true, irrespective of party or received opinions. This, in such a book, was only sacred duty. But where study necessarily extended to so many, and sometimes new, departments, I cannot hope always to carry the reader with me, or— which is far more serious — to have escaped all error. My deepest and most earnest prayer is that He, in Whose Service I have desired to write this book, would graciously accept the humble service — forgive what is mistaken and bless what is true. And if anything personal may intrude into these concluding lines, I would fain also designate what I have written as Apologia pro vitd mea (alike in its fundamental direction and even ecclesiastically) — if, indeed, that may be called an Apologia which is the confession of this inmost conviction of mind and heart : ' Lord, to Whom shall we go ? The words of eternal life hast Thou ! And we have believed and know that Thou art the Holy One of God.' ALFRED EDERSHEIM. 8 Bradmoee Road, Oxford: September 1883. LIST OF AUTHORITIES CHIEFLY USED IN WRITING THIS BOOK. Alford: Greek Testament. Von der Aim : Heidn. u. jiid. Urtheile fiber Jesu u. die alten Christen. Altingius : Dissertationes et Orationes. Apocrypha : S. P. C. K. Commentary on. The Apocryphal Gospels. Auerbach : Berith Abraham. Backer : Die Agada der Babylon. Amo- raer. Bach : Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes u. seiner Literatur. Baedeker : Syrien u. Palastina. Bhhr : Gesetz fiber Falsche Zeugen nach Bibel u. Talmud. Barclay : City of the Great King. Beer : Leben Abraham's. Beer : Leben Mosis. Beer, P. : Geschichte d. relig. Sekten d. Juden. Bengel : Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Bengel : Alter der judischen Proselyten- taufe. Bergel: Naturwissenschaftliche Kennt- nisse d. Talmudisten. Bergel : Der Himmel u. seine Wunder. Bergel: Die Eheverhaltnisse der alten Juden. Berliner, Dr. A. : Targum Onkelos. Bertholdt : Christologia JudEeorum. Beyschlag: Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. Beyschlag : Zur Johanneischen Frage. Bickell : Die Entstehung der Liturgie aus der Einsetzungsfeier. Bleek : EinleitungindasNeue Testament, ed. Mangold. Bleek: Synoptische Erklarung d. drei Evangelien. Bloch : Studien z. Gesch. der Sammlung d. althebr. Literatur. Bloch: Das Mosaisch-talmud. Polizei- recht. Bloch: Civilprocess-Ordnung nach Mos. rabb. Rechte. Bochartus : Hierozoicon. Bodeh : Marcus Aurelius u. R. Jehudah. Bodensehatz : Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden. Bold : Forschungen naeh einer Volks- bibel zur Zeit Jesu. Bohl : Alttestamentliche Citate im N. T. Bonar i The Land of Promise. Braun : Die Sonne des Herodes. Braunius : De Vestitu Hebrasorum. Breeher : Das Transcendentale im Talmud. Bredom : Rabbinische Mythen, &c. Bruckner: Die Versuchungsgeschichte unseres Herrn Jesu Christi. Briick: Rabbinische Ceremonialgebrau- che. Briill : Fremdsprachliche Redensarten im Talmud. Briill : Trachten der Juden. Buber: Pesikta. Bucher: Des Apostels Johannes Lehre vom Logos. Burgon : The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark. Buxtorf : Exercitationes. Buxtorf : Synagoga Judaica. Buxtorf: Lexicon Talmud. Calvin : Comment, (passim). Cahen : Repertorium Talmudicum. Carpzov : Chuppa Hebrseorium. Caspari : Einleitung in das Leben Jesu Christi. Cassel : Das Buch Kusari. Cassel: Lehrbuch der Jud. Gesch. u. Literatur. Castelli : Commento di Sabbatai Donnolo sui libro della Creazione. Castelli : 11 Messia secondo gli Ebrei Cavedoni : Biblische Numismatik Charteris : Canonicity. Chasronoth Hashas. Cheyne : Prophecies of Isaiah. Chijs : De Herode Magno XXII LIST OF AUTHORITIES. Cohen : Les DSicides. Commentaries, Speaker's, on the Gospels; Camb. Bible on the Gospels. Conder : Tent Work in Palestine. Conder : Handbook to the Bible. Conforte : Liber Kore ha-Dorot. Cook : The Rev. Version of the Gospels. Creizenach : Shulcan Aruch. Cremcr : New Testament Dictionary. Cureton : Syriac Gospels. Ddhne : Jiidisch-Alex. Religionsphilos. Daridson: Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. Davidson : The Last Things. Dachs : Codex SuccaTalmudisBabylonici. Danlw : Historia Revelationis Divings N. T. Danlio: De Sacra Scriptura ejusque in- terpretatione Commentarius. Delannay : Moines et Sibylles dans l'an- tiquit6 Judeo-Grecque. Delitzsch: Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu Delitzsch : Geschichte der jiid. Poesie. Delitzsch : Durch Krankheit zur Gene- sung. Delitzsch : Ein Tag in Capernaum. Delitzsch : Untersuchungen fib. die Ent- steh. u. Anlage d. Matth.-Evang. Delitzsch : Talmudische Studien. Delitzsch : Jesus und Hillel. Derenbourg : Essai sur l'Histoire et la Geographie de la Palestine. Deutsch : Literary Remains. Dc/lingius : Observationes Sacrse. Dillmann : Das Buch Henoch. Bollinger : Heidenthum und Judenthum. Drummond : The Jewish Messiah. Dulies : Zur Rabbinischen Sprachkunde. Dulies : Eabbinische Blumenlese. Duseliah : Zur Botanik des Talmud. Dim-halt : Die Moral der E vangelien und des Talmud. Duschali : Judischer Cultus. Duschah : Schulgesetzgebung. Ebrard: Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangel. Geschichte. Ederslxeim : History of the Jewish Nation. Edfrsheim : The Temple, its Ministry and its Services. Ederslieim: Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Ehrmann : Geschichte der Schulen u. der Cultur unter den Juden. Eisenmenger : Entdecktes Judenthum. Eisler: Beitrage zur Rabb. Sprach- u. Alterthums-kunde. Ellicott: New Testament Commentary: Gospels. Ellicott: Lectures on the Life of our Lord. Encyclopedia Britannica (passim). Etlieridge : The Targums on the Penta teuch. Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History. Ervald : Abodah Sarah. Ewald : Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Ewald : Bibl. Jahrb. (passim). Fabricius : Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. Farrar : Life of Christ. Farrar: Eternal Hope. Fassel : Das Mos. rabb. Civilrecht. Fassel : Gerichts-Verf. Field : Otium Norvicense. Filipowski : Liber Juchassin. Fisher : Beginnings of Christianity. Franhel : Targum der Proph. Franliel : Ueb. d. Einfl. d. palast. Exegese auf die Alexandr. Hermeneutik. Franliel : Monatschrift ffir das Juden thum (passim). Frankel: Vorstudien zuder Septuaginta. Franliel : Einleitung in d. Jerusalem. Talmud. Franck : d. Kabbala. Freudenthal : Hellenistische Studien. Friedenthal : Jessode haddat weikere Haemuna. Friedlaender : Sittengeschichte Roms. Friedlaender : Ben Dosa u. seine Zeit. Friedlaender : Patristische u. Talmudische Studien. Friedlieb : Oracula Sibyllina. Friedlieb : Archaologie der Leidensge- schichte. Friedmann : Siphre debe Rab. Fritzsche u. Grimm: Handbuch zu den Apokryphen. Fritzsche v. Grimm : Libri V. T. Pseud- epigraphi Selecti. Fuller : Harmony of the Four Gospels. Fiirst : Der Kanon des A. T. Fiirst : Kultur u. Literaturgeschichte der Juden in Asien. Fiirst : Biblioth. Jiid. (passim). Fiirstentlial : Menorath Hammaor. LIST OF AUTHORITIES. XX111 Fiirstenthal : Jessode haddat. Geier : De Ebrseorum Luctu Lugen- tiumque Ritibus. Geiger : Das Judenthum u. seine Ge schichte. Geiger : Beitrage z. Jiid. Literatur-Gesch. Geiger : Zeitschrift ffir Jiid. Theol. Geiger : Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel. Geihie : Life and Words of Christ. Gelpke : Die Jugendgesch. des Herrn. Gerla.ch : Die Rom. Statthalter in Syrien u. Judaa. Gfrorer : Philo. Gfrorer : Jahrh. d. Heils. Ginsburg : Ben Chajira's Introd. Ginsbwrg : Massoreth Ha-Massoreth. Ginsburg : The Essenes. Ginsbwrg : The Kabbalah. Godet : Commentar. Godet: Bibl. Studies. Goebel : Die Parabeln Jesu. Goldberg : The Language of Christ. Graetz : Geschichte der Juden. Green : Hahdbk. to the Grammar of the Grk. Test. Grimm : Die Samariter. Grimm : Clavis N. T. Gronemann : Die Jonathansche Penta teuch- Uebersetzung. Griinebaum : Sittenlehredes Judenthums. Gnerin: Description de la Palestine et Samarie. Guillemard : Hebraisms in the Greek Testament. Giinzburg : Beleuchtung des alten Juden thums. Hamburger : Real-Encyklopadie f . Bibel u. Talmud. Hamelsveld: Dissertatio de sedibus vet. Hebr. Haneberg : Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel. Harnoch : De Philonis Judsei Log. In- quisitio. Hartmann : Die Hebraerin am Putztische u. als Braut. Hartmann : Die enge Verbindung des A. T. mit dem Neuen. Hase : Leben Jesu. Haupt: Die A. T. Citate in den i Evangelien. Hausrath : Neutestamentliche Zeitge- schichte. Herzfeld : Geschichte Israels. Herzfeld: Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Alterthums. Herzog : Real-Encyklopadie (passim). Hildesheimer : Der Herod. Tempel n. d. Talmud u. Josephus. Hilgenfeld : Jiidische Apokalyptik. Hirschfeld : Halach. u. Hagad. Exegese. Eirschfeld : Tractatus Macot. Hitzig : Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Hoffmann : Leben Jesu. Hofmann : Schrif tbeweis. Hofmann : Weissagung u. Erfiillung. Hoffmann: Abhandlungen fib. die Pentat. Gesetze. Holdheim. : d. Cerem. Ges. Hottinger : Juris Hebr. Leges. Huschlte : Ueb. d. Census u. die Steuer- verf. d. friih. Rom. Kaiserzeit. Huschke: Ueb. d. z. Zeit. d. Geb. Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census. Havercamp : Flavius Josephus. Ideler : Chronologie. Ilienhis : Antiquitates Hebraic^. Ikenius : Dissertationes Philologico-theo- logicas. Jellinek : Beth ha-Midrash. Joel : Blick in d. Religionsgesch. d. 2ten Christlichen Jahrh. Joel : Religionsphilos. des Sohar. Jost : Gesch. d. Judenth. u. seiner Sekten. Jowett : Epistles of St. Paul, Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians. Josephus Gorionides : ed. Breithaupt. Juynboll : Comment, in Hist. Gentis Samaritanse. Keil: Einl. in d. Kanon. u. Apokryph. Schriften des A. T. Keim : Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Kennedy : Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Kirchheim : Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierosol. Kirchner : Jiid. Passahf. Kitto : Cyclopsedia of Biblical Litera ture (passim). Kohuth : Jiidische Angelologie u. Daemo- nologie. Konig : Die Menschwerdung Gottes. Roster : Nachw. d. Spur, einer Trinitats- lehre vor Christo. Krafft : Jiidische Sagen u. Dichtungen. Krauss : Die Grosse Synode. XXIV LIST OF AUTHORITIES. Krebs : Decreta Athen. in honor Hyrcani P. M. Judasorum. Krebs : Decreta Roman, pro Judaeis. Krebs : Observationes in Nov. Test. Kulm : Stadt. u. biirgerl. Verfass d. R6m. Reichs. Landau : Aruck. Lange : Bibelwerk (on Gospels). Langen : Judenthum in Paliistina a. Zeit Christi. Lange : Leben Jesu. Langfelder : Symbolik des Judenthums. Lattes : Saggio di Giunte e Correzzioni al Lessico Talmudico. Lavadeur: Krit. Beleucht. d. jiid. Kalen- derwesens. Lenormant : Chaldean Magic. Levi : Historia Religionis Judseorum. Levy : Neuhebr. u. Chaldaisch. Worter- buch. Levy : Chaldaisch. Worterb. fiber die Targumim. Levy : Gesch. der Jiidisch. Mfinzen. Levyssohn : Disputatio de Jud. sub Cass. Conditione. Lewin : Fasti Sacri. Lenin: Siege of Jerusalem. Lemyssohn : Zoologie des Talmuds. Lightfoot : Horse Hebraicae et Talmudicae in 4 Evangel. Lightfoot : Commentary on Galatians. Lightfoot : Commentary on Colossians. Liseo : Die Wunder Jesu Christi. Lorn : Beitriige z. jiid. Alterthumskunde. Low : Lebensalter in d. jiid. Literatur. Lome : Schulchan Aruch. L'owy : Bekoroth haTalmud. Lucius : Essenismus in sein Verhaltn. z. Judenth. Liicke : Johannes (Gospel). Lundius : Jiidische Heiligthfimer. Luthardt : Johann. Evangelium. Luthardt : Die modern. Darstell. d. Lebens Jesu. Lutterbeck: Neutestamentliche Lehrbe- griffe. McLellan : New Testament (Gospels). Madden : Coins of the Jews. Maimonides : "Yad haChazzakah. Marcus: Padagogik des Talmud. Marquardt: Rom. Staatsverwaltung, Martinus : Fidei Pugio. Maybaum : Die Anthropomorph. u. An- thropopath. bei Onkelos. Megillath Taanith. Meier : Judaica. Menschen : Nov. Test ex Talmude et Joseph. Meyer : Seder Olam Rabba et Suta. Meyer: Buch Jezira. Meyer : Kommentar. (on Gospels). Meyer : Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud. Midrash Rabboth. Midrashim. (See List in Rabb. Abbrev.) Mill : On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels. Mishnah. Molitor : Philosophie der Geschichte. Moscovitor : Het N. T. en de Talmud. Mutter : Mess. Erwart. d. Ji$. Philos. Miiller : Zur Johann Frage. MiiUer, J. : Massech. Sopher. Mhnter : Stern der Weisen. Nanz : Die Besessenen im N. T. Neander : Life of Christ. Nebe : Leidensgesch. unser. Herrn Jesu Christi. Nebe : Auferstehungsgesch. unser. Herrn Jesu Christi. Neubauer : La Geographie du Talmud. Neubauer and Driver : Jewish Interpre ters of Isaiah liii. Neumann : Messian. Erschein. bei d. Juden. Neumann : Gesch. d. Mess. Weissag. im A. T. , New Testament. Ed. Scrivener. Ed. Westeott and Hort. Ed. Geb- hardt. Nicolai : De Sepulchris Hebraeorum. Nizzachon Vetus, et Toledoth Jeshu. Nidmlson: The Gospel accord, to the Hebrews. Norris : New Testament (Gospels). Nork : Rabbinische Quellen u. Parallelen. Nutt : Samaritan History. Otho : Lexicon Rabbin. Philolog. Outram : De Sacrifices Judseor. et Christi. Othijoth de R. Akiba. Oxlce : Doc. of Trinity on Princips. of Judaism. Pagninus : Thesaurus Linguse Sanctse. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements (passim'). LIST OF AUTHORITIES. XXV Perles : Leichenfeierlichk. im Nachbibl. Judenth. Philippson : Haben wirklich die Jud. Jesum gekreuzigt 1 Philippson: Israelit. Religionslehre. Philo Judceus : Opera. Pictorial Palestine (passim). Picturesque Palestine. Pinner : Berachoth. Pinner : Compend. des Hieros. u. Babyl. Thalm. Pirke" de R. Elieser. Plumptre : Comment, on the Gospels. Plumptre : Bible Educator (passim). Pocock : Porta Mosis. Prayer-books, Jewish : i. Arnheim. ii. Mannheimer. iii. Polak (Frankfort ed.). iv. Friedlander. v. F. A. Euchel. vi. Jacobson. vii. Pesach Haggadah. viii. Rodelheim ed. Pressense : Jesus Christ : His Time, Life, and Works. Prideaux : Connec. of O. and N.T. Pusey : What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment ? Rabbinowicz : Einleit. in d. Gesetzgeb, u. Medicin d. Talm. Ravuis : Dissertat. de. aedib. vet. Hebr. Redslob : Die Kanonisch. Evangelien. Rela-nd : Antiquit. Sacr. veter. Hebr. Reland: Palaestina. Remond : Ausbreit. d. Judenthums. Renan : L'Antgchrist. Renan : Vie de Jesus. Renan: Marc-Aurele. Rhenferd et Vitringa : De Decern Otiosis Synagogae. Rie/im : Handworterb. d. bibl. Alterth. RUhm: Lehrbegriff d. Hebraerbriefs. Riess : Geburtsjahr Christi. Ritter : Philo u. die Halacha. Roberts : Discussion on the Gospels. Robinson: Biblical Researches in Pales tine. Roeth : Epistola ad Hebraeos. Rohr : Palastina z. Zeit Christi. Ronsch : Buch Jubilaen. Boos : Lehre u. Lebensgesch. Jesu Christi, Rosch : Jesus- Mythen d. Talmudist. Rosenmuller : Biblisch. Geographie. Rossi, Azarjah de : Meor Enajim. Rossi, Giambernardo de : Della Lingua Propria di Christo. Saehs : Beitrage z. Sprach u. Alterthums- kunde. Saalsehiitz : Musik bei d. Hebraern. Saalschutz : Mos. Recht. Salvador : Romerherrschaft in Judaea. Salvador : Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes. Sammter : Baba Mezia. Schenkel : Bibel-Lexicon (passim). Schleusner : Lexicon Gr. Lat. in N.T. Sclimer : De Chuppa Hebraaorum. Schmilg : Der Siegeskalender Megill. Taanith. Sclmeckenburger : Neutestament. Zeitge- schichte. Schoettgen: Horae Hebraicae et Tal- rnudicaa. Schreiber : Principien des Judenthums. Sehroederus : Comment, de Vestitu Mulier. Hebr. Schiirer : Neutestam. Zeitgesch. Schiirer : Gemeindeverfass. d. Juden in Rom in d. Kaiserzeit. Schwab : Le Talmud de Jerusalem, Schwarz : D. Heilige Land. Schwarz : Tosifta Shabbath. Scrivener : Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Seder Hadoroth. Selden : De Synedriis Ebr. Selden : De Jure Naturali et Gent. Hebr. Selden : Uxor Ebraica. Sepp : Leben Jesu. Sevin : Chronologie des Lebens Jesu. Sheringham: Joma. Siegfried : Philo von Alexandria. Singer : Onkelos u. seine Verhaltn. a. Halacha. Sion Ledorosh. Smith : Dictionary of the Bible (passim). Smith and Wace : Dictionary of Christian Biography (passim). Sohar. Tikkune haSohar. Soloweyczyk: Bibel, Talmud, u. Evan gelium. Sommer : Mispar haSohar. Spencer : De Legib. Hebr. Ritual. Spiess : Das Jerusalem des Josephus. Spitzer : Das Mahl bei den Hebraern. Sinai and Palestine. ler: Geburt des Herrn u. sein. erste Schritte im Leben. Steinmeyer : Die Parabeln des Herrn. Stein : Schrift des Lebens. Stern : Die Frau im Talmud. Stern : Gesch. des Judenthums. Stier : Reden des Herrn Jesu. XXVI LIST OF AUTHORITIES. Strack i Pirkg Aboth. Strae.lt : Proleg. Crit. in V.T. Hebr. Strauss : Leben Jesu. Supernatural Religion. Surenhusius: Biblos Katallages. Surenhusius : Mishnah. Talmud, Babylon and Jerusalem. Targum, the Targumim in the Mik- raoth gedoloth. Taylor : Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirqe" Ab , &c), with critical and illustrative Notes. Taylor : Great Exemplar. Tauchuma : Midrash. Tliein : Der Talmud. Theologische Studien u. Kritiken Tholuck : Bergpredigt Christi. Tholuck : Das Alt. Test, im Neu. Test. Tischendorf : When were our Gospels written ? Toetterman : R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. Traill: Josephus. Trench : Notes on the Miracles. Trench : Notes on the Parables. Tristram : Natural History of the Bible. Tristram : Land of Israel. Tristrami : Land of Moab. Tmsen : Sitten, Gebrauche u. Krank- heiten. d. alt. Hebr. Ugolinus : Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sac- rarum (passim}. Unruh : Das alte Jerusalem u. seine Bauwerke. Vernes : Histoire des Idees Messianiques. Vitringa : De Synagoga Vetere. Volkmar : Einleitung in die Apokryphen. Volkmar : Marcus. Volkmar : Mose Prophetie u. Himmel- fahrt. Vorstius : De Hebraisms Nov. Test. Wace : The Gospel and its Witnesses. Wagenseil : Sota. Wahl : Clavis Nov. Test. Philologica. Warneek : Pontius Pilatus. Watkins : Gospel of St. John. Weber : Johannes der Taufer u. die Parteien seiner Zeit. Weber : System der altsynagog. palast. Theologie. Weiss : Lehrb. der bibl. Theol. des N.T. Weiss : Mechilta. Weiss : Siphra. Weiss : Matthausevangelium. Weiss : Leben Jesu. Weiss : Geschichte der jiid. Tradition. Weizsacker: Untersuch. fib. die evangel. Geschichte. Wellhausen: Die Pharisaer u. die Sad- duciier. Westeott : Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Westeott: On the Canon of the New Testament. Westeott : Gospel of St. John. Wetstein : Novum Testamentum Graecum (Gospels). Wichelhans : Kommentar zur Leidens- geschichte. Wieseler : Beitrage zu den Evang. u. der Evangel. Gesch. Wieseler : Chronol. Synopse der 4 Evan- gelien. Wiesner : d. Bann in s. Gesch. Entwicke- lung. Winer : Biblisches Realworterbuch (pas sim). Winer : De Onkeloso. Wilson : Recovery of Jerusalem. Wittichen : Die Idee des Reiches Gottes. Wittichen : Leben Jesu. Wolfius : Bibliotheca Hebraica (passim). Wordsworth: Commentary (Gospels). Wunderbar : Bibl. talmud. Medecin. Wiinsche : Die Leiden des Messias. Wiinsche: Neue Beitrage s. Erliiut. der Evangel. Wiinsche : Der Jerusalemische Talmud. Wiinsche : Bibliotheca Rabbinica. Yalkut Shimeoni. Yalkut Rubeni. Young : Christology of the Targums. Zahn : Forsch. zur Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons. Zeller : Philosophie der Griechen. Zemach David. Eimmermann : Karten u. Plane a. Topo. graphie des alten Jerusalems. Zockler : Handb. d. Theol. Wissenschaften. Zum.pt : Geburtsjahr Christi. Zunz : Zur Geschichte u. Literatur. Zunz : Synagogendienst. Zunz : Synagogen-Poesie. Zunz : Ritus d. Synagogen-Gottesdienst. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REFERENCE TO RABBINIC WRITINGS QUOTED IN THIS WORK. The Mishnah is always quoted according to Tractate, Chapter (Perea) and Para graph (Mishnah), the Chapter being. marked in Roman, the paragraph in ordinary Numerals. Thus Ber. ii. 4 means the Mishnic Tractate Berakhoth, second Chapter, fourth Paragraph. The Jerusalem Talmud is distinguished by the abbreviation Jer. before the name of the Tractate. Thus, Jer. Ber. is the Jer. Gemara, or Talmud, of the Tractate Berakhoth. The edition, from which quotations are made, is that commonly used, Krotoschin, 1866, 1 vol. fol. The quotations are made either by Chapter and Para graph (Jer. Ber. ii. 4), or, in these volumes mostly, by page and column. It ought to be noted that in Rabbinic writings each page is really a double one, distinguished respectively as a and b : a being the page to the left hand Of the reader, and b the reverse one (on turning over the page) to the right hand of the reader. But in the Jerusalem Gemara (and in Yalkut [see below], as in all works where the page and column (col.) are mentioned) the quotation is often — in these volumes, mostly — made by page and column (two columns being on each side of a page). Thus, while Jer. Ber. ii. 4 would be Chapter II. Par. 4, the corresponding quotation by page and column would in that instance be, Jer. Ber. 4 d ; d marking that it is the fourth column in b (or the off-side) of page 4. The Babyl. Talmud is, in all its editions, equally paged, so that a quotation made applies to all editions. It is double-paged, and quoted with the name of the Tractate, the number of the page, and a or b, according as one or another side of the page is referred to. The quotations are distinguished from those of the Mishnah by this, that in the Mishnah Roman and ordinary numerals are employed (to mark Chapters and Paragraphs), while in the Babylon Talmud the name of the Tractate is followed by an ordinary numeral, indicating the page, together with a or b, to mark which side of the page is referred to. Thus Ber. 4 a means : Tractate Berachoth, p. 4, first or left-hand side of the page. I have used the Vienna edition, but this, as already explained, is not a point of any importance. To facilitate the verification of passages quoted I have in very many instances quoted also the lines, either from top or bottom. The abbreviation Tos. (Tosephta, additamentum) before the name of a Tractate refers to the additions made to the Mishnah after its redaction. This redaction dates from the third century of our era. The Tos. extends only over 62 of the Mishnic Trac tates. They are inserted in the Talmud at the end of each Tractate, and are printed on the double pages in double columns (col. a and b on p. a, col. e and d on p. b). They are generally quoted by Perea and Mishnah : thus, Tos. Gitt. i. 1, or (more rarely) by page and column, Tos. Gitt. p. 150 a. Besides, the Tractate Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (Ab. de R. Nath.), and the smaller Tractates, Sopherim (Siyher.), Semachoth (Semacli.), Kallah (Kail, or Chall}), Derekh Erets (Der. Er.), Derekh Erets Zuta (commonly Der. Er. S.), and Pereq Shalom (Per. SheU.) are inserted at the close of vol. ix. of the Talmud. They are printed in four columns {on double pages), and quoted by Pereq and Mishnah. The so-called Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani are published 1 It is to be noted that in the marginal and note-references the old mode of indicating a reference (as in the first ed. of this book) and the, perhaps, more correct mode of transliteration have been promiscuously employed. But the reader can have no difficulty in understanding the reference. xxvm LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. separately (ed. Raphael Kirchheim, Frcf. 1851). They are the Massedieth Sopher Torah (Mass. Seph. Tor.), Mass. Mezuzah (Mass. Mesus.), Mass. Tephillin (Mass. Tephill.), Mass. Tsitsith (Mass. Ziz.), Mass. Abhadim (Mass. Abad.), Mass. Ktdhim (Mass. Cuth.), and Mass. Gerim (Mass. Ger.). They are printed and quoted according to double pages (a and b). To these must be added the so-called Chasronoth JiaShas, a collection of passages expurgated in the ordinary editions from the various Tractates of the Talmud. Here we must close, what might else assume undue proportions, by an alphabetical list of the abbreviations, although only of the principal books referred to: — Ab. Zar} . . The Talmudic Tractate Abhodah Zarah, on Idolatry. Ab , „ „ Pirqey Abhoth, Sayings of the Fathers. Ab. de R. Nath. The Tractate Abhoth de Rabbi Nathan at the close of vol. ix. in the Bab. Talm. Arakh. . . The Talmudic Tractate Arakliin, on the redemption of persons or things consecrated to the Sanctuary. Bab. K. , Bab. Mez. Bab. B. . Bechor. . Bemid. R. Ber. Ber. R. . Bez. . . Biecur. Chag.Chall.Chull. Debar R. Dem.Ech. R. Erub.Midr. Esth. Gitt. „ „ „ Babha Qamma (' First Gate '), the first, „ „ „ Babha Metsia (' Middle Gate '), the second, „ „ „ Babha Bathra (' Last Gate '), the third of the great Tractates on Common Law. „ „ „ Bekhoroth, on the consecration to the Sanc tuary of the First-born. The Midrash (or Commentary) Bemidbar Rabba, on Numbers. The Talmudic Tractate Berakhoth, on Prayers and Benedictions. The Midrash (or Commentary) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis. The Talmudic Tractate Betsah, laws about an egg laid on Sabbath and Fast-days, and on similar points con nected with the sanctifying of such seasons. „ „ „ Bikkurim, on First-fruits. „ „ „ Chagigah, on the festive offerings at the three Great Feasts. „ „ „ Challah, on the first of the dough (Numb. xv. 17). „ „ „ Chuttin, the rubric as to the mode of killing meat and kindred subjects. The Midrash Debharim Rabba, on Deuteronomy. The Talmudic Tractate Demai, regarding produce, the tithing of which is not certain. The Midrash Ekliah Rabbathi, on Lamentations (also quoted a3 Mid. on Lament.). The Talmudic Tractate Eduyoth (Testimonies), the legal determina tions enacted or confirmed on a certain occasion, decisive in Jewish History. - The Talmudic Tractate Erubhin, on the conjunction of Sabbath- boundaries. (See Appendix XVII.) - The Midrash on Esther. - The Talmudic Tractate Gittin, on Divorce. 1 Mark the note on previous page. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. XXIX Jad. [or Yad.] . Jebam. [or") Yebam.] f Jom. [mostly") Yom.'] . j Kel. . Kerith. Kethub.Kidd. Kil. . Kinn. The Talmudic Tractate Horayoth, ' Decisions * on certain uninten tional transgressions. ,, „ „ Yadayim, on the "Washing of Hands. „ „ Yebhamoth, on the Levirate. Midr. Kohel. . Maas. Maas. Sh. Machsh. Makk. Mechil. Megill. Meil.Menach.Midd.Mikv. Moed. K. Naz.Ned. Neg. Nidd. Ohal.Orl.Par. Peah „ „ Yoma, on the Day of Atonement. „ „ „ Kelim, on the purification of furniture and vessels. „ „ „ Kerithuth, on the punishment of 'cutting off.' „ „ „ Kethubhoth, on marriage-contracts. ,, „ „ Qiddusllin, on Betrothal. „ „ „ Kilayim., on the unlawful commixtures (Lev. xix. 19 ; Deut. xxii. 9-11). „ „ „ Qinnim, on the offering of doves (Lev. v. 1-10 ; xii. 8). The Midrash on Qoheleth or Eccles. The Talmudic Tractate Maaseroth, on Levitical Tithes. „ „ „ Maaser Sheni, on second Tithes (Deut. xiv. 22, &c). „ „ „ J/"«M«A£™re,onfluidsthatmayrenderproducts ' defiled,' or that leave them undefiled (Lev. xi. 34, 38). „ „ „ Makkoth, on the punishment of Stripes. „ „ „ Melthilta, a Commentary on part of Exodus, dating at the latest from the first half of the second century. „ „ „ Megillah, referring to the reading of the (' roll ') Book of Esther and on the Feast of Esther. „ „ „ Meilah, on the defilement of things con-" secrated. „ „ „ Menachoth, on Meat-offerings. „ „ „ Middoth, on the Temple-measurements and arrangements. „ „ „ Miqvaoth, on ablutions and immersions. ,, „ „ Moed Qatan, on Half -holidays. „ „ „ Nazir, on the Nasirate. „ „ „ Nedarim, on Vowing. „ „ „ Negaim, on Leprosy. „ „ „ Niddah, on female levitical impurity (men strua). „ „ „ Ohaloth, on the defilement of tents and houses, specially by death. „ „ „ Orlah, on the ordinances connected with Lev. xix. 23. „ „ „ Parah, on the Red Heifer and purification by its ashes. „ „ „ Peah, on the corner to be left for the poor in harvesting. xxx LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. Pes. . . . The Talmudic Tractate Pesachim, on the Paschal '"Feast. Pesiqta . . The book Pesiqta, an exceedingly interesting series of Meditations or brief discussions and Lectures on certain portions of the Lectionary for the principal Sabbaths and Feast Days. Pirqe deR. Eliez. The Haggadic Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, in 54 chapters, a discursive Tractate on the History of Israel from the creation to the time of Moses, with the in sertion of three chapters (xlix-'li) on the history of Haman and the future Messianic deliverance. Rosh haSh. Sab. . Sanh. Sebach. Shabb.Shebh.Sliebu. Shem. R. . Shir haSh. R. Siphra SiphreSot. . Sukk. Taan. . Tam. Teb. Yom. Tern. Ukz. Vayyik. R. Yalk. , The Talmudic Tractate Rosh haShanah, on the Feast of New Year. „ „ „ Zabhim, on certain levitically 'defiling issues. „ „ „ Sanhedrin, on the Sanhedrim and Criminal Jurisprudence. „ „ „ Zebhachim, on Sacrifices. „ „ „ Shabbath, on Sabbath-observance. „ „ „ Shebhiith, on the Sabbatic Year. „ „ „ Shebhuoth, on Oaths, &c. „ „ „ Sheqalim, on the Temple-Tribute, &c. The Midrash Shemoth Rabba on Exodus. „ „ Shir haShirim Rabba, on the Song of Solomon. The ancient Commentary on Leviticus, dating from the second century. The still somewhat older Commentary on Numb, and Deuter. The Talmudic Tractate Sotah, on the Woman accused of adultery. „ „ „ Sukltah, on the Feast of Tabernacles. „ „ „ Taanith, on Fasting and Fast-days. „ ,, „ Tamid, on the daily Service and Sacrifice in the Temple. „ „ „ Tebhul Yom (' bathed of the day '), on im purities, where there is immersion on the evening of the same day. „ „ „ Temurah, on substitution for things con secrated (Lev. xxvii. 10). „ Terumoth, on the priestly dues in produce. ,, Tolioroth, on minor kinds of defilement. Commentary Tanchuma (or Yelamdenu),- on the Pentateuch. , The Talmudic Tractate Uqtsin, on the defilement of fruits through their envelopes, stalks, &c. The Midrash Vayyikra Rabba, on Leviticus. The great colleetaneum : Yalkut Shimeoni, which is a, catena on the whole Old Testament, containing also quotations from works lost to us.1 Ter. . ¦ »» j> Tohor, , • » »> Tanch. , . The Midrashic r It will, of course, be understood that we have only given the briefest, and, indeed, im perfect, indications of the contents of the various Talmudic Tractates. Besides giving the Laws connected with each of the sub jects of which they treat, all kindred topics are taken up, nay, the discussion dften passes to quite other than the subjects primarily treated of ; in a Tractate. CONTENTS OF THE FIEST VOLUME. BOOK I. INTRODUCTORY. THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST. CHAPTER I. PAGE The Jewish World in the Days Of Christ — The Jewisli Dispersion in the East 3 CHAPTER II. The Jewish Dispersion in the West — The Hellenists — Origin of Hellenist Literature in the Greek Translation of the Bible — Character of the Septua gint. ......... 17 CHAPTER HI. (. The Old Faith preparing for the New — Development of Hellenist Theology : The Apocrypha, Aristeas, Aristobulus, and the Pseudepigraphic Writings 31 CHAPTER IV. Philo of Alexandria, the Babbis, and the Gospels — The Final Development of Hellenism in its Relation to Rabbinism and the Gospel according to St. John 40 CHAPTER V. Alexandria and Rome — The Jewish Communities, in the Capitals of Western Civilisation . . . . . . . . .58 CHAPTER VI. Political and Religious Life of the Jewish Dispersion in the West — Their Union in the Great Hope of the Coming Deliverer . . .73 XXXII CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. CHAPTER VII. PAGE In Palestine— Jews and Gentiles in ' the Land '—Their Mutual Relations and Feelings—' The Wall of Separation ' . . . . .84 CHAPTER VIII. Traditionalism, its Origin, Character, and Literature — The Mishnah and Talmud— The Gospel of Christ— The Dawn of a New Day 03 BOOK IT. FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN. CHAPTER I. In Jerusalem when Herod reigned . . . . 4 .111 CHAPTER II. The Personal History of Herod — The Two Worlds in Jerusalem , . 121 CHAPTER HI. The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist . . ¦ 133 CHAPTER IV. The Annunciation of Jesus the Messiah, and the Birth of His Forerunner . 144 CHAPTER V. What Messiah did the Jews expect ? . . , , , . 160 CHAPTER VI. The Nativity of Jesus the Messiah . . . , , .180 CHAPTER VII. The Purification of the Virgin and the Presentation in the Temple . . 191 CHAPTER VIII. The Visit and Homage of the Magi, and the Flight into Egypt , . 202 CHAPTER IX. The Child-Life in Nazareth , t - gl7 CHAPTER X. In the House of His Heavenly, and in the Home of His Earthly Father The Temple of Jerusalem — The Retirement at Nazareth . . . 235 CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. XXXlll CHAPTER XI. PAGE In the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Csesar and under the Pontificate of Annas and Caiaphas — A Voice in the Wilderness .... 255 CHAPTER XII. The Baptism of Jesus : Its Higher Meaning ..... 275 book in. THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIYER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTER I. The Temptation of Jesus ....... 291 CHAPTER II. The Deputation from Jerusalem — The Three Sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes — Examination of their distinctive Doctrines . . . 308 CHAPTER III. The Twofold Testimony of John— The First Sabbath of Jesus's Ministry— The First Sunday— The First Disciples . . . . .336 CHAPTER IV. The Marriage-Feast in Cana of Galilee— The Miracle that is ' a Sign ' . 351 CHAPTER V. The Cleansing of the Temple — ' The Sign ' which is not a Sign . . . 364 CHAPTER VI. The Teacher come from God and the Teacher from Jerusalem — Jesus and Nicodemus ......... 377 CHAPTER VII. In Judsea and through Samaria— A Sketch of Samaritan History and Theology — .Tpws and Samaritans. ....... 390 CHAPTER VIII. Jesus at the Well of Sychar . . . . . . -404 VOL. I. • b xxxiv CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. CHAPTER IX. PAGE The Second Visit to Cana— Cure of the ' Nobleman's ' Son at Capernaum . 422 CHAPTER X. The Synagogue at Nazareth— Synagogue- Worship and Arrangements . 430 CHAPTER XI. The First Galilean Ministry . .... 451 CHAPTER XII. At the ' Unknown ' Feast in Jerusalem, and by the Pool of Bethesda . . 460 CHAPTER XIII. By the Sea of Galilee— The Final Call of the First Disciples, and the Miracu lous Draught of Fishes ...... 472 CHAPTER XIV. A Sabbath in Capernaum .....•• 478 CHAPTER XV. Second Journey through Galilee — The Healing of the Leper . . . 489 CHAPTER XVI. The Return to Capernaum — Concerning the Forgiveness of Sins — The Heal ing of the Paralysed ....... 499 CHAPTER XVII. The Call of Matthew — The Saviour's Welcome to Sinners — Rabbinic Theology as regards the Doctrine of Forgiveness in contrast to the Gospel of Christ —The Call of the Twelve Apostles . . '. . .507 CHAPTER XVIII. The Sermon on the Mount — The Kingdom of Christ and Rabbinic Teaching . 524 CHAPTER XIX. The Return to Capernaum — Healing of the Centurion's Servant . . 542 CHAPTER XX. The Raising of the Young Man of Nain— The Meeting of Life and Death . 552 CHAPTER XXI. The Woman which was a Sinner ...... 561 CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. XXXV CHAPTER XXII. PAGE The Ministry of Love, the Blasphemy of Hatred, and the Mistakes of Earthly Affection — The Return to Capernaum — Healing of the Demonised Dumb — Pharisaic Charge against Christ — The Visit of Christ's Mother and Brethren . . . . . . . . .570 CHAPTER XXIII. New Teaching ' in Parables ' — The Parables to the People by the Lake of Galilee, and those to the Disciples in Capernaum .... 578 CHAPTER XXIV. Christ stills the Storm on the Lake of Galilee ..... 599 CHAPTER XXV. At Gerasa — The HeaUng of the Demonised ..... 606 CHAPTER XXVI. The Healing of the Woman — Christ's Personal Appearance — The Raising of Jairus' Daughter ........ 616 CHAPTER XXVII. Second Visit to Nazareth — The Mission of the Twelve . . . 635 CHAPTER XXVIII. *The Story of John the Baptist, from his Last Testimony to Jesus to his Beheading in Prison ....... 654 CHAPTER XXIX. The Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand .... 676 CHAPTER XXX. The Night of Miracles on the Lake of Gennesaret .... 686 Book I. INTRODUCTORY. THE PEEPAEATION FOE THE GOSPEL : ? THE JEWISH WOELD IN THE DAYS OF CHEIST. rwon mo*1? aba isnanj xb fni owaan !?a ' All the prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messiah.' — Sanh. 99 a. nwah .... n"?k kd^i; nitt nb 'The world was not created but only for the Messiah.' — Sanh. 98 b. VOL. I. CHAPTEE I. THE JEWISH WOELD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE EAST. Among the outward means by which the religion of Israel was pre- CHAP. served, one of the most important was the centralisation and localisa- I tion of its worship in Jerusalem. If to some the ordinances of the ' ' Old Testament may in this respect seem narrow and exclusive, it is at least doubtful, whether without such a provision Monotheism itself could have continued as a creed or a worship. In view of the state of the ancient world, and of the tendencies of Israel during the earlier stages of their history, the strictest isolation was necessary in order to preserve the religion of the Old Testament from that mixture with foreign elements which would speedily have proved fatal to its existence. And if one source of that danger had ceased after the seventy years' exile in Babylonia, the dispersion of the greater part of the nation among those whose manners and civilisation would necessarily influence them, rendered the continuance of this separa tion of as great importance as before. In this respect, even tradi tionalism had its mission and use, as a hedge around the Law to render its infringement or modification impossible. Wherever a Roman, a Greek, or an Asiatic might wander, he could take his gods with him,' or find rites kindred to his own. It was far otherwise with the Jew. He had only one Temple, that in Jerusalem ; only one God, Him Who had once throned there between the Cherubim, and Who was still King over Zion. That Temple was the only place where a God-appointed, pure priesthood could offer acceptable sacrifices, whether for forgiveness of sin, or for fellowship with God. Here, in the impenetrable gloom of the inner most sanctuary, which the High-Priest alone might enter once a year for most solemn expiation, had stood the Ark, the leader of the people into the Land of Promise, and the footstool on which the Shechinah had rested. Prom that golden altar rose the sweet cloud of incense, symbol of Israel's accepted prayers ; that seven-branched candlestick t THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK shed its perpetual light, indicative of the brightness of God's Covenant- I Presence ; on that table, as it were before the Face of Jehovah, was laid, week by week, ' the Bread of the Face,' l a constant sacrificial meal which Israel offered unto God, and wherewith God in turn fed His chosen priesthood. On the great blood-sprinkled altar of sacrifice smoked the daily and festive burnt-offerings, brought by all Israel, and for all Israel, wherever scattered ; while the vast courts of the Temple were thronged not only by native Palestinians, but literally by ' Jews out of every nation under heaven.' Around this Temple gathered the sacred memories of the past ; to it clung the yet brighter hopes of the future. The history of Israel and all their prospects were intertwined with their religion ; so that it may be said that without their religion they had no history, and without their history no religion. Thus, history, patriotism, religion, and hope alike pointed to Jerusalem and the Temple as the centre of Israel's unity. Nor could the depressed state of the nation alter their views or shake their confidence. What mattered it, that the Idumasan, Herod, had usurped the throne of David, except so far as his own guilt and their present subjection were concerned ? Israel had passed through deeper waters, and stood triumphant on the other shore. For centuries seemingly hopeless bondsmen in Egypt, they had not only been delivered, but had raised the God-inspired morning-song of jubilee, as they looked back upon the sea cleft for them, and which had buried their oppressors in their might and pride. Again, for weary years had their captives hung Zion's harps by the rivers of that city and empire whose colossal grandeur, wherever they turned must have carried to the scattered strangers the desolate feeling of utter hopelessness. And yet that empire had crumbled into dust while Israel had again taken root and sprung up. And now little more than a century and a half had passed, since a danger greater even than any of these had threatened the faith and the very existence of Israel. In his daring madness, the Syrian king, Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes) had forbidden their religion, sought to destroy their sacred books, with unsparing ferocity forced on them conformity to heathen rites, desecrated the Temple by dedicating it to Zeus Olympios, and even reared a heathen altar upon that of burnt-offering.2 Worst of all, his wicked schemes had been aided by two apostate High- Priests, who had outvied each other in buying and then prostituting 1 Such is the literal meaning of whnt is translated by ' shewbread.' 2 1 Mace. i. 54, 59 ; Jos. Ant. xii. 5. i. THE JEWISH DISPERSION. the sacred office of God's anointed.1 Yet far away in the mountains of Ephraim2 God had raised for them most unlooked-for and unlikely help. Only three years later, and, after a series of brilliant victories by undisciplined men over the flower of the Syrian army, Judas the Maccabee — truly God's Hammer3 — had purified the Temple, and restored its altar on the very same day 4 on which the ' abomination of desolation ' 5 had been set up in its place. In all their history the darkest hour of their night had ever preceded the dawn of a morning brighter than any that had yet broken. It was thus that with one voice all their prophets had bidden them wait and hope. Their sayings had been more than fulfilled as regarded the past. Would they not equally become true in reference to that far more glorious future for Zion and for Israel, which was to be ushered in by the coming of the Messiah ? Nor were such the feelings of the Palestinian Jews only. These indeed were now a minority. The majority of the nation constituted what was known as the dispersion ; a term which, however, no longer expressed its original meaning of banishment by the judgment of God,6 since absence from Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But all the more that it referred not to outward suffering,7 did its continued use indicate a deep feeling of religious sorrow, of social isolation, and of political strangership8 in the midst of a heathen world. For although, as Josephus reminded his countrymen,11 there was ' no nation in the '.. JfJr'.T- world which had not among them part of the Jewish people,' since it was ' widely dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants,'b yet * Tii- 3- ' they had nowhere found a real home. A century and a half before 1 After the deposition of Onias III. 6 Alike the verb ,-pj in Hebrew, and through the bribery of his own brother Siaoireipw in Greek, wiLh their derivatives, Jason, the latter and Menelaus outvied are used in the Old Testament, and in each other in bribery for, and prostitution the rendering of the LXX., with reference of, the holy office. to punitive banishment. See, for example, 2 Modin, the birthplace of the Macca- Judg. xviii. 30 ; 1 Sam. iv. 21 ; and in bees, has been identified with the modern the LXX. Deut. xxx. 4 ; Ps. cxlvii. 2 ; Is. EIMedyeh, about sixteen miles north- xlix. 6, and other passages. west of Jerusalem, in the ancient terri- ' There is some truth, although greatly tory of Ephraim. Comp. Conder's Hand- exaggerated, in the bitter remarks of book of the Bible, p. 291 ; and for a full Hausrath (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93), reference to the whole literature of the as to the sensitiveness of the Jews in subject, see Schiirer (Neatest. Zeitgesch. the Siaoiropd, and the loud outcry of all p. 78, note 1). its members at any interference with 3 On the meaning of the name Macca- them, however trivial. But events bee, comp. Grimm's Kurzgef. Exeget. unfortunately too often proved how Handb. z. d. Apokr. Lief, iii., pp. ix. x. real and near was their danger, and We adopt the derivation from Maqqabha, how necessary the caution ' Obsta prin- a hammer, like Charles Martel. cipiis.' 4 1 Mace. iv. 52-54 ; Megill. Taan. 23. " St. Peter seems to have used it in that 5 1 Mace. i. 54. sense, 1 Pet. i. 1. > THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL BOOK our era comes to us from Egypt ' — where the Jews possessed exceptional I privileges — professedly from the heathen, but really from the Jewish 2 ' ' Sibyl, this lament of Israel : — Crowding with thy numbers every ocean and country — Yet an offence to all around thy presence and customs ! 3 Sixty years later the Greek geographer and historian Strabo bears the like witness to their presence in every land, but in language that shows how true had been the complaint of the Sibyl.4 The reasons for this state of feeling will by-and-by appear. Suffice it for the present that, all unconsciously, Philo tells its deepest ground, and that of Israel's loneliness in the heathen world, when speaking, like the others, of his countrymen as in ' all the cities of Europe, in the provinces of Asia and in the islands,' he describes them as, wherever sojourning, having but one metropolis — not Alexandria, Antioch, or Rome — but ' the Holy City with its Temple, dedicated to the Most High God.'5 A nation, the vast majority of which was dispersed over the whole inhabited earth, had ceased to be a special, and become a world-nation.6 Yet its heart beat in Jerusalem, and thence the life- blood passed to its most distant members. And this, indeed, if we rightly understand it, was the grand object of the ' Jewish dispersion' throughout the world. What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, to the Western, rather than to the Eastern 'dispersion.' The connection of the latter with Palestine was so close as almost to seem one of con tinuity. In the account of the truly representative gathering in • Acts ii. 9- Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks," the division of the ' dispersion' into two grand sections — the Eastern or Trans- Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist — seems clearly marked.7 In this arrangement the former would include ' the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judsea standing, so to speak, in the middle, while ' the Cretes and Arabians ' would typically re present the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and the Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New Testament, 1 Comp. the remarks of Schneclten- 5 P/«7oinFlaccum(ed. Francf.),p. 971. burger (Vorles. ii. Neutest. ZeUg. p. 95). 6 Comp. Jos. Ant. xii. 3; xiii. 10. 4; - Comp. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag. 13. 1; xiv. 6. 2; 8. 1 ; 10. 8 ; Sueton xxii. 39. Ca;s. 85. -, Orac Sibyll. iii. 271, 272, apud Fried- ' Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 113) quotes lieb, p. 62. two passages from Philo. in one of which ' Strabo apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2 : ' It he contradistinguishes ' us,' the Hellenist is not easy to find a place in the world Jews, from 'the Hebrews,' and speaks of that has not admitted this race, and is the Greek as ' our language.' not mastered by it.' n 'HELLENISTS' AND 'HEBREWS.' commonly bore in Palestine the name of the 'dispersion of the Greeks,' a and of ' Hellenists ' or ' Grecians.'1" On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who ' inhabited Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' ° were included with the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term ' Hebrews,' from the common language which they spoke. But the difference between the ' Grecians ; and the ' Hebrews ' was cajum, p! far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the whole xnVxi".%. direction of thought. There were mental influences at work in the Greek world from which, in the nature of things, it was impossible even for Jews to withdraw themselves, and which, indeed, were as necessary for the fulfilment of their mission as their isolation from heathenism, and their connection with Jerusalem. At the same time it was only natural that the Hellenists, placed as they were in the midst of such hostile elements, should intensely wish to be Jews, equal to their Eastern brethren. On the other hand, Pharisaism, in its pride of legal purity and of the possession of traditional lore, with all that it involved, made no secret of its contempt for the Hellenists, and openly declared the Grecian far inferior to the Baby lonian ' dispersion.' ' That such feelings, and the suspicions which they engendered, had struck deep into the popular mind, appears from the fact, that even in the Apostolic Church, and that in her earliest days, disputes could break out between the Hellenists and the Hebrews, arising from suspicion of unkind and unfair dealings grounded on these sectional prejudices. d d Aots "¦ 1 Far other was the estimate in which the Babylonians were held by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view of it, Babylonia, as well as ' Syria ' as far north as Antioch, was regarded as forming part of the land of Israel.2 Every other country was con sidered outside ' the land,' as Palestine was called, with the excep tion of Babylonia, which was reckoned as part of it.e For Syria and •Erub. 21 « Mesopotamia, eastwards to the banks of the Tigris, were supposed to have been in the territory which King David had conquered, and this made them ideally for ever like the land of Israel. But it was just between the Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and wealthiest settlements of the Jews were, to such extent that a later writer actually designated them ' the land of Israel.' Here Nehardaa, on the Nahar Malka, or royal canal, which passed from the 1 Similarly, we have (in Men. 110 a) — these are the exiles in other lands, who this curious explanation of Is. xliii. 6 : had become as women. Comp. also Gitt. ' My sons from afar ' — these are the exiles 2 a. in Babylon, who remained men, ' and 2 Ber. B. 17. my daughters from the ends of the earth' THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. • 536 B.C. 11 Ant. xi. 5. 2 ; xv. 2. 2 ; xviii. 9 • 330 B.C. " 63 B.C. Euphrates to the Tigris, was the oldest Jewish settlement. It boasted of a Synagogue, said to have been built by King Jechoniah with stones that had been brought from the Temple.1 In this fortified city the vast contributions intended for the Temple were deposited by the Eastern Jews, and thence conveyed to their destination under escort of thousands of armed men. Another of these Jewish treasure-cities was Nisibis, in northern Mesopotamia. Even the fact that wealth, which must have sorely tempted the cupidity of the heathen, could be safely stored in these cities and transported to Palestine, shows how large the Jewish population must have been, and how great their general influence. In general, it is of the greatest importance to remember in regard to this Eastern dispersion, that only a minority of the Jews, consisting in all of about 60,000, originally returned from Babylon, first under Zerubbabel and afterwards under Ezra.a Nor was their inferiority confined to numbers. The wealthiest and most influential of the Jews remained behind. According to Josephus,b with whom Philo sub stantially agrees, vast numbers, estimated at millions, inhabited the Trans-Euphratic provinces. To judge even by the number of those slain in popular risings (50,000 in Seleucia alone2), these figures do not seem greatly exaggerated. A later tradition had it, that so dense was the Jewish population in the Persian Empire, that Cyrus forbade the further return of the exiles, lest the country should be depopulated.3 So large and compact a body soon became a political power. Kindly treated under the Persian monarchy, they were, after the fall of that empire,0 favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn the Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire,4 the Jews formed, from their national opposition to Rome, an important element in the East. Such was their influence that, as late as the year 40 A.D., the Roman legate shrank from provoking their hostility.4 At the same time it must not be thought that, even in these favoured reo-ions, they were wholly without persecution. Here also history records more than one tale of bloody strife on the part of those among whom they dwelt.5 To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and of Syria to which they had wandered under the fostering rule of the Macedono- 1 Comp. Fiirst, Kult. u. Literaturgesch. d. Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. 8. 2 J is. Ant xviii. 9. 9. * Midrash on Cant, v. 5, ed. "Warsh. p 26 a. 1 Philo ad Caj. 5 The following are the chief passages in Josephus relatingtothat part of Jewish history: Ant. xi. 5. 2; xiv. 13.5; xv. 2. 7 ; 3. 1 ; xvii. 2. 1-3 ; xviii. 9. 1, &c. ; xx. 4. Jew. W. i. 13. 3. 3 PRE-EMINENCE OF THE BABYLONIANS. 9 Syrian monarchs (the Seleucidas) — were indeed pre-eminently the CHAP. Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in- I timated by fire-signals from mountain-top to mountain-top the com- "~ ' ' mencement of each month for the regulation of the festive calendar,1 even as they afterwards despatched messengers into Syria for the same purpose.2 In some respects the Eastern dispersion was placed on the same footing ; in others, on even a higher level than the mother- country. Tithes and Terumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared condition,3 were due from them, while the Biccurim, or first-fruits in a fresh state, were to be brought from Syria to Jerusalem. Unlike the heathen countries, whose very dust defiled, the soil of Syria was declared clean, like that of Palestine itself. a So far as purity of descent was con- " v^l- . xvill. 7 cerned, the Babylonians, indeed, considered themselves superior to their Palestinian brethren. They had it, that when Ezra took with him those who went to Palestine, he had left the land behind him as pure as fine flour.b To express it in their own fashion : In regard to * miA- 69 b the genealogical purity of their Jewish inhabitants, all other countries were, compared to Palestine, like dough mixed with leaven; but Palestine itself was such by the side of Babylonia.4 It was even maintained, that the exact boundaries could be traced in a district, within which the Jewish population had preserved itself unmixed. Great merit was in this respect also ascribed to Ezra. In the usual mode of exaggeration, it was asserted, that, if all the genealogical studies and researches 5 had been put together, they would have amounted to many hundred camel-loads. There was for it, however, at least this foundation in truth, that great care and labour were bestowed on preserving full and accurate records so as to establish purity of descent. What importance attached to it, we know from the action of Ezra c in that respect, and from the stress which Josephus lays on c Chs- ix- *¦ this point.d Official records of descent as regarded the priesthood were ^j^LL; Ag' kept in the Temple. Besides, the Jewish authorities seem to have possessed a general official register, which Herod afterwards ordered to be burnt, from reasons which it is not difficult to infer. But from that day, laments a Rabbi, the glory of the Jews decreased ! 6 Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Eastern dis persion could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everything to Ezra, 1 Bosh haSh. ii. 4 ; comp. the Jer. 5 As comments upon the genealogies Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud from 'Azel ' in 1 Chr. viii. 37 to ' Azel ' in 23 b. Comp. also Shek. vii. 4. ix. 44. Jer. Pes. v. 3 ; Pes. 62 *. 2 Bosh. haSh. i. 4. 6 Pes. 62 b ; Sachs, Beitr. vol. ii. p. 3 Shev. vi. passim; Gitt. 8 a. 157. * Cheth. Ill a. 10 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. » Sanh. 21 b the Babylonian,1 a man so distinguished that, according to tradition, the Law would have been given by him, if Moses had not previously obtained that honour. Putting aside the various traditional ordi nances which the Talmud ascribes to him,2 we know from the Scrip tures what his activity for good had been. Altered circumstances had brought many changes to the new Jewish State. Even the language, spoken and written, was other than formerly. Instead of the characters anciently employed, the exiles brought with them, on their return, those now common, the so-called square Hebrew letters, which gradually came into general use.a3 The language spoken by the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaean, both in Palestine and in Babylonia ; 4 in the former the Western, in the latter the Eastern dialect. In fact, the common people were ignorant of pure Hebrew, which henceforth became the language of students and of the Synagogue. Even there a Methurgeman, or interpreter, had to be employed to translate into the vernacular the portions of Scripture read in the public services,5 and the addresses delivered by the Rabbis. This was the origin of the so-called Targumim, or paraphrases of Scripture. In earliest times, indeed, it was forbidden to the Me thurgeman to read his translation or to write down a Targum, lest 1 According to tradition he returned to Babylon, and died there. Josephus says that he died in Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 5. 5). 2 Herzfeld has given a very clear his torical arrangement of the order in which, and the persons by whom, the various legal determinations were supposed to have been given. See Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. iii. pp. 240 &c. 3 Although thus introduced under Ezra, the ancient Hebrew characters, which re semble the Samaritan, only very gradu ally gave way. They are found ou monu ments and coins. f Herzfeld (u. s. vol. iii. p. 46) happily designates the Palestinian as the Hebrseo- Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The Hebrew, as well as the Aramaean, belongs to the Semitic group of languages, which has thus been arranged : 1 . North Semitic : Punico-Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic (Western and Eastern dialects). 2. South Semitic : Arabic, Himyaritic, and Ethiopian. 3. East Semitic : The Assyro- Babylonian cuneiform. "When we speak of the dialect used in Palestine, we do not, of course, forget the great influence of Syria, exerted long before and after the Exile. Of these three branches the Aramaic is the most closely connected with the Hebrew. Hebrew occupies an interme diate position between the Aramaic and the Arabic, and may be said to be the oldest, certainly from a literary point of view. Together with the introduction of the new dialect into Palestine, we mark that of the new, or square, characters of writing. The Mishnah and all the kindred literature up to the fourth century are in Hebrew, or rather in a modern develop ment and adaptation of that language ; the Talmud is in Aramiean. Comp. on this subject : De Wette-Schrader, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. (8 ed.) pp. 71-88 ; Her- zog's Real-Encykl. vol. i. 466-468 ; v. 614 &c, 710; Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Jud. pp. 7-9 ; Herzfeld, u. s. pp. 44 Sec, 58 &c. 5 Could St. Paul have had this in mind when, in referring to the miraculous gift of speaking in other languages, he directs that one shall always interpret (1 Cor. xiv. 27) 1 At any rate, the word targum in Ezra iv. 7 is rendered in the LXX. by eppnvevu. The following from the Tal mud (Ber. 8 a and b) affords a curious illustration of 1 Cor. xiv. 27 : ' Let a man always finish his Parashah (the daily lesson from the Law) with the congrega tion (at the same time) — twice the text, and once targum.' BABYLONIAN INFLUENCE ON THEOLOGY. 11 the paraphrase should be regarded as of equal authority with the CHAP. original. It was said that, when Jonathan brought out his Targum I on the Prophets, a voice from heaven was heard to utter : ' Who is ' this that has revealed My secrets to men ? ' a Still, such Targu- * Megiii. 3 « mim seem to have existed from a very early period, and, amid the varying and often incorrect renderings, their necessity must have made itself increasingly felt. Accordingly, their use was authoritatively sanctioned before the end of the second century after Christ. This is the origin of our two oldest extant Targumim : that of Onkelos (as it is called), on the Pentateuch ; and that on the Prophets, attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names do not, indeed, accurately represent the authorship of the oldest Tar gumim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and authorita tive recensions of what, in some form, had existed before. But although these works had their origin in Palestine, it is noteworthy that, in the form in which at present we possess them, they are the outcome of the schools of Babylon. But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt to Babylonia. The new circumstances in which the Jews were placed on their return seemed to render necessary an adaptation of the Mosaic Law, if not new legislation. Besides, piety and zeal now attached them selves to the outward observance and study of the letter of the Law. This is the origin of the Mishnah, or Second Law, which was intended to explain and supplement the first. This constituted the only Jewish dogmatics, in the real sense, in the study of which the sage, Rabbi, scholar, scribe, and Darshan,1 were engaged. The result of it was the Midrash, or investigation, a term which afterwards was popularly applied to commentaries on the Scriptures and preaching. From the outset, Jewish theology divided into two branches : the Halakhah and the Haggadah. The former (from halakh, to go) was, so to speak, the Bule of the Spiritual Road, and, when fixed, had even greater authority than the Scriptures of the Old Testament, since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the Haggadah2 (from nagad, to tell) was only the personal saying of the teacher, more or less valuable according to his learning and popularity, or the authorities which he could quote in his support. Unlike the Halalchah, the Haggadah had no absolute authority, either as to doctrine practice, or exegesis. But all the greater would 1 From darash, to search out, literally, 2 The Halakhah might be described as to tread out. The preacher was after- the apocryphal Pentateuch, the Haggadah wards called the Darshan. as the apocryphal Prophets. 12 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. be its popular influence,1 and all the more dangerous the doctrinal license which it allowed. In fact, strange as it may sound, almost all the doctrinal teaching of the Synagogue is to be derived from the Haggadah — and this also is characteristic of Jewish traditionalism. But, alike in Halakhah and Haggadah, Palestine was under the deepest obligation to Babylonia. For the father of Halakhic study was Hillel, the Babylonian, and among the popular Haggadists there is not a name better known than that of Eleazar the Mede, who flourished in the first century of our era. After this, it seems almost idle to inquire whether, during the first period after the return of the exiles from Babylon, there were regular theological academies in Babylon. Although it is, of course, impossible to furnish historical proof, we can scarcely doubt that a community so large and so intensely Hebrew would not have been indifferent to that study, which constituted the main thought and engagement of their brethren in Palestine. We can understand that, since the great Sanhedrin in Palestine exercised supreme spiritual authority, and in that capacity ultimately settled all religious questions — at least for a time — the study and discussion of these subjects should also have been chiefly carried on in the schools of Palestine ; and that even the great Hillel himself, when still a poor and unknown student, should have wandered thither to acquire the learning and authority, which at that period he could not have found in his own country. But even this circumstance implies, that such studies were at least carried on and encouraged in Babylonia. How rapidly soon afterwards the authority of the Babylonian schools increased, till they not only overshadowed those of Palestine, but finally inherited their prerogatives, is well known. However, there fore, the Palestinians in their pride or jealousy might sneer,2 that the Babylonians were stupid, proud, and poor ('they ate bread upon bread '),3 even they had to acknowledge that, ' when the Law had fallen into oblivion, it was restored by Ezra of Babylon ; when it was a second time forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it ; and when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija came from Babylon and gave it back once more.' 4 1 We may here remind ourselves of 1 is mentioned as a reason why the Deity Tim.v.17. St. Paul, as always, writes with could not rest upon a certain Rabbi. the familiar Jewish phrases ever recur- 3 Pes. 34 b ; Men. 85 b ; Sanh. 24 a • ring to his mind. The expression SiSa- Bez. 17 a — apud Neubauer, GSog. du a-xakta seems to be equivalent to Halakhic Talmud, p. 323. In Cheth.' 75 a thev teaching. Comp. Grimm, Clavis N.T. pp. are styled the ' silly Babylonians ' See 98, 99. also B. Kama 7 a. 3 In Moed K. 25 a, sojourn in Babylon ' Succ. 20 a. R. Chija, one of the JEWISH WANDERERS IN THE FAR EAST. 13 Such then was that Hebrew dispersion which, from the first, con stituted really the chief part and the strength of the Jewish nation, and with which its religious future was also to lie. For it is one of those strangely significant, almost symbolical, facts in history, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress ot political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the seats of Israel's ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by its own act what the judgment of God had formerly executed. But long before that time the Babylonian ' dispersion' had already stretched out its hands in every direction. Northwards, it had spread through Armenia, the Caucasus, and to the shores of the Black Sea, and through Media to those of the Caspian. Southwards, it had extended to the Persian Gulf and through the vast extent of Arabia, although Arabia Felix and the land of the Homerites may have received their first Jewish colonies from the opposite shores of Ethiopia. Eastwards it had passed as far as India.1 Everywhere we have distinct notices of these wanderers, and everywhere they appear as in closest connection with the Rabbi nical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus the Mishnah, in an extremely curious section,2 tells us how on Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia might wear their long veils, and those of India the kerchief round the head, customary in those countries, without incurring the guilt of desecrating the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes ofthe law, would be a burden ; a while in the rubric for the Day of Atonement we have it noted that the dress which the High Priest wore ' between the even ings' of the great fast — that is, as afternoon darkened into evening — was of most costly ' Indian ' stuff. b That among such a vast community there should have been poverty, and that at one time, as the Palestinians sneered, learning may have been left to pine in want, we can readily believe. For, as one of the Rabbis had it in explanation of Deut. xxx. 13 : ' Wisdom is not "beyond the sea" — that is, it will not be found among traders or merchants,' ° whose mind must be engrossed by gain. And it was ' Shabb. vi. 6 ¦> Toma iii, 7 • Er. 55 a teachers of the second century, is among the most celebrated Rabbinical authori ties, around whose memory legend has thrown a special halo. 1 In this, as in so many respects, Dr. Neubauer has collated very interesting information, to which we refer. See his Ggogr. du Talm., pp. 369-399. 2 The whole section gives a most curious glimpse of the dress and orna ments worn by the Jews at that time. The reader interested in the subject will find special information in the three little volumes of Hartmann (Die Hebraerin am Putztische), in N. 0. Schroder's some what heavy work: De Vestitu Mulier. Hebr., and especially in that interesting tractate, Trachten d. Juden, by Dr. A. Briill, of which, unfortunately, only one part has appeared. 14 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK trade ana commerce which procured to the Babylonians their wealth I and influence, although agriculture was not neglected. Their cara vans — of whose camel drivers, by the way, no very flattering account •Kiad.iv.i4 is given" — carried the rich carpets and woven stuffs of the East, as well as its precious spices, to the West : generally through Palestine to the Phoenician harbours, where a fleet of merchantmen belonging to Jewish bankers and shippers lay ready to convey them to every quarter of the world. These merchant princes were keenly alive to all that passed, not only in the financial, but in the political world. We know that they were in possession of State secrets, and entrusted with the intricacies of diplomacy. Yet, whatever its condition, this Eastern Jewish community was intensely Hebrew. Only eight days' journey — though, according to Philo's western ideas of it, by a diffi cult road 1 — separated them from Palestine ; and every pulsation there vibrated in Babylonia. It was in the most outlying part of that colony, in the wide plains of Arabia, that 'Saul of Tarsus spent those three years of silent thought and unknown labour, which preceded his re-appearance in Jerusalem, when from the burning longing to labour among his brethren, kindled by long residence among these Hebrews of the Hebrews, he was directed to that strange work which was his life's mission. And it was among the same community that Peter 1 Gai. i. 17 ; wrote and laboured,15 amidst discouragements of which we can form 1 Pet. v. 13 . some conception from the sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the third century it had not numbered among its members any convert to Christianity.2 In what has been said, no notice has been taken of those wan derers of the ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seem as mysterious as their after-fate. The Talmudists name four countries as their seats. But, even if we were to attach historic credence to their vague state ments, at least two of these localities cannot with any certainty be identified.3 Only thus far all agree as to point us northwards, through India, Armenia, the Kurdish mountains, and the Caucasus. And with this tallies a curious reference in what is known as IV. Esdras which locates them in a land called Arzareth, a term which has with some probability, been identified with the land of Ararat.4 1 Philo ad Cajum, ed. Prcf . p. 1023. For the reasons there stated, I prefer this 2 Pes. 56 a, apud Neubauer, u. s., p. to the ingenious interpretation proposed 3S1- by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of Philol 3 Comp. Neubauer, pp. 315, 372; Ham- for 1870, pp. 113, 114), who regards it as burger, Real-Encykl. p. 135. a contraction of Erez achereth ' an- * Comp. Volkmar, Handb. d. Eml. in other land,' referred to in Deut xxix 27 d. Apokr. ii" Abth., pp. 193, 194, notes (28). THE 'LOST' TRIBES. 15 Josephus a describes them as an innumerable multitude, and vaguely CHAP. locates them beyond the Euphrates. The Mishnah is silent as to I their seats, but discusses their future restoration ; Rabbi Akiba deny- " ' ' a Ant. xi. 5. 2 ing and Rabbi Eliezer anticipating it.b l Another Jewish tradition c b Sanh. i 3 locates them by the fabled river Sabbatyon, which was supposed to ° Ber- E- 73 cease its flow on the weekly Sabbath. This, of course, is an implied admission of ignorance of their seats. Similarly, the Talmud a speaks " Jer- Sanh- of three localities whither they had been banished: the district around the river Sabbatyon ; Daphne, near Antioch ; while the third was overshadowed and hidden by a cloud. Later Jewish notices connect the final discovery and the return of the ' lost tribes ' with their conversion under that second Messiah who, in contradistinction to 'the. Son of David,' is styled 'the Son of Joseph,' to whom Jewish tradition ascribes what it cannot reconcile with the royal dignity of ' the Son of David,' and which, if applied to Him, would almost inevitably lead up to the most wide concessions in the Christian argument.2 As regards the ten tribes there is this truth underlying the strange hypothesis, that, as their persistent apostacy from the God of Israel and His worship had cut them off from His people, so the fulfilment of the Divine promises to them in the latter days would imply, as it were; a second birth to make them once more Israel. Beyond this we are travelling chiefly into the region of conjecture. Modern investigations have pointed to the Nestorians,3 and latterly with almost convincing evidence (so far as such is possible) to the Afghans, as descended from the lost tribes.4 Such mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalities seems to have been before the mind of those Rabbis who ordered that, if at present a non-Jew wedded a Jewess, such a union was to be respected, since the stranger might be a descendant of the ten tribes. e Besides, • Yebam. i6» there is reason to believe that part of them, at least, had coalesced with their brethren of the later exile ; 5 while we know that indi viduals who had settled in Palestine and, presumably, elsewhere, were 1 R. Eliezer seems to connect their 9 Comp. the work of Dr. Asahel Grant return with the dawn of the new Mes- on the Nestorians. His arguments have sianic day. been well summarised and expanded in 2 This is not the place to discuss the an interesting note in Mr. Mitt's Sketch later Jewish fiction of a second or 'suffer- of Samaritan History, pp. 2-4. ing' Messiah, ' the son of Joseph,' whose 4 I would here call special attention to special mission it would be to bring back a most interesting paper on the subject the ten tribes, and to subject them to (' A New Afghan Question'), by Mr. H. W. Messiah, 'the son of David,' but who Bellew, in the ' Journal of the United would perish in the war against Gog and Service Institution of India,' for 1881, Magog. PP- 49-97. s Kidd. 69 b. 16 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK able to trace descent from them.1 Still the great mass of the ten I tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our own, lost to the Hebrew nation. ' So Anna from the tribe of Aser, St. ments are not convincing, and his opinion Luke ii. 36. Dutterbech (Neutest. Lehr- was certainly not that of those who lived begr. pp. 102, 103) argues that the ten in the time of Christ, or who reflected tribes had become wholly undistinguish- their ideas, able from the other two. But his argu- GREEK INFLUENCES ON THE HELLENIST JEWS. 17 CHAPTER II. THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST — THE HELLENISTS — ORIGIN OF HEL LENIST LITERATURE IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE — CHA RACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT. When we turn from the Jewish ' dispersion ' in the East to that in CHAP. the West, we seem to breathe quite a different atmosphere. Despite II their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves, their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel groping back into the darkness of the past ; the other young Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by the term Hellenists — from iXXrjvl^etv, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks.1 Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, in the nature of things, impossible that the Jewish communities in the West should remain unaffected by Grecian culture and modes of thought ; just as, on the other hand, the Greek world, despite popular hatred and the contempt of the higher classes, could not wholly withdraw itself from Jewish influences. Witness here the many converts to Judaism among the Gentiles;2 witness also the evident preparedness of the lands of this ' dispersion ' for the new doctrine which was to come from Judsea. Many causes contributed to render the Jews of the West accessible to Greek influences. They had not a long local history to look back upon, nor did they form a compact body, like their brethren in the East. They were craftsmen, traders, merchants, settled for a 1 Indeed, the word Alnisti (or Alu- Test.) on Acts vi. 1, agreeing with Dr. nistin) ' Gr^ek' — actually occurs, as in Roberts, argues that the term 'Hellenist' Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 14 from bottom. B'ohl indicated only principles, and not birth- (Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p. 7) quotes Philo place, and that there were Hebrews and (Leg. ad Caj. p. 1023) in proof that Hellenists in and out of Palestine But he regarded the Eastern dispersion as a this view is untenable. branch separate from the Palestinians. 2 An account of this propaganda of But the passage does not convey to me Judaism and of its results will be given the inference which he draws from it. in another connection. Dr. Guillemard (Hebraisms in the Greek VOL. I. C 18 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL, BOOK . time here or there — units which might combine into communities, 1 but could not form one people. Then their position was not favour- ' ' able to the sway of- traditionalism. Their occupations, the very reasons for their being in a ' strange land,' were purely secular. That lofty absorption of thought and life in the study of the Law, written and oral, which characterised the East, was to them something in the dim distance, sacred, like the soil and the institutions of Palestine, but unattainable. In Palestine or Babylonia numberless influences from his earliest years, all that he saw and heard, the very force of circum stances, would tend to make an earnest Jew a disciple of the Rabbis ; in the West it would lead him to ' hellenise.' It was, so to speak, ' in the air ' ; and he could no more shut his mind against Greek thought than he could withdraw his body from atmospheric influences. That restless, searching, subtle Greek intellect would penetrate every where, and flash its light into the innermost recesses of his home and Synagogue. To be sure, they were intensely Jewish, these communities of strangers. Like our scattered colonists in distant lands, they would cling with double affection to the customs of their home, and invest with the halo of tender memories the sacred traditions of their faith. The Grecian Jew might well look with contempt, not unmingled with pity, on the idolatrous rites practised around, from which long ago the pitiless irony of Isaiah had torn the veil of beauty, to show the hideousness and unreality beneath. The dissoluteness of public and private life, the frivolity and aimlessness of their pursuits, political aspirations, popular assemblies, amusements — in short, the utter decay of society, in all its phases, would lie open to his gaze. It is in terms of lofty scorn, not unmingled with indignation, which only occasionally gives way to the softer mood of warning, or even invita tion, that Jewish Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocrypha or in its Apocalyptic utterances, addresses heathenism. From that spectacle the Grecian Jew would turn with infinite satisfaction — not to say, pride — to his own community, to think of its spiritual enlightenment, and to pass in review its exclusive privileges.1 It was with no uncertain steps that he would go past those splendid temples to his own humbler Synagogue, pleased to find himself there surrounded by those who shared his descent, his faith, his hopes ; and gratified to see their number swelled by many who heathens by birth, had learned the error of their ways, and now so to speak, humbly stood as suppliant ' strangers of the gate,' to seek 1 St. Paul fully describes these feelings in the Epistle to tbe Romans. IN THE HELLENIST SYNAGOGUES. 19 admission into his sanctuary.1 How different were the rites which he practised, hallowed in their Divine origin, rational in themselves, and at the same time deeply significant, from the absurd superstitions around. Who could have compared with the voiceless, meaningless, blasphemous heathen worship, if it deserved the name, that of the Synagogue, with its pathetic hymns, its sublime liturgy, its Divine Scriptures, and those ' stated sermons' which ' instructed in virtue and piety,' of which not only Philo,a Agrippa,b and Josephus,0 speak as a « De vita regular institution, but whose antiquity and general prevalence is p. ess; Leg. attested in Jewish writings,2 and nowhere more strongly than in the p. ioh book of the Acts of the Apostles ? ^e|- ^35 And in these Synagogues, how would ' brotherly love ' be called « Ag. Apion out, since, if one member suffered, all might soon be affected, and the danger which threatened one community would, unless averted, ere long overwhelm the rest. There was little need for the admonition not to ' forget the love of strangers.' 3 To entertain them was not merely a virtue ; in the Hellenist dispersion it was a religious necessity. And by such means not a few whom they would regard as ' heavenly messengers ' might be welcomed. From the Acts of the Apostles we know with what eagerness they would receive, and with what readiness they would invite, the passing Rabbi or teacher, who came from the home of their faith, to speak, if there were in them a word of comforting exhortation for the people.*1 We can scarcely aAo7(,sir«p Maccabean Psalms,' and the authorship 2 But the expression has also been and date of the Book of Daniel. Buthis- referred to the thirty-eighth year of the torical questions should be treated inde- reign of Euergetes. pendently of critical prejudices. Winer * To my mind, at least, the historical (Bibl. Realworterb. i. p. 555), and others evidence, apart from critical considera- after him, admit that the Simon of tions, seems very strong. Modern writers Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed Simon the Just on the other side have confessedly been (i.), but maintain that the Euer°-etes of influenced by the consideration that the the Prologue was the second of that earlier date of the Book of Sirach would name, Ptolemy VII., popularly nick- also involve a much earlier date for the named Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks close of the 0. T. Canon than they are dis- of Fritzsche on this view in the Kurzgef posed to admit. More especially would Exeg. Handb. *,. d. Apokr. 5te Lief, p xvii' TEXT, ORDER, AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 27 From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine.1 That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ' inspiration,' and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrvpha into the Greek Bible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets,2 and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagio grapha, the LXX. arrange them into the historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.* What text the translators may have "Devita 1 ¦ t Tre- ¦ i • i i Contempl. used we can only conjecture. It diners m almost innumerable § 3 instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few.3 In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.4 Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish com position. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original ; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are un deniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed.6 This we can easily understand, since only those tradi- 1 Comp. here, besides the passages between the Samaritan version of the quoted in the previous note, Baba B. 13 b Pentateuch and that of tbe LXX., which and 14 b; for the cessation of revela- in no less than about 2,000 passages agree tion in the Maccabean period, 1 Mace. iv. as against our Hebrew, although in other 46 : ix. 27 ; xiv. 41 ; and, in general, for instances the Greek text either agrees the Jewish view on the subject at the with the Hebrew against the Samaritan, time of Christ, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8. or else is independent of both. On the 2 Anterior: Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam., connection between Samaritan literature 1 and 2 Kings. Posterior: Major; Is., and Hellenism there are some very inte- Jer., and Ezek. ; and the Minor Pro- resting notices in Freudenthal, Hell. Stud. phets. pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c. 3 They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, the 5 The extravagant computations in books of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah, this respect of Frankel (both in his work, and Daniel. In the Pentateuch we find Ueber d. Einfl. d. Palast. Exeg., and them only in four passages in the Book of also in the Vorstud. z. Sept. pp. 189-191) Exodus. have been rectified by Herzfeld (Gesch. 1 There is also a curious correspondence d. Vol. Isr. vol. iii.), who, perhaps, goes to 28 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I a Mechilta on Ex. xix. •> Ber. 31 b tions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian ele ments, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek phi losophical ideas. However few,1 even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic. Difficulties — or what seemed such — are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text ; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as incon sistent with their ideas of the Deity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps such alterations had even been introduced into the Hebrew text itself.2 But there is this vital difference between Palestinianism and Alexandrianism, that, broadly speaking, the Hebrew avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on objective — theological and dogmatic — the Hellenistic on subjective — philosophical and apologetic — grounds. The Hebrew avoids them as he does what seems to him inconsistent with the dignity of Biblical heroes and of Israel. ' Great is the power of the prophets,' he writes, ' who liken the Creator to the creature ; ' or else a ' a thing is written only to break it to the ear' — to adapt it to our human modes of speaking and understanding ; and again,b the ' words of the Torah are like the speech of the children of men.' But for this very pur pose the words of Scripture may be presented in another form, if need the other extreme. Herzfeld (pp. 548- 650) admits — and even this with hesita tion — of only six distinct references to Halakhoth in the following passages in the LXX. : Gen. ix. 4 ; xxxii. 32 ; Lev. xix. 19 ; xxiv. 7 ; Deut. xxv. 5 ; xxvi. 12. As instances of Haggadah we may men tion the renderings in Gen. v. 24 and Ex. x. 23. 1 D'dhne and Gfrorer have in this respect gone to the same extreme as Franliel on the Jewish side. But even Siegfried (Philo v. Alex. p. 8) is obliged to admit that the LXX. rendering, r) Se yri i\v a.6pa.T0S Kal aKaTatrKevcurros (Gen. i. 2), bears undeniable mark of Grecian philo sophic views. And certainly this is not the sole instance of the kind. 2 As in the so-called ' Tiqqnney So- pherim,' or ' emendations of the scribes.' Comp. here generally the investigations of Geiger (Ursehrift u. Uebersetz. d. Bibel). But these, however learned and ingenious, require, like so many of the dicta of modern Jewish criticism, to be taken with the utmost caution, and in each case subjected to fresh examination, since so large a proportion of their writ ings are what is best designated by the German Tendenz-Schriften, and their in ferences Tendenz-Schliisse. But the critic and the historian should have no Ten- denz — except towards simple fact and historical truth. ALEXANDRIAN VIEWS ON INTERPRETATION AND INSPIRATION. 29 be even modified, so as to obviate possible misunderstanding, or dog- CHAP. matic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the same conclusion, but n from an opposite direction. They had not theological but philo- ' ' sophical axioms in their minds — truths which the highest truth could not, and, as they held, did not contravene. Only dig deeper ; get beyond the letter to that to which it pointed ; divest abstract truth of its concrete, national, Judaistic envelope — penetrate through the dim porch into the temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light, of which, as its portals had been thrown open, single rays had fallen into the night of heathendom. And so the truth would appear glorious — more than vindicated in their own sight, triumphant in that of others ! In such manner the LXX. version became really the people's Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity was afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part of the case, that this translation should be regarded by the Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words of the Greek ; still less, to find in them a mystical and allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard their views of inspiration — except as applying to Moses, and even there only partially — as identical with ours. To their minds inspira tion differed quantitatively, not qualitatively, from what the rapt soul might at any time experience, so that even heathen philosophers might ultimately be regarded as at times inspired. So far as the version of the Bible was concerned' (and probably on like grounds), similar views obtained at a later period even in Hebrew circles, where it was laid down that the Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch had been originally spoken to Moses on Sinai,a though afterwards for- * Nod. 37 0 ; gotten, till restored and re-introduced.b b Meg. 3 a Wliether or not the LXX. was read in the Hellenist Synagogues, and the worship conducted, wholly or partly, in Greek, must be matter of conjecture. We find, however, a significant notice0 to the °jer. Meg. effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language (not Hebrew Krot. p.' 75* — the term referring specially to Greek), it was the custom for one person to read the whole Parashah (or lesson for the day), while among the Hebrew-speaking Jews this was done by seven persons, successively called up. This seems to imply that either the Greek text alone was read, or that it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Tar gum of the Easterns. More probably, however, the former would be the case, since both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to read them, would be difficult to procure. At any rate, we know that 30 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. a Mass. So- pher i. Hal. 7 — at the close of vol. i^. of the Bab. Ta'mud » Hilch. Ged. Taan. c Jer. Meg. i. 11, ed. Krnt. p. 71 b and c a PhUo. Vita Mos. ii. ed. Francf. p. 66 J the Greek Scriptures were authoritatively acknowledged in Palestine,1 and that the ordinary daily prayers might be said in Greek.2 The LXX. deserved this distinction from its general faithfulness — at least, in regard to the Pentateuch — and from its preservation of ancient doctrine. Thus, without further referring to its full acknowledgment ofthe doctrine of Angels (comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 2), we specially mark that it preserved the Messianic interpretation of Gen. xlix. 10, and Numb. xxiv. 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence of what had been the generally received view two and a half centuries before the birth of Jesus. It must have been on the ground of the use made of the LXX. in argument, that later voices in the Synagogue declared this version to have been as great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf,a and that its completion had been followed by the terrible omen of an eclipse, that lasted three days.b For the Rabbis declared that upon investigation it had been found that the Torah could be adequately translated only into Greek, and they are most extravagant in their praise of the Greek version of Ahjlas, or Aquila, the proselyte, which was made to counteract the influence of the LXX.C But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the LXX. was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in which ultimately even heathens seem to have taken part.d 1 Meg. i. 8. It is, however, fair to confess strong doubt, on my part, whe ther this passage may not refer to the Greek translation of Akylas. At the same time it simply speaks of a transla tion into Greek. And before the version of Aqnila the LXX. alone held that place. It is one of the most daring modern Jewish perversions of history to identify this Akylas, who flourished about 130 after Christ, with the Aquila of the Book of Acts. It wants even the excuse of a colourable perversion of the confused story about Akylas, which. Epiphanius, who is so generally inaccurate, gives in De Pond, et Mensur. c. xiv. 2 The ' Shema ' (Jewish creed), with its collects, the eighteen ' benedictions,' and ' the grace at meat.' A later Rabbi vindi cated the use of the ' Shema ' in Greek by the argument that the word Shema meant not only ' Hear,' but also ' un derstand ' (Jer. Sotah vii. 1.) Comp. Sotah vii. 1, 2. In Ber. 40 b, it is said that the Parashah connected with the woman suspected of adultery, the prayer and confession at the bringing of the tithes, and the various benedictions over food, may be said not only in Hebrew, but in any other languages. APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. 31 CHAPTER III. THE OLD FAITH PREPARING FOR THE NEW — DEVELOPMENT OF HELLENIST THEOLOGY : THE APOCRYPHA, ARISTEAS, ARISTOBULUS, AND THE PSEUD EPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS. The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be regarded CHAP. as the starting-point of Hellenism. It rendered possible the hope III that what in its original form had been confined to the few, might " — ' ' become accessible to the world at large. a But much yet remained to - pmio, de be done. If the religion of the Old Testament had been brought near ed1. Mangey, to the Grecian world of thought, the latter had still to be brought near "' v' to Judaism. Some intermediate stage must be found ; some common ground on which the two might meet ; some original kindredness of spirit to which their later divergences might be carried back, and where they might finally be reconciled. As the first attempt in this direction — first in order, if not always in time — we mark the so- called Apocryphal literature, most of which was either written in Greek, or is the product of Hellenising Jews.1 Its general object was twofold. First, of course, it was apologetic — intended to fill gaps in Jewish history or thought, but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind against attacks from without, and generally to extol the dignity of Israel. Thus, more withering sarcasm Could scarcely be poured on heathenism than in the apocryphal story of ' Bel and the Dragon,' or in the so-called 'Epistle of Jeremy,' with which the Book of ' Baruch ' closes. The same strain, only in more lofty tones, resounds through the Book of the ' Wisdom of Solomon,' b along with the b comp. x.- constantly implied contrast between the righteous, or Israel, and xx" sinners, or the heathen. But the next object was to show that the deeper and purer thinking of heathenism in its highest philosophy supported — nay, in some respects, was identical with — the funda mental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course, was apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the way for a ' All the Apocrypha were originally course, the ' Wisdom of Jesus the Son of written in Greek, except 1 Mace, Judith, Sirach.' part of Baruch, probably Tobit, and, of 32 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice this especially in I the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, so long erroneously attributed ' ' to Josephus,1 and in the ' Wisdom of Solomon.' The first postulate here would be the acknowledgment of truth among the Gentiles, which was the outcome of Wisdom — and Wisdom was the revelation of God. This seems already implied in so thoroughly Jewish a book "Comp. for as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.a Of course there could be no ex. Ecclus. -ii rw J xxiv. 6. alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole to the Did Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculations would charm, while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicism would prove almost equally attractive. The one would show why they believed, the other why they lived, as they did. Thus the theology of the Old Testament would find a rational basis in the ontology of Plato, and its ethics in the moral philosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the very line of argument which Josephus follows in the conclusion of his treatise b ii- 39, 40 against Apion.b This, then, was an unassailable position to take : « comp. also contempt poured on heathenism as such,0 and a rational philoso- ii. si ' phical basis for Judaism. They were not deep, only acute thinkers, these Alexandrians, and the result of their speculations was a curious Eclecticism, in which Platonism and Stoicism are found, often hetero- geneously, side by side. Thus, without further details, it may be said that the Fourth Book of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical treatise on the Stoical theme of ' the supremacy of reason ' — the proposition, stated at the outset, that ' pious reason bears absolute sway over the passions,' being illustrated by the story of the martyrdom of Eleazar, <* comp. 2 and of the mother and her seven sons.d On the other hand, that vii. 41 ' sublime work, the ' Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and Stoic elements '2 — chiefly perhaps the latter — the two occurring side by side. «cii. Tii. 22- Thus e ' Wisdom,' which is so concretely presented as to be almost 'vv. 22-24 hypostatised,3 is first described in the language of Stoicism ,f and sw. 25-29 afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,5 as 'the breath of the power of God ; ' as 'a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty ; ' ' the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Simi- 1 It is printed in Havercamp's edition 3 Compare especially ix. 1 ; xviii. 14- of Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. The 16, where the idea of troibia passes into best edition is in Fritzsche, Libri- Apo- that of the kSyos. Of course the above cryphi Vet. Test. (Lips. 1871). remarks are not intended to depreciate 2 Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. the great value of this book, alike in pp. 626-632) has given a glowing sketch itself, and in its practical teaching, in of it. Ewald rightly says that its Grecian its clear enunciation of a retribution elements have been exaggerated ; but Bu- as awaiting man, and in its important cher (Lehre vom Logos, pp. 59-62) utterly bearing on the New Testament revelation fails in denying their presence altogether. of the k6yos. HERETICAL AND ' OUTSIDE ' BOOKS. 33 larly, we have" a Stoical enumeration of the four cardinal virtues, chap. temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude, and close by it the HI Platonic idea of the soul's pre-existence,b and of earth and matter ^~ ' ~^ • 8 Tn p"K vill pressing it down.0 How such views would point in the direction of i the need of a perfect revelation from on high, as in the Bible, and of jo1" TT' 19' its rational possibility, need scarcely be shown. c ix. 15 But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this Apocryphal literature ? We find it described by a term which seems to corre spond to our ' Apocrypha,' as ' Sepharim Genuzim,' ' hidden books,' i.e., either such whose origin was hidden, or, more likely, books withdrawn from common or congregational use. Although they were, of course, carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, as not being sacred, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings.1 In this respect they are placed on a very different footing from the so-called Sepharim Ghitsonim, or ' outside books,' which probably included both the products of a certain class of Jewish Hellenistic literature, and the Siphrey Minim, or writings of the heretics. Against these Rabbinism can scarcely find terms of sufficient violence, even debarring from share in the world to come those who read them.d This, not only because they were used in d suiii. 100 controversy, but because their secret influence on orthodox Judaism was dreaded. For similar reasons, later Judaism forbade the use of the Apocrypha in the same manner as that of the Sepharim Ghitsonim. But their influence had already made itself felt. The Apocrypha, the more greedily perused, not only for their glorification of Judaism, but that they were, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded a glimpse into that forbidden Greek world, opened the way for other Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged but frequent traces occur in Talmudical writings.2 To those who thus sought to weld Grecian thought with Hebrew revelation, two objects would naturally present themselves. They must try to connect their Greek philosophers with the Bible, and they must find beneath the letter of Scripture a deeper meaning, which would accord with philosophic truth. So far as the text of Scripture was concerned, they had a method ready to hand. Plato and the Stoic school had busied themselves in finding a deeper allegorical meaning, especially in the writings of Homer. By applying it to 1 Some Apocryphal books which have burger, vol. ii. pp. 66-70. not been preserved to us are mentioned 2 Comp. Siegfried, Philo von Alex. pp. in Talmudical writings, among them 275-299, who, however, perhaps overstates one, 'The roll of the building of the the matter. Temple,' alas, lost to usl Comp. Ham- VOL. I. D 34 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. mythical stories, or to the popular beliefs, and by tracing the supposed symbolical meaning of names, numbers, &c, it became easy to prove almost anything, or to extract from these philosophical truths ethical principles, and even the later results of natural science.1 Such a process was peculiarly pleasing to the imagination, and the results alike astounding and satisfactory, since as they could not be proved, so neither could they be disproved. This allegorical method 2 was the welcome key by which the Hellenists might unlock the hiddefc treasury of Scripture. In point of fact, we find it applied so early as in the ' Wisdom of Solomon.' 8 But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of sober inter pretation. It is otherwise in the letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas, to which reference has already been made.4 Here the wildest symbolism is put into the mouth of the High-Priest Eleazar, to convince Aristeas and his fellow-ambassador that the Mosaic ordinances concerning food had not only a political reason — to keep Israel separate from impious nations — and a sanitary one, but chiefly a mystical meaning. The birds allowed for food were all tame and pure, and they fed on corn or vegetable products, the opposite being the case with those forbidden. The first lesson which this was intended to teach was, that Israel must be just, and not seek to obtain aught from others by violence; but, so to speak, imitate the habits of those birds which were allowed them. The next lesson would be, that each must learn to govern his passions and inclinations. Similarly, the direction about cloven hoofs pointed to the need of making separation — that is, between good and evil ; and that about chewing the cud to the need of remembering, viz. God 1 Comp. Siegfried, pp. 9-16; Hart- Of the existence of allegorical inter- mann, Enge Verb. d. A. Test, mit d. N., pretations in the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 568-572 or of any connection with Hellenism,' 2 This is to be carefully distinguished such as Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loes- from the typical interpretation and from ner (Obs. ad N.T. e Phil. Alex.) put the mystical— the type being prophetic, into them, I cannot, on examination, the mystery spiritually understood. discover any evidence. Similarity of 3 Not to speak of such sounder inter- expressions, or even of thought, afford no pretations as that of the brazen serpent evidence of inward connection Of the (Wisd. xvi. 6, 7), and of the Fall(ii. 24), Gospel by St. John we shall speak in or of the view presented of the early the sequel. In the Pauline Epistles we history of the chosen race m ch. x., we find, as might be expected, some alle- may mention as instances of allegorical gorical interpretations, chiefly in those to interpretation that of the manna (xvi. the Corinthians, perhaps owino- to the 26-28), and of the high-priestly dress connection of that church with°Apollos (xviii. 24), to which, no doubt, others Comp. here 1 Cor. ix. 9 ; x 4 (Philo might be added. But I cannot find suf- Quod deter, potiori insid.31) • 2 Cor iii' ficient evidence of this allegorical method 16; Gal. iv. 21. Of the Epistle to the inthe Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. Hebrews and the Apocalypse we cannot The reasoning of Hartmann (u. s , pp. here speak. 542-547) seems to me greatly strained. * See p. 25. Sanh. 34 n ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATIONS. 35 and His will.1 In such manner, according to Aristeas, did the High CHAr. Priest go through the catalogue of things forbidden, and of animals to III be sacrificed, showing from their ' hidden meaning ' the majesty and """"^ sanctity of the Law.2 This was an important line to take, and it differed in principle from the allegorical method adopted by the Eastern Jews. Not only • the Borshey Reshumoth,3 or searchers out of the subtleties of Scripture, of their indications, but even the ordinary Haggadist employed, indeed, allegoric interpretations. Thereby Akiba vindicated for the ' Song of Songs ' its place in the Canon. Did not Scripture say : ' One thing spake God, twofold is what I heard,'a and did not this imply a twofold - Pa.bm.ii; meaning ; nay, could not the Torah be explained by many different methods ? 4 What, for example, was the water which Israel sought in the wilderness, or the bread and raiment which Jacob asked in Bethel, but the Torah and the dignity which it conferred ? But in all these, and innumerable similar instances, the allegorical interpretation was only an application of Scripture for homiletical purposes, not a search ing into a rationale beneath, such as that of the Hellenists. The latter the Rabbis would have utterly repudiated, on their express prin ciple that ' Scripture goes not beyond its plain meaning.' 5 They sternly insisted, that we ought not to search into the ulterior object and rationale of a law, but simply obey it. But it was this very rationale of the Law which the Alexandrians sought to find under its letter. It was in this sense that Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria,11 sought to explain Scripture. Only a fragment of his » About ico 1 A similar principle applied to the thousand pieces. Comp. Rashi on Gen. prohibition of such species as the mouse xxxiii. 20. or the weasel, not only because they 4 Perhaps we ought here to point out destroyed everything, but because the one of the most important p'inciples of latter, from its mode of conceiving and Eabbinism, which has been almost en- bearing, symbolised listening to evil tirely overlooked in modern criticism nf tnles, and exaggerated, lying, or ma- the Talmud. It is this : that any ordi- licious speech. nance, not only of the Divine law, but of 2 Of course this method is constantly the Rabbis, even though only given for adopted by Josephus. Comp. for ex- a particular time or occasion, or for a ample, Ant. iii. 1. 6; 7. 7. special reason, remains in full force for all 8 Or else the Dorshey Chamuroth, time, unless expressly recalled by God searchers of difficult passages. (Bezah 5 b). Thus Maimonides (Sepher 1 Tbe seventy languages in which the ha Mizv.) declares the law tu extirpate Law was supposed to have been written the Canaanites as continuing in its obli- helow Mount. Ebal (Sotah viii. 5). I gations. The inferences as to the per- cannot help feeling this may in part petual obligation, not only of the cere- also refer to the various modes of inter- monial law, but of sacrifices, will be preting Holy Scripture, and that there is obvious, and their bearing on the Jewish an allusion to this in Shabb. 88 b, where controversy need not be explained. Comp. Ps. lxviii. 12, and Jer. xxiii. 29, are quoted, Chief Rabbi Holdheim, d. Ceremonial the latter to show that the Word of God is Gesetz in Messiasreich, 1845. like a hammer that breaks the rock in a B 2 B.C. 36 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. " As Val- txmer puts it, Diatr. de Aristob.Jud. p. 73 work, which seems to have been a Commentary on the Pentateuch, dedicated to King Ptolemy (Philometor), has been preserved to us (by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius a). According to Clement of Alexandria, his aim was, ' to bring the Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out of the other prophets.' Thus, when we read that God stood, it meant the stable order of the world ; that He created the world in six days, the orderly succession of time ; the rest of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in such manner could the whole system of Aristotle be found in the Bible. But how was this to be accounted for ? Of course, the Bible had not learned from Aristotle, but he and all the other philosophers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in their writings were united in all their glory in the Torah. It was a tempting path on which to enter, and one on which there was no standing still. It only remained to give fixedness to the allegori cal method by reducing it to certain principles, or canons of criticism, and to form the heterogeneous mass of Grecian philosophemes and Jewish theologumena into a compact, if not homogeneous system. This was the work of Philo of Alexandria, born about 20 B.C. It concerns us not here to inquire what were the intermediate links be tween Aristobulus and Philo. Another and more important point claims our attention. If ancient Greek philosophy knew the teaching of Moses, where was the historic evidence for it ? If such did not exist, it must somehow be invented. Orpheus was a name which had always lent itself to literary fraud,b and so Aristobulus boldly produces (whether of his own or of others' making) a number of spurious citations from Hesiod, Homer, Linus, but especially from Orpheus, all Biblical and Jewish in their cast. Aristobulus was neither the first nor the last to commit such fraud. The Jewish Sibyl boldly, and, as we shall see, successfully personated the heathen oracles. And this opens, generally, quite a vista of Jewish-Grecian literature. In the second, and even in the third century before Christ, there were Hellenist historians, such as Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, and Aristeas ; tragic and epic poets, such as Ezekiel, Pseudo-Philo, and Theodotus, who, after the manner of the ancient classical writers, but for their own purposes, described certain periods of Jewish history, or sang of such themes as the Exodus, Jerusalem, or the rape of Dinah. The mention of these spurious quotations naturally leads us to another class of spurious literature, which, although not Hellenistic has many elements in common with it, and,- even when originating PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC LITERATURE. 37 with Palestinian Jews, is not Palestinian, nor yet has been preserved in CHAP. its language. We allude to what are known as the Pseudepigraphic, HI or Pseudonymic Writings, so called because, with one exception, they * ' — " bear false names of authorship. It is difficult to arrange them otherwise than chronologically — and even here the greatest difference of opinions prevails. Their general character (with one exception) may be described as anti-heathen, perhaps missionary, but chiefly as Apocalyptic. They are attempts at taking up the key-note struck in the prophecies of Daniel ; rather, we should say, to lift the veil only partially raised by him, and to point — alike as concerned Israel, and the kingdoms of the world — to the past, the present, and the future, in the light of the Kingship of the Messiah. Here, if any where, we might expect to find traces of New Testament teaching ; and yet, side by side with frequent similarity of form, the greatest difference — we had almost said contrast — in spirit, prevails. Many of these wopks must have perished. In one of the latest of thema they are put down at seventy, probably a round number, • 4 Esdras having reference to the supposed number of the nations of the earth, X1T' **' 4* or to every possible mode of interpreting Scripture. They are de scribed as intended for ' the wise among the people,' probably those whom St. Paul, in the Christian sense, designates as ' knowing the time ' b l of the Advent of the Messiah. Viewed in this light, they » Bom. xiii. embody the ardent aspirations and the inmost hopes 2 of those who longed for the ' consolation of Israel,' as' they understood it. Nor should we judge their personations of authorship according to our Western ideas.3 Pseudonymic writings were common in that age, and a Jew might perhaps plead that, even in the Old Testament, books had been headed by names which confessedly were not those of their authors (such as Samuel, Ruth, Esther). If those inspired poets who sang in the spirit, and echoed the strains, of Asaph, adopted that designation, and the sons of Korah preferred to be known by that title, might not they, who could no longer claim the authority of inspiration seek attention for their utterances by adopting the names of those in whose spirit they professed to write ? The most interesting as well as the oldest of these books are 1 The xatpSs of St. Paul seems here used the Pseudepigrapha. Their ardour of in exactly the same sense as in later expectancy ill agrees with the modern Hebrew |J3f. The LXX. render it so in theories, which would eliminate, if pos- five passages (Ezr. v. 3 ; Dan. iv. 33 ; vi. sible, the Messianic hope from ancient 10 ; vii. 22, 25). Judaism. 2 Of course, it suits Jewish writers, 3- Comp. Dillmann in Herzog's Real like Dr. Jost, to deprecate the value of Encykl. vol. xii. p. 301. 11 38 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK those known as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Psalter 1 of Solomon, and the Book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis. Only the briefest notice of them can here find a place.1 The Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date a century and a half before Christ, comes to us from Palestine. It professes to be a vision vouchsafed to that Patriarch, and tells of the fall of the Angels and its consequences, and of what he saw and heard in his rapt journeys through heaven and earth. Of deepest, though often sad, interest, is what it says of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the Advent of Messiah and His Kingdom, and of the last things. On the other hand, the Sibylline Oracles, of which the oldest por tions date from about 160 B.C., come to us from Egypt. It is to the latter only that we here refer. Their most interesting parts are also the most characteristic. In them the ancient heathen myths of the first ages of man are welded together with Old Testament notices, while the heathen Theogony is recast in a Jewish mould. Thus Noah becomes Uranos, Shem Saturn, Ham Titan, and Japheth Japetus. Similarly, we have fragments of ancient heathen oracles, so to speak, recast in a Jewish edition. The strangest circumstance is, that the utterances of this Judaising and Jewish Sibyl seem to have passed as the oracles of the ancient Erythraean, which had predicted the fall of Troy, and as those of the Sibyl of Cumse, which, in the infancy of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus had deposited in the .Capitol. The collection of eighteen hymns known as the Psalter of Solomon dates from more than half a century before our era. No doubt the original was Hebrew, though they breathe a somewhat Hellenistic spirit. They express ardent Messianic aspirations, and a firm faith in the Resurrection, and in eternal rewards and punishments . Different in character from the preceding works is The Book of Jubilees — so called from its chronological arrangement into ' Jubilee- periods ' — or ' Little Genesis.' It is chiefly a kind of legendary sup plement to the Book of Genesis, intended to explain some of its historic difficulties, and to fill up its historic lacunce. It was probably written about the time of Christ; — and this gives it a special interest by a Palestinian, and in Hebrew, or rather Aramsean. But, like the rest of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature which comes from Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew, we possess it no longer in that language, but only in translation. If from this brief review of Hellenist and Pseudepigraphic lite rature we turn to take a retrospect, we can scarcely fail to perceive 1 For a brief review of the ' Pseudepigraphic Writings,' see Appendix I. THE OLD AND THE NEW. 39 on the one hand, the development of the old, and on the other the CHAP. preparation for the new — in other words, the grand expectancy in awakened, and the grand preparation made. One step only remained ' " to complete what Hellenism had already begun. That completion came through one who, although himself untouched by the Gospel, perhaps more than any other prepared alike his co-religionists the Jews, and his countrymen the Greeks, for the new teaching, which, indeed, was presented by many of its early advocates in the forms which they had learned from him. That man was Philo the Jew, of Alexandria. 40 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. CHAPTER IV. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, THE EABBIS, AND THE GOSPELS — THE FINAL DE VELOPMENT OF HELLENISM IN ITS RELATION TO RABBINISM AND THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. BOOK It is strange how little we know of the personal history of the I greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old, though he occupied so prominent a position in his time.1 Philo was born in Alexandria, about the year 20 before Christ. He was a descendant of Aaron, and belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential families among the Jewish merchant-princes of Egypt. His brother was the poli tical head of that community in Alexandria, and he himself on one occasion represented his co-religionists — though unsuccessfully — at • 37-41 a.d. Rome," as the head of an embassy to entreat the Emperor Caligula for protection from the persecutions consequent on the Jewish re sistance to placing statues of the Emperor in their Synagogues. But it is not with Philo, the wealthy aristocratic Jew of Alexandria, but with the great writer and thinker who, so to speak, completed Jewish Hellenism, that we have here to do. Let us see what was his rela tion alike to heathen philosophy and to the Jewish faith, of both of which he was the ardent advocate, and how in his system he combined the teaching of the two. To begin with, Philo united in rare measure Greek learning with Jewish enthusiasm. In his writings he very frequently uses clas sical modes of expression;2 he names not fewer than sixty-four Greek writers ; 3 and he either alludes to, or quotes frequently from, such sources as Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Solon, the great Greek tragedians, Plato, and others. But to him these men were scarcely ' heathen.' He had sat at their feet, and learned to weave a system from Pytha goras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of these 1 Hausrath (N.T. Zeitg. vol. ii. p. 222 collected a vast number of parallel ex- Ac.) has given a highly imaginative pressions, chiefly from Plato and Plutarch picture of Philo — as, indeed, of many (pp. 39-47). other persons and things. » Comp. Grossmann, Qusest. Phil. i. p. 6 2 Siegfried has, with immense labour, &c. PHILO'S CANONS OF INTERPRETATION. 41 philosophers were ' holy,' and Plato was ' the great.' But holier than CHAP. ill was the gathering of the true Israel ; and incomparably greater IV :han any, Moses. From him had all sages learned, and with him ' ' ' ilone was all truth to be found — not, indeed, in the letter, but under the letter, of Holy Scripture. If in Numb, xxiii. 19 we read ' God is not a man,' and in Deut. i. 31 that the Lord was ' as a man,' did it not imply, on the one hand, the revelation of absolute truth by God, and, on the other, accommodation to those who were weak ? Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation of the Word of God — the literal and the allegorical. The letter of the text must be held fast ; and Biblical personages and histories were real. But only narrow-minded slaves of the letter would stop here ; the more so, as sometimes the literal meaning alone would be tame, even absurd ; while the allegorical interpretation gave the true sense, even though it might occasionally run counter to the letter. Thus, the patriarchs represented states of the soul ; and, whatever the letter might bear, Joseph represented one given to the fleshly, whom his brothers rightly hated ; Simeon the soul aiming after the higher ; the killing of the Egyptian by Moses, the subjugation of passion, and so on. But this allegorical interpretation — by the side of the literal (the Peshat of the Palestinians) — though only for the few, was not arbitrary. It had its ' laws,' and ' canons ' — some of which excluded the literal interpreta tion, while others admitted it by the side of the higher meaning.1 To begin with the former : the literal sense must be wholly set aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity, anything un meaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. Manifestly, this canon, if strictly applied, would do away not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly superfluous words, particles, or expressions.2 These could, of course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of the actual inspiration of the LXX. version. Similarly, in exact accordance with a Talmudical canon," °BabaK. any repetition of what had been already stated would point to some thing new. These were comparatively sober rules of exegesis. Not so the licence which he claimed of freely altering the punctuation 3 of 1 In this sketch of the system of Philo ing to some special meaning, since there I have largely availed myself of the was not a word or particle in Scrip- careful analysis of Siegfried. ture without a definite meaning and 2 It should be noted that these are object. also Talmudical canons, not indeed for 3 To illustrate what use might be allegorical interpretation, but as point- made of such alterations, the Midrash 4:2 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK sentences, and his notion that, if one from among several synonymous I words was chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning ' attaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea, that a word which occurred in the LXX. might be interpreted according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the Greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by slightly altering the letters. However, like other of Philo's allegorical canons, these were also adopted by the Rabbis, and Haggadic interpretations were frequently prefaced by : ' Read not thus — but thus.' If such violence might be done to the text, we need not wonder at interpretations based on a play upon words, or even upon parts of a word. Of course, all seemingly strange or peculiar modes of expression, or of designation, occurring in Scripture, must have their special meaning, and so also every particle, adverb, or preposition. Again, the position of a verse, its succession by another, the apparently unaccountable presence or absence of a word, might furnish hints for some deeper meaning, and so would an unexpected singular for a plural, or vice versd, the use of a tense, even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, an allegorical inter pretation might be again employed as the basis of another.1 We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are essentially the same as those of Jewish traditionalism in the Haggadah,2 only the latter were not rationalising, and far more brilliant in their appli cation.3 In another respect also the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian exegesis. Reverently and cautiously it indicated what might be omitted in public reading, and why ; what expressions of the original might be modified by the Meturgeman, and how ; so as to avoid alike one danger by giving a passage in its literality, and another by adding to the sacred text, or conveying a wrong impres sion of the Divine Being, or else giving occasion to the unlearned and (Ber. R. 65) would have us* punctuate KaTakkayrjs, pp. 57-88. Gen. xxvii. 19, as follows: 'And Jacob » For a comparison between Philo and said unto his father, I (viz. am he who Rabbinic theology, see Appendix II - will receive the ten commandments)— « Philo and Babbinic Theology ' Freuden- (but) Esau (is) thy firstborn.' In Yalkut thai (Hellen. Studien, pp 67 &c ) aptly there is the still more curious explanation designates this mixture of the two as that in heaven the soul of Jacob was the ' Hellenistic Midrash ' it being difficult firstborn I _ sometimes to distinguish whether it 1 Each of these positions is capable of originated in Palestine or in Egvpt or ample proof from Philo's writings, as else in both independently Freudenthal shown by Siegfried. But only a bare gives a number of curious instances in statement of these canons was here pos- which Hellenism and Eabbinism a°ree in sih}e' , ... ... ., theiF interpretations. For other° inte- 2 Comp. our above outline with the resting comparisons between Haggadic • xxv. theses de modis et formuhs quibus interpretations and those of Philo see pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretari etc. Joel, Blick in d. Beligionsgesch i r\ S8 soliti fuerunt,' in SwenhnHm, BfjSAoj &c. «*"gi°nsgescn. i. p. d8 » Ber. 31 b PHILO AND THE RABBIS. 43 unwary of becoming entangled in dangerous speculations. Jewish tradition here lays down some principles which would be of great practical use. Thus we are told,a that Scripture uses the modes of expression common among men. This would, of course, include all anthropomorphisms. Again, sometimes with considerable ingenuity, a suggestion is taken from a word, such as that Moses knew the serpent was to be made of brass from the similarity of the two words (nachash, a serpent, and nechosheth, brass).b Similarly, it is noted "Ber.B. 31 that Scripture uses euphemistic language, so as to preserve the great est delicacy.0 These instances might be multiplied, but the above « Ber. e. 70 will suffice. In his symbolical interpretations Philo only partially took the same road as the Rabbis. The symbolism of numbers and, so far as the Sanctuary was concerned, that of colours, and even materials, may, indeed, be said to have its foundation in the Old Testament itself. The same remark applies partially to that of names. The Rabbis certainly so interpreted them.1 But the application which Philo made of this symbolism was very diiferent. Everything became symbolical in his hands, if it suited his purpose : numbers (in a very arbitrary manner), beasts, birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones, elements, substances, conditions, even sex — and so a term or an ex pression might even have several and contradictory meanings, from which the interpreter was at liberty to choose. From the consideration of the method by which Philo derived from Scripture his theological views, we turn to a brief analysis of these views.2 1. Theology. — In "reference to God, we find, side by side, the apparently contradictory views of the Platonic and the Stoic schools. Following the former, the sharpest distinction was drawn between God and the world. God existed neither in space, nor in time ; He had neither human qualities nor affections ; in fact, He was without * Thus, to give only a few out of many there is the curious symbolical derivation examples, Ruth is derived from ravah, to of Mephibosheth, who is supposed to have satiate, to give to drink, because David, set David right on halakhic questions, as her descendant, satiated God with his Mippibosheth: 'from my mouth shaming,' Psalms of praise (Ber. 7 b). Here the ' because he put to shame the face of principle of the significance of Bible- David in the Halakhah.' Similarly in names is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in Siphri (Par. Behaalothekha, ed. Fried- the Hebrew): ' Come, behold the works mann, p. 20 a) we have very beautiful and of the Lord, who hath made names on ingenious interpretations of the names earth,' the word ' desolations,' SHaMOTH, Reuel, Hobab, and Jethro. being altered to SHeMOTH, 'names.' In 2 It would be impossible here to pive general, that section, from Ber. 3 b, to the references, which would occupy too the end of 8 a, is full of Haggadic much space. Scripture interpretations. On fol. 4 a 44 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK any qualities (airoios), and even without any name (apprjTos) ; hence, I wholly uncognisable by man (atcaTaXr/irTos). Thus, changing the " ' punctuation and the accents, the LXX. of Gen. iii. 9 was made to read: 'Adam, thou art somewhere;' but God had no somewhere, as Adam seemed to think when he hid himself from Him. In the above sense, also, Ex. iii. 14, and vi. 3, were explained, and the two names Mohim and Jehovah belonged really to the two supreme Divine ' Potencies,' while the fact of God's being uncognisable appeared from Ex. xx. 21. But side by side with this we have, to save the Jewish, or rather Old Testament, idea of creation and providence, the Stoic notion of God as immanent in the world — in fact, as that alone which is real in it, as always working : in short, to use his own Pantheistic expres sion, as 'Himself one and the all' (eh Kal to nrav). Chief in His Being is His goodness, the forthgoing of which was the ground of creation. Only the good comes from Him. With matter He can have nothing to do — hence the plural number in the account of creation. God only created the soul, and that only of the good. In the sense of being ' immanent,' God is everywhere — nay, all things are really only in Him, or rather He is the real in all. But chiefly is God the wellspring and the light of the soul — its ' Saviour ' from the ' Egypt ' of passion. Two things follow. With Philo's ideas of the separation between God and matter, it was impossible always to account for miracles or interpositions. Accordingly, these are sometimes allegorised, sometimes rationalistically explained. Further, the God of Philo, whatever he might say to the contrary, was not the God of that Israel which was His chosen people. 2. Intermediary Beings. — Potencies (Svvrifists, \6yot). If, in what has preceded, we have once and again noticed a remarkable similarity between Philo and the Rabbis, there is a still more curious analogy between his teaching and that of Jewish Mysticism, as ultimately fully developed in the ' Kabbalah.' The very term Kabbalah (from gibbel, to hand down) seems to point out not only its descent by oral tra dition, but also its ascent to ancient sources.1 Its existence is pre- "Chag.ii. l supposed, and its leading ideas are sketched in the Mishnah.a The Targums also bear at least one remarkable trace of it. May it not be, that as Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition, so both Eastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from one and the same source — we will not venture to suggest, how high up ¦ 1 For want of handier material I must the Kabbalah in the ' History of the take leave to refer to my brief sketch of Jewish Nation,' pp. 434-446. PHILO AND THE KABBALAH. 45 while each made such use of it as suited their distinctive tendencies ? CHAP. At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening Scripture to a person, com- iv pares those who study merely the letter, to them who attend only to ' ' ' the dress ; those who consider the moral of a fact, to them who attend to the body; while the initiated alone, who regard the hidden meaning, are those who attend to the soul. Again, as Philo, so the oldest part of the Mishnah a designates God as Maqom—i the place ' — » Ab. v. 4 the toVo?, the all-comprehending, what the Kabbalists called the En- Soph, ' the boundless,' that God, without any quality, Who becomes cognisable only by His manifestations.1 The manifestations of God! But neither Eastern mystical Judaism, nor the philosophy of Philo, could admit of any direct contact between God and creation. The Kabbalah solved the diffi culty by their Sephiroth,2 or emanations from God, through which this contact was ultimately brought about, and of which the En- Soph, or crown, was the spring : ' the source from which the infinite light issued.' If Philo found greater difficulties, he had also more ready help from the philosophical systems to hand. His Sephiroth were ' Potencies ' (hwapeis), ' Words ' (\6yoi), intermediate powers : ' Potencies,' as we imagine, when viewed Godwards ; ' Words,' as viewed creationwards. They were not emanations, but, according to Plato, ' archetypal ideas,' on the model of which all that exists was formed ; and also, according to the Stoic idea, the cause of all, per vading all, forming all, and sustaining all. Thus these ' Potencies ' were wholly in God, and yet wholly out of God. If we divest all this of its philosophical colouring, did not Eastern Judaism also teach that there was a distinction between the Unapproachable God, and God Manifest?3 Another remark will show the parallelism between Philo and Eabbinism.4 As the latter speaks of the two qualities (Middoth) of Mercy and Judgment in the Divine Being,* and distinguishes between b Jer. Ber. Elohim as the God of Justice, and Jehovah as the God of Mercy and Grace, so Philo places next to the Divine Word (Quos \070s), Goodness (ayadorqs), as the Creative Potency (iroivTiKr] Svvafits), 1 In short, the \6yos aitspfuniK&s of and Rabbinic Theology.' the Stoics. - * A very interesting question arises : 2 Supposed to mean either numera- how far Philo was acquainted with, and tiones, or splendour. But why not derive influenced by, the Jewish traditional law the word from npalpal The ten are: or the Halakhah. This has been treated Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, by Dr. B. Bitter in an able tractate ( Philo Judgment, Beauty, Triumph, Praise, u. die Halacb.), although he attributes Foundation, Kingdom. more to Philo than the evidence seems to 3 For the teaching of Eastern Judaism admit. in this respect, see Appendix II. : ' Philo 46 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I a Or Ruach hamMaqom, Ab. iii. 10, and fre quently in the Talmud and Power (igovata), as the Ruling Potency (fiaertXt/cr] hivaptis), proving this by a curious etymological derivation of the words for ' God ' and ' Lord ' (®sos and Kvptos) — apparently unconscious that the LXX., in direct contradiction, translated Jehovah by Lord (icvpios), and Elohim by God (®sos) ! These two Potencies of good ness and power, Philo sees in the two Cherubim, and in the two ' Angels ' which accompanied God (the Divine Word), when on His way to destroy the cities of the plain. But there were more than these two Potencies. In one place Philo enumerates six, according to the number of the cities of refuge. The Potencies issued from God as the beams from the light, as the waters from the spring, as the breath from a person ; they were immanent in God, and yet also without Him — motions on the part of God, and yet independent beings. They were the ideal world, which in its impulse outwards, meeting matter, produced this material world of ours. They were also the angels of God — His messengers to man, the media through whom He revealed Himself.1 3. The Logos. — Viewed in its bearing on New Testament teach ing, this part of Philo's system raises the most interesting questions. But it is just here that our difficulties are greatest. We can under stand the Platonic conception of the Logos as the ' archetypal idea,' and that of the Stoics as of the 'world-reason' pervading matter. Similarly, we can perceive, how the Apocrypha — especially the Book of Wisdom — following up the Old Testament typical truth concern ing ' Wisdom ' (as specially set forth in the Book of Proverbs) almost arrived so far as to present ' Wisdom ' as a special ' Subsistence ' (hy- postatising it). More than this, in Talmudical writings we find men tion not only of the Shem, or ' Name,' 2 but also of the ' Shekhinah,' God as manifest and present, which is sometimes also presented as the Ruach ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit/ But in the Targumim we meet yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the ' At the same time there is a remark able difference here between Philo and Rabbinism. Philo holds that the creation of the world was brought about by the Potencies, but that the Law was given directly through Moses, and not by the mediation of angels. But this latter was certainly the view generally entertained in Palestine as expressed in the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 2, in the Tar gumim on that passage, and more fully still in Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, in the Mid rashim and in the Talmud, where we are told (Mace. 24 a) that only the open ing words, 'I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but Me,' were spoken by God Himself. Comp. also Acts vii. 38, 53 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; Heb. n. 2. 2 Hammejuchad, 'appropriatum;' ham- mephorash, ' expositum,' ' separatum,' the ' tetragrammaton,' or four-lettered name, nifV. There was also a Shem with ' twelve,' and one with 'forty-two ' letters (Kidd. 71 a). THE 'MEMRA' OF ONKELOS AND THE 'LOGOS.' 47 Talmud.1 It is that of the Memra, Logos, or ' Word.' Not that the term is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos.2 But it stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God — not as in His per manent manifestation, or manifest Presence — but as reyealing Himself, is designated Memra. Altogether that term, as, applied to God, occurs in the Targum Onkelos 179 times, inthe so-called Jerusalem Targum 99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo- Jonathan 321 times . A critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as revealing Himself.3 But what does this imply ? The distinction between God and the Memra of Jehovah is marked in many passages.4 Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from the Shekhinah.5 Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word Jehovah ; 6 nor for the well-known Old Testament expression ' the Angel of the Lord ; ' 7 nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo- Jonathan and of the Talmud.8 Does it then represent an older tradition underl^ ing all these ? 9 Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if words CHAP. IV * Levy (Neuhebr. Worterb. i. p. 374 a) seems to imply that in the Midrash the term dibbur occupies the same place and meaning. But with all deference I can not agree with this opinion, nor do the passages quoted bear it out. 2 The ' word,' as spoken, is distin guished from the ' Word ' as speaking, or revealing Himself. The former is generally designated by the term 'pithgama.' Thus in Gen. xv. 1, ' After these words (things) came the " pithgama " ot Jehovah to Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not, Abram, My " Memra " shall be thy strength, and thy very great reward. ' Still, the term Memra, as applied not only to man, but also in reference to God, is not always the equivalent of ' the Logos.' 3 The various passages in the Targum of Onkelos, the Jerusalem, and the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the Penta teuch will be found enumerated and classified, as those in which it is a doubt ful, a, fair, or an unquestionable inference, that the word Memra is intended for God revealing Himself, in Appendix II. ; ' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.' 4 As, for example, Gen. xxviii. 21, 'the Memra of Jehovah shall be my God.' 5 As, for example, Num. xxiii. 21, 'the Memra of Jehovah their God is their helper, and the Shekhinah of their King is in the midst of them.' 8 That term is often used by Onkelos. Besides, the expression itself is 'the Memra of Jehovah.' ' Onkelos only once (in Ex. iv. 24) paraphrases Jehovah by ' Malakha.' 8 Metatron, either = ficra Bp6vov, or pera ripavvov. In the Talmud it is ap plied to the Angel of Jehovah (Ex. xxiii. 20), ' the Prince of the World,' ' the Prince of the Face ' or ' of the Presence,' as they call him ; he who sits in the inner most chamber before God, while the other angels only hear His commands from be hind the veil (Chag. 16 a ; 5 b ; Toseft. ad Chull. 60 a ; Jeb. 16 b). This Metatron of the Talmud and the Kabbalah is also the Adam Qadmon, or archetypal man. 0 Of deep interest is Onkelos' render ing of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where, instead of ' underneath are the everlasting arms,' Onkelos has, ' and by His Memra was the world created,' exactly as in St. John i. 10. Now this divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text seems unaccount able. Winer, whose inaugural disserta tion, ' De Onkeloso ejusque paraph. Chald.' Lips. 1820, most modern writers have followed (with amplifications, chiefly from Luzzato's Philoxenus), makes no reference to this passage, nor do his suc cessors, so far as I know. It is curious THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis, though the distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet, to complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah. In ¦Gen. rifc. the Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him,a while Num. 'xxiv. in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages are rendered with explicit reference to Him. If we now turn to the views expressed by Philo about the Logos we find that they are hesitating, and even contradictory. One thing, how ever, is plain : the Logos of Philo is not the Memra of the Targumim. For, the expression Memra ultimately rests on theological, that of Logos on philosophical grounds. Again, the Logos of Philo approxi mates more closely to the Metatron of the Talmud and Kabbalah. As they speak of him as the ' Prince of the Face,' who bore the name of his Lord, so Philo represents the Logos as ' the eldest Angel,' ' the many-named Archangel,' in accordance with the Jewish view that the name JeHoVaH unfolded its meaning in seventy names for the God head.'1 As they speak of the 'Adam Qadmon,' so Philo of the Logos as the human reflection of the eternal God. And in both these respects, it is worthy of notice that he appeals to ancient teaching.2 What, then, is the Logos of Philo ? Not a concrete personality, and yet, from another point of view, not strictly impersonal, nor merely a pro- that, as our present Hebrew text of this has scarcely received as yet sufficient" verse consists of three words, so does the treatment. Mr. Deutsch's Article in rendering of Onkelos, and that both end Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible ' (since with the same word. Is the rendering of reprinted in his ' Remains ') is, though, Onkelos then a paraphrase, or does it brilliantly written, unsatisfactory. Dr. represent another reading ? Another in- Davidson (in Kitto's Cyclop vol iii terestmg passage is Deut viii. 3 I. Its quo- pp. 948-966) is, as always, careful, la- tation by Christ in St. Matt. iv. 4 is deeply borious, and learned. Dr. Volck's article interesting as read in the light of the ren- (in Herzog's Real-Encykl., vol. xv. pp. denng of Onkelos, 'Not by bread alone is 672-683) is without much intrinsic value, man sustained, but by all forthcoming of though painstaking. We mention these the Memra from before Jehovah shall articles, besides the treatment of the sub- man live. Yet another rendering of ject in the Introduction to the Old Testa- Onkelos is significantly illustrative of ment (Keil, De Wette- Schrader, Bleek- 1 Cor. x. 1- 4. He renders Deut. xxxiii. 3 Kamphausen, Reuss), and the w rks of Z™> PZer ir°?ght Jthem °?* ,0f Zunz. ^iger, Noldeke, and o.hers,to whom Egypt , they were led under thy cloud ; partial reference has alreadv been made. they journeyed according to (by) thy ^m«^ftinterestinRandlearnedbook(Zu llTt tfc w h frePreslnt £ dl?T dem Targum der Propheten) deals almost Iv HiffiP,^% t W m the f ^uf'v exclusively with the Targum Jonathan, on WinPf ^ f Vn °Ur- PfSent BlS\' which ^ was impossible to enter within Winer refers to it as an instance m which our limits. As modern brochures of morf™ e1SU°Pt mf em°^ • °°P10Se ad" interest the AUowing three may be men- modum eloquitur vatum divinorum men- tioned : Maybaum, Ar!throPornorphieii bei ™rih ?f fr!1?' p ; ^ % ¦' %&S <-Sln^hS Snkelos ; ^nemann, Die Jonath. Pentat. vocibusinessecrediderit,_sign1ficationibus Uebers. im Verhaltn. z. Halacha; and non possit recte judican ; and Winer s Singer, Onkelos im Verhiiltn. z. Halacha. successors say much the same. Butthis • See the enumeration of the.e 70 is to state not to explain, the difficulty. Names in the Baal-ha-Tmim on Numb. In general, we may here be allowed to xi. 16 ^umu. say that the question of the Targumim 2 Comp. Siegfried, u. s., pp. 221-223. PHILO'S LOGOS AS THE HIGH-PRIEST ANT) PARACLETE. 49 perty of the Deity, but the shadow, as it were, which the light of God CHAP. casts — and if Himself light, only the manifested reflection of God, His IV spiritual, even as the world is His material, habitation. Moreover, the " ' "' Logos is ' the image of God ' (eIkcov), upon which man was made,8, or, ¦ Gen. i. 2? to use the Platonic term, 'the archetypal idea.' As regards the relation between the Logos and the two fundamental Potencies (from which all others issue), the latter are variously represented — on the one hand, as proceeding from the Logos ; and on the other, as themselves constituting the Logos. As regards the world, the Logos is its real being. He is also its archetype ; moreover the instrument (opyavov) through Whom God created all things. If the Logos separates between God and the world, it is rather as intermediary : He separates, but He also unites. But chiefly does this hold true as regards the relation between God and man. The Logos announces and interprets to man the will and mind of God (sp/iTjvsvs Kal irpo(f>^T7]s) ; He acts as mediator ; He is the real High-Priest, and as such by His purity takes away the sins of man, and by His intercession procures for us the mercy of God. Hence Philo designates Him not only as the High-Priest, but as the ' Paraclete.' He is also the sun whose rays enlighten man, the medium of Divine revelation to the soul ; the Manna, or support of spiritual life ; He Who dwells in the soul. And so the Logos is, in the fullest sense, Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God, the king of righteousness (/3a 5 Antonia, the much respected sister-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius. d * Ant. xix. It was a small thing for such a man to lend King Agrippa, when his fortunes were very low, a sum of about 7,000Z. with which to resort to Italy,e since he advanced it on the guarantee of Agrippa's wife, e Ant. xviii. whom he highly esteemed, and at the same time made provision that the money should not be all spent before the Prince met the Emperor. Besides, he had his own plans in the matter. Two of his sons married daughters of King Agrippa ; while a third, at the price of apostasy, rose successively to the posts of Procurator of Palestine, and finally of Governor of Egypt.f The Temple at Jeru- '5A^'™;.3 salem bore evidence of the wealth and. munificence of this Jewish millionaire. The gold and silver with which the nine massive gates 1 Could there have been any such 629). The subject is of great impor- meaning in laying the Roman cross which tance as illustrating the rule of the Jesus had to bear upon a Cyrenian (St. Synagogue in the days of Christ. An- Luke xxiii. 26)2 A symbolical meaning it other designation on the gravestones narr)p certainly has, as we remember that the avvayayris seems to refer solely to age — last Jewish rebellion (132-135 A.D.), one being described as 110 years old Ghichhad BarCochbaforits Messiah, first l Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 345. broke out in Cyrene. What terrible ven- * Marquardt (Rom. Staatsverwalt. vol. geance was taken on those who followed i. p. 297). Note 5 suggests that *0vos the false Christ, cannot here be told. may here mean elassis, ordo. 2 Jewish inscriptions have also been e The office itself would seem to have found in Mauritania and Algiers. been continued. (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2.) 3 On a tombstone at Capua (Mommsen, ' Comp. Wessehng, de Jud. Archon t. Inscr. R. Neap. 3,657, apud Schurer, p. pp. 63, &c, apud Schurer, pp. 627, 628. 64 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK were covered, which led into the Temple, were the gift of the great I Alexandrian banker. The possession of such wealth, coupled no doubt with pride and self-assertion, and openly spoken contempt ofthe superstitions around,1 would naturally excite the hatred of the Alexandrian populace against the Jews. The greater number of those silly stories about the origin, early history, and religion of the Jews, which even the philosophers and historians of Rome record as genuine, originated in Egypt. A *bPr°t'25oy whole series of writers, beginning with Manetho," made it their B c- business to give a kind of historical travesty of the events recorded in the books of Moses. The boldest of these scribblers was Apion, to whom Josephus replied — a world-famed charlatan and liar, who wrote or lectured, with equal presumption and falseness, on every conceivable object. He was just the man to suit the Alexandrians, on whom his unblushing assurance imposed. In Rome he soon found his level, and the Emperor Tiberius well characterised the irrepressible boastful talker as the ' tinkling cymbal of the world.' He had studied, seen, and heard everything — even, on three occasions, the mysterious sound on the Colossus of Memnon, as the sun rose upon it ! At least, so he graved upon the Colossus itself, for the information of all generations.2 Such was the man on whom the Alexandrians conferred the freedom of their city, to whom they entrusted their most important affairs, and whom they extolled as the victorious, the laborious, the new Homer.3 There can be little doubt, that the popular favour was partly due to Apion's virulent attacks upon the Jews. His grotesque accounts of their history and religion held them up to contempt. But his real object was to rouse the fanaticism of the populace against the Jews. Every year, so he told them, it was the practice of the Jews to get hold of some unfortunate Hellene, whom ill-chance might bring into their hands, to fatten him for the year, and then to sacrifice him partaking of his entrails, and burying the body, while during these horrible rites they took a fearful oath of perpetual enmity to the Greeks. These were the people who battened on the wealth of Alexandria, who had usurped quarters of the city to which they had no right,' and claimed exceptional privileges ; a people who had proved traitors to, and the ruin of every one who had trusted them. 'If the Jews,' he exclaimed, ' are citizens of Alexandria, why do they not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians ? ' And, if they wished ' Comp., for example, such a trenchant » A very good sketch of Apion is given chapter as Baruch vi., or the 2nd Pragm. by Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg vol if PP of the Erythr. Sibyl, w. 21-33. 187-195. w' 2 Comp. Friedlander, u. s. ii. p. 155. ESTIMATE OF JUDAISM IN ROME. Gj to enjoy the protection of the Cassars, why did they not erect statues, and pay Divine honour to them ? • There is nothing strange in these appeals to the fanaticism of mankind. In one form or another, they have only too often been repeated in all lands and ages, and, alas ! by the representatives of all creeds. Well might the Jews, as Philo mourns," wish no better for themselves than to be treated like other * Leg. ad , ' Caj. ed.Fre£. men! We have already seen, that the ideas entertained in Rome about the Jews were chiefly derived from Alexandrian sources. But it is not easy to understand, how a Tacitus, Cicero, or Pliny could have credited such absurdities as that the Jews had come from Crete (Mount Ida — Idasi= Judsei), been expelled on account of leprosy from Egypt, and emigrated under an apostate priest, Moses ; or that the Sabbath-rest originated in sores, which had obliged the wanderers to stop short on the seventh day ; or that the Jews worshipped the head of an ass, or else Bacchus ; that their abstinence from swine's flesh was due to remembrance and fear of leprosy, or else to the worship of that animal — and other puerilities of the like kind.b The educated Roman >> Comp. regarded the Jew with a mixture of contempt and anger, all the more nut. v. 2-4 ; keen that, according to his notions, the Jew had, since his subjection pos.iv. 5 to Rome, no longer a right to his religion ; and all the more bitter that, do what he might, that despised race confronted him everywhere, with a religion so uncompromising as to form a wall of separation, and with rites so exclusive as to make them not only strangers, but enemies. Such a phenomenon was nowhere else to be encountered. The Romans were intensely practical. In their view, political life and religion were not only intertwined, but the one formed part of the other. A religion apart from a political organisation, or which offered not, as a quid pro quo, some direct return from the Deity to his votaries, seemed utterly inconceivable. Every country has its own religion, argued Cicero, in his appeal for Flaccus. So long as Jeru salem was unvanquished, Judaism might claim toleration ; but had not the immortal gods shown what they thought of it, when the Jewish race was conquered ? This was a kind of logic that appealed to the humblest in the crowd, which thronged to hear the great orator defending his client, among others, against the charge of preventing the transport from Asia to Jerusalem of the annual Temple-tribute. This was not a popular accusation to bring against a man in such an assembly. And as the Jews — who, to create a disturbance, had (we are told) distributed themselves among the audience in such numbers, 1 Jos. Ag. Ap. ii. i, 5, 6. VOL. I. F 66 THE PREPARATION FOR THE -GOSPEL. BOOK that Cicero somewhat rhetorically declared, he would fain have spoken 1 with bated breath, so as to be only audible to the judges — listened to the great orator, they must have felt a keen pang shoot to their hearts, while he held them up to the scorn of the heathen, and touched, with rough finger, their open sore, as he urged the ruin of their nation as the one unanswerable argument, which Materialism could bring against the religion of the Unseen. And that religion — was it not, in the words of Cicero, a ' barbar- °Sis]-Nat- ous superstition,' and were not its adherents, as Pliny had it," ' a race distinguished for its contempt of the gods ' ? To begin with their theology. The Roman philosopher would sympathise with disbelief of all spiritual realities, as, on the other hand, he could understand the popular modes of worship and superstition. But what was to be said for a worship of something quite unseen, an adoration, as it seemed to him, of the clouds and of the sky, without any visible symbol, con joined with an utter rejection of every other form of religion — Asiatic, Egyptian, Greek, Roman — and the refusal even to pay the customary Divine honour to the Csesars, as the incarnation of Roman power ? Next, as to their rites. Foremost among them was the initiatory rite of circumcision, a constant subject for coarse jests. What could be the meaning of it ; or of what seemed like some ancestral veneration for the pig, or dread of it, since they made it a religious duty not to partake of its flesh ? Their Sabbath-observance, however it had originated, was merely an indulgence in idleness. The fast young Roman literati would find their amusement in wanderinc- on the Sabbath-eve through the tangled, narrow streets of the Ghetto, watching how the dim lamp within shed its unsavoury light, while the •>/>«•«!« y. inmates mumbled prayers ' with blanched lips ; ' b or they would, like Ovid, seek in the Synagogue occasion for their dissolute amusements. The Thursday fast was another target for their wit. In short, at the best, the Jew was a constant theme of popular merriment, and the theatre would resound with laughter as his religion was lampooned, no matter how absurd the stories, or how poor the punning.1 And then, as the proud Roman passed on the Sabbath through the streets, Judaism would obtrude itself upon his notice, by the shops that were shut, and by the strange figures that idly moved about in holiday attire. They were strangers in a strange land, not only without sympathy with what passed around, but with marked contempt and abhorrence of it, while there was that about their whole bearing, which expressed the unspoken feeling, that the time ' Comp. the quotation of such scenes in the Introd. to the Midrash on Lamentations. ROMAN HATRED OF THE JEWS. 67 of Rome's fall, and of their own supremacy, was at hand. To put CHAP, the general feeling in the words of Tacitus, the Jews kept close to- V gether, and were ever most liberal to one another ; but they were filled ' with bitter hatred of all others. They would neither eat nor sleep with strangers ; and the first thing which they taught their proselytes was to despise the gods, to renounce their own country, and to rend the bonds which had bound them to parents, children, or kindred. To be sure, there was some ground of distorted truth in these charges. For, the Jew, as such, was only intended for Palestine. By a neces sity, not of his own making, he was now, so to speak, the negative element in the heathen world ; yet one which, do what he might, would always obtrude itself upon public notice. But the Roman satirists went further. They accused the Jews of such hatred of all other religionists, that they would not even show the way to any who worshipped otherwise, nor point out the cooling spring to the thirsty." * /"":(S,t:0 According to Tacitus, there was a political and religious reason for this. In order to keep the Jews separate from all other nations, Moses had given them rites, contrary to those of any other race, that they might regard as unholy what was sacred to others, and as lawful what they held in abomination.b Such a people deserved neither t>Hist. v. 13 consideration nor pity ; and when the historian tells how thousands of their number had been banished by Tiberius to Sardinia, he dismisses the probability of their perishing in that severe climate with the cynical remark, that it entailed ' ' a poor loss ' c (vile ^a™. juw. damnum). Tib-30 Still, the Jew was there in the midst of them. It is impossible to fix the date when the first Jewish wanderers found their way to the capital of the world. We know, that in the wars under Pompey, Cassius, and Antonius, many were brought captive to Rome, and sold as slaves. In general, the Republican party was hostile, the Csesars were friendly, to the Jews. The Jewish slaves in Rome proved an unprofitable and troublesome acquisition. They clung so tenaciously to their ancestral customs, that it was impossible to make them con form to the ways of heathen households.3 How far they would carry * Phuo, Leg. their passive resistance, appears from a story told by Josephus,e about prcf.Vioi some Jewish priests of his acquaintance, who, during their captivity 'Life 3 in Rome, refused to eat anything but figs and nuts, so as to avoid the defilement of Gentile food.1 Their Roman masters deemed it prudent ' ZwiterJftjWNeutest.Lehrbegr.p. 119), etc.),regards these priests asthe accusers following up the suggestions of Wieseler of St. Paul, who brought about his mar- (Chron. d. Apost. Zeitalt. pp. 384, 402, tyrdom. F 2 68 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK to give their Jewish slaves their freedom, either at a small ransom, or 1 even without it. These freedmen (liberti) formed the nucleus of the Jewish community in Rome, and in great measure determined its social character. Of course they were, as always, industrious, sober, pushing. In course of time many of them acquired wealth. By-and- by Jewish immigrants of greater distinction swelled their number. Still their social position was inferior to that of their co-religionists in other lands. A Jewish population so large as 40,000 in the time of Augustus, and 60,000 in that of Tiberius, would naturally include all ranks — merchants, bankers, literati, even actors.1 In a city which offered such temptations, they would number among them those of every degree of religious profession ; nay, some who would not only imitate the habits of those around, but try to outdo their gross licentiousness.2 Yet, even so, they would vainly endeavour to efface the hateful mark of being Jews. Augustus had assigned to the Jews as their special quarter the ' fourteenth region ' across the Tiber, which stretched from the slope of the Vatican onwards and across the Tiber-island, where the boats from Ostia were wont to unload. This seems to have been their poor • Mart. i. 4i; quarter, chiefly inhabited by hawkers, sellers of matches," glass, old clothes, and second-hand wares. The Jewish burying-ground in that quarter 3 gives evidence of their condition. The whole appointments and the graves are mean. There is neither marble nor any trace of painting, unless it be a rough representation of the seven-branched candlestick in red colouring. Another Jewish quarter was by the Porta Capena, where the Appian Way entered the city. Close by, the ancient sanctuary of Egeria was utilised at the time of Juvenal 4 as a Jewish hawking place. But there must have been richer Jews also in that neighbourhood, since the burying-place there discovered has paintings — some even of mythological figures, of which the meaning has not yet been ascertained. A third Jewish burying-ground was near the ancient Christian catacombs. But indeed, the Jewish residents in Rome must have spread over every quarter of the city— even the best— to judge by the location of their Synagogues. From inscriptions, we have been made acquainted not only with the existence, but with the names, of not fewer than 1 Comp., for example, Mart. xi. 94 ; Gesch. Isr. vol. vii. p 27 Jos. Life 3 > Described 'by' imo', but since un- 2 Martialis, u. s. The 'Anehialus by known. Comp. Friedlander, u. s vol iii whom the poet would have the Jew pp. 510, 511. «*."». swear, is a corruption of Anochi Elohim * Sat. iii. 13 • vi. 542 (' I am God ') in Ex. xx. 2. Comp. Ewald, ANCIENT JEWISH TOMBSTONES AND THEIR TEACHING. 69 seven of these Synagogues. Three of them respectively bear the chap names of Augustus, Agrippa, and Volumnius, either as their patrons, V or because the worshippers were chiefly their attendants and clients ; " ' ~* while two of them derived their names from the Campus Martins, and the quarter Subura in which they stood.1 The ' Synagoge Elaias ' may have been so called from bearing on its front the device of an olive-tree, a favourite, and in Rome specially significant, emblem of Israel, whose fruit, crushed beneath heavy weight, would yield the precious oil by which the Divine light would shed its brightness through the night of heathendom.2 Of course, there must have been other Synagogues besides those whose names have been dis covered, One other mode of tracking the footsteps of Israel's wanderings seems strangely significant. It is by tracing their records among the dead, reading them on broken tombstones, and in ruined monuments. They are rude, and the inscriptions — most of them in bad Greek, or still worse Latin, none in Hebrew — are like the stammering of strangers. Yet what a contrast between the simple faith and earnest hope which they express, and the grim proclamation of utter disbelief in any future to the soul, not unmixed with language of coarsest materialism, on the graves of so many of the polished Romans ! Truly the pen of God in history has, as so often, ratified the sentence which a nation had pronounced upon itself. That civilisation was doomed which could inscribe over its dead such words as : 'To eternal sleep ; ' ' To perpetual rest ; ' or more coarsely express it thus, ' I was not, and I became ; I was, and am no more. Thus much is true ; who says other, lies ; for I shall not be,' adding, as it were by way of moral, 'And thou who livest, drink, play, come.' Not so did God teach His people ; and, as we pick our way among these broken stones, we can understand how a religion, which proclaimed a hope so different, must have spoken to the hearts of many even at Rome, and much more, how that blessed assurance of life and immortality, which Christianity afterwards brought, could win its thousands, though it were at the cost of poverty, shame, torture, and the arena. Wandering from graveyard to graveyard, and deciphering the records of the dead, we can almost read the history of Israel in the days of the Cassars, or when Paul the prisoner set foot on the soil of Italy. When St. Paul, on the journey of the ' Castor and Pollux,' touched at Syracuse, he would, during his stay of three days, find 1 Comp. Friedlander, u. s. vol. iii. p. 510. 2 Midr. R. on Ex. 36. 70 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. b Acts xxviii. 17 himself in the midst of a Jewish community, as we learn from an inscription. When he disembarked at Puteoli, he was in the oldest Jewish settlement next to that of Rome," where the loving hospitality of Christian Israelites constrained him to tarry over a Sabbath. As he 'went towards Rome,' and reached Capua, he would meet Jews there, as we infer from the tombstone of one ' Alfius Juda,' who had been ' Archon' of the Jews, and ' Archisynagogus ' in Capua. As he neared the city, he found in Anxur (Terracina) a Synagogue.1 In Rome itself the Jewish community was organised as in other places.b It sounds strange, as after these many centuries we again read the names of the Archons of their various Synagogues, all Roman, such as Claudius, Asteris, Julian (who was Archon alike of the Campesian and the Agrippesian Synagogue, a priest, the son of Julian the Archisyn agogus, or chief of the eldership of the Augustesian Synagogue). And so in other places. On these tombstones we find names of Jewish Synagogue-dignitaries, in every centre of population — in Pompeii, in Venusia, the birthplace of Horace ; in Jewish catacombs ; and similarly Jewish inscriptions in Africa, in Asia, in the islands of the Mediterranean, in .ZEgina, in Patras, in Athens. Even where as yet records of their early settlements have not been discovered, we still infer their presence, as we remember the almost incredible extent of Roman commerce, which led to such large settlements in Britain, or as we discover among the tombstones those of ' Syrian ' merchants, as in Spain (where St. Paul hoped to preach, no doubt, also to his own countrymen), throughout Gaul, and even in the remotest parts of Germany.2 Thus the statements of Josephus and of Philo, as to the dispersion of Israel throughout all lands of the known world, are fully borne out. But the special importance of the Jewish community in Rome lay in its contiguity to the seat of the government of the world, where every movement could be watched and influenced, and where it could lend support to the wants and wishes of that compact body which, however widely scattered, was one in heart and feeling, in thought and purpose, in faith and practice, in suffering and in prosperity.3 Thus, when upon the death of Herod a deputation from Palestine appeared in the capital to seek the restoration of their Theocracy 1 Comp. Cassel, in Ersch u. Gruber's Encyclop. 2d. sect. vol. xxvii. p. 147. 2 Comp. Friedlander, u. s. vol. ii. pp. 17-204 passim. a It was probably this unity of Israelitish interests, which Cicero had in view (Pro Flacco, 28) when he took such credit for his boldness in daring to stand up against the Jews — unless, indeed, the orator only meant to make a point in favour of his client. POSITION OF THE JEWS IN THE ROMAN WORLD. 71 under a Roman protectorate," no less than 8,000 of the Roman Jews CHAP. joined it. And in case of need they could find powerful friends, V not only among the Herodian princes, but among court favourites a Jos. Ant. who were Jews, like the actor of whom Josephus speaks ; b amono' xvun.i- 1 3 War ii. 6 ' * Life 3 those who were inclined towards Judaism, like Poppasa, the dissolute wife of Nero, whose coffin as that of a Jewess was laid amono- the urns of the emperors ; ' or among real proselytes, like those of all ranks who, from superstition or conviction, had identified themselves with the Synagogue.2 In truth, there was no law to prevent the spread of Judaism. Excepting the brief period when Tiberius e banished the Jews from • 19 a.d. Rome and sent 4,000 of their number to fight the banditti in Sardinia, the Jews enjoyed not only perfect liberty, but exceptional privileges. In the reign of Cassar and of Augustus we have quite a series of edicts, which secured the full exercise of their religion *and their communal rights.3 In virtue of these they were not to be disturbed in their religious ceremonies, nor in the observance of their sabbaths and feasts. The annual Temple-tribute was allowed to be transported to Jerusalem, and the alienation of these funds by the civil magis trates treated as sacrilege. As the Jews objected to bear arms, or march, on the Sabbath, they were freed from military service. On similar grounds, they were not obliged to appear in courts of law on their holy days. Augustus even ordered that, when the public dis tribution of corn or of money among the citizens fell on a Sabbath, the Jews were to receive their share on the following day. In a similar spirit the Roman authorities confirmed a decree by which the founder of Antioch, Seleucus I. (Nicator), d had granted the Jews the aOb. 280b.o. right of citizenship in all the cities of Asia Minor and Syria which he had built, and the privilege of receiving, instead of the oil that was distributed, which their religion forbade them to use,e an equi- e Ab. sar. ii. valent in money.f These rights were maintained by Vespasian and r /05 Ant_ Titus even after the last Jewish war, notwithstanding the earnest xn' 3' l remonstrances of these cities. No wonder, that at the death of Csesar g the Jews of Rome gathered for many nights, waking strange « a b.c. feelings of awe in the city, as they chanted in mournful melodies their Psalms around the pyre on which the body of their benefactor 1 Schiller (Gesch. d. Rom. Kaiserreichs, 2 The question of Jewish proselytes p. 583) denies that Poppaaa was a prose- will be treated in another place. lyte. It is, indeed, true, as he argues, s Comp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, passim, and that the fact oE her entombment affords xvi. 6. These edicts are collated in Krebs, no absolute evidence of this, if taken by Decreta Romanor. pro Jud. facta, with itself; but comp. Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 11; long comments by the author, and by Life 3. 72 84 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK had been burnt, and raised their pathetic dirges." The measures of 1 Tiberius against them were due to the influence of his favourite suet. ess. Sejanus, and ceased with his sway. Besides, they were the outcome of public feeling at the time against all foreign rites, which had been roused by the vile conduct of the priests of Isis towards a Roman matron, and was again provoked by a gross imposture upon Fulvia, a noble Roman proselyte, on the part of some vagabond Rabbis. But even so, there is no reason to believe that literally all Jews had left Rome. Many would find means to remain secretly behind. At any rate, twenty years afterwards Philo found a large community there, ready to support him in his mission on behalf of his Egyptian countrymen. Any temporary measures against the Jews can, therefore, scarcely be regarded as a serious interference with their privileges, or a cessation of the Imperial favour shown to them. TWOFOLD PRIVILEGES OF THE JEWS IN ASIA. 73 CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST THEIR UNION IN THE GREAT HOPE OF THE COMING DELIVERER. It was not only in the capital of the Empire that the Jews enjoyed CHAP. the rights of Roman citizenship. Many in Asia Minor could boast vi of the same privilege." The Seleucidic rulers of Syria had previously ' ' ' bestowed kindred privileges on the Jews in many places. Thus, they xiv.io, possessed in some cities twofold rights : the status of Roman, and Acts xki. the privileges of Asiatic, citizenship. Those who enjoyed the former were entitled to a civil government of their own, under archons of their choosing, quite independent of the rule and tribunals of the cities in which they lived. As instances, we may mention the Jews of Sardis, Ephesus, Delos, and apparently also of Antioch. But, whether legally entitled to it or not, they probably everywhere claimed the right of self-government, and exercised it, except in times of persecution. But, as already stated, they also possessed, besides this, at least in many places, the privileges of Asiatic citizen ship, to the same extent as their heathen fellow-citizens. This two fold status and jurisdiction might have led to serious complications, if the archons had not confined their authority to strictly communal interests,b without interfering with the ordinary administration of »comp. justice, and the Jews willingly submitted to the sentences pronounced ix? J*33" by their own tribunals. But, in truth, they enjoyed even more than religious liberty and communal privileges. It was quite in the spirit of the times, that potentates friendly to Israel bestowed largesses, alike on the Temple in Jerusalem, and on the Synagogues in the provinces. The magni ficent porch of the Temple was ' adorned ' with many such ' dedicated gifts.' Thus, we read of repeated costly offerings by the Ptolemies, of a golden wreath which Sosius offered after he had taken Jerusalem in conjunction with Herod, and of rich flagons which Augustus and „ /M. ^t. his wife had given to the Sanctuary." And, although this same $&.%,% Emperor praised his grandson for leaving Jerusalem unvisited on his jf'£fc ST. journey from Egypt to Syria, yet he himself made provision for a T?'it;War THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I a Jos. War ii. 10. 4 ; ii. 17.2 " War iv. 4. 3 ; comp. War ii. 17. 3-4 daily sacrifice on his behalf, which only ceased when the last war against Rome was proclaimed." Even the circumstance that there was a ' Court of the Gentiles,' with marble screen beautifully orna mented, bearing tablets which, in Latin and Greek, warned Gentiles not to proceed further,1 proves that the Sanctuary was largely attended by others than Jews, or, in the words of Josephus, that ' it was held in reverence by nations from the ends of the earth.' b In Syria also, where, according to Josephus, the largest number of Jews lived,2 they experienced special favour. In Antioch their rights and immunities were recorded on tables of brass.3 But, indeed, the capital of Syria was one of their favourite resorts. It will be remembered what importance attached to it in the early history of the Christian Church. Antioch was the third city of the Empire, and lay just outside what the Rabbinists desig nated as ' Syria,' and still regarded as holy ground. Thus it formed, so to speak, an advanced post between the Palestinian and the Gentile world. Its chief Synagogue was a magnificent building, to which the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes had given the spoils which that monarch had brought from the Temple. The connection between Jerusalem and Antioch was very close. All that occurred in that city was eagerly watched in the Jewish capital. The spread of Christianity there must have excited deep concern. Careful as the Talmud is not to afford unwelcome information, which might have led to further mischief, we know that three of the principal Rabbis went thither on a mission — we can scarcely doubt for the purpose of arresting the progress of Christianity. Again, we find at a later period a record of religious controversy in Antioch between Rabbis and Christians.4 Yet the Jews of Antioch were strictly Hellenistic, and on one occasion a great Rabbi was unable to find among them a copy of even the Book of Esther in Hebrew, which, accordingly, he had to write out from memory for his use in their Synagogue. A fit place this great border-city, crowded by Hellenists, in close connection with Jerusalem, to be the birthplace of the name ' Christian,' to send forth a Paul on his mission to the Gentile world, and to obtain for it a charter of citizenship far nobler than that of which the record was graven on tablets of brass. But, whatever privileges Israel might enjoy, history records an 1 One of these tablets has lately been excavated. Comp. ' The Temple : its Ministry and Services in the Time of Christ,' p. 24. 2 War, vii. 3. 3. 8 War, vii. 5. 2. 4 Comp. generally Neubauer, Geogr. du Talmud, pp. 312, 313. RELATION OF JEWS TO THE HEATHEN WORLD. >v. 25 ' v. 27 " vv. 30, 31 'Boot of Jub. ch. comp. a! ch. xxiii. l. ; e St. John ii. 19 the Son of David,' a having purged Jerusalem b and destroyed the heathen by the word of His mouth,0 would gather together a holy people which He would rule with justice, and judge the tribes of His people,4 ' dividing them over the land according to tribes ; ' when ' no stranger would any longer dwell among them.' e Another pause, and we reach the time when Jesus the Messiah appeared. Knowing the characteristics of that time, we scarcely wonder that the Book of Jubilees, which dates from that period, should have been Rabbinic in its cast rather than Apocalyptic. Yet even there the reference to the future glory is distinct. Thus we are told, that, though for its wickedness Israel had been scattered, God would ' gather them all from the midst of the heathen,' ' build among them His Sanctuary, and dwell with them.' That Sanctuary was to ' be for ever and ever, and God would appear to the eye of every one, and every one acknowledge that He was the God of Israel, and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and King upon Mount Zion, from ever lasting to everlasting. And Zion and Jerusalem shall be holy.' f When listening to this language of, perhaps, a contemporary of Jesus, we can in some measure understand the popular indignation which such a charge would call forth, as that the Man of Nazareth had proposed to destroy the Temple,8 or that He thought meanly of the children of Jacob. There is an ominous pause of a century before we come to the next work of this class, which bears the title of the Fourth Book of Esdras. That century had been decisive in the history of Israel. Jesus had lived and died ; His Apostles had gone forth to bear the tidings of the new Kingdom of God ; the Church had been founded and separated from the Synagogue ; and the Temple had been destroyed, the Holy City laid waste, and Israel undergone sufferings, compared with which the former troubles might almost be forgotten. But already the new doctrine had struck its roots deep alike in Eastern and in Hellenistic soil. It were strange indeed if, in such circumstances, this book should not have been different from any that had preceded it ; stranger still, if earnest Jewish minds and ardent Jewish hearts had re mained wholly unaffected by the new teaching, even thouo-h the doctrine of the Cross still continued a stumbling-block, and the Gospel- announcement a rock of offence. But perhaps we could scarcely have been prepared to find, as in the Fourth Book of Esdras, doctrinal views which were wholly foreign to Judaism, and evidently derived from the New Testament, and which, in logical consistency, would seem to lead up to it.1 The greater part of the book may be described of original sin, which is wholly foreign to the theology alike of Rabbinic and 1 The doctrinal part of IV. Esdras may be said to be saturated with the dogma POST- CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF IV. ESDRAS. 81 as restless tossing, the seer being agitated by the problem and the CHAP. consequences of sin, which here for the first and only time is presented "VI as in the New Testament ; by the question, why there are so few who ' ' ' are saved; and especially by what to a Jew must have seemed the inscrutable, terrible mystery of Israel's sufferings and banishment.1 Yet, so far as we can see, no other way of salvation is indicated than that by works and personal righteousness. Throughout there is a tone of deep sadness and intense earnestness. It almost seems some times, as if one heard the wind of the new dispensation sweeping before it the withered leaves of Israel's autumn. Thus far for the principal portion of the book. The second, or Apocalyptic, part, endeavours to solve the mystery of Israel's state by foretelling their future. Here also there are echoes of New Testament utterances. What the end is to be, we are told in unmistakable language. His ' Son,' Whom the Highest has for a long time preserved, to deliver ' the creature ' by Him, is suddenly to appear in the form of a Man. From His mouth shall proceed alike woe, fire, and storm, which are the tribulations of the last days. And as they shall gather for war against Him, He shall stand on Mount Zion, and the Holy City shall come down from heaven, prepared and ready, and He shall destroy all His enemies. But a peaceable multitude shall now be gathered to Him. These are the ten tribes, who, to separate themselves from the ways of the heathen, had wandered far away, miraculously helped, a journey of one and a half years, and who were now similarly restored by God to their own land. But as for the ' Son,' or those who accompanied Him, no one on earth would be able to see or know them, till the day of His appearing.8,2 'Vis. vi. ch. It seems scarcely necessary to complete the series of testimony by referring in detail to a book, called ' The Prophecy and Assump tion of Moses,' and to what is known as the Apocalypse of Baruch, the servant of Jeremiah. Both date from probably a somewhat later period than the Fourth Book of Esdras, and both are fragmentary. The one distinctly anticipates the return of the ten tribes ; b the other, in the » prophet, et letter to the nine and a half tribes, far beyond the Euphrates,0 with iTSS7-H^' which the ¦ book closes, preserves an ominous silence on that point, or ™' rather alludes to it in language which so strongly reminds us of the XXTii- 22 Hellenistic Judaism. Comp. Vis. i. ch. iii. matic part, seems successively to take up 21, 22; iv. 30, 38; Vis. iii. ch. vi. 18, 19 these three subjects, although from quite (ed. Fritzsche, p. 607); 33-41; vii. 46-48; another point of view. How different viii. 34, 35. the treatment is, need not be told. 1 It almost seems as if there were a 2 The better reading is 'in tempore parallelism between this book and the diei ejus (v. 52).' Epistle to the Romans, which in its dog- VOL. I. G 82 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK adverse opinion expressed in the Talmud, that we cannot help sus- 1 pecting some internal connection between the two.1 The writings to which we have referred have all a decidedly Hellenistic tinge of thought.2 Still they are not the outcome of pure Hellenism. It is therefore with peculiar interest that we turn to Philo, the great representative of that direction, to see whether he would admit an idea so purely national and, as it might seem, exclu sive. Nor are we here left in doubt. So universal was this belief, so deep-seated the conviction, not only in the mind, but in the heart of Israel, that we could scarcely find it more distinctly expressed than by the great Alexandrian. However low the condition of Israel- "?e Bxeorat. rnia-ht be, he tells us,a or however scattered the people to the ends of ed. Frci. pp. ° ' ' . , 936, 937 the earth, the banished would, on a given sign, be set free in one day. In consistency with his system, he traces this wondrous event to their sudden conversion to virtue, which would make their masters ashamed to hold any longer in bondage those who were so much better than themselves. Then, gathering as by one impulse, the dis persed would return from Hellas, from the lands of the barbarians, from the isles, and from the continents, led by a Divinej superhuman apparition, invisible to others, and visible only to themselves. On their arrival in Palestine the waste places and the wilderness would be inhabited, and the barren land transformed into fruitfulness. Whatever shades of difference, then, we may note in the expres sion of these views, all anticipate the deliverance of Israel, their re storation, and future pre-eminent glory, and they all connect these events with the coming of the Messiah. This was ' the promise ' unto which, in their 'instant service night and day, the twelve tribes,' »Aotsxxvi.7 however grievously oppressed, hoped to come.b To this ' sure word of prophecy ' ' the strangers scattered ' throughout all lands would ' take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,' until the 1 In Sanh. 110 b we read, ' Our Rabbis one, and tormented in the other (Apoc. teach, that the Ten Tribes have no part in Bar. lxxxiii. 8). the era to come, because it is written, « Thus, for example, the assertion that " The Lord drave them out of their land there had been individuals who fulfilled in anger, and in wrath, and in great the commandments of God Vis i ch iii indignation, and cast them into another 36 ; the domain of reason' iv 22 • v 9 • land." " The Lord drave them from their general Messianic blessings to the' world land"— in the present era—" and cast at large, Vis. i. ch. iv. 27, 28 • the idea them into another land"— in the era to of a law within their mind's like that of come.' In curious agreement with this, which St. Paul speaks in the case of the Pseudo-Baruch writes to the nine and a heathen, Vis. iii. ch.vi 45_47(ed Fritzsche half tribes to 'prepare their hearts to p. 609). These are only instances, and that which they had formerly believed,* we refer besides to the general oast of lest they should suffer ' m both eras (ab the reasoning. utroque sieeulo),' being led captive in the ¦ 2 Pet. i. 19 NEARNESS OF MESSIAH'S COMING. 83 day dawned, and the day-star arose in their hearts.* It was this CHAP which gave meaning to their worship, filled them with patience in VI suffering, kept them separate from the nations around, and ever fixed their hearts and thoughts upon Jerusalem. For the ' Jerusalem ' which was above was ' the mother ' of them all. Yet a little while, and He that would come should come, and not tarry — and then all the blessing and glory would be theirs. At any moment the glad some tidings might burst upon them, that He had come, when their glory would shine out from one end of the heavens to the other. All the signs of His Advent had come to pass. Perhaps, indeed, the Messiah might even now be there, ready to manifest Himself, so soon as the voice of Israel's repentance called Him from His hiding. Any. hour might that banner be planted on the top of the mountains ; that glittering sword be unsheathed ; that trumpet sound. Closer then, and still closer, must be their connection with Jerusalem, as their salvation drew nigh ; more earnest their longing, and more eager their gaze, till the dawn of that long expected day tinged the Eastern sky with its brightness. o 2 84 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I CHAPTER VII. . IN PALESTINE — JEWS AND GENTILES IN ' THE LAND ' — THEIR MUTUAL RELATIONS AND FEELINGS — 'THE WALL OP SEPARATION.' The pilgrim who, leaving other countries, entered Palestine, must have felt as if he had crossed the threshold of another world. Manners, customs, institutions, law, life, nay, the very intercourse between man and man, were quite different. All was dominated by the one all-absorbing idea of religion. It penetrated every relation of life. Moreover, it was inseparably connected with the soil, as well as the people, of Palestine, at least so long as the Temple stood. Nowhere else could the Shekhinah dwell or manifest itself; nor could, unless under exceptional circumstances, and for 'the merit of the fathers,' the spirit of prophecy be granted outside its bounds. To the orthodox Jew the mental and spiritual horizon was bounded by Palestine. It was ' the land ' ; all the rest of the world, except Babylonia, was ' outside the land.' No need to designate it specially as ' holy' ; for all here bore the impress of sanctity, as he understood it. Not that the soil itself, irrespective of the people, was holy ; it was Israel that made it such. For, had not God given so many com mandments and ordinances, some of them apparently needless, simply to call forth the righteousness of Israel ; " did not Israel possess the merits of ' the fathers,' b and specially that of Abraham, itself so valuable that, even if his descendants had, morally speaking, been as a dead body, his merit would have been imputed to them ? ° More than that, God had created the world on account of Israel, and for their merit, making preparation for them long before their appear- i Yalkut § 2 ance on the scene, just as a king who foresees the birth of his son ; d nay, Israel had been in God's thoughts not only before anything had actually been created, but even before every other creative thought.8 If these distinctions seem excessive, they were, at least, not out of proportion to the estimate formed of Israel's merits. In theory, the latter might be supposed to flow from ' good works,' of course, in cluding the strict practice of legal piety, and from ' study of the law.' bRosh HaSh, 11a « Ber. R. 43. 44 • Ber. H. 1 FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRIST. 85 But in reality it was ' study ' alone to which such supreme merit CHAP. attached. Practice required knowledge for its direction ; such as the VII Am-ha-arets (' country people,' plebeians, in the Jewish sense of being " ' " unlearned) could not possess, who had bartered away the highest crown for a spade with which to dig. And ' the house of lions ' — the sages — the ' great ones of the world ' had long settled it, that study was before works. a And how could it well be otherwise, since the * Jer. cimg. studies, which engaged His chosen children on earth, equally 'occupied towards the their Almighty Father in heaven ? b Could anything, then, be higher b Ab z. 3 b than the peculiar calling of Israel, or better qualify them for being the sons of God ? It is necessary to transport oneself into this atmosphere to under stand the views entertained at the time of Jesus, or to form any con ception of their infinite contrast in spirit to the new doctrine. The abhorrence, not unmingled with contempt, of all Gentile ways, thoughts and associations ; the worship of the letter of the Law ; the self-righteousness, and pride of descent, and still more of knowledge, become thus intelligible to us, and, equally so, the absolute antagonism to the claims of a Messiah, so unlike themselves and their own ideal. His first announcement might, indeed, excite hopes, soon felt to have been vain ; and His miracles might startle for a time. But the boun dary lines of the Kingdom which He traced were essentially different from those which they had fixed, and within which they had arranged , everything, alike for the present and the future. Had He been content to step within them, to complete and realise what they had indicated, it might have been different. Nay, once admit their funda mental ideas, and there was much that was beautiful, true, and even grand in the details. But it was exactly in the former that the diver gence lay. Nor was there any possibility of reform or progress here. The past, the present, and the future, alike as regarded the Gentile world and Israel, were irrevocably fixed ; or rather, it might almost be said, there were not such — all continuing as they had been from the creation of the world, nay, long before it. The Torah had really existed 2,000 years before Creation ; c the patriarchs had had their . SMr Academies of study, and they had known and observed all the ordi- 0£ L.^'t_ ^. nances ; and traditionalism had the same origin, both as to time and sh'a" v_ *]'„ authority, as the Law itself. As for the heathen nations, the Law had been offered by God to them, but refused, and even their after repent ance would prove hypocritical, as all their excuses would be shown to be futile. But as for Israel, even though their good deeds should be few, yet, by cumulating them from among all the people, they would appear 86 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. great in the end, and God would exact payment for their sins as a man does from his friends, taking little sums at a time. It was in this sense, that the Rabbis employed that sublime figure, representing the Church as one body, of which all the members suffered and joyed to gether, which St. Paul adopted and applied in a vastly different and aEph. iv. 16 spiritual sense." If, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of Israel depended on the Land, and, on the other, that of the Land on the presence of Israel in it, the Rabbinical complaint was, indeed, well grounded, that its ' boundaries were becoming narrow.' We can scarcely expect any accurate demarcation of them, since the question, what belonged to it, was determined by ritual and theological, not by geographical con siderations. Not only the immediate neighbourhood (as in the case of Ascalon), but the very wall of a city (as of Acco and of Cassarea) might be Palestinian, and yet the city itself be regarded as ' outside ' the sacred limits. All depended on who had originally possessed, and now held a place, and hence what ritual obligations lay upon it. Ideally, as we may say, ' the land of promise' included all which God had covenanted to give to Israel, although never yet actually possessed by them. Then, in a more restricted sense, the ' land' comprised what ' they who came up from Egypt took possession of, from Chezib [about three hours north of Acre] and unto the river [Euphrates], and unto Amanah.' This included, of course, the conquests made by David in the most prosperous times of the Jewish commonwealth, supposed to have extended over Mesopotamia, Syria, Zobah, Achlah, &c. To all these districts the general name of Soria, or Syria, was afterwards given. This formed, at the time of which we write, a sort of inner band around ' the land,' in its narrowest and only real sense ; just as the countries in which Israel was specially interested, such as Egypt> Babylon, Ammon, and Moab, formed an outer band. These lands were heathen, and yet not quite heathen, since the dedication of the so-called Terumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared state, was expected from them, while Soria shared almost all the obligations of Palestine, except those of the ' second tithes,' and the fourth year's product of t.Lev.xix.24 plants.b But the wavesheaf at the Paschal Feast, and the two loaves at Pentecost, could only be brought from what had grown on the holy soil itself. This latter was roughly defined, as ' all which they who came up from Babylon took possession of, in the land of Israel, and unto Chezib.' Viewed in this light, there was a special significance in the fact that Antioch, where the name ' Christian' first marked the • Actexi.26 new 'Sect' which had sprung up in Palestine,0 and where the first HEATHENISM IN AND AROUND PALESTINE. 87 Gentile Church was formed,1 lay just outside the northern boundary CHAP. of ' the land.' Similarly, we understand, why those Jewish zealots VII who would fain have imposed on the new Church the yoke of the Law,b *"" r". concentrated their first efforts on that Soria which was regarded as a 21 kind of outer Palestine. " Acts XT' x But, even so, there was a gradation of sanctity in the Holy Land itself, in accordance with ritual distinctions. Ten degrees are here enumerated,0 beginning with the bare soil of Palestine, and culmina- »chei.i. 6-9 ting in the Most Holy Place in the Temple — each implying some ritual distinction, which did not attach to a lower degree. And yet, although the very dust of heathen soil was supposed to carry defilement, like corruption or the grave, the spots most sacred were everywhere sur rounded by heathenism ; nay, its traces were visible in Jerusalem itself. The reasons of this are to be sought in the political circum stances of Palestine, and in the persistent endeavour of its rulers — with the exception of a very brief period under the Maccabees — to Grecianise the country, so as to eradicate that Jewish particularism which must always be antagonistic to every foreign element. In general, Palestine might be divided into the strictly Jewish territory, and the so-called Hellenic cities. The latter had been built at different periods, and were politically constituted after the model of the Greek cities, having their own senates (generally consisting of several hundred persons) and magistrates, each city with its adjoining territory forming a sort of commonwealth of its own. But it must not be imagined, that these districts were inhabited exclusively, or even chiefly, by Greeks. One of these groups, that towards Persea, was really Syrian, and formed part of Syria BecapoKs ; ' while the other, along the coast of the Mediterranean, was Phoenician. Thus ' the land ' was hemmed in, east and west, within its own borders, while south and north stretched heathen or semi-heathen districts. The strictly Jewish territory consisted of Judsea proper, to which Galilee, Samaria and Perasa were joined as Toparchies. These Toparchies consisted of a group of townships, under a Metropolis. The villages and townships themselves had neither magistrates of their own, nor civic constitu tion, nor lawful popular assemblies. Such civil adminstration as they required devolved on ' Scribes' (the so-called Kw/u,oypa/j,/j,aTels or roiroypafifiarsis). Thus Jerusalem was really, as well as nominally, 1 The following cities probably formed Dion, Pella, Gerasa, and Canatha. On the Decapolis, though it is difficult to feel these cities, comp. Caspari, Chronol. quite sure in reference to one or the Geogr. Einl. in d. Leben J. Christi, other of them : Damascus, Philadelphia, pp. 83-90. Baphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, :° THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK the capital of the whole land. Judasa itself was arranged into eleven, 1 or rather, more exactly, into nine Toparchies, of which Jerusalem was — ~" the chief. While, therefore, the Hellenic cities were each independent of the other, the whole Jewish territory formed only one ' Civitas.' Rule,. government, tribute — in short, political life — centred in Jerusalem. But this is not all. From motives similar to those which led to the founding of other Hellenic cities, Herod the Great and his imme diate successors built a number of towns, which were inhabited chiefly by Gentiles, and had independent constitutions, like those of the Hel lenic cities. Thus, Herod himself built Sebaste (Samaria), in the centre of the country ; Caesarea in the west, commanding the sea-coast ; Gaba in Galilee, close to the great plain of Esdraelon ; and Esbonitis in Perasa.1 Similarly, Philip the Tetrarch built Caesarea Philippi and Julias (Bethsaida-Julias, on the western shore of the lake) ; and Herod Antipas another Julias, and Tiberias.2 The object of these cities was twofold. As Herod, well knowing his unpopularity, sur rounded himself by foreign mercenaries, and reared fortresses around his palace and the Temple which he built, so he erected these forti fied posts, which he populated with strangers, as so many outworks, to surround and command Jerusalem and the Jews on all sides. Again, as, despite his profession of Judaism, he reared magnificent heathen temples in honour of Augustus at Sebaste and Ceesarea, so those cities were really intended to form centres of Grecian influence within the sacred territory itself. At the same time, the Herodian cities en joyed not the same amount of liberty as the ' Hellenic,' which, with the exception of certain imposts, were entirely self-governed, while in' the former there were representatives of the Herodian rulers.3 Although each of these towns and districts had its special deities' and rites, some being determined by local traditions, their prevailing character may be described as a mixture of Greek and Syrian worship, the former preponderating, as might be expected.4 On the other hand, Herod and his successors encouraged the worship of the Emperor and of Rome, which, characteristically, was chiefly practised in the East.6 Thus, in the temple which Herod built to Augustus in 1 Herod rebuilt or built other cities, Die Stadt. u. biirgerl. Verf. d. Rom. such as Antipatris, Cypros, Phasaelis, Reichs, 2 vols. ; and for this part, vol. ii. Anthedon, &c. Schurer describes the pp. 336-354, and pp. 370-372. two first as built, but they were only 4 A good sketch of the various rites rebuilt or fortified (comp. Ant. xiii. 15. 1 ; prevailing in different places is given by "War i. 21. 8) by Herod. Schurer, Neutest. Zeitg. pp. 378-385. 2 He.also rebuilt Sepphoris. 5 Comp. Wieseler, Beitr. z. richt. Wurdig. 3 Comp. on the subject of the civic in- d. Evang. pp. 90, 91. stitutions of the Roman Empire, Kuhn, HEATHEN TEMPLES, THEATRES, AND MANNERS 89 Caesarea, there were statues of the Emperor as Olympian Zeus, and CHAP. of Rome as Hera.* He was wont to excuse this conformity to heathen- VII ism before his own people on the ground of political necessity. Yet, «/M Ant even if his religious inclinations had not been in that direction, he ""• 9-. 6 : would have earnestly striven to Grecianise the people. Not only in 5_8 Caesarea, but even in Jerusalem, he built a theatre and amphitheatre, where at great expense games were held every four years in honour of Augustus.1 Nay, he placed over the great gate of the Temple at Jerusalem a massive golden eagle, the symbol of Roman dominion, as a sort of counterpart to that gigantic golden vine, the symbol of Israel, which hung above the entrance to the Holy Place. These measures, in deed, led to popular indignation, and even to conspiracies and tumults,b * Ant. xv. 8. though not of the same general and intense character, as when, at a 6- 2 later period, Pilate sought to introduce into Jerusalem images of the Emperor, or when the statue of Caligula was to be placed in the Temple. In connection with this, it is curious to notice that the Talmud, while on the whole disapproving of attendance at theatres and amphitheatres — chiefly on the ground that it implies ' sitting in the seat of scorners,' and might involve contributions to the main tenance of idol-worship — does not expressly prohibit it, nor indeed speak very decidedly on the subject.0 ± "aSM" The views of the Rabbis in regard to pictorial representations are curious ar-ry still more interesting, as illustrating their abhorrence of all contact fJJJJ)™ ^'"t. with idolatry. We mark here differences at two, if not at three ^zarfis1 periods, according to the outward circumstances of the people. The fc^gf01" earliest and strictest opinions d absolutely forbade any representation d MecMita of things in heaven, on earth, or in the waters. But the Mishnah e ed. Weiss, p! seems to relax these prohibitions by subtle distinctions, which are »Ab. Zar. still further carried out in the Talmud.2 To those who held such stringent views, it must have been pecu liarly galling to see their most sacred feelings openly outraged by their own rulers. Thus, the Asmonean princess, Alexandra, the mother-in- law of Herod, could so far forget the traditions of her house, as to send portraits of her son and daughter to Mark Antony for infamous purposes, in hope of thereby winning him for her ambitious plans/ ^."Vaua One would be curious to know who painted these pictures, for, when 6 the statue of Caligula was to be made for the Temple at Jerusalem, no 1 The Actian games took place every (Ant. xvi. 5. 1; comp. "War. i. 21. 8). fifth year, three years always intervening. 2 For a full statement of the Talmudi- The games in Jerusalem were held in the cal views as to images, representations on year 28 B.C. (Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1); the first coins, and the most ancient Jewish coins, games in Cassarea in the year 12 B.C. see Appendix III. 90 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK native artist could be found, and the work was entrusted to Phoe- I nicians. It must have been these foreigners also who made the ' figures,' ~~~" ' with which Herod adorned his palace at Jerusalem, and ' the brazen 'Jos. war v. statues ' in the gardens ' through which the water ran out,' a as well as "Acts xii. 23 tne colossal statues at Cassarea, and those of the three daughters of « Ant. xix. 9. Agrippa, which after his death b were so shamefully abused by the soldiery at Sebaste and Caesarea." This abhorrence of all connected with idolatry, and the contempt entertained for all that was non-Jewish, will in great measure explain the code of legislation intended to keep the Jew and Gentile apart. If Judasa had to submit to the power of Rome, it could at least avenge itself in the Academies of its sages. Almost innumerable stories are told in which Jewish sages, always easily, confute Roman and Greek philosophers ; and others, in which even a certain Emperor (Antoninus) is represented as constantly in the most menial relation of self-abase- a Dan. vii. 23 rnent before a Rabbi.1 Rome, which was the fourth beast of Daniel,4 would in the age to come,2 when Jerusalem would be the metropolis « Midr. h. on of all lands," be the first to excuse herself on false though vain pleas ,Ab z 2"6 for her wrongs to Israel.* But on worldly grounds also, Rome was con temptible, having derived her language and writing from the Greeks, BAb.z.iou; and not possessing even a hereditary succession in her empire.8 If Gitt. so a gucjl wag tke estimate of dreaded Rome, it may be imagined in what "Ps. ixxvi.9 contempt other nations were held. Well might 'the earth tremble,'h for, if Israel had not accepted the Law at Sinai, the whole world would have been destroyed, while it once more ' was still ' when that happy event took place, although God in a manner forced Israel to it.5 And so Israel was purified at Mount Sinai from the impurity which clung to our race in consequence of the unclean union between Eve and the serpent, and which still adhered to all other nations ! 3 To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was to be regarded as unclean. Those who actually worshipped mountains, hills, bushes, &c. — in short, gross idolaters — should be cut down with the sword. But as it was impossible to Exterminate heathenism, Rab binic legislation kept certain definite objects in view, which may be thus summarised : To prevent Jews from being inadvertently led into 1 Comp. here the interesting tractate s Ab. Z. 22 b. But as in what follows of Dr. Bodek, ' Marc. Aur. Anton, als the quotations would be too numerous, Freund u. Zeitgenosse des K. Jehuda ha they will be omitted. Bach statement! Nasi.' however, advanced in the text or notes 2 The Athid labho, ' sajculum futurum,' is derived from some part of the Tal- to be distinguished from the Olam habba, mudic tractate Abodah Zarah. ' the world to come.' 1 Shabb. 88 a 33 6, line 8 from top AVOIDANCE OF CONTACT WITH HEATHENISM. 91 idolatry; to avoid all participation in idolatry; not to do anything CHAP. which might aid the heathen in their worship ; and, beyond all this, VII not to give pleasure, nor even help, to heathens. The latter involved a most dangerous principle, capable of almost indefinite application by fanaticism. Even the Mishnah goes so far" as to forbid aid to a »Ab. z.n. 2 mother in the hour of her need, or nourishment to her babe, in order not to bring up a child for idolatry ! ' But this is not all. Heathens were, indeed, not to be precipitated into danger, but yet not to be delivered from it. Indeed, an isolated teacher ventures even upon this statement : ' The best among the Gentiles, kill ; the best among serpents, crush its head.'b Still more terrible was the fanaticism erfweissTp. which directed, that heretics, traitors, and those who had left the Jewish faith should be thrown into actual danger, and, if they were in it, all means for their escape removed. No intercourse of any kind was to be had with such — not even to invoke their medical aid in. case of danger to life,2 since it was deemed, that he who had to do with heretics was in imminent peril of becoming one himself,3 and that, if a heretic returned to the true faith, he should die at once — partly, probably, to expiate his guilt, and partly from fear of relapse. Terrible as all this sounds, it was probably not worse than the fanaticism displayed in what are called more enlightened times. Impartial history must chronicle it, however painful, to show the cir cumstances in which teaching so far different was propounded by Christ.4 In truth, the bitter hatred which the Jew bore to the Gentile can only be explained from the estimate entertained of his character. The ¦ The Talmud declares it only lawful, the arrangements of the world ' (Gitt. if done to avoid exciting hatred against 61 a). The quotation so often made the Jews. (Ab. Z. 3 a), that a Gentile who occupied 2 There is a well-known story told himself with the Torah was to be re- of a Rabbi who was bitten by a serpent, garded as equal to the High-Priest, and about to be cured by the invocation proves nothing, since in the case sup- of the name of Jesus by a Jewish Chris- posed the Gentile acts like a Rabbinic tian, which was, however, interdicted. Jew. But, and this is a more serious " Yet, such is the moral obliquity, that point, it is difficult to believe that those even idolatry is allowed to save life, pro- who make this quotation are not aware, vided it be done in secret 1 how the Talmud (Ab. Z. 3 a) immediately 4 Against this, although somewhat labours to prove that their reward doubtfully, such concessions may be put is not equal to that of Israelites. A as that, outside Palestine, Gentiles were somewhat similar charge of one-sidedness, not to be considered as idolaters, but as if not of unfairness, must be brought observing the customs of their fathers against Deutsch (Lecture on the Talmud, (Chull. 13 »), and that the poor of the Remains, pp. 146, 147), whose sketch of Gentiles were to be equally supported Judaism should be compared, for ex- with thee of Israel, their sick visited, ample, with the first Perek of the Tal- and their dead buried ; it being, how- mudic tractate Abodah Zarah. ever, significantly added, ' on account of 92 • THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. most vile, and even unnatural, crimes were imputed to them. It was not safe to leave cattle in their charge, to allow their women to nurse infants, or their physicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in their company, without taking precautions against sudden and unprovoked attacks. They should, so far as possible, be altogether avoided, except in cases of necessity or for the sake of business. They and theirs were defiled; their houses unclean, as containing idols or things dedicated to them ; their feasts, their joyous occasions, their very contact, was polluted by idolatry ; and there was no security, if a heathen were left alone in a room, that he might not, in wantonness or by carelessness, defile the wine or meat on the table, or the oil and wheat in the store. Under such circumstances, therefore, every thing must be regarded as having been rendered unclean. Three days before a heathen festival (according to some, also three days after) every business transaction with them was prohibited, for fear of giving either help or pleasure. Jews were to avoid passing through a city where there was an idolatrous feast — nay, they were not even to sit down within the shadow of a tree dedicated to idol-worship. Its wood was polluted ; if used in baking, the bread was unclean ; if a shuttle had been made of it, not only was all cloth woven on it for bidden, but if such had been inadvertently mixed with other pieces of cloth, or a garment made from it placed with other garments, the whole became unclean. Jewish workmen were not to assist in building basilicas, nor stadia, nor places where judicial sentences were pro nounced by the heathen. Of course, it was not lawful to let houses or fields, nor to sell cattle to them. Milk drawn by a heathen, if a • Ab. zar. Jew had not been present to watch it,a bread and oil prepared by them, were unlawful. Their wine was wholly interdicted ' — the mere touch of a heathen polluted a whole cask ; nay, even to put one's nose to heathen wine was strictly prohibited ! Painful as these details are, they might be multiplied. And yet the bigotry of these Eabbis was, perhaps, not worse than that of other sectaries. It was a painful logical necessity of their svstem against which their heart, no doubt, often rebelled ; and, it must be truthfully added, it was in measure accounted for by the terrible history of Israel. 1 According to R. Asi, there was a whether for personal use or for trading threefold distinction. If wine had been Lastly, wine prepared by a Jew but dedicated to an idol, to carry, even on a deposited in custody of a Gentile' was stick, so much as the weight of an olive prohibited for personal use, but allowed of it, defiled a man. Other wine, if for traffic. prepared by a heathen, was prohibited, THE 'SCRIBES.' 93 CHAPTER VIII. TRADITIONALISM, ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTER, AND LITERATURE — THE MISHNAH AND TALMUD THE GOSPEL OP CHRIST — THE DAWN OF A NEW DAY. In trying to picture to ourselves New Testament scenes, the figure CHAP. most prominent, next to those of the chief actors, is that of the Scribe VIII ("1S1D, ypa/Afiarevs, literatus). He seems ubiquitous ; we meet him in ' Jerusalem, in Judasa, and even in Galilee.* Indeed, he is indispens- * st. Luke v. able, not only in Babylon, which may have been the birthplace of his order, but among the ' dispersion ' also.b Everywhere he appears as i> jos. Ant. the mouthpiece and representative of the people ; he pushes to the 5ai?26 ' front, the crowd respectfully giving way, and eagerly hanging on his utterances, as those of a recognised authority. He has been solemnly ordained by the laying on of hands ; and is the Rabbi* ' my great one,' Master, amplitudo. He puts questions ; he urges objections ; he expects full explanations and respectful demeanour. Indeed, his hyper-ingenuity in questioning has become a proverb. 'These are u%'u£?so questions of the Scribes,' ironically observes the Talmud, on one oc- f °m top „. x 'j , a yofuKos, the casion.0 He is the ' lawyer,' d the ' well plastered pit,' filled with the ^J^™^86 water of knowledge, ' out of which not a drop can escape,' e in opposi- ^^I'/j"'^ tion to the 'weeds of untitled soil' (onu) of ignorance.f He is the ^53.°ii45. Divine aristocrat, among the vulgar herd of rude and profane xiT- 3 ' country-people,' who ' know not the Law,' and are 'cursed.' More r Ber" 45 & = - than that, his order constitutes the ultimate authority on all questions BemM5R 3 of faith and practice ; he is ' the Exegete of the Laws,' g the ' teacher rjos. Ant. of the Law,' h ' and along with ' the chief priests ' and ' elders ' a judge *™' oSlSiir. in the ecclesiastical tribunals, whether of the capital or in the pro- LukeVSti7 • vinces.1 Although generally appearing in company with 'the ^^'J^' Pharisees,' he is not necessarily one of them — for thev represent a l Tim- '¦ 7 J J r ' St. Matt ii. 4; xx. 18; xxi. 15 ; 1 The title Rabbon (our Master) occurs Rabh, and adds to it the personal suffix xxvi. 57 ; first in connection with Gamaliel i. 'my,'pronouncing the Kamez in the Syriac ff^Jk'- (Acts v. 34). The N.T. expression manner. t 43 . XT] j." Rabboni or Rabbouni (St. Mark x. 51 ; St. 2 Not 45 a, as apud Derenbourg. Simi- St. Luke John xx. 16) takes the word Rabbon or larly, his rendering ' litteralement, "ci- xxj!: 2>66; Rabban (here in the absolute sense) = terne vide "' seems to me erroneous. lots'iv. 5 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I 11 Siphri on Numb. p. 256 b SiphH on Deut. p. 105re ' Ezra vii. 6. 10, 11, 12 rvmh'x e Nedar. iv. 3, and even Ber. 11 b f Neb. xiii. religious party, while he has a status, and holds an office.1 In short, he is the Talmid or learned student, the Ghakham or sage, whose honour is to be great in the future world. Each Scribe outweighed all the common people, who must accordingly pay him every honour. Nay, they were honoured of God Himself, and their praises proclaimed by the angels ; and in heaven also, each of them would hold the same rank and distinction as on earth. a Such was to be the respect paid to their sayings, that they Were to be absolutely believed, even if they were to declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left, or vice versd? An institution which had attained such proportions, and wielded such power, could not have been of recent growth. In point of fact, its rise was very gradual, and stretched back to the time of Nehemiah, if not beyond it. Although from the utter confusion of historical notices in Rabbinic writings and their constant practice of ante dating events, it is impossible to furnish satisfactory details, the general development of the institution can be traced with sufficient precision. If Ezra is described in Holy Writ ° as ' a ready (expertus) Scribe,' who had ' set his heart to seek (seek out the full meaning of) the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel,' d this might indicate to his successors, the Sopherim (Scribes), the threefold direction which their studies afterwards took : the Midrash, the Halakhah, and the Haggadah," 2 of which the One pointed to Scriptural investigation, the other to what was to be observed, and the third to oral teaching in the widest sense. But Ezra left his work uncompleted. On Nehemiah's second arrival in Palestine, he found matters again in a state of utmost confusion.* He must have felt the need of establish ing some permanent authority to watch over religious affairs. This we take to have been ' the Great Assembly,' or, as it is commonly called, ' the Great Synagogue.' It is impossible with certainty to determine,3 either who composed this assembly, or of how many members it consisted.4 Probably it comprised the leading men in tures on this subject have been hazarded, which heed not here find a place. Comp. for ex. the two articles of Gr'dtz m Franltel's Monatsschrift for 1857, pp 31 etc., 61 etc., the main positions of which have, however, been adopted by some learned English writers. _ * The Talmudic notices are often incon sistent. The number as given in them amounts to about 120. But the modern doubts (of Kuenen and others) against the institution itself cannot be sustained 1 The distinction between ' Pharisees ' and ' Scribes ' is marked in many pas sages in the N.T., for example, St. Matt. xxiii. passim ; St. Luke vii. 30 ; xiv. 3 ; and especially in St. Luke xi. 43, comp. with v. 46. The words ' Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' in ver. 44, are, according to all evidence, spurious. 2 In Ned. iv. 3 this is the actual divi sion. Of course, in another sense the Mid rash might be considered as the source of both the Halakhah and the Haggadah. * Very strange and ungrounded conjee- THE 'GREAT SYNAGOGUE' AND THE 'COUPLES.' 95 Church and State, the chief priests, elders, and ' judges ' — the latter CHAP. two classes including ' the Scribes,' if, indeed, that order was already VUl separately organised." Probably also the term ' Great Assembly ' ' ' " refers rather to a succession of men than to one Synod ; the ingenuity Neb. v. r of later times filling such parts of the historical canvas as had been left blank with fictitious notices. In the nature of things, such an assembly could not exercise permanent sway in a sparsely populated country, without a strong central authority. Nor could they have wielded real power during the political difficulties and troubles of foreign domination. The oldest tradition b sums up the result of their t Ab. i. 2 activity in this sentence ascribed to them : ' Be careful in judgment, set up many Talmidim, and make a hedge about the Torah (Law).' In the course of time this rope of sand dissolved. The High- Priest, Simon the Just,0 is already designated as ' of the remnants of « in the be- the Great Assembly.' But even this expression does not necessarily vaei\ml imply that he actually belonged to it. In the troublous times which followed his Pontificate, the sacred study seems to have been left to solitary individuals. The Mishnic tractate Aboth, which records ' the sayings of the Fathers,' here gives us only the name of Antigonus of Socho. It is significant, that for the first time we now meet a Greek name among Rabbinic authorities, together with an indistinct allusion to his disciples.dl The long interval between Simon the Just and "Ab. i. 4 Antigonus and his disciples, brings us to the terrible time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the great Syrian persecution. The very sayings at tributed to these two sound like an echo of the political state of the country. On three things, Simon was wont to say, the permanency of the (Jewish ?) world depends : on the Torah (faithfulness to the Law and its pursuit), on worship (the non-participation in Grecianism), and on works of righteousness.e They were dark times, when God's • Ab. i. 2 persecuted people were tempted to think, that it might be vain to serve Him, in which Antigonus had it : 'Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of reward, but be like servants who serve their lord without a view to the getting of reward, and let the fear of heaven be upon you.'f After these two names come those of the so- 'Ab. i. 3 called five Zugoth, or ' couples,' of whom Hillel and Shammai are the last. Later tradition has represented these successive couples as, 1 Zunz has well pointed out that, if stating that, except for special reasons, I in Ab. i. 4 the first ' couple ' is said to shall not refer to previous writers on have ' received from them * — while only this subject, partly because it would ne- Antigonus is mentioned in the preceding cessitate too many quotations, but chiefly Mishnah, it must imply AntigOnus and because the line of argument I have his unnamed disciples and followers. In taken differs from that of my prede- general, I may take this opportunity of cessors. $6 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK respectively, the Nasi (president), and Ab-beilv-din (vice-president, of I the Sanhedrin). Of the first three of these ' couples ' it may be said "*" ' ' that, except significant allusions to the circumstances and dangers of their times, their recorded utterances clearly point to the development of the purely Sopherie teaching, that is, to the Rabbinistic part of their functions. Prom the fourth ' couple,' which consists of Simon ben Shetach, who figured so largely in the political history of the later Maccabees l (as Ab-beth-din), and his superior in learning and judgment, Jehudah ben Tabbai (as Nasi), we have again utterances which show, in harmony with the political history of the time, that judicial functions had been once more restored to the Rabbis. The last of the five couples brings us to the time of Herod and of Christ. We have seen that, during the period of severe domestic troubles, beginning with the persecutions under the Seleucidae, which marked the mortal struggle between Judaism and Grecianism, the 'Great Assembly' had disappeared from the scene. The Sopherim had ceased to be a party in power. They had become the Zeqenim, ' Elders,' whose task was purely ecclesiastical — the preservation of their religion, such as the dogmatic labours of their predecessors had made it. Yet another period opened with the advent of the Maccabees. These had been raised into power by the enthusiasm of the Chasidim, or ' pious ones,' who formed the nationalist party in the land, and who had gathered around the liberators of their faith and country. But the later bearing of the Maccabees had alienated the nationalists. Hence forth they sink out of view, or, rather, the extreme section of them merged in the extreme section of the Pharisees, till fresh national calamities awakened a new nationalist party. Instead of the Chasidim, we see now two religious parties within the Synagogue — the Phari sees and the Sadducees. The latter originally represented a reaction from the Pharisees — the moderate men, who sympathised with the later tendencies of the Maccabees. Josephus places the origin of these two schools in the time of Jonathan, the successor of Judas •ieo-143 b.c Maccabee,3- and with this other Jewish notices agree. Jonathan accepted from the foreigner (the Syrian) the High-Priestly dignity and combined with it that of secular ruler. But this is not all. The earlier Maccabees surrounded themselves with a governing 'The r*- eldership.b 2 . On the coins of their reigns this is designated as the 1 Mala xii. Chebher, or eldership (association) of the Jews. Thus, theirs was what 6; xiii. 36; xiv. 28 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. ' See Appendix IV. : ' Political History * At the same time some kind of ruling 9 5 6- 8 of the Jews from the Beign of Alexander yepouola existed earlier than at this period, to the Accession of Herod.' if we may judge from Jos. Ant. xii. 3. H. »Ant.xi.4. t RISE OF THE SANHEDRIN. 97 Josephus designates as an aristocratic government," and of which he CHAP. somewhat vaguely says, that it lasted ' from the Captivity until the VIII descendants of the Asmoneans set up kingly government.' In this aristocratic government the High-Priest would rather be the chief of a representative ecclesiastical body of rulers. This state of things continued until the great breach between Hyrcanus, the fourth from Judas Maccabee, and the Pharisaical party,1 which is equally recorded by Josephus b and the Talmud,0 with only variations of names and » Ant. xiii. details. The dispute apparently arose from the desire of the Phari- c Kidd 66 a sees, that Hyrcanus should be content with the secular power, and resign the Pontificate. But it ended in the persecution, and removal from power, of the Pharisees. Very significantly, Jewish tradition introduces again at this time those purely ecclesiastical authorities which are designated as ' the couples.' d In accordance with this " Jer. Maas. altered state of things, the name ' Chebher' now disappears from the end, p. in «; coins of the Maccabees, and the Rabbinical celebrities (' the couples ' p- m* ' or Zugoth) are only teachers of traditionalism, and ecclesiastical authorities. The ' eldership,' e which under the earlier Maccabees ° w°«™» was called 'the tribunal of the Asmoneans,' f2 now passed into the ]-|,3r Sanhedrin. 3 g Thus we place the origin of this institution about the 7& 13H time of Hyrcanus. With this Jewish tradition fully agrees.4 The D'^lDBTi power of the Sanhedrin would, of course, vary with political circum- Ab. z. 36 i stances, being at times almost absolute, as in the reign of the Pharisaic " """^p""' devotee-Queen, Alexandra, while at others it was shorn of all but jntheNT_ ecclesiastical authority. But as the Sanhedrin was in full force at the ^esp°0™^ time of Jesus, its organisation will claim our attention in the sequel, tniui-ill' After this brief outline of the origin and development of an insti- ^§^nk„ tution which exerted such decisive influence on the future of Israel, it Y™;66;. ' Ii. C L-j XXI seems necessary similarly to trace the growth of the ' traditions of the Elders,' so as to understand what, alas ! so effectually, opposed the new doctrine of the Kingdom. The first place must here be assigned to those legal determinations, which traditionalism declared absolutely binding on all — not only of equal, but even greater obligation than Scripture itself.5 And this not illogically, since tradition was equally But he uses the term somewhat vaguely, to me, historically, impossible. But his applying it even to the time of Jaddua opinion to that effect (u. s. p. 87) is (Ant. xi. 8. 2). apparently contradicted at p. 93. 1 In Ber. 48 a there is a distinct re- * Schiirer, foUowing Wieseler, supposes ference to the fact, that the Pharisees did the, Sanhedrin to have been of Boman in- not acknowledge the rule of the Mac- stitution. But the arguments of Wiese- cabees. ler on this point (Beitr. zur richt. Wiird. 2 Derenbourg takes a different view, d. Evang. p 224) are inconclusive. and identifies the tribunal of the As- * Comp. Derenbowg, u. s. p. 95. moneans with the Sanhedrin. This seems 6 Thus we read: 'The sayings of the Acts xxii. 5 VOL. I. H 98 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK 1 • Eduy. i. 3. See the comment of Maimonides of Divine origin with Holy Scripture, and authoritatively explained its meaning ; supplemented it ; gave it application to cases not expressly provided for, perhaps not even foreseen in Biblical times ; and generally guarded its sanctity by extending and adding to its provisions, drawing ' a hedge ' around its ' garden enclosed.' Thus, in new and dangerous circumstances, would the full meaning of God's Law, to its every tittle and iota, be elicited and obeyed. Thus also would their feet be arrested, who might stray from within, or break in from without. Accordingly, so important was tradition, that the greatest merit a Rabbi could claim was the strictest adherence to the traditions, which he had received from his teacher. Nor might one Sanhedrin annul, or set aside, the decrees of its predecessors. To such length did they go in this worship of the letter, that the great Hillel was actually wont to mispronounce a word, because his teacher before him had done so.a These traditional ordinances, as already stated, bear the general name of the Halakhah, as indicating alike the way in which the fathers had walked, and that which their children were bound to follow.1 These Halakhoth were either simply the laws laid down in Scripture ; or else derived from, or traced to it by some ingenious and artificial method of exegesis ; or added to it, by way of amplification and for safety's sake ; or, finally, legalised customs. They provided for every possible and impossible case, entered into every detail of private, family, and public life ; and with iron logic, unbending rigour, and most minute analysis pursued and dominated man, turn whither he might, laying on him a yoke which was truly unbearable. The return which it offered was the pleasure and distinction of knowledge, the acquisition of righteousness, and the final attainment of rewards ; one of its chief advantages over our modern traditionalism, that it was expressly forbidden to draw inferences from these traditions, which should have the force of fresh legal determinations.2 In describing the historical growth of the Halakhah,3 we may elders have more weight than those of the prophets ' (Jer. Ber. i. 7) ; ' an offence against the sayings of the Scribes is worse than one against those of Scripture ' (Sanh. xi. 3). Compare also Er. 21 b. The comparison between such claims and those sometimes set up on behalf of 'creeds' and 'articles' (Kitto's Cyclop., 2nd ed., p. 786, col a) does not seem tome applicable. In the Introduction to the Midr. on Lament, it is inferred from Jer. ix. 12, 13, that to forsake the law — in the Rabbinic sense — was worse than idolatry, uncleanness, or the shed ding of blood. See generally that Intro duction. 1 It is so explained in the Aruch (ed. Landau, vol. ii. p. 529, col. b). 2 Comp. Hamburger, u. s. p 343. 8 Comp. here especially the detailed description by Her-J-ld (u. s vol. iii. pp. 226-263); also the Introduction of Maimonides, and the very able and learned works (not sufficiently appre- THE HISTORICAL GROWTH OF TRADITIONALISM. 99 dismiss in a few sentences the legends of Jewish tradition about chap. patriarchal times. They assure us, that there was an Academy and VIII a Rabbinic tribunal of Shem, and they speak of traditions delivered *~ ' "* by that patriarch to Jacob ; of diligent attendance by the latter on the Rabbinic College ; of a tractate (in 400 sections) on idolatry by Abraham, and of his observance of the whole traditional law ; of the introduction of the three daily times of prayer, successively by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; of the three benedictions in the custom ary 'grace at meat,' as propounded by Moses, Joshua, and David and Solomon ; of the Mosaic introduction of the practice of reading lessons from the Law on Sabbaths, New Moons, and Feast Days, and even on the Mondays and Thursdays; and of that, by the same authority, of preaching on the three great festivals about those feasts. Further, they ascribe to Moses the arrangement of the priesthood into eight courses (that into sixteen to Samuel, and that into twenty-four to David), as also, the duration of the time for marriage festivities, and for mourning. But evidently these are vague statements, with the object of tracing traditionalism and its observances to primasval times, even as legend had it, that Adam was born circumcised, and had kept all the Rabbinical ordinances." » Midr. But other principles apply to the traditions, from Moses down- ^ShraPs wards. According to the Jewish view, God had given Moses on ix.6,ed.war- Mount Sinai alike the oral and the written Law, that is, the Law ^ ^* de with all its interpretations and applications. From Ex. xx. 1, it was E6^™",,' inferred, that God had communicated to Moses the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Haggadah, even to that which scholars would in latest times propound.1 In answer to the somewhat natural objection, why the Bible alone had been written, it was said that Moses had pro posed to write down all the teaching entrusted to him, but the Almighty had refused, on account of the future subjection of Israel to the nations, who would take from them the written Law. Then the unwritten tradi- tionswould remain to separate between Israel and the Gentiles. Popular exegesis found this indicated even in the language of prophecy." i^'S"' Shem. R. 47 ciated) by Dr. H. S. Hirschfeld, Hala- written,' the Prophets and Hagiographa ; chische Exegese (Berlin, 1840), and 'that thou mayest teach them,' the Hagadische Exegese (Berlin, 1847). Talmud— 'which shows that they were Perhaps I may also take leave to refer to all given to Moses on Sinai ' (Ber. 5 a, the corresponding chapters in my 'History lines 11-16). A like application was of the Jewish Nation.' made of the various clauses in Cant. vii. 1 Similarly, the expressions in Ex. 12 (Erub. 21 b). Nay, by an alteration xxiv. 12 were thus explained: 'the tables of the words in Hos. viii. 10, it was of stone,' the ten commandments ; the shown, that the banished had been ' law,' the written Law ; the ' command- brought back to Palestine for the merit of ments,' the Mishnah; 'which I have their study of the Mishnah (Vayyik. B. 6). h 2 100 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK I a Ex. xxxiv. 27" Jer. Chag. p. lid ' Toa. Shabb. xiv. ¦iErnb. 546 rrnn ' nan5 But traditionalism went further, and placed the oral actually above the written Law. The expression,3 ' After the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel,' was explained as meaning, that God's covenant was founded on the spoken, in opposition to the written words. b If the written was thus placed below the oral Law, we can scarcely wonder that the reading of the Hagiographa was actually prohibited to the people on the Sabbath, from fear that it might divert attention from the learned discourses of" the Rabbis. The study of them on that day was only allowed for the purpose of learned investigation and discussions.0 : But if traditionalism was not to be committed to writing by Moses, measures had been taken to prevent oblivion or inaccuracy. Moses had always repeated a traditional law successively to Aaron, to his sons, and to the elders of the people, and they again in turn to each other, in such wise, that Aaron heard the Mishnah four times, his sons three times, the Elders twice, and the people once. But even this was not all, for by successive repetitions (of Aaron, his sons, and the Elders) the people also heard it four times.d And, before his death, Moses had, summoned any one to come forward, if he had forgotten aught of what he had heard and learned.e But these ' Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai ' do not make up the whole of traditionalism. According to Maimonides, it consists of five, but more eritically of three classes.2 The first of these comprises both such ordinances as are found in the Bible itself, and the so-called Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai — that is, such laws and usages as prevailed from time immemorial, and which, according to the Jewish view, had been orally delivered to, but not written down by Moses. For these, therefore, no proof was to be sought in Scripture — at most support, or confirmatory allusion (Asmakhta).3 Nor were these open to discussion. The second class formed the ' oral law,' f or the ' traditional teaching ' g in the stricter sense. To this class belonged all that was supposed to be implied in, or that could be deduced from, the Law of Moses.4 The latter contained, indeed, in substance or 1 Another reason also is, however, men tioned for this prohibition. 2 Hirschfeld, u. s. pp. 92-99. 8 From nDDi to lean against. At the same time the ordinances, for which an appeal could be made to Asmakhta, were better liked than those which rested on tradition alone (Jer. Chag. p. 76, col. d). 4 In connection with this it is very significant that K. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who taught not many years after the Crucifixion of Christ, was wont to say, that, in the future, Halakhahs in regard to purity, which had not the support of Scripture, would be repealed (Sot. 27 b, line 16 from top). In general, the teach ing of B. Jochanan should be studied to understand the unacknowledged influence which Christianity exercised upon the Synagogue. TRADITIONS OPEN TO DISCUSSION OR REMOVAL. 101 germ, everything ; but it had not been brought out, till circumstances CHAP. successively evolved what from the first had been provided in princi- VIII pie. For this class of ordinances reference to, and proof from, Scripture was required. Not so for the third class of ordinances, which were ' the hedge ' drawn by the Rabbis around the Law, to prevent any breach of the Law or customs, to ensure their exact observance, or to meet peculiar circumstances and dangers. These ordinances consti tuted ' the sayings of the Scribes ' a or ' of the Rabbis ' b ' — and were nan * either positive in their character (Teqqanoth), or else negative (Gezeroth, D*1B1D from gazar, 'to cut off"). Perhaps the distinction of these two l33"1"1 cannot always be strictly carried out. But it was probably to this third class especially, confessedly unsupported by Scripture, that these words of Christ referred : c ' All therefore whatsoever they • st. Matt. ^ xxm. 3, 4 tell you, that do and observe ; but do not ye after their works : for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but with their finger -they will not move them away (set in motion).' 2 This view has two fold confirmation. For, this third class of Halakhic ordinances was the only one open to the discussion of the learned, the ultimate decision being according to the majority. Yet it possessed practically (though not theoretically) the same authority as the other two classes. In further confirmation of our view the following may be quoted : ' A Gezerah (i.e. this third class of ordinances) is not to be laid on the congregation, unless the majority of the congregation is able to bear it ' d — words which read like a commentary on those of Jesus, and a b. Earn. 79 show that these burdens could be laid on, or moved away, according to the varying judgment or severity of a Rabbinic College.3 This body of traditional ordinances forms the subject of the Mish nah, or second, repeated law. We have here to place on one side the 1 But this not always. two first classes of Halakhoth, which 2 To elucidate the meaning of Christ, it were regarded as beyond controversy. seemed necessary to submit an avowedly 2. It could scaroely be truthfully charged difficult text to fresh criticism. I have against the Scribes and Pharisees, that taken the word kivcTv, nioveo in the they did not attempt to keep themselves sense of irefaeio (Grimm, Clavis N.T. ed. the ordinances which they imposed upon 2"*, p. 241 a), but I have not adopted others. The expression in the parallel the inference of Meyer (Krit. Exeget. passage (St. Luke xi. 46) must be ex- Handb. p. 455). In classical Greek also plained in accordance with the com- Kivttv is used for ' to remove, to alter.' mentation on St. Matt, xxiii. 4. Nor is My reasons against what may be called there any serious difficulty about it. the traditional interpretation of St. Matt. 3 For the classification, arrangement, xxiii. 3, 4,are: 1. It seems scarcely possible origin, and enumeration of these Hal- to suppose that, before such an audience, akhoth, see Appendix V. : ' Babbinic Christ would have contemplated the Theology and Literature.' possibility of not observing either of the A.D. 1°2 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK Law of Moses as recorded in the Pentateuch, as standing by itself. All I else — even the teaching of the Prophets and of the Hagiographa, as ' well as the oral traditions — bore the general name of Qabbalah — ' that which has been received.' The sacred study — or Midrash, in the original application of the term — concerned either the Halakhah, tra ditional ordinance, which was always 'that which had been heard' (Shematha), or else the Haggadah, 'that which was said' upon the authority of individuals, not as legal ordinance. It was illustration, commentary, anecdote, clever or learned saying, &c. At first the Halakhah remained unwritten, probably owing to the disputes be tween Pharisees and Sadducees. But the necessity of fixedness and order led in course of time to more or less complete collections of the Halakhoth.1 The oldest of these is ascribed to R. Akiba, in the time * 132-135 of the Emperor Hadrian." 2 But the authoritative collection in the so- called Mishnah is the work of Jehudah the Holy, who died about the end of the second century of our era. Altogether, the Mishnah comprises six ' Orders ' (Sedarim), each devoted to a special class of subjects.3 These ' Orders ' are divided into tractates (Massikhtoth, Massekhtiyoth, ' textures, webs '), of which there are sixty-three (or else sixty-two) in all. These tractates are again subdivided into chapters (Peraqim) — in all 525, which severally consist of a certain number of verses, or Mishnahs (Mishnayoth, in all 4,187). Considering the variety and complexity of the subjects treated, the Mishnah is arranged with remarkable logical perspicuity. The 1 See the learned remarks of Levy Nasirate. The fourth 'Order' (Neziqin, about the reasons for the earlier prohibi- ' damages ') contains the civil and tion of writing down the oral law, and criminal law. Characteristically, it in the final collection of the Mishnah eludes all the ordinances concerning (Neuhebr. u. Chald. Worterb. vol. ii. p. idol-worship (in the tractate Abhodah 435). Zarah) and ' the sayings of the Fathers ' 2 These collections are enumerated in (A bhoth). The fifth ' Order ' ( Qodashim the Midrash on Eccles. xii. 3. They are ' holy things ') treats of the various also distinguished as ' the former ' and classes of sacrifices, offerings and things ' the later ' Mishnah (Nedar. 91 a). belonging (as the first-born), or dedicated, 3 The first 'Order' (Zeraim, 'seeds') to God, and of all questions which can be begins with the ordinances concern- grouped under ' sacred things ' (such as ing ' benedictions,' or the time, mode, the redemption, exchange, or alienation manner, and character of the prayers . of what had been dedicated to God). It prescribed. It then goes on to detail also includes the laws concerning the what may be called the religio-agrarian daily morning and evening service laws (such as tithing, Sabbatical years, (Tamid), and a description of the structure firstfruits, las.). The second ' Order ' and arrangements of the Temple (Mid- (Moed, ' festive time ') discusses all con- doth, ' the measurements '). Finally the nected with the Sabbath observance and sixth 'Order' (Toharoth, 'cleannesses') the other festivals. The third ' Order ' gives every ordinance connected with the (Nashim, 'women') treats of all that questions of 'clean and unclean' alike concerns betrothal, marriage, and divorce, as regards human beings, animals and but also includes a tractate on the inanimate things. THE MISHNAH, THE JERUSALEM AND THE BABYLON TALMUD. 103 language is Hebrew, though of course not that of the Old Testament. CHAP. The words rendered necessary by the new circumstances are chiefly VIII derived from the Greek, the Syriac, and the Latin, with Hebrew ter- ' ruinations.1 But all connected with social intercourse, or ordinary life (such as contracts), is written, not in Hebrew, but in Aramaean, as the language of the people. But the traditional law embodied other materials than the Halakhoth collected in the Mishnah. Some that had not been recorded there, found a place in the works of certain Rabbis, or were derived from their schools. These are called Boraithas — that is, tra ditions external to the Mishnah. Finally, there were ' additions ' (or Tosephtoth), dating after the completion of the Mishnah, but probably not later than the third century of our era. Such there are to not fewer than fifty-two out of the sixty-three Mishnic tractates. When speaking of the Halakhah as distinguished from the Haggadah, we must not, however, suppose that the latter could be entirely separated from it. In point of fact, one whole tractate in the Mishnah (Aboth : The Sayings of the ' Fathers ') is entirely Haggadah ; a second (Middoth : the ' Measurements of the Temple ') has Halakhah in only fourteen places; while in the rest of the tractates Haggadah occurs in not fewer than 207 places.2 Only thirteen out of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah are entirely free from Haggadah. Hitherto we have only spoken of the Mishnah. But this com prises only a very small part of traditioialism. In course of time the discussions, illustrations, explanations, and additions to which the Mishnah gave rise, whether in its application, or in the Academies of the Rabbis, were authoritatively collected and edited in what are known as the two Talmuds or Gemaras? If we imagine something combining law reports, a Rabbinical ' Hansard,' and notes of a theo logical debating club — all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions, anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often of what, from its profanity, superstition, and even obscenity, could scarcely be quoted, we may form some general idea of what the Talmud is. The oldest of these two Talmuds dates from about the close of the fourth century of our era. It is the product of the Palestinian Academies, and hence called the Jerusalem Talmud. The second is about a century younger, and the outcome of the Babylonian schools, hence called the 1 Comp. the very interesting tractate 2 Comp. the enumeration in Pinner, by Dr. Briill (Fremdspr. Eedensart. in d. u. s. Talmud ), as well as Dr. Eisler's Beitrage a Talmud : that which is learned, doc- z. Babb. u. Alterthumsk, 3fascic; Sachs, trine. Gemara : either the same, or else Beitr. *. Babb. u. Alterthumsk. ' perfection,' ' completion.' 104 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. BOOK Babylon (afterwards also ' our ') Talmud. We do not possess either 1 of these works complete.1 The most defective is the Jerusalem Tal mud, which is also much briefer, and contains far fewer discussions than that of Babylon. The Babylon Talmud, which in its present form extends over thirty-six out of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah, is about ten or eleven times the size of the latter, and more than four times that of the Jerusalem Talmud. It occupies (in our editions), with marginal commentations, 2,947 folio leaves (pages a. and b). Both Talmuds are written in Aramaean; the one in its western, the other in its eastern dialect, and in both the Mishnah is discussed seriatim, and clause by clause. Of the character of these discussions it would be impossible to convey an adequate idea. When we bear in mind the many sparkling, beautiful, and occasionally almost sublime passages in the Talmud, but especially that its forms of thought and expression so often recall those of the New Testament, only prejudice and hatred could indulge in indiscriminate vituperation. On the other hand, it seems unaccountable how any one who has read a Talmudic tractate, or even part of one, could compare the Talmud with the New Testa ment, or find in the one the origin of the other. To complete our brief survey, it should be added that our editions of the Babylon Talmud contain (at the close of vol. ix. and after the fourth ' Order ') certain Boraithas. Of these there were originally nine, but two of the smaller tractates (on ' the memorial fringes,' and on 'non-Israelites') have nfot been preserved. The first of these Boraithas is entitled Abhoth de' Rabbi Nathan, and partially corre sponds with a tractate of a similar name in the Mishnah.2 Next 1 ThefollowingwiUexplainourmeaning: khoth were collected in a work (dating On the first ' order ' we have the Jeru- from about 800 a.d.) entitled Halakhoth salem Talmud complete, that is, on every Gedoloth. They are arranged -to corre- tractate (comprising in aU65 folio leaves), spond with the weekly lectionary of the while the Babylon Talmud extends only Pentateuch in a work entitled Sheeltoth over its first tractate (Berakhoth). On ('Questions:' best ed. Diehrenfurth, 1786). the second order, the four last chapters The Jerusalem Talmud extends over 39J of one tractate (Shabbath) are wanting the Babylonian over 361 tractates 15i in the Jerusalem, and one whole trac- tractates have no Gemara at all. tate (Sheqalim) in the Babylon Talmud. 2 The last ten chapters curiously group The third order is complete in both Ge- together events or things under numerals maras. On the fourth order a chapter is from 10 downwards. The most generally wanting in one tractate (Macepth) in the interesting of these is that of the 10 Nequ- Jerusalem, and two whole tractates doth, or passages of Scripture in which (Ednyoth and Abhoth) in both Gemaras. letters are marked by dots, together with The fifth order is wholly wanting in the the explanation of their reasons (ch. Jerusalem, and two and a half tractates xxxiv.). The whole Boraitha seems com- of it (Middoth, Qinnim, and half Tamid) posed of parts of three different works, in the Babylon Talmud. Of the sixth and consists of forty (or forty-one) chap- order only one tractate (Niddah) exists ters, and occupies ten folio leaves. in both Gemaras. The principal Hala- CONTRAST TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. 105 follow six minor tractates. These are respectively entitled Sopherim CHAP. (Scribes),1 detailing the ordinances about copying the Scriptures, the VIII ritual of the Lectionary, and festive prayers ; Ebhel Rabbathi or Semakhoth,2 containing Halakhah and Haggadah about funeral and mourning observances ; Kallah,3 on the married relationship ; Berekh Erets,11 embodying moral directions and the rules and customs of social intercourse ; Berekh Erets Zutaf treating of similar subjects, but as regards learned students ; and, lastly, the Pereq ha Shalom,6 which is a eulogy on peace. All these tractates date, at least in their present form, later than the Talmudic period.7 But while the Halakhah, however varied in its application, was something fixed and stable, the utmost latitude was claimed and given in the Haggadah. It is sadly characteristic, that, practically, the main body of Jewish dogmatic and moral theology is really only Haggadah, and hence of no absolute authority. The Halakhah indicated with the most minute and painful punctiliousness every legal ordinance as to outward observances, and it explained every bearing of the Law of Moses. But beyond this it left the inner man, the spring of actions, untouched. What he was to believe and what to feel, was chiefly matter of the Haggadah. Of course the laws of morality, and religion, as laid down in the Pentateuch, were fixed principles, but there was the greatest divergence and latitude in the explanation and application of many of them. A man might hold or propound almost any views, so long as he contravened not the Law of Moses, as it was understood, and adhered in teaching and practice to the traditional ordinances. In principle it was the same liberty which the Romish Church accords to its professing members — only with much wider application, since the debatable ground embraced so many matters of faith, and the liberty given was not only that of private opinion but of public utterance. We emphasise this, because the absence of authoritative direction and the latitude in matters of faith 1 In twenty-one chapters, each contain- gether, with abundant notes, only forty- ing a number of Halakhahs, and occupy- foursmall pages, which treat of the copying ing in all four folio leaves. of the Bible (Sepher Torah, in five chap- 2 In fourteen chapters, occupying rather ters), of the Mezuzah, or memorial on the more than three folio leaves. doorposts (in two chapters), of Phylae- 3 It fills little more than a folio page. teries (Tephillin, in one chapter), of the ? In eleven chapters, covering about If Tsitsith, or memorial- fringes (in one chap- folio leaves. ter), of Slaves (Abhadim, in three chapters) 5 In nine chapters, filling one folio leaf. of the Outheans, or Samaritans (in two 6 Little more than a folio column. chapters), and, finally, a curious trac- 7 Besides these, Raphael Kirchheim has tate on Proselytes (Gerim, in four chap- published (Frankfort, 1851) the so-called ters). seven smaller tractates, covering alto- 106 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. and inner feeling stand side by side, and in such sharp contrast, with the most minute punctiliousness in all matters of outward observance. And here we may mark the fundamental distinction between the teach ing of Jesus and Rabbinism. He left the Halakhah untouched, putting it, as it were, on one side, as something quite secondary, while He insisted as primary on that which to them was chiefly matter of Hagga dah. And this rightly so, for, in His own words, ' Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ; but that which cometh out of the mouth,' since ' those things which proceed out of the mouth * st. Matt, come forth from the heart, and they defile the man.' a The difference xv. 11 18 . . was one of fundamental principle, and not merely of development, form, or detail. The one developed the Law in its outward direction as ordinances and commandments ; the other in its inward applica tion as life and liberty. Thus Rabbinism occupied one pole — and the outcome of its tendency to pure externalism was the Halakhah, all that was internal and higher being merely Haggadic. The teaching of Jesus occupied the opposite pole. Its starting-point was the inner sanc tuary in which God was known and worshipped, and it might well leave the Rabbinic Halakhoth aside, as not worth controversy, to be in the meantime ' done and observed,' in the firm assurance that, in the course of its development, the spirit would create its own appro priate forms, or, to use a New Testament figure, the new wine burst the old bottles. And, lastly, as closely connected with all this, and marking the climax of contrariety : Rabbinism started with demand of outward obedience and righteousness, and pointed to sonship as its goal ; the Gospel started with the free gift of forgiveness through faith and of sonship, and pointed to obedience and righteousness as its goal. In truth, Rabbinism, as such, had no system of theology ; only what ideas, conjectures, or fancies the Haggadah yielded concerning God, Angels, demons, man, his future destiny and present position, and Israel, with its past history and coming glory. Accordino-ly, by the side of what is noble and pure, what a terrible mass of utter incon gruities, of conflicting statements and too often debasing superstitions the outcome of ignorance and narrow nationalism ; of legendary colour ing of Biblical narratives and scenes, profane, coarse, and degrading to them ; the Almighty Himself and His Angels taking part in the con versations of Rabbis, and the discussions of Academies ; nay forming A a kind of heavenly Sanhedrin, which occasionally requires the aid of an earthly Rabbi.1 The miraculous merges into the ridiculous and 1 Thus, in B. Mez. 86 a, we read of a the subject of purity, when Babbah was discussion in the heavenly Academy on summoned to heaven by death, although JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM: THEIR GOAL. 107 even the revolting. Miraculous cures, miraculous supplies, miraculous chap. help, all for the glory of great Rabbis,1 who by a look or word can VIII kill, and restore to life. At their bidding the eyes of a rival fall out, ' ' ' and are again inserted. Nay, such was the veneration due to Rabbis, that R. Joshua used to kiss the stone on which R. Eliezer had sat and lectured, saying : ' This stone is like Mount Sinai, and he who sat on it like the Ark.' Modern ingenuity has, indeed, striven to suggest deeper symbolical meaning for such stories. It should own the terrible contrast existing side by side : Hebrewism and Judaism, the Old Testament and traditionalism; and it should recognise its deeper cause in the absence of that element of spiritual and inner life which Christ has brought. Thus as between the two— the old and the new — it may be fearlessly asserted that, as regards their substance and spirit, there is not a difference, but a total divergence, of funda mental principle between Rabbinism and the New Testament, so that comparison between them is not possible. Here there is absolute contrariety. The painful fact just referred to is only too clearly illustrated by the relation in which traditionalism places itself to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, even though it acknowledges their inspira tion and authority. The Talmud has it,a that he who busies himself • Baba Mez. with Scripture only (i.e. without either the Mishnah or Gemara) has merit, and yet no merit.2 Even the comparative paucity of references to the Bible in the Mishnah3 is significant. Israel had made void this required a miracle, since he was con- escaped. In Abhod. Zar. 17 b, a miracle is stantly engaged in sacred study. Shock- recorded in favour of B. Eleazar, to set ing to write, it needed the authority of him free from his persecutors, or, rather, Babbah to attest the correctness of the to attest a false -statement which he Almighty's statement on the Halakhic made in order to escape martyrdom. question discussed. For further extravagant praises of the 1 Some of these miracles are detailed Babbis, comp. Sanh. 101 a. in B. Mez. 85 b, 86 a. Thus, Besh Lakish, 2 Similarly we read in Aboth d. B. when searching for the tomb of B. Chija, Nathan 29 : ' He who is master of the found that it was miraculously removed Midrash, but knows no Halakhahs, is like from his sight, as being too sacred for a hero, but there are no arms in his hand. ordinary eyes. The same Babbi claimed He that is master of the Halakhoth, but such merit, that for his sake the Law knows nothing of the Midrashim, is a should never be forgotten in Israel. weak person who is provided with arms. Such was the power of the patriarchs But he that is master of hoth is both that, if they had been raised up together, a hero and armed.' they would have brought Messiah before a Most of these, of course, are from the His time. When B. Chija prayed, succes- Pentateuch. Beferences to any other Old sively a storm arose, the rain descended, Testament books are generally loosely and the earth trembled. Again, Babbah, made, and serve* chiefly as points d'appui when about to be arrested, caused the for Babbinical sayings. Scriptural quota- face of the messenger to be turned to tions occur in 51 out of the 63 tractates of his back, and again restored it ; next, by the Mishnah, the number of verses quoted his prayer he made a wall burst, and so being 430. A quotation in the Mishnah THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL. the Law by its traditions. Under a load of outward ordinances and observances its spirit had been crushed. The religion as well as the grand hope of the Old Testament had become externalised. And so alike Heathenism and Judaism — for it was no longer the pure religion of the Old Testament — each following its own direction, had reached its goal. All was prepared and waiting. The very porch had been built, through which the new, and yet old, religion was to pass into the ancient world, and the ancient world into the new religion. Only one thing was needed : the Coming of the Christ. As yet darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness lay upon the people. But far away the golden light of the new day was already tingeing the edge of the horizon. Presently would the Lord arise upon Zion, and His glory be seen upon her. Presently would the Voice from out the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord ; presently would it herald the Coming of His Christ to Jew and Gentile, and that Kingdom of heaven, which, established upon earth, is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.1 is generally introduced by the formula the Jerusalem Talmud no al-tikre (' read ' as it is said.' This in all but sixteen not so, but read so ') occurs, for the pur- instances, where the quotation is prefaced poses of textual criticism. In the Talmud by, ' Scripture means to say.' But, in a favourite mode of quoting from the general, the difference in the mode of Pentateuch, made in about 600 passages, quotation in Babbinic writings seems to is by introducing it as spoken or written depend partly on the context, but chiefly by fcODrVI- The various modes in which on the place and time. Thus, 'as it is Biblical quotations are made in Jewish written ' is a Chaldee mode of quotation. writings are enumerated in Surenhusius Half the quotations in the Talmud are pre- Bi'/SAos KaraWayfjs, pp. 1-56. faced by ' as it is said ; ' a fifth of them ' For details on the Jewish views on by ' as it is written ; ' a tenth by ' Scrip- the Canon, and historical and mystical ture means to say ; ' and the remaining theology, see Appendix V. . ' Babbinic fifth by various other formulas. Comp. Theology and Literature.' Pinner's Introduction to Berakhoth. In Book II FEOM THE MANGEE IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JOEDAN. ' Fortitudo infirmatur, Parva fit immensitas ; Liberator alligatur, Nascitur aeternitas. 0 quam mira perpetrasti Jesu propter hominem I Tam ardenter quem amasti Paradiso exulem.' — Ancient Latin Hymn. THE JERUSALEM OF SOLOMON AND OF HEROD. Ill CHAPTER I. IN JERUSALEM WHEN HEROD REIGNED. If the dust of ten centuries could have been wiped from the eyelids of those sleepers, and one of them who thronged Jerusalem in the highday of its glory, during the reign of King Solomon, had returned to its streets, he would scarcely have recognised the once familiar city. Then, as now, a Jewish king reigned, who bore undivided rule over the whole land ; then, as now, the city was filled with riches and adorned with palaces and architectural monuments; then, as now, Jerusalem was crowded with strangers from all lands. Solomon and Herod were each the last Jewish king over the Land of Promise ; J Solomon and Herod, each, built the Temple. But with the son of David began, and with the Idumaean ended, ' the kingdom ' ; or rather, having fulfilled its mission, it gave place to the spiritual world-kingdom of ' David's greater Son.' The sceptre departed from Judah to where the nations were to gather under its sway. And the Temple which Solomon built was the first. In it the Shekhinah dwelt visibly. The Temple which Herod reared was the last. The ruins of its burning, which the torch of the Roman had kindled, were never to be restored. Herod was not the antitype, he was the Barabbas, of David's Royal Son. In other respects, also, the difference was almost equally great. The four ' companion-like ' hills on which the city was built,a the » Ps. oxxa. deep clefts by which it was surrounded, the Mount of Olives rising in the east, were the same as a thousand years ago. There, as of old were the Pool of Siloam and the royal gardens — nay, the very wall that had then surrounded the city. And yet all was so altered as to be scarcely recognisable. The ancient Jebusite fort, the City of David, Mount Zion,2 was now the priests' quarter, Ophel, and the old royal palace and stables had been thrown into the Temple area — now com- 1 I do not here reckon the brief reign on the traditional site, on the western hill of King Agrippa. of Jerusalem, but on the eastern, south ' It will be seen that, with the most of the Temple area. recent explorers, I locate Mount Zion not 112 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN BOOK pletely levelled — where they formed the magnificent treble colonnade, II known as the Royal Porch. Passing through it, and out by the Western Gate of the Temple, we stand on the immense bridge which spans the 'Valley of the Cheesemongers,' or the Tyropceon, and connects the Eastern with the Western hills of the city. It is perhaps here that we can best mark the outstanding features, and note the changes. On the right, as we look northward, are (on the Eastern hill) Ophel, the Priest-quarter, and the Temple — oh, how wondrously beautified and enlarged, and rising terrace upon terrace, surrounded by massive walls : a palace, a fortress, a Sanctuary of shining marble and glittering gold. And beyond it frowns the old fortress of Baris, rebuilt by Herod, and named after his patron, Antonia. This is the Hill of Zion. Right below us is the cleft of the Tyroposon— and here creeps up northwards the ' Lower City ' or Acra, in the form of a crescent, widening into an almost square ' suburb.' Across the Tyropoeon, westwards, rises the ' Upper City.' If the Lower City and suburb form the business-quarter with its markets, bazaars, and streets of trades and guilds, the ' Upper City ' is that of palaces. Here, at the other end of the great bridge which connects the Temple with the ' Upper City,' is the palace of the Maccabees; beyond it, the Xystos, or vast colonnaded enclosure, where popular assemblies are held ; then the Palace of Ananias the High-Priest, and nearest to the Temple, ' the Council Chamber ' and public Archives. Behind it, westwards, rise, terrace upon terrace, the stately mansions of the Upper City, till, quite in the north-west corner of the old city, we reach the Palace which Herod had built for himself — almost a city and fortress, flanked by three high towers, and enclosing spacious gardens. Beyond it again, and outside the city walls, both of the first and the second, stretches all north of the city the new suburb of Bezetha. Here on every side are gardens and Villas ; here passes the great northern road ; out there must they have laid hold on Simon the Cyrenian, and here must have led the way to the place of the Crucifixion. Changes that marked the chequered course of Israel's history had come even over the city walls. The first and oldest that of David and Solomon — ran round the west side of the Upper City, then crossed south to the Pool of Siloam, and ran up east, round Ophel, till it reached the eastern enclosure of the Temple, whence it passed in a straight line to the point from which it had started, forming the northern boundary of the ancient city. But although this wall still existed, there was now a marked addition to it. When WALLS AND FORTS. 113 the Maccabee Jonathan finally cleared Jerusalem of the Syrian CHAP garrison that lay in Port Acra," he built a wall right ' through the I middle of the city,' so as to shut out the foe.b This wall probably ran t ' 7" from the -western angle of the Temple southwards, to near the pool of 33. ™rl o • t f m often; but Suoam, following the winding course of the Tyropceon, but on the thc precise • i t • f A situation of other side of it, where the declivity of the Upper City merged in the f^u .'fort' is valley. Another monument of the Syrian Wars, of the Maccabees, MMaoo.xii. and of Herod, was the fortress Antonia. Part of it had, probably, xm.lTif;"' been formerly occupied by what was known as Fort Acra, of such St°Sv. Tef'a ; unhappy prominence in the wars that preceded and marked the early ST ir "' 7' 2 ' Maccabean period. It had passed from the Ptolemies to the Syrians, and always formed the central spot round which the fight for the city turned. Judas Maccabee had not been able to take it. Jonathan had laid siege to it, and built the wall, to which reference has just been made, so as to isolate its garrison. It was at last taken by Simon, the brother and successor of Jonathan, and levelled with the ground.0 Fort Baris, which was constructed by his successor ° 141 b.c. Hyrcanus I.,d covered a much wider space. It lay on the north- <> 135-106 western angle of the Temple, slightly jutting beyond it in the west, but not covering the whole northern area of the Temple. The rock on which it stood was higher than the Temple,1 although lower than the hill up which the new suburb Bezetha crept, which, accordingly, was cut off by a deep ditch, for the safety of the fortress. Herod greatly enlarged and strengthened it. Within encircling walls the fort rose to a height of sixty feet, and was flanked by four towers, of which three had a height of seventy, the fourth (S.E.), which jutted into the Temple area, of 105 feet, so as to command the sacred enclosure.. A subterranean passage led into the Temple itself,e which • Ant. xv. was also connected with it by colonnades and stairs. Herod had adorned, as well as strengthened and enlarged, this fort (now Anto nia), and made it a palace, an armed camp, and almost a city.f ' Jos. War Hitherto we have only spoken of the first, or old wall, which was fortified by sixty towers. The second wall, which had only fourteen towers, began at some point in the northern wall at the Gate Gennath, whence it ran north, and then east, so as to enclose Acra and the Suburb. It terminated at Fort Antonia. Beyond, and all around this second wall stretched, as already noticed, the new, as yet unenclosed suburb Bezetha, rising towards the north-east. But ¦It is, to say the least, doubtful, v. 5. 8), applies to its height (comp. Spiess, whether the numeral 50 cubits (75 feet), Das Jerus. d. Jos. p. 66). which Josephus assigns to this rock (War VOL. I. I 114 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK these changes were as nothing compared with those within the city 11 itself. First and foremost was the great transformation in the s ' Temple itself,1 which, from a small building, little larger than an ordinary church, in the time of Solomon,2 had become that great and glorious House which excited the admiration of the foreigner, and kindled the enthusiasm of every son of Israel. At the time of Christ it had been already forty-six years in building, and workmen were still, and for a long time, engaged on it.3 But what a heterogeneous crowd thronged its porches and courts ! Hellenists ; scattered wanderers from the most distant parts of the earth — east, west, north, and south ; Galileans, quick of temper and uneouth of Jewish speech ; Judseans and Jerusalemites ; white-robed Priests and Levites ; Temple officials ; broad-phylacteried, wide-fringed Pharisees, and courtly, ironical Sadducees ; and, in the outer court, curious Gentiles ! Some had come to worship ; others to pay vows, or bring offerings, or to seek purification ; some to meet friends, and discourse on religious subjects in those colonnaded porches, which ran round the Sanctuary ; or else to have their questions answered, or their causes heard and decided, by the smaller Sanhedrin of twenty-three, that sat in the entering of the gate, or by the Great Sanhedrin. The latter no longer occupied the Hall of Hewn Stones, Gazith, but met in some chamber attached to those ' shops,' or booths, on the Temple Mount, which belonged to the High-Priestly family of Ananias, and where such profitable trade was driven by those who, in their cupidity and covetousness, were worthy successors of the sons of Eli. In the Court of the Gentiles (or in its porches) sat the official money-changers, who for a fixed discount changed all foreign coins into those of the Sanctuary. Here also was that great mart for sacrificial animals, and all that was requisite for offerings. How the simple, earnest country people, who came to pay vows, or bring offerings for purifying, must have wondered, and felt oppressed in that atmosphere of strangely blended religious rigorism and utter worldliness ; and how they must have been taxed, imposed upon, and treated with utmost curtness, nay, rudeness, by those who laughed at their boorishness, and despised them as cursed, ignorant country people, little better than heathens, or, for that matter, than brute beasts. Here also there lay about a crowd of noisy beggars, unsightly from disease, and clamorous for help. And close by passed the luxurious scion of the High- > I must take leave to refer to _ the Part viii. p. 682 b, speaks of the dimen- description of Jerusalem and especially sions of the old Sanctuary as little more of the Temple, in the Temple and its than those of a village church Services at the Time of Jesus Christ.' » It was only finished in 64 a.d., that » Dr. Muhlau, m fliehm s Handworterb. is, six years before its destruction IN THE CITY AND AMONG THE BAZAARS. 1,15 Priestly families ; the proud, intensely self-conscious Teacher of the CHAP. Law, respectfully followed by his disciples ; and the quick-witted, I subtle Scribe. These were the men who, on Sabbaths and feast-days, ' would come out on the Temple-terrace to teach the people, or con descend to answer their questions; who in the Synagogues would hold their puzzled hearers spell-bound by their traditional lore and subtle argumentation, or tickle the fancy of the entranced multitude, that thronged every available space, by their ingenious frivolities, their marvellous legends, or their clever sayings ; but who would, if occasion required, quell an opponent by well-poised questions, or crush him beneath the sheer weight of authority. Yet others were there who, despite the utterly lowering influence which the frivolities of the prevalent religion, and the elaborate trifling of its endless observ ances, must have exercised on the moral and religious feelings of all — perhaps, because of them — turned aside, and looked back with loving gaze to the spiritual promises of the past, and forward with longing expectancy to the near ' consolation of Israel,' waiting for it in prayerful fellowship, and with bright, heaven-granted gleams of its dawning light amidst the encircling gloom. Descending from the Temple into the city, there was more than enlargement, due to the increased population. Altogether, Jerusalem covered, at its greatest, about 300 acres.1 As of old there were still the same narrow streets in the business quarters ; but in close con tiguity to bazaars and shops rose stately mansions of wealthy merchants, and palaces of princes.2 And what a change in the aspect of these streets, in the character of those shops, and, above all, in the appear ance of the restless Eastern crowd that surged to and fro ! Outside their shops in the streets, or at least in sight of the passers, and within reach of their talk, was the shoemaker hammering his sandals, the tailor plying his needle, the carpenter, or the worker in iron and brass. Those who were less busy, or more enterprising, passed along, wearing some i emblem of their trade : the dyer, variously coloured threads ; the car penter, a rule ; the writer, a reed behind his ear ; the tailor, with a needle prominently stuck in his dress. In the side streets the less attractive occupations of the butcher, the wool-comber, or the flax- spinner were carried on. In these large, shady halls, artistic trades were pursued : the elegant workmanship ofthe goldsmith and jeweller ; the various articles de luxe, that adorned the houses of the rich ; the work of the designer, the moulder, or the artificer in iron or brass. 1 See Conder, Heth and Moab, p. 94. 2 Such as the Palace of Grapte, and that Of Queen Helena of Adiabene. i 2 1,16 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II » Baba B. ix. 7 b Arach. vi. 0 Baba K. x. 4 d Men. xiii. 8; Baba K. iii. 9 » Tos. Shek. ii. ; Tos. Ar. iv. ' Men. xiii. 8 s Tos. Baba Mez. iv. h Toma 35 b 1 Peah viii. In these streets and lanes everything might be purchased : the pro duction of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands — nay, the rarest articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously de signed and jewelled cups, rings, and other workmanship of precious metals ; glass, silks, fine linen, woollen stuffs, purple, and costly hang ings ; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold ; articles of food and drink from foreign lands — in short, what India, Persia, Arabia, Media, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars. Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than 118 different articles of import from foreign lands, covering more than even modern luxury has devised. Articles of luxury, especially from abroad, fetched indeed enormous prices ; and a lady might spend 361. on a cloak * ; silk would be paid by its weight in gold ; purple wool at 31. 5s. the pound, or, if double-dyed, at almost ten times that amount ; while the price of the best balsam and nard was most exorbitant. On the other hand, the cost of common living was very low. In the bazaars you might get a complete suit for your slave for eighteen or nineteen shillings,b and a tolerable outfit for yourself from 31. to 61. For the same sum you might purchase an ass,c an ox,a or a cow,e and, for little more, a horse. A calf might be had for less than fifteen shillings, a goat for five or six.f Sheep were dearer, and fetched from four to fifteen or sixteen shillings, while a lamb might sometimes be had as low as two pence. No wonder living and labour were so cheap. Corn of all kinds, fruit, wine, and oil, cost very little. Meat was about a penny a pound; a man might get himself a small, of course unfurnished, lodging for about sixpence a week.s A day labourer was paid about l\d. a day, though skilled labour would fetch a good deal more. In deed, the great Hillel was popularly supposed to have supported his family on less than twopence a day,h while property to the amount of about 61., or trade with 21. or SI. of goods, was supposed to exclude a person from charity, or a claim on what was left in the corners of fields and to the gleaners.1 ^ To these many like details might be added.1 Sufficient has been said to show the two ends of society : the exceeding dearness of luxu ries, and the corresponding cheapness of necessaries. Such extremes would meet especially at Jerusalem. Its population, computed at from 200,000 to 250,000,2 was enormously swelled by travellers, and by I ?°mp" Hfrzfeld's Handelsgesch. modern city. Comp. Dr. Schick in A M 2 Ancient Jerusalem is supposed to have Luncz, ' Jerusalem,' for 1882 covered about double the area of the MARKETS, FAIRS, AND SHOPS. 117 pilgrims during the great festivals.1 The great Palace was the residence of King and Court, with all their following and luxury ; in Antonia lay afterwards the Roman garrison. The Temple called thousands of priests, many of them with their families, to Jerusalem ; while the learned Academies were filled with hundreds, though it may have been mostly poor, scholars and students. In Jerusalem must have been many of the large warehouses for the near commercial harbour of Joppa ; and thence, as from the industrial centres of busy Galilee, would the pedlar go forth to carry his wares over the land. More especially would the markets of Jerusalem, held, however, in bazaars and streets rather than in squares, be thronged with noisy sellers, and bargaining buyers. Thither would Galilee send not only its manufactures, but its provisions : fish (fresh or salted), fruit known for its lusciousness,a oil, • Maaser. a. grape-syrup, and wine. There were special inspectors for these mar kets — the Agardemis or Agronimos — who tested weights and measures, and officially stamped them,b tried the soundness of food or drink,c and " Baba b. occasionally fixed or lowered the market-prices, enforcing their c Jer Ab z decision,"1 if need were, even with the stick.e 2 Not only was there an % ha' Ab" Zi upper and a lower market in Jerusalem/ but we read of at least seven a Jer. Dem. special markets : those for cattle,8 wool, iron-ware,6- clothes, wood,1 , Toma 9 a bread, and fruit and vegetables. The original market-days were fsanh. 89 a Monday and Thursday — afterwards Friday.k The large fairs (Yeridin) * Erub" x" 9 were naturally confined to the centres of import and export — the bor- v. 8. i ders of Egypt (Gaza), the ancient Phoenician maritime towns (Tyre ij^11'"' and Acco), and the emporium across the Jordan (Botnah).3 Besides, vros. Baba every caravansary, or khan (qatlis, atlis, Karakvais), was a sort of mart, where goods were unloaded, and especially cattle set out1 for sale, and icneritn. purchases made. But in Jerusalem one may suppose the sellers to Te'mur. m. have been every day in the market; and the magazines, in which greengrocery and all kinds of meat were sold (the Beth haShevaqim),m » Hakhsa. must have been always open. Besides, there were the many shops (Chanuyoth) either fronting the streets, or in courtyards, or else movable wooden booths in the streets. Strangely enough, occasionally Jewish 1 Although Jerusalem covered only producer a profit of one-sixth on the about 300 acres, yet, from the narrowness cost (Baba B. 90 a). In general, the of Oriental streets, it would hold a very laws on these subjects form a most much larger population than any Western interesting study. Bloch (Mos. Talm. city of the same extent. Besides, we Polizeir.) holds, that there were two classes must remember that its ecclesiastical of market-officials. But this is not sup- boundaries extended beyond the city. ported by sufficient evidence, nor, indeed, 2 On the question of officially fixing would such an arrangement seem likely. the market-price, diverging opinions are 3 That of Botnah was the largest, Jer. expressed, Baba B. 89 b. It was thought Ab. Z. 39 d. that the market-price should leave to the 118 FROM BETHLEHEM TO' JORDAN! * St. Mark xiv. 66 b St. Luke xxiii. 6, 7 aJos. War a. 3.1 a Ant. xv. 8.1 * Ant. xvii. 10. 2 ; War ii 3. 1, 2 Women were employed in selling1." Business was also done in the' restaurants and wineshops, of which there were many ; where ' you might be served with some dish : fresh or salted fish, fried locusts, a mess of vegetables, a dish of soup, pastry, sweetmeats, or a piece of a fruit-cake, to be washed down with Judaean or Galilean wine, Idumaean vinegar, or foreign beer. If from these busy scenes we turn to the more aristocratic quarters' of the Upper City,1 we still see the- same narrow streets, but tenanted by another class. First, we pass the High-Priest's palace on the slope of the hill, with a lower story under the principal apartments, and a porch in front. Here, on the night of the Betrayal, Peter was ' beneath in the Palace.' a Next, we come to the Xystos, and then pause for a moment at the Palace of the Maccabees. It lies higher Up the hill, and Westward from the Xystos. From its halls you can look into the city, and even into the Temple. We know not which of the Maccabees had built this palace. But it was occupied, not by the actually reigning prince, who always resided in the fortress (Baris, afterwards Antonia), but by some other member of the family. From them it passed into the possession of Herod. There Herod Antipas was when, on that terrible Passover, Pilate sent Jesus from the old palace of Herod to be examined by the Ruler of Galilee.15 If these buildings pointed to the difference between the past and present, two structures of Herod's were, perhaps, more eloquent than any words in their accusation of the Idumaean. One of these, at least, would come in sight in passing along the slopes of the Upper City. The Macca bean rule had been preceded by that of corrupt High-Priests, who had prostituted their office to the vilest purposes. One of them, who had changed his Jewish name of Joshua into Jason, had gone so far, in his attempts to Grecianise the people, as to build a Hippodrome and Gymnasium for heathen games. We infer, it stood where the West ern hill sloped into the Tyropceon, to the south-west of the Temple.0 It was probably this which Herod afterwards enlarged and beautified, and turned into a theatre. No expense was spared on the great games held there. The theatre itself was magnificently adorned with gold silver, precious stones, and trophies of arms and records ofthe victories of Augustus. But to the Jews this essentially heathen place, over against their Temple, was cause of deep indignation and plots.d Besides this theatre, Herod also built an immense amphitheatre, which we must locate somewhere in the north-west, and outside the second city wall.6 All this was Jerusalem above ground. But there was an under- 1 Comp. here generally Uhruh, D. alte Jerusalem. THE METROPOLIS OF JUDAISM. 119 ground Jerusalem also, which burrowed everywhere under the city — under the Upper City, under the Temple, beyond the city walls. Its extent may be gathered from the circumstance that, after the capture of the city, besides the living who had sought shelter there, no fewer than 2,000 dead bodies were found in those subterranean streets. Close by the tracks of heathenism in Jerusalem, and in sharp contrast, was what gave to Jerusalem its intensely Jewish character. It was not only the Temple, nor the festive pilgrims to its feasts and services. But there were hundreds of Synagogues,1 some for different nationalities — such as the Alexandrians, or the Cyrenians ; some for, or perhaps founded by, certain trade-guilds. If possible, the Jewish schools were even more numerous than the Synagogues. Then there were the many Rabbinic Academies ; and, besides, you might also see in Jerusalem that mysterious sect, the Essenes, of which the members were easily recognised by their white dress. Essenes, Pharisees, stranger Jews of all hues, and of many dresses and languages ! One could have imagined himself almost in another world, a sort of enchanted land, in this Jewish metropolis, and metropolis of Judaism. When the silver trumpets of the Priests woke the city to prayer, or the strain of Levite music swept over it, or the, smoke of the sacrifices hung like another Shekhinah over the Temple, against the green background of Olivet ; or when in every street, court, and housetop rose the booths at the Feast of Tabernacles, and at night the sheen of the Temple illumination threw long fantastic shadows over the city ; or when, at the Passover, tens of thousands crowded up the Mount with their Paschal lambs, and hundreds of thousands sat down to the Paschal supper — it would be almost difficult to believe, that heathenism was so near, that the Roman was virtually, and would soon be really, master of the land, or that a Herod occupied the Jewish throne. Yet there he was, in the pride of his power, and the reckless cruelty of his ever-watchful tyranny. Everywhere was his mark. Temples to the gods and to Caesar, magnificent, and magnificently adorned, outside Palestine and in its non-Jewish cities; towns re built or built : Sebaste for the ancient Samaria, the splendid city and harbour of Ccesarea in the west, Antipatris (after his father) in the north, Kypros and Phasaelis (after his mother and brother), and 1 Tradition exaggerates their number men were sufficient to form a Synagogue, as 460 (Jer. Kethub. 35 c) or even 480 and how many— what may be called (Jer. Meg. 73 d). But even the large ' private ' — Synagogues exist at present in number (proportionally to the size of the every town where there is a large and city) mentioned in the text need not orthodox Jewish population. surprise ns when we remember that ten 120 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. » Baba B. 31, b Bemid. H. 14 BOOK Agrippeion ; unconquerable fortresses, such as Essebonitis and Machaerus 11 in Peraea, Alexandreion, Herodeion, Hyrcania, and Masada in Judaea — proclaimed his name and sway. But in Jerusalem it seemed as if he had gathered up all his strength. The theatre and amphitheatre spoke of his Grecianism ; Antonia was the representative fortress ; for his religion he had built that glorious Temple, and for his residence that noblest of palaces, at the north-western angle of the Upper City, close by where Millo had been in the days of David. It seems almost incredible, that a Herod should have reared the Temple, and yet we can understand his motives. Jewish tradition had it, that a Rabbi (Baba ben Buta) had advised him in this manner to conciliate the people," or else thereby to expiate the slaughter of so many Rabbis. bl Probably a desire to gain popularity, and superstition, may alike have contributed, as also the wish to gratify his love for splendour and building. At the same time, he may have wished to show himself a better Jew than that rabble of Pharisees and Rabbis, who perpetually would cast it in his teeth, that he was an Idumaean. Whatever his origin, he was a true king of the Jews — as great, nay greater, than Solomon himself. Certainly, neither labour nor money had been spared on the Temple. A thousand vehicles carried up the stone ; 10,000 workmen, under the guidance of 1,000 priests, wrought all the costly material gathered into that house, of which Jewish tradition could say, 'He that has not seen the Temple of Herod, « Baba b. 4 a has never known what beauty is.'c And yet Israel despised and abhorred the builder ! Nor could his apparent work for the God of Israel have deceived the most credulous. In youth he had browbeaten the venerable Sanhedrin, and threatened the city with slaughter and destruction ; again and again had he murdered her venerable sages ; he had shed like water the blood of her Asmonean princes, and of every one who dared to be free ; had stifled every national aspiration in the groans of the torture, and quenched it in the gore of his victims. Not once, nor twice, but six times did he change the High-Priesthood to bestow it at last on one who bears no good name in Jewish theology a foreigner in Judasa, an Alexandrian. And yet the power of that Idumasan was but of yesterday, and of mushroom growth ! 1 The occasion is said to have been, that the Eabbis, in answer to Herod's question, quoted Deut. xvii. 16. Baba ben Buta himself is said to have escaped, the slaughter, indeed, but to have been deprived of his eyes. FAILURE OF THE MACCABEES. 121 CHAPTER II. THE PERSONAL HISTOEY OF HEROD — THE TWO WORLDS IN JERUSALEM. It is an intensely painful history,1 in the course of which Herod made CHAP. his way to the throne. We look back nearly two and a half centuries II to where, with the empire of Alexander, Palestine fell to his sue- ' cessors. For nearly a century and a half it continued the battle-field ot the Egyptian and Syrian kings (the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae). At last it was a corrupt High-Priesthood — with which virtually the government of the land had all along lain — that betrayed Israel's precious trust. The great-grandson of so noble a figure in Jewish history as Simon the Just (compare Ecclus. 1.) bought from the Syrians the High-Priestly office of his brother, adopted the heathen name Jason, and sought to Grecianise the people. The sacred office fell, if possible, even lower when, through bribery, it was transferred to his brother Menelaus. Then followed the brief period of the terrible persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, when Judaism was all but exter minated in Palestine. The glorious uprising of the Maccabees called forth all the national elements left in Israel, and kindled afresh the smouldering religious feeling. It seemed like a revival of Old Testa ment times. And when Judas the Maccabee, with a band so inferior in numbers and discipline, defeated the best of the Syrian soldiery, led by its ablest generals, and, on the anniversary of its desecration by heathen rites, set up again the great altar of burnt-offering, it appeared as if a new Theocracy were to be inaugurated. The cere monial of that feast of the new ' dedication of the Temple,' when each night the number of lights grew larger in the winter's darkness, seemed symbolic of what was before Israel. But the Maccabees were not the Messiah ; nor yet the Kingdom, which their sword would have restored — that of Heaven, with its blessings and peace. If ever, Israel might then have learned what Saviour to look for. The period even of promise was more brief than might have been expected. The fervour and purity of the movement ceased almost 1 For a fuller sketch of this history see Appendix IV. 1221 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDANi BOOK with its success. It was certainly never the golden age of Israel — II not even among those who remained faithful to its God — which those seem to imagine who, forgetful of its history and contests, would trace to it so much that is most precious and spiritual in the Old Testa ment. It may have been the pressure of circumstances, but it was anything but a pious, or even a ' happy ' thought l of Judas the Maccabee, to seek the alliance of the Romans. From their entrance on the scene dates the decline of Israel's national cause. For a time, indeed — though after varying fortunes of war — all seemed prosperous. The Maccabees became both High-Priests and Kings. But party- strife and worldliness, ambition and corruption, and Grecianism on the throne, soon brought their sequel in the decline of morale and vigour, and led to the decay and decadence of the Maccabean house. It is a story as old as the Old Testament, and as wide as the history of the world. Contention for the throne among the Maccabees led to the interference of the foreigner. When, after capturing Jerusalem, and violating the sanctity of the Temple, although not plundering its treasures, Pompey placed Hyrcanus II. in possession of the High- Priesthood, the last of the Maccabean rulers 2 was virtually shorn of power. The country was now tributary to Rome, and subject to the Governor of Syria. Even the shadow of political power passed from the feeble hands of Hyrcanus when, shortly afterwards, Gabinius (one of the Roman governors) divided the land into five districts, inde pendent of each other. But already a person had appeared on the stage of Jewish affairs, who was to give them their last decisive turn. About fifty years before this, the district of Idumaea had been conquered by the Mac cabean King Hyrcanus I., and its inhabitants forced to adopt Judaism. By this Idumaea we are not, however, to understand the ancient or Eastern Edom, which was now in the hands of the Nabataeans, but parts of Southern Palestine which the Edomites had occupied since the Babylonian Exile, and especially a small district on the northern •Comp. and eastern boundary of Judaea, and below Samaria." After it became 31 Judaean, its administration was entrusted to a governor. In the reign of the last of the Maccabees this office devolved on one Antipater a man of equal cunning and determination. He successfully interfered in the unhappy dispute for the crown, which was at last decided by the sword of Pompey. Antipater took the part of the utterly weak Hyrcanus in that contest with his energetic brother Aristobulus. He > So Schiirer in his Neutestam. Zeit- ' A table of the Maccabean and Hero- gesch. dian families is given in Appendix VI. RISE OF THE FAMILY OF HEROD. 123 soon became the virtual ruler, and Hyrcanus 11. only a puppet in his CHAP. hands. From the accession of Judas Maccabaeus, in 166 B.C., to the H year 68 B.C., when Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, only about a ' ' ' century had elapsed. Other twenty-four years, and the last of the Maccabees had given place to the son of Antipater : Herod, surnamed the Great. The settlement of Pompey did not prove lasting. Aristobulus, the brother and defeated rival of Hyrcanus, was still alive, and his sons were even more energetic than he. The risings attempted by them, the interference of the Parthians on behalf of those who were hostile to Rome, and, lastly, the contentions for supremacy in Rome itself, made this period one of confusion, turmoil,, and constant warfare in Palestine. When Pompey was finally defeated by Caesar, the pro spects of Antipater and Hyrcanus seemed dark. But they quickly changed sides ; and timely help given to Caesar in Egypt brought to Antipater the title of Procurator of Judsea, while Hyrcanus was left in the High-Priesthood, and, at least, nominal head ofthe people. The two sons of Antipater were now made governors : the elder, Phasaelus, of Jerusalem; the younger, Herod, only twenty-five years old, of Galilee. Here he displayed the energy and determination which were his characteristics, in crushing a guerilla warfare, of which the deeper springs were probably nationalist. The execution of its leader brought Herod a summons to appear before the Great San hedrin of Jerusalem, for having arrogated to himself the power of life and death. He came, but arrayed in purple, surrounded by a body-guard, and supported by the express direction of the Roman Governor to Hyrcanus, that he was to be acquitted. Even so he would have fallen a victim to the apprehensions of the Sanhedrin — only too well grounded — had he not been persuaded to withdraw from the city. He returned at the head of an army, and was with difficulty persuaded by his father to spare Jerusalem. Meantime Caesar had named him Governor of Coelesyria. On the murder of Caesar, and the possession of Syria by Cassius, Antipater and Herod again changed sides. But they rendered such substantial service as to secure favour, and Herod was continued in the position conferred on him by Caesar. Antipater was, indeed, poisoned by a rival, but his sons Herod and Phasaelus repressed and extinguished all opposition. When the battle of Philippi placed the Roman world in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the former obtained Asia. Once more the Idumaeans knew how to gain the new ruler, and Phasaelus' and Herod were named Tetrarchs of Judaea. 124 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK Afterwards, when Antony was held in the toils of Cleopatra, matters 11 seemed, indeed, to assume a different aspect. The Parthians entered the land, in support of the rival Maccabean prince Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus. By treachery, Phasaelus and Hyrcanus were induced to go to the Parthian camp, and made captives. Phasaelus shortly afterwards destroyed himself in his prison,1 while Hyrcanus was de prived of his ears, to unfit him for the High-Priestly office. And so Antigonus for a short time succeeded both to the High-Priesthood and to royalty in Jerusalem. Meantime Herod, who had in vain warned his brother and Hyrcanus against the Parthians, had been able to make his escape from Jerusalem. His family he left to the defence of his brother Joseph, in the inaccessible fortress of Masada ; himself fled into Arabia, and finally made his way to Rome. There he suc ceeded, not only with Antony, but obtained the consent of Octavius, and was proclaimed by the Senate King of Judaea. A sacrifice on the Capitol, and a banquet by Antony, celebrated the accession of the new successor of David. But he had yet to conquer his kingdom. At first he made way by the help of the Romans. Such success, however, as he had gained, was more than lost during his brief absence on a visit to Antony. Joseph, the brother of Herod, was defeated and slain, and Galilee, which had been subdued, revolted again. But the aid which the Romans rendered, after Herod's return from Antony, was much more hearty, and his losses were more than retrieved. Soon all Palestine, with the exception of Jerusalem, was in his hands. While laying siege to it, he went to Samaria, there to wed the beautiful Maccabean princess Mariamme, who had been betrothed to him five years before.2 That ill-fated Queen, and her elder brother Aristobulus, united in themselves the two rival branches of the Maccabean family. Their father was Alexander, the eldest son of Aristobulus, and brother of that Antigonus whom Herod now besieged in Jerusalem ; and their mother, Alexandra, the daughter of Hyrcanus II. The uncle of Mariamme was not long able to hold out against the combined forces of Rome and Herod. The carnage was terrible. When Herod, by rich presents, at length induced the Romans to leave Jerusalem, they took Antigonus with them. By desire of Herod he was executed. This was the first of the Maccabees who fell victim to his jealousy and cruelty. The history which now follows is one of sickening car nage. The next to experience his vengeance were the principal ad- 1 By dashing out his brains against the one Doris, the issue of the marriage being prison walls. a son, Antipater. 2 He had previously been married to INTRIGUES IN THE FAMILY OF HEROD. 125 herents in Jerusalem of his rival Antigonus. Forty-five of the noblest CHAP. and richest were executed. His next step was to appoint an obscure IJ Babylonian to the High-Priesthood. This awakened the active ' hostility of Alexandra, the mother of Mariamme, Herod's wife. The Maccabean princess claimed the High-Priesthood for her son Aristo bulus. Her intrigues with Cleopatra — and through her with Antony — and the entreaties of Mariamme, the only being whom Herod loved, though in his own mad way, prevailed. At the age of seventeen Aristobulus was made High-Priest. But Herod, who well knew the hatred and contempt of the Maccabean members of his family, had his mother-in-law watched, a precaution increased after the vain attempt of Alexandra to have herself and her son removed in coffins from Jerusalem, to flee to Cleopatra. Soon the jealousy and suspicions of Herod were raised to murderous madness, by the acclamations which greeted the young Aristobulus at the Feast of Tabernacles. So dangerous a Maccabean rival must be got rid of ; and, by secret order of Herod, Aristobulus was drowned while bathing. His mother denounced the murderer, and her influence with Cleopatra, who also hated Herod, led to his being summoned before Antony. Once more bribery, indeed, prevailed ; but other troubles awaited Herod. When obeying the summons of Antony, Herod had committed the government to his uncle Joseph, who was also his brother-in-law, having wedded Salome, the sister of Herod. His mad jealousy had prompted him to direct that, in case of his condemnation, Mariamme was to be killed, that she might not become the wife of another. Unfortunately, Joseph told this to Mariamme, to show how much she was loved. But on the return of Herod, the infamous Salome accused her old husband of impropriety with Mariamme. When it appeared that Joseph had told the Queen of his commission, Herod, regarding it as confirming his sister's charge, ordered him to be executed, without even a hearing. External complications of the gravest kind now supervened. Herod had to cede to Cleopatra the districts of Phcenice and Philistia, and that of Jericho with its rich balsam plantations. Then the dissensions between Antony and Octavius involved him, in the cause of the former, in a war with Arabia, whose king had failed to pay tribute to Cleopatra. Herod was victorious ; but he had now to reckon with another master. The battle of Actium" decided the fate of Antony, and Herod had to «3iB.c. make his peace with Octavius. Happily, he was able to do good service to the new cause, ere presenting himself before Augustus. But, in order to be secure from all possible rivals, he had the aged Hyrcanus II. executed, on pretence of intrigues with the Arabs. 126 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK Herod was successful with Augustus ; and when, in the following ^_ , summer, he furnished him supplies on his march to Egypt, he was rewarded by a substantial addition of territory. When about to appear before Augustus, Herod had entrusted to one Soemus the charge of Mariamme, with the same fatal directions as formerly to Joseph. Again Mariamme learnt the secret ; again the old calumnies were raised — this time not only by Salome, but also by Kypros, Herod's mother ; and again Herod imagined he had found corroborative evidence. Soemus was slain without a hearing, and the beautiful Mariamme executed after a mock trial. The most fearful paroxysm of remorse, passion, and longing for his murdered wife now seized the tyrant, and brought him to the brink of the grave. Alexandra, the mother of Mariamme, deemed the moment favourable for her plots — but she was discovered, and executed. Of the Maccabean race there now remained only distant members, the sons of Babas, who had found an asylum with Costobarus, the Governor of Idumaea, who had wedded Salome after the death of her first husband. Tired of him, as she had been of Joseph, Salome denounced her second husband ; and Costobarus, as well as the sons of Babas, fell victims to Herod. Thus perished the family of the Maccabees. The hand of the maddened tyrant was next turned against his own family. Of his ten wives, we mention only those whose children occupy a place in this history. The son of Doris was Antipater ; those of the Maccabean Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus ; another Mariamme, whose father Herod had made High-Priest, bore him a son named Herod (a name which other of the sons shared) ; Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother of Archelaus and Herod Antipas ; and, lastly, Cleopatra of Jerusalem bore Philip. The sons of the Maccabean princess, as heirs presumptive, were sent to Rome for their education. On this occasion Herod received, as reward for many services, the country east of the Jordan, and was allowed to appoint his still remaining brother, Pheroras, Tetrarch of Peraea. On their return from Rome the young princes were married : Alexander to a daughter of the King of Cappadocia, and Aristobulus to his cousin Berenice, the daughter of Salome. But neither kinship, nor the yet nearer relation in which Aristobulus now stood to her could extin guish the hatred of Salome towards the dead Maccabean princess or her children. Nor did the young princes, in their pride of descent disguise their feelings towards the house of their father. At first Herod gave not heed to the denunciations of his sister. Presently he yielded to vague apprehensions. As a first step, Antipater, the son LAST TRAGEDIES OF HEROD'S REIGN. 127 of Doris, was recalled from exile, and sent to Rome for education. CHAP. So the breach became open ; and Herod took his sons to Italy, to lav J1 formal accusation against them before Augustus. The wise counsels of the Emperor restored peace for a time. .But Antipater now re turned to Palestine, and joined his calumnies to those of Salome. Once more the King of Cappadocia succeeded in reconciling Herod and his sons. But in'the end the intrigues of Salome, Antipater, and of an infamous foreigner who had made his way at Court, prevailed. Alexander and Aristobulus were imprisoned, and an accusation of high treason laid against them before the Emperor. Augustus gave Herod full powers, but advised the convocation of a mixed tribunal of Jews and Romans to try the case. As might have been expected, the two princes were condemned to death, and when some old soldiers ventured to intercede for them, 300 of the supposed adherents of the cause were cut down, and the two princes strangled in prison. This happened in Samaria, where, thirty years before, Herod had wedded their ill-fated mother. Antipater was now the heir presumptive. But, impatient of the throne, he plotted with Herod's brother, Pheroras, against his father. Again Salome denounced her nephew and her brother. Antipater withdrew to Rome; but when, after the death of Pheroras, Herod obtained indubitable evidence that his son had plotted against his life, he lured Antipater to Palestine, where on his arrival he was cast into prison. All that was needed was the permission of Augustus for his execution. It arrived, and was carried out only five days before the death of Herod himself. So ended a reign almost unparal leled for reckless cruelty and bloodshed, in which the murder of the Innocents in Bethlehem formed but so trifling an episode among the many deeds of blood, as to have seemed not deserving of record on the page of the Jewish historian. But we can understand the feelings of the people towards such a King. They hated the Idumaean ; they detested his semi-heathen reign ; they abhorred his deeds of cruelty. The King had surrounded himself with foreign councillors, and was protected by foreign mer cenaries from Thracia, Germany, and Gaul. a So long as he lived, no - Jos. Ant. woman's honour was safe, no man's life secure. An army of all- powerful spies pervaded Jerusalem — nay, the King himself was said to stoop to that office. b If pique or private enmity led to denuncia- <> Ant. xv. tion, the torture would extract any confession from the most innocent. What his relation to Judaism had been, may easily be inferred. He would be a Jew^ — -even build the Temple, advocate the cause of the Jews in other lands, and, in a certain sense, conform to the Law of 10.4 128 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II 8 Ant. xiv. 9. 4 ; xv. 1. 1 10.4 b Ab. i. 10, 11 ' Eduj. i. 4 d Jer. Ber. 3 b, lines 3 and 2 from bottom Judaism. In building the Temple, he was so anxious to conciliate national prejudice, that the Sanctuary itself was entrusted to the workmanship of priests only. Nor did he ever intrude into the Holy Place, nor interfere with any functions of the priesthood. None of his coins bear devices which could have shocked popular feeling, nor did any of the buildings he erected in Jerusalem exhibit any for bidden emblems. The Sanhedrin did exist during his reign,1 though it must have been shorn of all real power, and its activity confined to ecclesiastical, or semi-ecclesiastical, causes. Strangest of all, he seems to have had at least the passive support of two of the greatest Rabbis — the Pollio and Sameas of Josephus" — supposed to represent those great figures in Jewish tradition, Abtalion and Shemajah.b2 We can but conjecture, that they preferred even his rule to what had preceded ; and hoped it might lead to a Roman Protectorate, which would leave Judaea practically independent, or rather under Rabbinic rule. It was also under the government of Herod, that Hillel and Shammai lived and taught in Jerusalem : 3 the two, whom tradition designates as 'the fathers of old.'c Both gave their names to 'schools,' whose direction was generally different — not unfrequently, it seems, chiefly for the sake of opposition. But it is not correct to describe the former as consistently the more liberal and mild.4 The teaching of both was supposed to have been declared by the ' Voice from Heaven' (the Bath-Qol) as ' the words of the living God ; ' yet the Law was to be henceforth according to the teaching of Hillel. d But to us Hillel is so intensely interesting, not merely as the mild and gentle, nor only as the earnest student who came from Babylon to learn in the Academies of Jerusalem ; who would support his family on a third of his scanty wages as a day labourer, that he might pay for entrance into the schools ; and whose zeal and merits were only discovered when, after a severe night, in which, from poverty, he had been unable to gain admittance into the Academy, his benumbed form was taken down from the window-sill, to which he had crept up and so in the end the name of God be profaned.' 3 On Hillel and Shammai see the arti cle in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. ; that in Hamburger's; Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, 1 Comp. the discussion of this question in Wieseler, Beitr. pp. 215 &c. 2 Even their recorded fundamental principles bear this out. That of She- majah was : ' Love labour, hate lordship, and do not push forward to the authori ties.' That of Abtalion was : ' Ye sages, be careful in your words, lest perchance ye incur banishment, and are exiled to a place of bad waters, and the disciples who follow you drink of them and die, and books on Jewish history generally. 4 A number of points on which the ordinances of Hillel were more severe than those of Shammai are enumerated in Eduj. iv. 1-12; v. 1-4; Ber. 36 a, end. Comp. also Ber. E. 1. HILLEL AND JESUS'. 129 not to lose aught of the precious instruction. And for his sake did chap. they gladly break on that Sabbath the sacred rest. Nor do we think II of him, as tradition fables him — the descendant of David," possessed ' ' ' r » Ber. R. 98 of every great quality of body, mind, and heart ; nor yet as the second Ezra, whose learning placed him at the head of the Sanhedrin, who laid down the principles afterwards applied and developed by Rab binism, and who was the real founder of traditionalism. Still less do we think of him, as he is falsely represented by some : as he whose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or, according to cer tain writers, were its source. By the side of Jesus we think of him otherwise than this. We remember that, in his extreme old age and near his end, he may have presided over that meeting of Sanhedrin which, in answer to Herod's inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. b ' We think of him also as the grand- * st. Matt. father of that Gamaliel, at whose feet Saul of Tarsus sat. And to us he is the representative Jewish Reformer, in the spirit of those times, and in the sense of restoring rather than removing ; while we think of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, in the sense of bringing the Kingdom of God to all men, and opening it to all believers. And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. On the one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre and amphitheatre ; foreigners filling the Court, and crowding the city ; foreign tendencies and ways, from the foreign King downwards. On the other hand, was the old Jewish world, becoming now set and ossified in the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and overshadowed by Temple and Synagogue. And each was pursuing its course, by the side of the other. If Herod had everywhere his spies, the Jewish law provided its two police ma gistrates in Jerusalem, the only judges who received remuneration.0 2 • Jer- If Herod judged cruelly and despotically, the Sanhedrin weighed 35 c\ most deliberately, the balance always inclining to mercy. If Greek 104 b was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic.3 It seems strange, that this could ever have been doubted.4 A Jewish Messiah 1 On the chronology of the life of Hillel 2 The police laws of the Rabbis might &c, see also Schmilg, Ueb. d. Entsteh. well serve as a model for all similar legis- &c. der Megillath Taanith, especially lation. p. 34. Hillel is said to have become Chief 3 At the same time I can scarcely agree of the Sanhedrin in 30 B.C., and to have with Delitzsch and others, that this was held the office for forty years. These the dialect called Sursi. The latter was numbers, however, are no doubt some- rather Syriac. Comp. Levy, ad voc. what exaggerated. 4 Prof essor Roberts has advocated, with VOL. I. K 130 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be ' targumed ' into the vernacular Aramaean — and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis ? ' Indeed, it was a peculiar mixture of two worlds in Jerusalem : not only of the Grecian and the Jewish, but of piety and frivolity also. The devotion of the people and the liberality of the rich were un bounded. Fortunes were lavished on the support of Jewish learning, the promotion of piety, or the advance of the national cause. Thousands of votive offerings, and the costly gifts in the Temple, bore evidence of this. If priestly avarice had artificially raised the price of sacrificial animals, a rich man would bring into the Temple at his own cost the number requisite for the poor. Charity was not only open-handed, but most delicate, and one who had been in good circumstances would actually be enabled to live according to his former station.2 Then these Jerusalemites — townspeople, as they called themselves — were so polished, so witty, so pleasant. There was a tact in their social intercourse, and a considerateness and delicacy in their public arrangements and provisions, nowhere else to be found. Their very language was different. There was a Jerusalem dialect," warsh. p.59a quicker, shorter, 'lighter' (Lishna Qalila).h And their hospitality, especially at festive seasons, was unlimited. No one considered his house his own, and no stranger or pilgrim but found reception. And how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously fur nished houses, and at those sumptuous entertainments! In the women's apartments, friends from the country would see every novelty in dress, adornment, and jewellery, and have the benefit of examining themselves in looking-glasses. To be sure, as being womanish vanity, their use was interdicted to men, except it were to the members of » Bemid. E. 14 ; ed. great ingenuity, the view that Christ and His Apostles used the Greek language. See especially his ' Discussions on the Gospels.' The Roman Catholic Church sometimes maintained, that Jesus and His disciples spoke Latin, and in 1822 a work appeared by Black to prove that the N.T. Greek showed a Latin origin. 1 For a full statement of the arguments on this subject we refer the student to B'ohl. Forsch. n. e. Volksbibel z. Zeit Jesu, pp. 4-28 ; to the later work by the same writer (Alttestam. Citate im N. Test.); to a very interesting article by Professor Delitzsch in the ' Daheim ' for 1874 (No. 27); to Buxtorf, sub Gelil ; to J. D. Goldberg, 'The Language of Christ ' ; but especially to G. de Rossi, Delia lingua prop, di Cristo (Parma 1772). 2 Thus Hillel was said to have hired a horse, and even an outrunner, for a de cayed rich man 1 Shabb. xiv. 7 LIFE AND SOCIETY IN JERUSALEM. 131 the family of the President of the Sanhedrin, on account of their CHAP. intercourse with those in authority, just as for the same reason they II were allowed to learn Greek." Nor might even women look in the " "¦ ' glass on tbe Sabbath.b But that could only apply to those carried in 7 d " the hand, since one might be tempted, on the holy day, to do such ul^f b' servile work as to pull out a grey hair with the pincers attached to the end of the glass ; but not to a glass fixed in the lid of a basket ;c cKei. xiv. 6 nor to such as hung on the wall.d And then the ladv-visitor mie-ht dTos. get anything in Jerusalem ; from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an Indian dress ! While the women so learned Jerusalem manners in the inner apartments, the men would converse on the news of the day, or on politics. For the Jerusalemites had friends and correspondents in the most distant parts of the world, and letters were carried by special messengers,"5 in a kind of post-bag. Nay, there seem to have been • shabb. i. 4 some sort of receiving-offices in towns/ and even something resem- 'shabb. 19 « bling our parcel-post.g And, strange as it may sound, even a species of « Eosh newspapers, or broadsheets, appears to have been circulating (Mikh- tabhin), not allowed, however, on the Sabbath, unless they treated of public affairs.11 i>tos. Of course, it is difficult accurately to determine which of these things were in use in the earliest times, or else introduced at a later period. Perhaps, however, it was safer to bring them into a picture of Jewish society. Undoubted, and, alas, too painful evidence comes to us of the luxuriousness at Jerusalem at that time, and of the moral corruption to which it led. It seems only too clear, that such com mentations as the Talmud1 gives of Is. iii. 16-24, in regard to the >shabb. manners and modes of attraction practised by a certain class of the female population in Jerusalem, applied to a far later period than that of the prophet. With this agrees only too well the recorded covert lascivious expressions used by the men, which give a lamentable picture of the state of morals of many in the city,k and the notices of t comp. the indecent dress worn not only by women,1 but even by corrupt last line, an High-Priestly youths. Nor do the exaggerated descriptions of what , K°e] xxiT" the Midrash on Lamentations m describes as the dignity of the Jeru- 16 ; XXTiU- salemites ; of the wealth which they lavished on their marriages ; of the ceremony which insisted on repeated invitations to the guests to a banquet, and that men inferior in rank should not be bidden to it ; of the dress in which they appeared ; the manner in which the dishes were served, the wine in white crystal vases ; and the punishment of the cook who had failed in his duty, and which was to be commen- K 15 haSh. 9 b Shabb. xviii. 132 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK surate to the dignity of the party — give a better impression of the D great world in Jerusalem. And yet it was the City of God, over whose destruction not only the Patriarchs and Moses, but the Angelic hosts — nay, the Almighty Himself and His Shekhinah — had made bitterest lamentation.1 The City of the Prophets also — since each of them whose birthplace had • Meg. 15 o not been mentioned, must be regarded as having sprung from it." Equally, even more, marked, but now for joy and triumph, would be the hour of Jerusalem's uprising, when it would welcome its Messiah. Oh, when would He come ? In the feverish excitement of expectancy they were only too ready to listen to the voice of any pretender, how ever coarse and clumsy the imposture. Yet He was at hand — even now coming : only quite other than the Messiah of their dreams. ' He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name.' 1 See the Introduction to the Midrash on tions are so painful — even blasphemous Lamentations. But some of the descrip- — that we do not venture on quotation. MORNING IN THE TEMPLE. 133 CHAPTER III. THE ANNUNCIATION OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST. (St. Luke i. 5-25.) It was the time of the Morning Sacrifice.1 As the massive Temple- CHAP. gates slowly swung on their hinges, a threefold blast from the silver HI trumpets of the Priests seemed to waken the City, as with the Voice of God, to the life of another day. As its echoes came in the still air across the cleft of the Tyropceon, up the slopes of the Upper City, down the busy quarters below, or away to the new suburb beyond, they must, if but for a moment, have brought holier thoughts to all. For, did it not seem to link the present to the past and the future, as with the golden chain of promises that bound the Holy City to the Jerusalem that was above, which in type had already, and in reality would soon descend from heaven ? Patriot, saint, or stranger, he could not have heard it unmoved, as thrice the summons from within the Temple-gates rose and fell. It had not come too soon. The Levites on ministry, and those of the laity, whose ' course ' it was to act as the representatives of Israel, whether in Palestine or far away, in a sacrifice provided by, and offered for, all Israel, hastened to their duties.2 For already the blush of' dawn, for which the Priest on the highest pinnacle of the Temple had watched, to give the signal for beginning the services of the day, had shot its brightness far away to Hebron and beyond. Within the Courts below all had long been busy. At some time previously, unknown to those who waited for the morning — whether at cock- crowing, or a little earlier or later," the superintending Priest had » Tamid i. 2 summoned to their sacred functions those who had ' washed,' according 1 We presume, that the ministration of in the morning. But that for incensing Zacharias (St. Luke i. 9) took place in was repeated in the evening (Yoma 26 a) the morning, as the principal service. Even Bishop i7imeiCT\7 (Die Relig. Alterth. But Meyer (Komm. i. 2, p. 242) is mis- p. 609) is not accurate in this respect. taken in supposing, that this follows % For a description of the details of from the reference to the lot. It is, in- that service, see ' The Temple and its deed, true that, of the four lots for the Services,' &c. priestly functions, three took place only 134 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II « Yoma 25 a Tamid v. 2 to the ordinance. There must have been each day about fifty priests on duty.1 Such of them as were ready now divided into two parties, to make inspection of the Temple courts by torchlight. Presently they met, and trooped to the well-known Hall of Hewn Polished Stones," where formerly the Sanhedrin had been wont to sit. The ministry for the day was there apportioned. To prevent the disputes of carnal zeal, the ' lot ' was to assign to each his function. Four times was it resorted to : twice before, and twice after the Temple-gates were opened. The first act of their ministry had to be done in the grey dawn, by the fitful red light that glowed on the altar of burnt offering, ere the priests had stirred it into fresh flame. It was scarcely daybreak, when a second time they met for the ' lot,' which designated those who were to take part in the sacrifice itself, and who were to trim the golden candlestick, and make ready the altar of incense within the Holy Place. And now morn had broken, and nothing remained before the admission of worshippers but to bring out the lamb, once again to make sure of its fitness for sacrifice, to water it from a golden bowl, and then to lay it m mystic fashion — as tradition described the binding of Isaac — on the north side of the altar, with its face to the west. All, priests and laity, were present as the Priest, standing on the east side of the altar, from a golden bowl sprinkled with sacrificial blood two sides of the altar, below the red line which marked the difference between ordinary sacrifices and those that were to be wholly consumed. While the sacrifice was prepared for the altar, the priests, whose lot it was, had made ready all within the Holy Place, where the most solemn part of the day's service was to take place — that of offering the incense, which symbolised Israel's accepted prayers. Again was the lot (the third) cast to indicate him, who was to be honoured with this highest mediatorial act. Only once in a lifetime might any one enjoy that privilege." Henceforth he was called ' rich,' 2 and must leave to his brethren the hope of the dis tinction which had been granted him. It was fitting that, as the 1 If we reckon the total number in the twenty-four courses of, presumably, the officiating priesthood, at 20,000, according to Josephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 8), which is very much below the exaggerated Talmudic computation of 85,000 for the smallest course (Jer. Taan. 69 a), and suppose, that little more than one-third of each course had come up for duty, this would give fifty priests for each week-day, while on the Sabbath the whole course would be on duty. This is, of course, con siderably more than the number requisite, since, except for the incensing priest, the lot for the morning also held good for the evening sacrifice. 2 Toma 26 a. The designation ' rich ' is derived from the promise which, in Deut. xxxiii. 11, follows on the service referred to in verse 10. But probably a spiritual application was also intended. ZACHARIAS OF 'THE COURSE OF ABIA.' 135 custom was, such lot should be preceded by prayer and confession of CHAr their faith ' on the part of the assembled priests. IU It was the first week in October 748 A.U.C.,2 that is, in the sixth ' ~~ year before our present era, when ' the course of Abia ' 3 — the eighth in the original arrangement of the weekly service — was on duty in the Temple. True this, as indeed most of the twenty-four ' courses ' into which the Priesthood had been arranged, could not claim identity, only continuity, with those whose names they bore. For only three, or at most four, of the ancient ' courses ' had returned from Babylon. But the original arrangement had been preserved, the names of the missing courses being retained, and their number filled up by lot from among those who had come back to Palestine. In our ignorance of the number of ' houses of their father,' or ' families,' which constituted the ' course of Abia,' it is impossible to determine, how the services of that week had been apportioned among them. But this is of comparatively small importance, since there is no doubt about the central figure in the scene. In the group ranged that autumn morning around the super intending Priest was one, on whom the snows of at least sixty winters had fallen.4 But never during these many years had he been honoured with the office of incensing — and it was perhaps well he should have learned, that this distinction came direct from God. Yet the venerable figure of Zacharias must have been well known in the Temple. For, each course was twice a year on ministry, and, unlike the Levites, the priests were not disqualified by age, but only by infirmity. In many respects he seemed different from those around. His home was not in either of the great priest-centres— the Ophel-quarter in Jerusalem, nor in Jericho 5 — but in some small town in those uplands, south of Jerusalem : the historic ' hill-country of Judaea.' And yet he might have claimed distinction. To be a priest, and married to the daughter of a priest, was supposed to convey twofold honour.6 That he was surrounded by relatives and friends, and that he was well known and respected throughout his 1 The so-called Shema, consisting of both ' well stricken in years.' But from Deut. vi. 4-9 ; xi. 13-21 ; Num. xv. 37-41. Aboth v. 21 we learn, that sixty years was 2 The question of this date is, of considered ' the commencement of aged- course, intimately connected with that of ness.' the Nativity of Christ, and could therefore 'According to tradition, about one- not be treated in the text. It is discussed fourth of the priesthood was resident in in Appendix VII. : ' On the Date of the Jericho. But, even limiting this to those Nativity of our Lord.' who were in the habit of officiating, the ' This was the eighth course in the statement seems greatly exaggerated. original arrangement (1 Chr. xxiv. 10). * Comp. Ber. 44 a; Pes. 49 a; Vayyikra 4 According to St. Luke i. 7, they were R. 4. 66 136 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK district, appears incidentally from the narrative." It would, indeed, H have been strange had it been otherwise. There was much in the •st Lnkei P°Pular habits of thought, as well as in the office and privileges of 59,61,66 thg priesthood, if worthily represented, to invest it with a venera tion which the aggressive claims of Rabbinism could not wholly monopolise. And in this instance Zacharias and Elisabeth, his wife, were truly ' righteous,' 1 in the sense of walking, so far as man could judge, 'blamelessly,' alike in those commandments which were specially binding on Israel, and in those statutes that were of universal bearing on mankind.2 No doubt their piety assumed in some measure the form of the time, being, if we must use the expression, Pharisaic, though in the good, not the evil sense of it. There is much about those earlier Rabbis — Hillel, Gamaliel, and others — to attract us, and their spirit ofttimes sharply contrasts with the narrow bigotry, the self-glory, and the unspiritual externalism of their successors. We may not unreasonably infer, that the Tsaddiq in the quiet home of the hill-country was quite other than the self- asserting Rabbi, whose dress and gait, voice and manner, words and even prayers, were those of the religious parvenu, pushing his claims bo distinction before angels and men. Such a household as that of Zacharias and Elisabeth would have all that was beautiful in the religion of the time : devotion towards God ; a home of affection and purity ; reverence towards all that was sacred in things Divine and human; ungrudging, self-denying, loving charity to the poor; the tenderest regard for the feelings of others, so as not to raise a blush, nor to wound their hearts ; 3 above all, intense faith and hope in the higher and better future of Israel. Of such, indeed, there must have been not a few in the land — the quiet, the prayerful, the pious, who, though certainly not Sadducees nor Essenes, but reckoned with the Pharisaic party, waited for the consolation of Israel, and received it with joy when manifested. Nor could aught more certainly have marked the difference between the one and the other 1 SUaios— of course not in the strict termine their exact Hebrew equivalents. sense in which the word is sometimes The LXX. render by these two terms not used, especially by St. Paul, but as pius always the same Hebrew words. Comp. et bonus. See Vorstius (De Hebraism. Gen. xxvi. 5 with Deut. iv. 40. They N.T. pp. 55 &c). As the account of the cannot refer to the division of the Law Evangelist seems derived from an original into affirmative (248) and prohibitive Hebrew source, the word must have cor- (365) commandments. responded to that of Tsaddiq in the then 3 There is, perhaps, no point on which popular signification. the Rabbinic Law is more explicit or * ivroKai and $ wank/Mara evidently mark stringent than on that of tenderest regard an essential division of the Law at the for the feelings of others, especially of time. But it is almost impossible to de- the poor. THE CELEBRANT WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE. 137 section than on a matter, which must almost daily, and most painfully, CHAP. have forced itself on Zacharias and Elisabeth. There were among HI the Rabbis those who, remembering the words of the prophet," spoke ' ' in most pathetic language of the wrong of parting from the wife of is"' "" youth,b and there were those to whom the bare fact of childlessness » Gitt. 90 & rendered separation a religious duty.0 Elisabeth was childless. For ° Yeb. 64 a many a year this must have been the burden of Zacharias' prayer ; the burden also of reproach, which Elisabeth seemed always to carry with her. They had waited together these many years, till in the evening of life the flower of hope had closed its fragrant cup ; and still the two sat together in the twilight, content to wait in loneliness, till night would close around them. But on that bright autumn morning in the Temple no such thoughts would come to Zacharias. For the first, and for the last time in life the lot had marked him for incensing, and every thought must have centred on what was before him. Even outwardly, all attention would be requisite for the proper performance of his office. First, he had to choose two of his special friends or relatives, to assist in his sacred service. Their duties were. comparatively simple. One reverently removed what had been left on the altar from the previous evening's service ; then, worshipping, retired backwards. The second assistant now advanced, and, having spread to the utmost verge of the golden altar the live coals taken from that of burnt-, offering, worshipped and retired. Meanwhile the sound of the ' organ ' (the Magrephah), heard to the most distant parts of the Temple, and, according to tradition, far beyond its precincts, had summoned priests, Levites, and people to prepare for whatever ser vice or duty was before them. For, this was the innermost part of the worship of the day. But the celebrant Priest, bearing the golden censer, stood alone within the Holy Place, lit by the sheen of the seven-branched candlestick. Before him— somewhat farther away, towards the heavy Veil that hung before the Holy of Holies, was the golden altar of incense, on which the red coals glowed. To his right (the left of the altar^ — that is, on the north side) was the table of shewbread ; to his left, on the right or south side of the altar, was the golden candlestick. And still he waited, as instructed to do, till a special signal indicated, that the moment had come to spread the incense on the altar, as near as possible to the Holy of Holies. Priests and people had reverently withdrawn from the neighbourhood of the altar, and were prostrate before the Lord, offering unspoken worship, in which record of past deliverance, longing for mercies iS8 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK promised in the future, and entreaty for present blessing and peace,1 11 seemed the ingredients of the incense, that rose in a fragrant cloud of praise and prayer. Deep silence had fallen on the worshippers, as if they watched to heaven the prayers of Israel, ascending in the ¦Rev. v. 8; cloud of ' odours ' that rose from the golden altar in the Holy Place." Zacharias waited, until he saw the incense kindling. Then he also "Tamid vi. 3 would have ' bowed down in worship,' and reverently withdrawn,b had not a wondrous sight arrested his steps. On the right (or south) side of the altar, between it and the golden candlestick, stood what he could not but recognise as an Angelic form.2 Never, indeed, had even tradition reported such a vision to an ordinary Priest in the act of incensing. The two super natural apparitions recorded — one of an Angel each year of the Pontificate of Simon the Just ; the other in that blasphemous account of the vision of the Almighty by Ishmael, the son of Elisha, and of « Ber. 7 a the conversation which then ensued °3 — had both been vouchsafed to High -Priests, and on the Day of Atonement. Still, there was always uneasiness among the people as any mortal approached the immediate jer. Yoma Presence of God, and every delay in his return seemed ominous.3 No wonder, then, that Zacharias ' was troubled, and fear fell on him,' as of a sudden — probably just after he had spread the incense on the altar, and was about to offer his parting prayer — he beheld what afterwards he knew to be the Angel Gabriel (' the might of God '). Apart from higher considerations, there could perhaps be no better evidence of the truth of this narrative than its accord with psycho logical facts. An Apocryphal narrative would probably have painted the scene in agreement with what, in the view of such a writer, should have been the feelings of Zacharias, and the language of the Angel.4 The Angel would have commenced by referring to Zacharias' prayers for the coming of a Messiah, and Zacharias would have been represented in a highly enthusiastic state. Instead of the strangely prosaic objection which he offered to the Angelic announcement, there would have been a burst of spiritual sentiment, or what passed for such. But all this would have been psychologically untrue. There 1 For the prayers offered by the people Simeon ben Asai said : From the side of during the incensing, see ' The Temple,' the altar of incense ' V*i 1£9' \i0n ¦ . * *_ ^ « . " Aocordillg to ^e Talmud, Ishmael The following extract from Yalkut once went into the innermost Sanctuary (vol. l. p. 113 d, close) affords a curious when he had a vision of God Who illustration of this Divine communication called upon the priest to pronounce a from beside the altas of incense : ' From benediction. The token of God's accep- what place did the Shekhinah speak to tance had better not be quoted Moses ? R. Nathan said : From the altar « Instances of an analogous' kind fre- of incense, according to Ex. xxx. 6. quently occur in the Apocryphal Gospels THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF THE ANGEL. 133 are moments of moral faintness, so to speak, when the vital powers of CHAP. the spiritual heart are depressed, and, as in the case of the Disciples HI on the Mount of Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane, the ' physical part of our being and all that is weakest in us assert their power. It was true to this state of semi-consciousness, that the Angel first wakened within Zacharias the remembrance of life-long prayers and hopes, which had now passed into the background of his being, and then suddenly startled him by the promise of their realisation. But that Child of so many prayers, who was to bear the significant name of John (Jehochanan, or Jochanan), ' the Lord is gracious,' was to be the source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle than that of the family. This might be called the first rung of the ladder by which the Angel would take the priest upwards. Nor was even this followed by an immediate disclosure of what, in such a place, and from such a messenger, must have carried to a believing heart the thrill of almost unspeakable emotion. Rather was Zacharias led upwards, step by step. The Child was to be great before the Lord ; not only an ordinary, but a life-Nazarite,1 as Samson and Samuel of old had been. Like them, he was not to consecrate himself, but from the inception of life wholly to belong to God, for His work. And, greater than either of these representatives of the symbolical import of Nazarism, he would combine the twofold meaning of their mission — outward and inward might in God, only in a higher and more spiritual sense. For this life-work he would be filled with the Holy Ghost, from the moment life woke within him. Then, as another Samson, would he, in the strength of God, lift the axe to each tree to be felled, and, like another Samuel, turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. Nay, combining these two missions, as did Elijah on Mount Carmel, he should, in accordance with prophecy," precede the Messianic manifestation, and, not indeed in the • Mai. iii. 1 person or form, but in the spirit and power of Elijah, accomplish the typical meaning of his mission, as on that day of decision it had risen as the burden of his prayer b — that is, in the words of prophecy,0 „ [ Killgs ' turn the heart of the fathers to the children,' which, in view of the x™'; 37 ' ' c Mai. iv. 5, coming dispensation, would be 'the disobedient (to walk) in the « wisdom of the just.' d Thus would this new Elijah ' make ready for a St. Luke i. the Lord a people prepared.' • st.'Matt. xi. If the apparition of the Angel, in that place, and at that time, had overwhelmed the aged priest, the words which he heard must 1 On the different classes of Nazarites, see ' The Temple, &c.,' pp. 322-331. 140 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. * Gen. xvii. 17, 18 b Judg. xiii 2-21 c Numb. vi. 24-26 have filled him with such bewilderment, that for the moment he scarcely realised their meaning. One idea alone, which had struck its roots so long in his consciousness, stood out : A son — while, as it were in the dim distance beyond, stretched, as covered with a mist of glory, all those marvellous things that were to be connected with him. So, when age or strong feeling renders us almost insensible to the present, it is ever that which connects itself with the past, rather than with the present, which emerges first and strongest in our consciousness. And so it was the obvious doubt, that would suggest itself, which fell from his lips— almost unconscious of what he said. Yet there was in his words an element of faith also, or at least of hope, as he asked for some pledge or confirmation of what he had heard. It is this demand of some visible sign, by which to ' know ' all that the Angel had promised, which distinguishes the doubt of Zacharias from that of Abraham," or of Manoah and his wife,b under somewhat similar circumstances — although, otherwise also, even a cursory reading must convey the impression of most marked differ ences. Nor ought we perhaps to forget, that we are on the threshold of a dispensation, to which faith is the only entrance. This door Zacharias was now to hold ajar, a dumb messenger. He that would not speak the praises of God, but asked a sign, received it. His dumbness was a sign — though the sign, as it were the dumb child of the prayer of unbelief, was its punishment also. And yet, when rightly applied, a sign in another sense also — a sign to the waiting multitude in the Temple ; a sign to Elisabeth ; to all who knew Zacharias in the hill-country ; and to the priest himself, during those nine months of retirement and inward solitude ; a sign also that would kindle into fiery flame in the day when God would loosen his tongue. A period of unusual length had passed, since the signal for incensing had been given. The prayers of the people had been offered, and their anxious gaze was directed towards the Holy Place, At last Zacharias emerged to take his stand on the top of the steps which led from the Porch to the Court of the Priests, waiting to lead in the priestly benediction,0 that preceded the daily meat-offerino- and the chant of the Psalms of praise, accompanied with joyous sound of music, as the drink-onering was poured out. But already the sign of Zacharias was to be a sign to all the people. The pieces of the sacrifices had been ranged in due order on the altar of burnt- offering ; the priests stood on the steps to the porch, and the people WAS THERE SUCH JEWISH EXPECTANCY ? 141 were in waiting. Zacharias essayed to speak the words of benedic- CHAP. tion, unconscious that the stroke had fallen. But the people knew HI it by his silence, that he had seen a vision in the Temple. Yet as he ' " stood helpless, trying by signs to indicate it to the awestruck assembly, he remained dumb. Wondering, they had dispersed — people and priests. The day's service over, another family of ministrants took the place of those among whom Zacharias had been ; and again, at the close of the week's service, another ' course ' that of Abia. They returned to their homes — some to Ophel, some to Jericho, some to their quiet dwellings in the country. But God fulfilled the word which He had spoken by His Angel. Before leaving this subject, it may be well to inquire into the relation between the events just described, and the customs and ex pectations of the time. The scene in the Temple, and all the sur roundings, are in strictest accordance with what we know of the services of the Sanctuary. In a narrative that lays hold on some details of a very complex service, such entire accuracy conveys the •impression of general truthfulness. Similarly, the sketch of Zacharias and Elisabeth is true to the history of the time — though Zacharias could not have been one of the ' learned,' nor to the Babbinists a model priest. They would have described him as an ' idiot,' ' or com mon, ' rustic ' priest, and probably have treated him with benevolent contempt.2 The Angelic apparition, which he saw, was wholly unprecedented, and could therefore not have lain within range of common expectation ; though the possibility, or rather the fear, of some contact with the Divine was always present to the popular mind. But it is difficult to conceive how, if not true, the invention of such a vision in such circumstances could have suggested itself. This difficulty is enhanced by the obvious differences between the Evangelic narrative, and the popular ideas of the time. Far too much import ance has here been attached by a certain class of writers to a Babbinic saying," that the names of the Angels were brought from Babylon. » Jer. Rosh For, not only was this saying (of Ben Lakish) only a clever Scriptural line io from. deduction (as the context shows), and not even an actual tradition, but no competent critic would venture to lay down the principle, that isolated Babbinic sayings in the Talmud are to be regarded as sufficient foundation for historical facts. On the other hand, Kab- 1 The word DVTH. or 'idiot,' is used 2 According to Sanh. 90 b, such an one for an unlearned, or for a common priest. was not even allowed to get the Te- So Yeb. 69 a. rumah. bottom 142 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. binic tradition does lay it down, that the names of the Angels were derived from their mission, and might be changed with it. Thus the reply of the Angel to the inquiry of Manoah * is explained as implying, that he knew not what other name might be given him in the future. In the Book of Daniel, to which the Son of Lakish refers, the only " Dan. ix. 21 two Angelic names mentioned are Gabriel b and Michael,0 while the e *¦ 21 appeal to the Book of Daniel, as evidence of the Babylonish origin of Jewish Angelology, comes with strange inconsistency from writers who date it in Maccabean times.1 But the question of Angelic nomen clature is quite secondary. The real point at issue is, whether or not the Angelology and Demonology of the New Testament wa.s derived from contemporary Judaism. The opinion, that such was the case, has been so dogmatically asserted, as to have almost passed among a certain class as a settled fact. That nevertheless such was not the case, is capable of the most ample proof. Here also, with similarity of form, slighter than usually, there is absolute contrast of substance.2 Admitting that the names of Gabriel and Michael must have been familiar to the mind of Zacharias, some not unimportant differences must be kept in view. Thus, Gabriel was regarded in tradition as inferior to Michael ; and, though both were connected with Israel, Gabriel was represented as chiefly the minister of justice, and Michael of mercy ; while, thirdly, Gabriel was supposed to stand on the left, and not (as in the Evangelic narrative) on the right, side of the throne of glory. Small as these divergences may seem, they are all-important, when derivation of one set of opinions from another is in question. Finally, as regarded the coming of Elijah as forerunner of the Messiah, it is to be observed that, according to Jewish notions, he was to ap pear personally, and not merely ' in spirit and power.' In fact, tradition represents his ministry and appearances as almost continuous - not only immediately before the coming of Messiah, but at all times. Babbinic writings introduce him on the scene, not only frequently, but on the most incongruous occasions, and for the most diverse purposes. "woedK. In this sense it is said of him, that he always liveth.d Sometimes, indeed, he is blamed, as for the closing words in his prayer about the ° 1 Kings turning ofthe heart of the people,e and even his sacrifice on Carmel H™r.wit™ could only be excused on the ground of necessity .f But his great ac- and 'again'); tivity as precursor of the Messiah is to resolve doubts of all kinds ; to t\ iars't reintroduce those who had been violently and improperly extruded from two lines R. 13 ' Two other Angels are mentioned, but angels are fully given in Appendix XHI. : not named, in Dan. a. 13, 20. ' Jewish Angelology and Demonology.' 2 The Jewish ideas and teaching about WAITING IN THE HILL-COUNTRY OF JUD/EA. 143 the congregation of Israel, and vice versa; to make peace ; while, finally, CHA?. he would be the instrument of raising the dead." ' But nowhere is HI he prominently designated as intended ' to make ready for the Lord a ' \ "" people prepared.' 2 |hY £jph- Thus, from whatever source the narrative may be supposed to have warshau, been derived, its details certainly differ, in almost all particulars, from the theological notions current at the time. And the more Zacharias meditated on this in the long solitude of his enforced silence, the more fully must new spiritual thoughts have come to him. As for Elisabeth, those tender feelings of woman, which ever shrink from the disclosure of the dearest secret of motherhood, were intensely deepened and sanctified in the knowledge of all that had passed. Little as she might understand the full meaning of the future, it must have been to her, as if she also now stood in the Holy Place, gazing towards the Veil which concealed the innermost Presence. Meantime she was content with, nay, felt the need of, absolute retirement from other fellowship than that of God and her own heart. Like her husbancL, she too would be silent and alone — till another voice called her forth. Whatever the future might bring, sufficient for the present, that thus the Lord had done to her, in days in which He looked down to remove her reproach among men. The removal of that burden, its manner, its meaning, its end, were all from God, and with God ; and it was fitting to be quite alone and silent, till God's voice would again wake the echoes within. And so five months passed in absolute retirement. ' AU the Rabbinic traditions about great repentance till Elijah — his memory ' Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah' for blessing !— come, as it is said, Mai. are cohated in Appendix VIII. iv. 6,' &c. From this isolated and enig- 2 I should, however, remark, that that matic sentence, Professor Delitzsch's im- very curious chapter on Repentance, in the plied inference (Zeitschr. fiir Luther. Pirk6 de R. Elieser (c. 43), closes with Theol. 1875, p. 593) seems too sweeping. these words : ' And Israel will not make 144 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. CHAPTER IV. THE ANNUNCIATION OP JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND THE BIRTH OF HIS FORERUNNER. (St. Matt. i. ; St. Luke i. 26-80.) BOOK From the Temple to Nazareth ! It seems indeed most fitting, that the II Evangelic story should have taken its beginning within the Sanctuary, ' ' and at the time of sacrifice. Despite its outward veneration for them, the Temple, its services, and specially its sacrifices, were, by an inward logical necessity, fast becoming a superfluity for Rabbinism. But the new development, passing over the intruded elements, which were, after all, of rationalistic origin, connected its beginning directly with the Old Testament dispensation — its sacrifices, priesthood, and promises. In the Sanctuary, in connection with sacrifice, and through the priesthood — such was significantly the beginning of the era of fulfilment. And so the great religious reformation of Israel under Samuel had also begun in the Tabernacle, which had so long been in the background. But if, even in this Temple-beginning, and in the communication to, and selection of an ' idiot ' priest, there was marked divergence from the Rabbinic ideal, that difference widens into the sharpest contrast, as we pass from the Forerunner to the Messiah, from the Temple to Galilee, from the ' idiot ' priest to the humble, unlettered family of Nazareth. It is necessary here to recall our general impression of Rabbinism : its conception of God,1 and of the highest good and ultimate object of all things, as concentrated in learned study, pursued in Academies ; and then to think of the unmitigated contempt with which they were wont to speak of Galilee, and of the Galileans, whose very patois was an offence ; of the utter abhorrence with which they regarded the unlettered country-people, 1 Terrible as it may sound, it is cer-in its daring, and speaks of the Almighty tainly the teaching of Rabbinism, that as arrayed in a white dress, or as occupy- God occupied so many hours every day ing Himself by day with the study of the in the study of the Law. Comp. Targ. Bible, and by night with that of the six Ps.- Jonathan on Deut. xxxii. i, and Abhod. tractates of the Mishnah. Comp. also the Z. 3 b. Nay, Rabbinism goes farther Targum on Cant. v. 10. THE HOME OF NAZARETH. 145 in order to realise, how such an household as that of Joseph and Mary would be regarded by the leaders of Israel. A Messianic announce ment, not the result of learned investigation, nor connected with the Academies, but in the Sanctuary, to an ' idiot ' priest ; an Elijah unable to untie the intellectual or ecclesiastical knots, of whose mission, indeed, this formed no part at all ; and a Messiah, the off spring of a Virgin in Galilee betrothed to a humble workman — assuredly, such a picture of the fulfilment of Israel's hope could never have been conceived by contemporary Judaism. There was in such a Messiah absolutely nothing — past, present, or possible ; intellectually, religiously, or even nationally — to attract, but all to repel. And so we can, at the very outset of this history, understand the infinite contrast which it embodied — with all the difficulties to its reception, even to those who became disciples, as at almost every step of its pro gress they were, with ever fresh surprise, recalled from all that they had formerly thought, to that which was so entirely new and strange. And yet, just as Zacharias may be described as the representative of the good and the true in the Priesthood at that time, so the family of Nazareth as a typical Israelitish household. We feel, that the scantiness of particulars here supplied by the Gospels, was intended to prevent the human interest from overshadowing the grand central Fact, to which alone attention was to be directed. For, the design of the Gospels was manifestly not to furnish a biography of Jesus the Messiah,1 but, in organic connection with the Old Testament, to tell the history of the long-promised establishment of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Yet what scanty details we possess of the ' Holy Family ' and its surroundings may here find a place. The highlands which form the central portion of Palestine are broken by the wide, rich plain of Jezreel, which severs Galilee from the rest of the land. This was always the great battle-field of Israel. Appropriately, it is shut in as between mountain- walls. That along the north of the plain is formed by the mountains of Lower Galilee, cleft about the middle by a valley that widens, till, after an hour's journey, we stand within an enclosure which seems almost one of Nature's own sanctuaries. As in an amphitheatre, fifteen hill-tops rise around. That to the west is the highest — about 500 feet. On its lower slopes nestles a little town, its narrow streets ranged like terraces. This is Nazareth, probably the ancient Sarid (or En-Sarid), 1 The object which the Evangelists had tains no biography. The twofold object in view was certainly not that of bio- of their narratives is indicated by St. Luke graphy, even as the Old Testament con- i. i, and by St. John xx. 31. VOL. I. L 146 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. which, in the time of Joshua, marked the northern boundary of Zebulun." ¦ Climbing this steep hill, fragrant with aromatic plants, and bright with rich-coloured flowers, a view almost unsurpassed opens before us. For, the Galilee of the time of Jesus was not only of the richest fertility, cultivated to the utmost, and thickly covered with populous towns and villages, but the centre of every known industry, and the busy road of the world's commerce. Northward the eye would sweep over a rich plain ; rest here and there on white towns, glittering in the sunlight ; then quickly travel over the romantic hills and glens which form the scene of Solomon's Song, till, passing beyond Safed (the Tsephath of the Rabbis — the ' city set on an hill '), the view is bounded by that giant of the far-off mountain-chain, snow-tipped Hermon. Westward stretched a like scene of beauty and wealth — a land not lonely, but wedded ; not desolate, but teeming with life ; while, on the edge of the horizon, lay purple Carmel ; beyond it a fringe of silver sand, and then the dazzling sheen of the Great Sea. In the farthest distance, white sails, like wings outspread towards the ends of the world ; nearer, busy ports ; then, centres of industry ; and close by, travelled roads, all bright in the pure Eastern air and rich glow of the sun. But if you turned eastwards, the eye would soon be arrested by the wooded height of Tabor, yet not before at tention had been riveted by the long, narrow string of fantastic cara vans, and curiosity roused by the motley figures, of all nationalities and in all costumes, busy binding the East to the West by that line of commerce that passed along the route winding around Tabor. And when, weary with the gaze, you looked once more down on little Nazareth nestling on the breast of the mountain, the eye would rest on a scene of tranquil, homely beauty. Just outside the town, in the north-west, bubbled the spring or well, the trysting-spot of towns people, and welcome resting-place of travellers. Beyond it stretched lines of houses, each with its flat roof standing out distinctly against the clear sky ; watered, terraced gardens, gnarled wide-spreading fig- trees, graceful feathery palms, scented oranges, silvery olive-trees, thick hedges, rich pasture-land, then the bounding hills to the south ; 1 The name Nazareth may best be centre, is based upon an ancient Midrash regarded as the equivalent of rn$, now lost (comp. Neubauer, Geogr. du ' watch ' or ' watcheress.' The name doe's Talmud, p. 117, note 5). It is, however, not occur in the Talmud, nor in those possible, as M. Neubauer suggests (u. s. Midrashim which have been preserved. P 190> uote 5). that the name njriSJ in But the elegy of Eleazar ha Kallir— M«»- on Eccl. ii. 8 should read nrv¥3, and written before the close of the Talmud— refers to Nazareth. in which Nazareth is mentioned as a Priest- NAZARETH AS THE PLACE OF JESUS' UPBRINGING. 147 and beyond, the seemingly unbounded expanse of the wide plain of CHAP. Esdraelon ! Iv And yet, withdrawn from the world as, in its enclosure of moun tains, Nazareth might seem, we must not think of it as a lonely village, which only faint echoes reached of what roused the land beyond. With reverence be it said : such a place might have suited the training of the contemplative hermit, not the upbringing of Him Whose sym pathies were to be with every clime and race. Nor would such an abode have furnished what (with all due acknowledgment of the supernatural) we mark as a constant, because a rationally necessary, element in Scripture history : that of inward preparedness, in which the higher and the Divine afterwards find their ready points of contact. Nor was it otherwise in Nazareth. The two great interests which •stirred the land, the two great factors in the religious future of Israel, constantly met in the retirement of Nazareth. The great caravan-route which led from Acco on the sea to Damascus divided at its commence ment into three roads : the most northern passing through Cassarea Philippi ; the Upper Galilean ; and the Lower Galilean. The latter, the ancient Via Maris, led through Nazareth, and thence either by Cana, or else along the northern shoulder of Mount Tabor, to the Lake of Gennesaret — -each of these roads soon uniting with the Upper Galilean.1 Hence, although the stream of commerce between Acco and the East was divided into three channels, yet, as one of these passed through Nazareth, the quiet little town was not a stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. Men of all nations, busy with another life than that of Israel, would appear in the streets of Nazareth ; and through them thoughts, associations, and hopes connected with the great outside world be stirred. But, on the other hand, Nazareth was also one of the great centres of Jewish Temple-life. It has already been indicated that the Priesthood was divided into twenty-four ' courses,' which, in turn, ministered in the Temple. The Priests of the ' course' which was to be on duty always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in company to Jerusalem, while those of their number who were unable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer. Now Nazareth was one of these Priest-centres,2 and although it may well have been, that comparatively few in distant Galilee con formed to the Priestly regulations — some must have assembled there in preparation for the sacred functions, or appeared in its Synagogue. 1 Comp. the detailed description of 2 Comp. Neubauer, u. s. p. 190. See a these roads, and the references in Herzog's detailed account in ' Sketches of Jewish Real-Encykl. vol xv. pp. 160, 16L Social Life,' &c. p. 36. j, 2 148 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II » Keth. 12 a, and often • St. John iii. 29 d Keth. iv. 12 Even the fact, so well known to all, of this living connection between Nazareth and the Temple, must have wakened peculiar feelings. Thus, to take the wider view, a double symbolic significance attached to Nazareth, since through it passed alike those who carried on the traffic of the world, and those who ministered in the Temple.1 We may take it, that the people of Nazareth were like those df other little towns similarly circumstanced :2 with all the peculiarities of the impulsive, straight-spoken, hot-blooded, brave, intensely national Galileans;3 with the deeper feelings and almost instinctive habits of thought and life, which were the outcome of long centuries of Old Testament training ; but also with the petty interests and jea lousies of such places, and with all the ceremonialism and punctilious self-assertion of Orientals. The cast of Judaism prevalent in Nazareth would, of course, be the same as in Galilee generally. We know, that there were marked divergences from the observances in that stronghold of Rabbinism,4 Judsea — indicating greater simplicity and freedom from the constant intrusion of traditional ordinances. The home-life would be all the purer, that the veil of wedded life was not so coarsely lifted as in Judaea, nor its sacred secrecy interfered with by an Argus-eyed legislation.5 The purity of betrothal in Galilee was less likely to be sullied," and weddings were more simple than in Judaea — without the dubious institution of groomsmen,b c or ' friends of the bridegroom,'0 whose office must not unfrequently have degene rated into utter coarseness. The bride was chosen, not as in Judaea, where money was too often the motive, but as in Jerusalem, with chief regard to ' a fair degree ;' and widows were (as in Jerusalem) more tenderly cared for, as we gather even from the fact, that they had a life-right of residence in their husband's house. d Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring the maiden, to whom he had been betrothed. Whatever view may be taken of the genealogies in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke — whether they be regarded as those of Joseph and of 1 It is strange, that these two circum stances have not been noticed. Keim (Jesu von Nazara i. 2, pp. 322, 323) only cursorily refers to the great road which passed through Nazareth. 2 The inference, that the expression of Nathanael (St. John i. 46) implies a lower state of the people of Nazareth, is un founded. Even Keim. points out, that it only marks disbelief that the Messiah would come from such a place. 8 Our description of them is derived from notices by Josephus (such as War iii. 3, 2), and many passages in the Talmud. 4 These differences are marked in Pes. iv. 5; Keth. iv. 12; Ned. ii. 4; Chull. 62 a ; Baba K. 80 a ; Keth. 12 a. 5 The reader who wishes to understand what we have only ventured to hint, is referred to the Mishnic tractate Niddah. 6 Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' &c, pp. 152 &c. THE BETROTHAL OF JOSEPH AND MARY. 149 Mary,1 or, which seems the more likely,2 as those of Joseph only, marking his natural and his legal descent3 from David, or vice versa 4 — there can be no question, that both Joseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David.5 Most probably the two were nearly related,6 while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood, being, no doubt on her mother's side, a ' blood-relative ' of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias.*7 Even this seems to imply, that *st. Lukei. Mary's family must shortly before have held higher rank, for only with such did custom sanction any alliance on the part of Priests.8 But at the time of their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary were extremely poor, as appears — not indeed from his being a carpenter, since a trade was regarded as almost a religious duty — but from the offering at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple.b Accordingly, 'St. Luke it their betrothal must have been of the simplest, and the dowry settled the smallest possible.9 Whichever of the two modes of betrothal 10 may have been adopted: in the presence of witnesses — either by solemn word of mouth, in due prescribed formality, with the added pledge of a piece of money, however small, or of money's worth for use; or else by writing (the so-called Shitre Erusin) — there would be no sumptuous feast to follow ; and the ceremony would conclude with some such benediction as that afterwards in use : ' Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord our God, King of the World, Who hath sanctified us by His Commandments, and enjoined us about incest, and forbidden the betrothed, but allowed us those wedded by Chuppah (the marriage- baldachino) and betrothal. Blessed art Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel 1 The best defence of this view is that ' This is the general view of antiquity. by Wieseler, Beitr. zur Wurdig. d. Evang. ' Reference to this union of Levi and pp. 133 &c. It is also virtually adopted Judah in the Messiah is made in the Test. by Weiss (Leben Jesu, vol. i. 1882). xii. Patriarch., Test. Simeonis vii. (apud 2 This view is adopted almost unani- Fabr. Cod. Pseudepigr. vol. ii. p. 542). mously by modern writers. Curiously, the great Hillel was also said 3 This view is defended with much skill by some to have descended, through his by Mr. McCleUan in his New Testament, father and mother, from the tribes of vol. i. pp. 409-422. Judah and Levi — all, however, asserting 4 So Grotius, Bishop Lord Arthur his Davidic origin (comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 2 ; Hervey, and after him most modern Ber. R. 98 and 33). English writers. 9 Comp. Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hil. s The Davidic descent of the Virgin- Sanh. ii. The inference would, of course, Mother — which is questioned by some be the same, whether we suppose Mary's even among orthodox interpreters — seems mother to have been the sister-in-law, or implied in the Gospel (St. Luke i. 27, 32, the sister, of Elisabeth's father. 69 ; ii. 4), and an almost necessary in- 9 Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social ference from such passages as Rom. i. 3; Life in the Days of Christ,' pp. 143-149. 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Hebr. vii. 14. The Davidic Also the article on ' Marriage ' in Cassell's descent of Jesus is not only admitted, Bible-Educator, vol. iv. pp 267-270. , but elaborately proved — on purely ration- "> There was a third mode, by cohabica- alistic grounds — by Keim (u. s. pp. 327- tion ; but this was highly disapproved of 329). even by the Rabbis. 150 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK by Chuppah and betrothal ' — the whole being perhaps concluded II by a benediction over the statutory cup of wine, which was tasted " ' ' in turn by the betrothed. From that moment Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph ; their relationship as sacred, as if they had already been wedded. Any breach of it would be treated as adultery ; nor could the bond be dissolved except, as after marriage, by regular divorce. Yet months might intervene between the betrothal and marriage.1 Five months of Elisabeth's sacred retirement had passed, when a strange messenger brought its first tidings to her kinswoman in far-off Galilee. It was not in the solemn grandeur of the Temple, between the golden altar of incense and the seven-branched candle stick, that the Angel Gabriel now appeared, but in the privacy of a humble home at Nazareth. The greatest honour bestowed on man was to come amidst circumstances of deepest human lowliness, as if the more clearly to mark the exclusively Divine character of what was to happen. And, although the awe of the Supernatural must unconsciously have fallen upon her, it was not so much the sudden appearance of the mysterious stranger in her retirement that startled the maiden, as the words of his greeting, implying unthought bless-' ing. The ' Peace to thee ' 2 was, indeed, the well-known salutation, while the words ' The Lord is with thee ' might waken the remem- ojudg. vi. brance of the Angelic call to great deliverance in the past.a But this designation of ' highly favoured ' 3 came upon her with bewilder ing surprise, perhaps not so much from its contrast to the humble ness of her estate, as from the self-unconscious humility of her heart. And it was intended so, for of all feelings this would now most become her. Accordingly, it is this story of special ' favour,' or grace, which the Angel traces in rapid outline, from the conception of the Virgin-Mother to the distinctive, Divinely-given Name, symbolic of the meaning of His coming ; His absolute greatness ; His acknow ledgment as the Son of God ; and the fulfilment in Him of the great 1 The assertion of Professor Wiinsche Hebrew DlSa>, and for the correctness (Neue Beitr. zur Erlauter. d. Evang. p. 7) of it refer the reader to Grimm's remarks that the practice of betrothal was confined on 1 Mace. x. 18 (Exeget. Handb. zu d. exclusively, or almost so, to Judaea, is Apokryph. 3"e Lief. p. 149). quite ungrounded. The passages to which 3 Bengel aptly remarks, 'Non ut mater he refers (Kethub. i. 5— not 3 — and gratias, sed ut filia gratise.' Even Jeremy especially Keth. 12 a) are irrelevant. Taylor's remarks (Life of Christ ed Keth. 12 a marks the simpler and purer Pickering, vol. i. p. 56) would here require customs of Galilee, but does not refer to modification. Following the best critical betrothals. authorities, I have omitted the words, ¦ I have rendered the Greek x«"j>« by the ' Blessed art thou among women.' 12 THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE VIRGIN. 151 Davidic hope, with its never-ceasing royalty,1 and its never-ending, CHAP. boundless Kingdom.2 IV In all this, however marvellous, there could be nothing strange ' ' """ ' to those who cherished in their hearts Israel's great hope, not merely as an article of abstract belief, but as matter of certain fact — least of all to the maiden of the lineage of David, betrothed to him of the house and lineage of David. So long as the hand of prophetic bless ing rested on the house of David, and before its finger had pointed to the individual who 'found favour' in the highest sense, the con sciousness of possibilities, which scarce dared shape themselves into definite thoughts, must at times have stirred nameless feelings — perhaps the more often in circumstances of outward depression and humility, such as those of the ' Holy Family.' Nor was there any thing strange even in the naming of the yet unconceived Child. It sounds like a saying current among the people of old, this of the Rabbis,* concerning the six whose names were given before their »pirqede . R El 32 birth : Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and ' the Name of the at the bo- Messiah, Whom may the Holy One, blessed be His Name, bring gml ' quickly, in our days ! ' 3 But as for the deeper meaning of the name Jesus,b which, like an unopened bud, enclosed the flower of His i> st. Matt. i. Passion, that was mercifully yet the unthought-of secret of that sword, which should pierce the soul of the Virgin-Mother, and which only His future history would lay open to her and to others. Thus, on the supposition of the readiness of her believing heart, and her entire self-unconsciousness, it would have been only the glorious announcement of the impending event, which would absorb her thinking — with nothing strange about it, or that needed further light, than the how of her own connection with it.4 And the words, 1 We here refer, as an interesting cor- 2 In Pirqe de R. El. c. 11, the same roboration, to the Targum on Ps. xiv. 7 boundless dominion is ascribed to Mes- (6 in our A.V.). But this interest is in- siah the King. In that curious passage tensely increased when we read it, not as dominion is ascribed to ' ten kings,' the in our editions of the Targum, but as first being God, the ninth the Messiah, found in a MS copy of the year 1208 and the tenth again God, to Whom the (given by Levy in his Targum. Worterb. kingdom would be delivered in the end, vol. i. p. 390 a). Translating it from according to Is. xliv. 6 ; Zechar. xiv. 9 ; that reading, the Targum thus renders Ezek. xxxiv. 24, with the result described Ps. xiv. 7, ' Thy throne, 0 God, in the in Is. Iii. 9. heaven' (Levy renders, 'Thy throne from ¦ Professor Wiinsche's quotation is here God in heaven,' but in either case it refers again inexact (u. s. p. 414). ' to the throne of the Messiah) ' is for ever 4 Weiss (Leben Jesu, 188', vol. i. p. 21 3) and ever ' (for ' world without end,' i^fa; rightly calls attention to the humility of » . . . , , ... her self-surrender, when she willingly poto), ' a sceptre of righteousness is the submitted to what her heart woulcl t%^ sceptre of Thy kingdom, 0 Thou King hardest to bear — that of incurring sus- Messiah J ' picion of her purity in the sight of all. 21 152 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK which she spake, were not of trembling doubt, that required to lean II on the staff of a ' sign,' but rather those of enquiry, for the further " r~~" guidance of a willing self-surrender. The Angel had pointed her opened eyes to the shining path : that was not strange ; only, that She should walk in it, seemed so. And now the Angel still further unfolded it in words which, however little she may have understood their full meaning, had again nothing strange about them, save once more that she should be thus ' favoured ' ; words which, even to her understanding, must have carried yet further thoughts of Divine favour, and so deepened her humility. For, the idea of the activity of the Holy Ghost in all great events was quite familiar to Israel at the time,1 even though the Individuation of the Holy Ghost may not have been fully apprehended. Only, that they expected such influences to rest exclusively upon those who were either mighty, or "Nedar. 38« rich, or wise.a And of this twofold manifestation of miraculous ' favour ' — that she, and as a Virgin, should be its subject — Gabriel, ' the might of God,' gave this unasked sign, in what had happened to her kinswoman Elisabeth. The sign was at the same time a direction. The first, but also the ever-deepening desire in the heart of Mary, when the Angel left her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, and for the relief of opening her heart to a woman, in all things like-minded, who perhaps might speak blessed words to her. And to such an one the Angel himself seemed to have directed her. It is only what we would have expected, that ' with haste ' she should have resorted to her kins woman, without loss of time, and before she would speak to her betrothed of what even in wedded life is the first secret whispered.2 It could have been no ordinary welcome that would greet the Virgin-Mother, on entering the house of her kinswoman. Elisabeth must have learnt from her husband the destiny of their son, and hence the near Advent of the Messiah. But she could not have known either when, or of whom He would be born. When, by a sign not quite strange to Jewish expectancy,3 she recognised in her but especially in that of her betrothed. clear, that Mary went ' with haste • to her St T 1p° f ^1 ' ?„ W6 Pth6J b°m, *°*™**n. and that any communicatton St. Luke n. 1 9, 51 must have been derived to Joseph could only have taken nlace SnmMothLerSO e°°UeCtl0nS °f the ^ fft6r that' and after th* Angelic pS gm-iviotner .,„,_,_.. tlon was in all its parts confirmed by her na sal1," ™™erable babbinic visit to Bliaabeth" Jeremy Taylor (u I ^T^no „ wv, i,- *¦ P- 6*) has already arranged the narrative I his m answer to the objection, so per- as in the text tinaciously urged, of inconsistency with * According to Jewish tradition the the narrative in St. Matt. i. 19 &c. It is yet unborn infants ffa ^ thSmother's THE SALUTATION OF ELISABETH AND HYMN OF MARY. 153 near kinswoman the Mother of her Lord, her salutation was that of a CHAP. mother to a mother — the mother of the ' preparer ' to the mother of IV Him for Whom he would prepare. To be more precise : the words ' : which, filled with the Holy Ghost, she spake, were the mother's utterance, to the mother, of the homage which her unborn babe offered to his Lord; while the answering hymn of Mary was the offering of that homage unto God. It was the antiphonal morning- psalmody of the Messianic day as it broke, of which the words were still all of the old dispensation,1 but their music of the new; the keynote being that of ' favour,' ' grace,' struck by the Angel in his first salutation: 'favour' to the Virgin;" 'favour,' eternal 'favour' "ist stanza, o ' i YY_ 46-49 to all His humble and poor ones ; b and ' favour ' to Israel, stretching b 2nd stanza, in golden line from the calling of Abraham to the glorious future that now opened.0 Not one of these fundamental ideas but lay strictly within the range of the Old Testament ; and yet all of them now lay beyond it, bathed in the golden light of the new day. Miraculous it all is, and professes to be ; not indeed in the connection of these events, which succeed each other with psychological truth fulness ; nor yet in their language, which is of the times and the circumstances; but in the underlying facts.2 And for these there can be no other evidence than the Life, the Death, and the Resurrec tion of Jesus the Messiah. If He was such, and if He really rose from the dead, then, with all soberness and solemnity, such inception of His appearance seems almost a logical necessity. But of this whole narrative it may be said, that such inception of the Messianic appearance, such announcement of it, and such manner of His Coming, could never have been invented by contemporary Judaism ; indeed, ran directly counter to all its preconceptions.3 c 3rd stanza, w. 54, 55 wombs responded by an Amen to the hymn of praise at the Red Sea. This is supposed to be indicated by the words ^K^E', TlPDD (Ps. lxviii. 27; see also the Targum on that verse). Comp. Keth. 7 b and Sotah 30 b (last line) and 31 a, though the coarse legendary explanation of R. Tanchuma mars the poetic beauty of the whole. 1 The poetic grandeur and the Old Testament cast of the Virgin's hymn (comp. the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10), need scarcely be pointed out. Perhaps it would read fullest and best by trying to recall what must have been its Hebrew original. 2 Weiss, while denying the historical accuracy of much in the Gospel-narrative of it, unhesitatingly accepts the fact of the supernatural birth of Jesus. 3 Keim elaborately discusses the origin of what he calls the legend of Christ's supernatural conception. He arrives at the conclusion that it was a Jemisli- Christian legend — as if a Jewish inven tion of such a ' legend ' were not the most unlikely of all possible hypotheses I But negative criticism is at least bound to furnish some historical basis for the origination of such .an unlikely legend. Whence was the idea of it first derived 1 How did it find such ready acceptance in the Church ? Weiss has, at consider able length, and very fully, shown the impossibility of its origin either in Jewish or heathen legend. 154 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II » Keth. 746; 75 a •> Keth. 97 b Three months had passed since the Virgin-Mother entered the home of her kinswoman. And now she must return to Nazareth. Soon Elisabeth's neighbours and kinsfolk would gather with sympa thetic joy around a home which, as they thought, had experienced unexpected mercy — little thinking, how wide-reaching its conse quences would be. But the Virgin-Mother must not be exposed to the publicity of such meetings. However conscious of what had led to her condition, it must have been as the first sharp pang of the sword which was to pierce her soul, when she told it all to her betrothed. For, however deep his trust in her whom he had chosen for wife, only a direct Divine communication could have chased all questioning from his heart, and given him that assurance, which was needful in the future history of the Messiah. Brief as, with exquisite delicacy, the narrative is, we can read in the ' thoughts ' of Joseph the anxious contending of feelings, the scarcely established, and yet delayed, resolve to ' put her away,' which could only be done by regular divorce ; this one determination only standing out clearly, that, if it must be, her letter of divorce shall be handed to her privately, only in the presence of two witnesses. The humble Tsaddiq of Nazareth would not willingly have brought the blush to any face, least of all would he make of her ' a public exhibition of shame.' ' It was a relief, that he could legally divorce her either publicly or privately, whether from change of feeling, or because he had found just cause for it, but hesitated to make it known, either from regard for his own character, or because he had not sufficient legal evidence 2 of the charge. He would follow, all unconscious of it, the truer manly feeling of R. Eliezer," R. Jochanan, and R. Zera,b according to which a man would not like to put his wife to shame before a Court of Justice, rather than the opposite sentence of R. Meir. The assurance, which Joseph could scarcely dare to hope for, was miraculously conveyed to him in a dream-vision. All would now be clear ; even the terms in which he was addressed (' thou son of David'), so utterly unusual in ordinary circumstances, would prepare him for the Angel's message. The naming of the unborn Messiah would accord with popular notions ; 3 the symbolism of such a name witnesses, or if their testimony could be invalidated by any of those provisions '" favour of the accused, of which 1 I have thus paraphrased the verb rrapaSeiynariCa, rendered in Heb vi. 6 (A.V.) ' put to an open shame.' Comp. also LXX. Num. xxv. 4 ; Jer. xiii. 22 ; Ezek. xxviii. 17 (see Grimm, Clavis N.T. p. 333 b). Archdeacon Farrar adopts the reading Seiy/naTto-ai. 8 For example, if he had not sufficient traditionalism had not a few. Thus, as indicated in the text, Joseph might have privately divorced Mary, leaving it open to doubt on what ground he had so acted. s See a former note. THE ANGELIC MESSAGE TO JOSEPH. 155 was deeply rooted in Jewish belief; ¦ while the explanation of Jehoshua or Jeshua (Jesus), as He Who would save His people (primarily, as he would understand it, Israel) from their sins, described at least one generally expected aspect of His Mission,2 although Joseph may not have known that it was the basis, of all the rest. And perhaps it was not without deeper meaning and insight into his character, that the Angel laid stress on this very element in his communication to Joseph, and not to Mary. The fact that such an announcement came to him in a dream, would dispose Joseph all the more readily to receive it. ' A good dream ' was one of the three things 3 popularly regarded as marks of God's favour ; and so general was the belief in their significance, as to have passed into this popular saying : ' If any one sleeps seven days without dreaming (or rather, remembering his dream for interpreta tion), call him wicked' (as being unremembered of God"4). Thus Divinely set at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. The highest duty towards the Virgin-Mother and the unborn Jesus demanded an immediate marriage, which would afford not only outward, but moral protection to both.5 CHAP. IV 1 Thus we read in (Shocher Tobh) the Midrash on Prov. xix. 21 (closing part ; ed. Lemberg. p. 16 b) of eight names given to the Messiah, viz. Yinnon (Ps. Ixxii. 17, ' His name shall sprout [bear sprouts] before the Sun ; ' comp. also Pirqe d.e R. El. c. 2); Jehovah; Our Righteousness ; Tsemach (the Branch, Zech. iii. 8) ; Menachem (the Comforter, Is. li. 3) ; David (Ps. xviii. 50) ; Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10) ; Elijah (Mai. iv. 5). The Messiah is also called Anani (He that cometh in the clouds, Dan. vii. 13 ; see Tanch. Par. Toledoth 14) : Chaninah, with reference to Jer. xvi. 13 ; tlie Leprous, with reference to Is. liii. 4 (Sanh. 96 b). It is » curious instance of the Jewish mode of explaining a meaning by gi- matreya, or numerical calculation, that they prove Tsemach (Branch) and Mena chem (Comforter) to be the same, because the numerical equivalents of the one word are equal to those of the other : a =40, 3 = 50, n = 8, o = 40, = 138; * = 90, O = 40, n = 8, =138. 2 Professor D^n»67te(Erlauter. d. Evang. p. 10) proposes to strike out the words ' from their sins ' as an un-Jewish inter polation. In answer, it would suffice to point him to the passages on this very subject which he has collated in a pre vious work : Die Leiden des Messias, pp. 63-108. To these I will only add a com ment in the Midrash on Cant. i. 14 (ed. Warshau, p. 11 a and b), where the re ference is undoubtedly to the Messiah (in the words of R. Berakhyah, line 8 from bottom ; and again in the words of R. Levi, 11 b, line o from top, &c). The expression "|B3n is there explained as meaning ' He Who makes expiation for the sins of Israel,' and it is distinctly added that this expiation bears reference to the transgressions and evil deeds of the children of Abraham, for which God pro vides this Man as the Atonement. 3 ' A good king, a fruitful year, and a good dream.' 1 Rabbi Zera proves this by a reference to Prov. xix. 23, the reading Sabliea (satis fied) being altered into Shebha — both writ ten y2W — while p^>» is understood as of spending the night. Ber. 55 a to 57 b contains a long, and sometimes very coarse, discussion of dreams, giving their various interpretations, rules for avoid ing the consequences of evil dreams, &c. The fundamental principle is, that ' a dream is according to its interpretation ' (Ber. 55 b). Such views about dreams would, no doubt, have long been matter of popular belief, before being formally expressed in the Talmud. 5 The objection, that the accoun* of 156 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK Viewing events, not as isolated, but as links welded in the golden II chain of the history of the Kingdom of God, ' all this ' — not only the birth of Jesus from a Virgin, nor even His symbolic Name with ita import, but also the unrestful questioning of Joseph, — ' happened ' ' • is. vii. u in fulfilment 2 of what had been prefigured." The promise of a Virgin- born son as sign of the firmness of God's covenant of old with David and his house; the now unfolded meaning of the former symbolic name Immanuel ; even the unbelief of Ahaz, with its counterpart in the questioning of Joseph — ' all this ' could now be clearly read in the light of the breaking day. Never had the house of David sunk morally lower than when, in the words of Ahaz, it seemed to renounce the very foundation of its claim to continuance; never had the fortunes of the house of David fallen lower, than when a Herod sat on its throne, and its lineal representative was a humble village carpenter, from whose heart doubts of the Virgin-Mother had to be Divinely chased. And never, not even when God gave to the doubts of Moses this as the sign of Israel's future deliverance, that in that "Ex. ui. 12 mountain they should worship b — rhad unbelief been answered by more strange evidence. But as, nevertheless, the stability of the Davidic house was ensured by the future advent of Immanuel— and with such certainty, that before even such a child could discern between choice of good and evil, the land would be freed of its dangers ; so now all that was then prefigured was to become literally true, and Israel to be saved from its real danger by the Advent of Jesus, Immanuel.3 And so it had all been intended. The golden Joseph and Mary's immediate marriage less (Wiinsche) 3TI31 N1I7 X"in, but, as is inconsistent with the designation of Professor Delitzsch renders it, in his new Mary in St Luke ii 5, is sufficiently re- translation of St. Matthew, m Tttdxk futed by the consideration that, in any ' ' ls> >ii*/i->s other case, Jewish custom would not have WKfK- the difference is important, allowed Mary to travel to Bethlehem in an ™ »l\7/mttS Virgin,' is «*& snffident evidence of (Bibles Katallages, p. 151) and other the admissibility of such a rendering. writers have it, 10N3B' HO DMp7. still The idea that the promised Son was to be CIRCUMCISION AND NAMING OF JOHN. 157 cup of prophecy which Isaiah had placed empty on the Holy Table, waiting for the time of the end, was now full filled, up to its brim, with the new wine of the Kingdom. Meanwhile the long-looked-for event had taken place in the home of Zacharias. No domestic solemnity so important or so joyous as that in which, by circumcision, the child had, as it were, laid upon it the yoke of the Law, with all of duty and privilege which this implied. Even the circumstance, that it took place at early morning a might indicate this. It was, so tradition has it, as if the father had acted sacrificially as High-Priest,1' offering his child to God in gratitude and love ; c and it symbolised this deeper moral truth, that man must by his own act complete what God had first instituted.3 To Zacharias and Elisabeth the rite would have even more than this significance, as administered to the child of their old age, so miraculously given, and who was connected with such a future. Besides, the legend which associates circumcision with Elijah, as the restorer of this rite in the apostate period of the Kings of Israel,e was probably in circulation at the time.1 We can scarcely be mistaken in supposing, that then, as now, a benediction was spoken before circumcision, and that the ceremony closed with the usual grace over the cup of wine,2 when the child received his name in a prayer, that probably did not much differ from this at present in use : ' Our God, and the God of our fathers, raise up this child to his father and mother, and let his name be called in Israel Zacharias, the son of Zacharias.3 Let his father re- CHAP. IV either that of Ahaz, or else of the prophet, cannot stand the test of critical investi gation (see Haupt, u. s., and Bohl, Alttest. Citate un N.T. pp. 3-6). Our difficulties of interpretation are, in great part, due to the abruptness of Isaiah's prophetic language, and to our ignorance of sur rounding circumstances. Steinmeyer in geniously argues against the mythical theory that, since Is. vii. 14 was not interpreted by the ancient Synagogue in a Messianic sense, that passage could not have led to the origination of 'the legend ' about the ' Virgin's Son ' (Gesch. d. Geb. d. Herrn, p. 95). We add this further question, Whence did it origin ate ? 1 Probably the designation of ' chair ' or 'throne of Elijah,' for the chair on which the godparent holding the child sits, and certainly the invocation of Elijah, are of later date. Indeed, the in stitution of godparents is itself of later -origin. Curiously enough, the Council of Terracina, in 1330, had to interdict " Yalkut St. i. par. 81 ° Tanch. P. Tetsavveh, at the be ginning, ed. Warshau, p. Ilia d Tanch.u. o. 0 Pirqe de B. Elies. a. Christians acting as godparents at cir cumcision I Even the great Buxtorf acted as godparent in Ifi 19 to a Jewish child, and was condemned to a fine of 1 00 florins for his offence. See Low, Lebens- alter, p. 86. * According to Josephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 26) circumcision was not followed by a feast. But, if this be true, the practice was soon altered, and the feast took place on the eve of circumcision (Jer. Keth. i. 5 ; B. Kama 80 a ; B. Bath. 60 b, &c). Later Midrashim traced it up to the history of Abraham and the feast at the weaning of Isaac, which they represented as one at circumcision (Pirqe d. R. Eliez. 29). 3 Wiinsche reiterates the groundless objection of Rabbi Low (u. s. p. 96), that a family-name was only given in remem brance of the grandfather, deceased father, or other member of the family ! Strange, that such a statement should ever have been hazarded ; stranger still, that it should be repeated after having been fully refuted by Delitzsch. It certainly 158 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK joice in the issue of his loins, and his mother in the fruit of her womb, II as it is written in Prov. xxiii. 25, and as it is said in Ezek. xvi. 6, and again in Ps. cv. 8, and Gen. xxi. 4 ; ' the passages being, of course, quoted in full. The prayer closed with the hope that the child might grow up, and successfully ' attain to the Torah, the marriage- baldachino, and good works.' * Of all this Zacharias was, though a deeply interested, yet a deaf and dumb 2 witness. This only had he noticed, that, in the benedic tion in which the child's name was inserted, the mother had inter rupted the prayer. Without explaining her reason, she insisted that his name should not be that of his aged father, as in the peculiar circumstances might have been expected, but John (Jochanan). A reference to the father only deepened the general astonishment, when he also gave the same name. But this was not the sole cause for marvel. For, forthwith the tongue of the dumb was loosed, and he, who could not utter the name of the child, now burst into praise of the name of the Lord. His last words had been those of unbelief, his first were those of praise ; his last words had been a question of doubt, his first were a hymn of assurance. Strictly Hebrew in its cast, and closely following Old Testament prophecy, it is remarkable — and yet almost natural — that this hymn of the Priest closely follows, and, if the expression be allowable, spiritualises a great part of the most ancient Jewish prayer : the so-called Eighteen Benedic tions; rather perhaps, that it transforms the expectancy of that prayer into praise of its realisation. And if we bear in mind, that a great portion of these prayers was said by the Priests before the lot was cast for incensing, or by the people in the time of incensing, it almost seems as if, during the long period of his enforced solitude, the aged Priest had meditated on, and learned to understand, what so often he had repeated. Opening with the common form of bene diction, his hymn struck, one by one, the deepest chords of that prayer, specially this the most significant of all (the fifteenth Eulogy), ' Speedily make to shoot forth the Branch 3 of David, Thy servant and is contrary to Josephus (War iv. 3, 9), and Zacharias was what the Rabbis understood to the circumstance that both the father by £»-in — one deaf as well as dumb. and brother of Josephus bore the name Accordingly they communicated with him of Matthias. See also Zunz (Z. Gesch. u. by Q'tDI, ' signs ' — as Delitzsch correctly Li'eThe reader will find B. H. Auerbach's ^^ *' : ^* «?T?1. Berith Abraham (with a Hebrew intro- 3 Although almost all modern authori- duction) an interesting tractate on the ties are against me, I cannot persuade subject. For another and younger version myself that the expression (St Luke i 78) of these prayers, see Lorn, u. s. p. 102. rendered ' dayspring ' in our A V is here 2 From St. Luke i. 62 we gather, that not the equivalent of the Hebrew riDS HYMN OF ZACHARIAS. 159 exalt Thou his horn by Thy salvation, for in Thy salvation we trust CHAP. all the day long. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah ! Who causeth to spring IV forth the Horn of Salvation ' (literally, to branch forth). This analogy ~~ ' between the hymn of Zacharias and the prayers of Israel will best appear from the benedictions with which these eulogies closed. Eor, when thus examined, their leading thoughts will be found to be as follows : God as the Shield of Abraham ; He that raises the dead, and causes salvation to shoot forth ; the Holy One ; Who graciously giveth knowledge ; Who taketh pleasure in repentance ; Who multiplieth forgiveness ; Who redeemeth Israel ; Who healeth their (spiritual) diseases ; Who blesseth the years ; Who gathereth the outcasts of His people ; Who loveth righteousness and judgment ; Who is the abode and stay of the righteous ; Who buildeth Jerusalem ; Who causeth the Horn of Salvation to shoot forth ; Who heareth prayer ; Who bringeth back His Shekhinah to Zion ; God the Gracious One, to Whom praise is due ; Who blesseth His people Israel with peace) It was all most fitting. The question of unbelief had struck the Priest dumb, for most truly unbelief cannot speak ; and the answer of faith restored to him speech, for most truly does faith loosen the tongue. The first evidence of his dumbness had been, that his tongue refused to speak the benediction to the people ; and the first evidence of his restored power was, that he spoke the benediction of God in a rapturous burst of praise and thanksgiving. The sign of the unbelieving Priest standing before the awe-struck people, vainly essaying to make himself understood by signs, was most fitting ; most fitting also that, when ' they made signs ' to him, the believing father should burst in their hearing into a prophetic hymn. But far and wide, as these marvellous tidings spread throughout the hill-country of Judaea, fear fell on all — the fear also of a nameless hope. The silence of the long-clouded day had been broken, and the light, which had suddenly riven its gloom, laid itself on their hearts in expectancy : ' What then shall- this Child be ? For the Hand of the Lord also was with Him ! ' 2 ' Branch.' The LXX. at any rate ren- The Eighteen Eulogies are given in full dered nOV m Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 7 ; in the ' History of the Jewish Nation,' xvii. 10 ; Zech. iii. 8 ; vi. 12, by avaro^. pp. 363-367. 1 The italics mark the points of corre- 2 The insertion of yip seems critically spondence with the hymn of Zacharias. established, and gives the fuller mean- Comp. the best edition of the Jewish ing Prayer Book (Frankfort, 6601), pp. 21-28. 160 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN CHAPTER V. WHAT MESSIAH Din THE JEWS EXPECT? BOOK It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, to regard the II difference between Judaism and Christianity as confined to the ques- ™ ' tion of the fulfilment of certain prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. These predictions could only outline individual features in the Person and history of the Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recog nised, but rather by the combination of the various features into a unity, and by the expression which gives it meaning. So far as we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to the fulfilment of individual prophecies in Jesus. But the general conception which the Babbis had formed of the Messiah, differed totally from what was presented by the Prophet of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamental divergence between the two may be said to have existed long before the events which finally divided them. It is the combination of letters which constitutes words, and the same letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both Rab binism and — what, by anticipation, we designate — Christianity might regard the same predictions as Messianic, and look for their fulfil ment ; while at the same time the Messianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite other than that, to which the faith and hope of the Church have clung. 1. The most important point here is to keep in mind the organic unity of the Old Testament. Its predictions are not isolated, but features of one grand prophetic picture ; its ritual and institutions parts of one great system ; its history, not loosely connected events, but an organic development tending towards a definite end. Viewed in its innermost substance, the history of the Old Testament is not different from its typical institutions, nor yet these two from its pre dictions. The idea, underlying all, is God's gracious manifestation in the world — the Kingdom of God ; the meaning of all — the establish ment of this Kingdom upon earth. That gracious purpose was so to speak, individualised, and the Kingdom actually established in the viii. 56 THE OLD TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE MESSIAH. 161 Messiah. Both the fundamental and the final relationship in view was that of God towards man, and of man towards God : the former as ex pressed by the word Father ; the latter by that of Servant — or rather the combination of the two ideas : ' Son-Servant.' This was already im plied in the so-called Protevangel ; *¦ and in this sense also the words «Gen. m. 15 of Jesus hold true : ' Before Abraham came into being, I am.' But, narrowing our survey to where the history of the Kingdom of God begins with that of Abraham, it was indeed as Jesus said : ' Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see My day, and he saw it, and was glad.' b For, all that followed from Abraham to the « gt, Jolln Messiah was one, and bore this twofold impress : heavenwards, that of Son ; earthwards, that of Servant. Israel was God's Son — His ' first born'; their history that ofthe children of God ; their institutions those of the family of God ; their predictions those of the household of God. And Israel was also the Servant of God — ' Jacob My Servant '; and its history, institutions, and predictions those of the Servant of the Lord. Yet not merely Servant, but Son-Servant — ' anointed ' to such service. This idea was, so to speak, crystallised in the three great repre sentative institutions of Israel. The ' Servant of the Lord ' in relation to Israel's history was Kingship in Israel ; the ' Servant of the Lord ' in relation to Israel's ritual ordinances was the Priesthood in Israel ; the ' Servant of the Lord ' in relation to prediction was the Prophetic order. But all sprang from the same fundamental idea : that of the ' Servant of Jehovah.' One step still remains. The Messiah and His history are not presented in the Old Testament as something separate from, or superadded to, Israel. The history, the institutions, and the predic tions of Israel run up into Him.1 He is the typical Israelite, nay, typical Israel itself — alike the crown, the completion, and the repre sentative of Israel. He is the Son of God and the Servant of the Lord; but in that highest and only true sense, which had given its meaning to all the preparatory development. As He was ' anointed ' to be the ' Servant of the Lord,' not with the typical oil, but by ' the Spirit of Jehovah ' ' upon ' Him, so was He also the ' Son ' in a unique sense. His organic connection with Israel is marked by the designations ' Seed of Abraham ' and ' Son of David,' while at the same time He was essentially, what Israel was subordinately and 1 In this respect there is deep signifi- had shown to Israel in the wilderness cance in the Jewish legend (frequently would be done again to redeemed Zion introduced ; see, for example, Tanchuma in the ' latter days.' 77 a), that all the miracles which God VOL. I. M 162 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK typically : ' Thou art My Son — this day have I begotten Thee.' II Hence also, in strictest truthfulness, the Evangelist could apply to the Messiah what referred to Israel, and see it fulfilled in His history : •st. Matt. ii. 'Out of Egypt have I called my Son.'a And this other correlate idea, of Israel as ' the Servant of the Lord,' is also fully concen trated in the Messiah as the Bepresentative Israelite, so that the Book of Isaiah, as the series of predictions in which His picture is most fully outlined, might be summarised as that concerning 'the Servant of Jehovah.' Moreover, the Messiah, as Representative Israelite, combined in Himself as ' the Servant of the Lord ' the three fold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, and joined together the two »pwi. ii. ideas of ' Son ' and ' Servant.' b And the final combination and full 6-11 exhibition of these two ideas was the fulfilment of the typical mission of Israel, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men. =Gen. iii. 15 Thus, in its final, as in its initial,0 stage it was the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon earth — brought about by the ' Servant ' of the Lord, Who was to stricken humanity the God-sent ' Anointed Comforter ' (Mashiach ha-Menachem) : in this twofold sense of ' Com forter ' of individuals (' the friend of sinners '), and ' Comforter ' of Israel and of the world, reconciling the two, and bringing to both eternal salvation. And here the mission of Israel ended. It had passed through three stages. The first, or historical, was the prepara tion of the Kingdom of God ; the second, or ritual, the typical pre sentation of that Kingdom ; while the third, or prophetic, brought that Kingdom into actual contact with the kingdoms of the world. Accordingly, it is during the latter that the designation 'Son of David ' (typical Israel) enlarged in the visions of Daniel into that of ' Son of Man ' (the Head of redeemed humanity). It were a onesided view to regard the Babylonish exile as only a punishment for Israel's sin. There is, in truth, nothing in all God's dealings in history exclusively punitive. That were a merely negative element. But there is always a positive element also of actual progress ; a step forward, even though in the taking of it something should have to be crushed. And this step forward was the development of the idea of the Kingdom of God in its relation to the world. 2. This organic unity of Israel and the Messiah explains how events, institutions, and predictions, which initially were purely Israelitish, could with truth be regarded as finding their full accom plishment in the Messiah. From this point of view the whole Old Testament becomes the perspective in which the figure of the Messiah stands out. And perhaps the most valuable element in Rabbinic OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTIONS QUOTED BY THE RABBIS. 163 commentation on Messianic times is that in which, as so frequently, it is explained, that all the miracles and deliverances of Israel's past would be re-enacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future — the Old Testament the glass, through which the universal blessings of the latter days were seen. It is in this sense that we would understand the two sayings of the Talmud : ' All the prophets prophesied only of the days of the Messiah,' a and ' The world was « sanh. 99 a created only for the Messiah.' b « ganh, 98 b In accordance with all this, the ancient Synagogue found re ferences to the Messiah in many more passages of the Old Testament than those verbal predictions, to which we generally appeal ; and the latter formed (as in the New Testament) a proportionately small, and secondary, element in the conception of the Messianic era. This is fully borne out by a detailed analysis of those passages in the Old Testament to which the ancient Synagogue referred as Messianic.1 Their number amounts to upwards of 456 (75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa), and their Messianic application is supported by more than 558 references to the most ancient Rabbinic writings.2 But comparatively few of these are what would be termed verbal predictions. Rather would it seem as if every event were regarded as prophetic, and every prophecy, whether by fact, or by word (prediction), as a light to cast its sheen on the future, until the picture of the Messianic age in the far back-ground stood out in the hundredfold variegated brightness of prophetic events, and prophetic utterances ; or, as regarded the then state of Israel, till the darkness of their present night was lit up by a hundred con stellations kindling in the sky overhead, and its lonely silence broken by echoes of heavenly voices, and strains of prophetic hymns borne on the breeze. Of course, there was the danger that, amidst these dazzling lights, or in the crowd of figures, each so attractive, or else in the absorbing interest of the general picture, the grand central Personality should not engage the attention it claimed, and so the meaning of the whole 1 See Appendix IX , where a detailed ing the Midrash on Leviticus, no fewer list is given of all the Old Testament than twenty five close with an outlook on passages which the ancient Synagogue Messianic times. The same may be said applied Messianically, together with the of the close of many of the Parashahs in references to the Rabbinic works where the Midrashim known as Pesiqta and they are quoted. Tanchuma (Zunz, u. s. pp. 181, 234). Be- 2 Large as this number is, I do not sides, the oldest portions of the Jewish present the list as complete. Thus, out liturgy are full of Messianic aspirations. of the thirty-seven Parashahs constitut- m2 164 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK be lost in the contemplation of its details. This danger was the D greater from the absence of any deeper spiritual elements. All that Israel needed : ' study of the Law and good works,' lay within the reach of every one ; and all that Israel hoped for, was national restora tion and glory. Everything else was but means to these ends ; the Messiah Himself only the grand instrument in attaining them. Thus viewed, the picture presented would be of Israel's exaltation, rather than of the salvation of the world. To this, and to the idea of Israel's exclusive spiritual position in the world, must be traced much, that otherwise would seem utterly irrational in the Rabbinic pictures of the latter days. But in such a picture there would be neither room nor occasion for a Messiah-Saviour, in the only sense in which such a heavenly mission could be rational, or the heart of humanity respond to it. The Rabbinic ideal of the Messiah was not that of ' a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel ' — the satisfac tion of the wants of humanity, and the completion of Israel's mission — but quite different, even to contrariety. Accordingly, there was a fundamental antagonism between the Rabbis and Christ, quite irre spective of the manner in which He carried out His Messianic work. On the other hand, it is equally noteworthy, that the purely national elements, which well nigh formed the sum total of Rabbinic expecta tion, scarcely entered into the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God. And the more we realise, that Jesus so fundamentally separated Himself from all the ideas of His time, the more evidential is it of the fact, that He was not the Messiah of Jewish conception, but derived His mission from a source unknown to, or at least ignored by, the leaders of His people. 3. But still, as the Rabbinic ideas were at least based on the Old Testament, we need not wonder that they also embodied the chief features of the Messianic history. Accordingly, a careful perusal of their Scripture quotations x "shows, that the main postulates of the New Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by Rabbinic statements. Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane ex istence of the Messiah ; His elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels ; His representative character ; His cruel sufferings and derision ; His violent death, and that for His people ¦ His work on behalf of the living and of the dead ; His redemption, and restora tion of Israel ; the opposition of the Gentiles ; their partial judgment and conversion ; the prevalence of His Law ; the universal blessings of the latter days ; and His Kingdom — can be clearly deduced from un- 1 For these, see Appendix IX. RABBINIC DENIAL OF ORIGINAL SIN. 165 questioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings. Only, as we might CHAP. expect, all is there indistinct, incoherent, unexplained, and from a V much lower standpoint. At best, it is the lower stage of yet unful- "" ' filled prophecy — the haze when the sun is about to rise, not the blaze when it has risen. Most painfully is this felt in connection with the one element on which the New Testament most insists. There is, indeed, in Rabbinic writings frequent reference to the sufferings, and even the death of the Messiah, and these are brought into connection with our sins — as how could it be otherwise in view of Isaiah liii. and other passages — and in one most remarkable comment a the Messiah * Yalkut on is represented as willingly taking upon Himself all these sufferings, on condition that all Israel — the living, the dead, and those yet un born — should be saved, and that, in consequence of His work, God and Israel should be reconciled, and Satan cast into hell. But there is only the most indistinct reference to the removal of sin by the Messiah, in the sense of vicarious sufferings. In connection with what has been stated, one most important point must be kept in view. So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings, the great doctrines of Original Sin, and of the sin fulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis.1 Of course, it is not meant that they denied the consequences of sin, either as concerned Adam himself, or his descendants ; but the final result is far from that seriousness which attaches to the Fall in the New Testa ment, where it is presented as the basis of the need of a Redeemer, Who, as the Second Adam, restored what the first had lost. The dif ference is so fundamental as to render further explanation necessary.2 The fall of Adam is ascribed to the envy of the Angels3 — not the fallen ones, for none were fallen, till God cast them down in conse quence of their seduction of man. The Angels, having in vain tried to prevent the creation of man, at last conspired to lead him into sin as the only means of his ruin — the task being undertaken by Sammael (and his Angels), who in many respects was superior to the other Angelic princes.b The instrument employed was the serpent, of B. blc. 13; whose original condition the strangest legends are told, probably to Pia8<.a ' make the Biblical narrative appear more rational.0 The details of the p°°™^e E story of the Fall, as told by the Rabbis, need not be here repeated, el and save to indicate its consequences. The first of these was the with- also Ber. k. 1 This is the view expressed by all to me, as if sometimes a mystical and Jewish dogmatic writers. See also symbolical view of the history of the Weber, Altsynag. Theol. p. 217. Fall were insinuated— evil concupiscence 2 Comp. on the subject, Ber. R. 12-16. being the occasion of it. 8 In Ber. R., however, it has seemed 166 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II • Ber. B. 19, ed.Warshau, p. 37 a b Bemidb. B. 13 c Vayyikra B. 27 ' Ber. E. 21 • Ber. R. 15, 12, 13 ; comp. also Midr. on Boo', vii. 13 and viii. 1, and Baba B. 17 a 'Be"r. B. 9 R Bemidb. R. 19 11 According to D.'Ut. xxxiii. 2 ; Ilab. iii. 3 ' Ab. Zar. 26 " Ab. Z. 6 a drawal of the Shekhinah from earth to the first heaven, while sub sequent sins successively led to its further removal to the seventh heaven. This, however, can scarcely be considered a permanent sequel of sin, since the good deeds of seven righteous men, beginning with Abraham, brought it again, in the time of Moses, to earth.* Six things Adam is said to have lost by his sin ; but even these are to be restored to man by the Messiah.b ' That the physical death of Adam was the consequence of his sin, is certainly taught. Other wise he would have lived for ever, like Enoch and Elijah.0 But although the fate which overtook Adam was to rest on all the world,d and death came not only on our first father but on his descendants, and all creation lost its perfectness,"5 yet even these temporal sequences are not universally admitted. It rather seems taught, that death was intended to be the fate of all, or sent to show the folly of men claiming Divine worship, or to test whether piety was real/ the more so that with death the weary struggle with our evil inclination ceased. It was needful to die when our work was done, that others might enter upon it. In each case death was the consequence of our own, not of Adam's sin.g In fact, over these six — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam — the Angel of Death had had no absolute power. Nay, there was a time when all Israel were not only free from death, but like the Angels, and even higher than they. For, originally God had offered the Law to all Gentile nations,11 but they had refused to submit to it.1 But when Israel took on themselves the Law at Mount Sinai, the description in Psalm lxxxii. 6 applied literally to them. They would not have died, and were ' the sons of God.' k But all this was lost by the sin of making the golden calf — although the Talmud marks that, if Israel had continued in that Angelic state, the nation would have ceased with that generation.2 Thus there were two divergent opinions — the one ascribing death to personal, the other tracing it to Adam's guilt.3 1 They are : the shining splendour of his person, even his heels being like suns ; his gigantic size, from east to west, from earth to heaven ; the spontaneous splendid products of the ground, and of all fruit- trees ; an infinitely greater measure of light on the part of the heavenly bodies ; and, finally, endless duration of life (Ber. R. 12, ed. Warsh. p. 24 b ; Ber. R. 21 ; Sanh. 38 a; Chag. 12 b ; and for their resto ration by the Messiah, Bern. R. 13). 2 Byamost ingenious theological artifice the sin of the golden calf, and that of David are made matter for thanksgiving ; the one as showing that, even if the whole people sinned, God was willing to forgive ; the other as proving, that God graciously condescended to each individual sinner, and that to each the door of repentance was open. 8 IntheTalmud(Shabb.55«andi)each ¦view is supported in discussion, the one by a reference to Ezek. xviii. 20, the other to Eccles. ix. 2 (comp. also Siphre on Deut. xxxii. 49). The final conclusion, however, greatly inclines towards the connection between death and the fall (see especially the clear statement in WHENCE THE SUFFERINGS OF ISRAEL ? 167 When, however, we pass from the physical to the moral sequences of the fall, our Jewish authorities wholly fail us. They teach, that man is created with two inclinations — that to evil (the Yetser ha-ra), and that to good ; " the first working in him from the beginning, the pTaJf,am latter coming gradually in course of time.b Yet, so far from guilt G™-"-7 attaching to the Yetser ha-ra, its existence is absolutely necessary, if &; Midr'. on the world is to continue.0 In fact, as the Talmud expressly teaches,4 ix. 15 1T' the evil desire or impulse was created by God Himself; while it is cBer-E-9 also asserted e that, on seeing the consequences, God actually repented , SuM 52 having done so. This gives quite another character to sin, as due to STpliSg?' causes for which no blame attaches to man.f On the other hand, as 'comp. also it is in the power of each wholly to overcome sin, and to gain life by Targum on study and works ; g as Israel at Mount Sinai had actually got rid of g Ab z 5i . the Yetser ha-ra ; and as there had been those, who were entirely Klda- 30 b righteous,11 — there scarcely remains any moral sequence of Adam's fall h For ex- . , . . ample, to be considered. Similarly, the Apocrypha are silent on the subject, Yoma 28 6; the only exception being the very strong language used in II. Esdras, 1 Comp IT_ which dates after the Christian era.11 If^'iv!' 4. In the absence of felt need of deliverance from sin, we can especially understand, how Babbinic tradition found no place for the Priestly ™-46~63 office of the Messiah, and how even His claims to be the Prophet of His people are almost entirely overshadowed by His appearance as their King and Deliverer. This, indeed, was the ever-present want, pressing the more heavily as Israel's national sufferings seemed almost inexplicable, while they contrasted so sharply with the glory expected by the Babbis. Whence these sufferings ? From sink — national sin ; & Men. 53 » the idolatry of former times ; l the prevalence of crimes and vices ; the ' Gitt. 7 a dereliction of God's ordinances ; m the neglect of instruction, of study, » Gitt. 88 a and of proper practice of His Law ; and, in later days, the love of money and party strife.1' But the seventy years' captivity had ceased, • Jer. why not the present dispersion? Because hypocrisy had been added Yoma 9 a,' ** L ¦*¦ and many to all other sins ; " because there had not been proper repentance ; p other pas- ' saeres » Yoma 9 b Debar. R. 9, ed. "Warsh., p. 20 a). This Of course, the first two and the last two P Jfcr. view is aiso' supported by such passages chapters in our Apocryphal II. Esdras are Yoma i. 1 in the Apocrypha as "Wisdom ii. 23, 24 ; later spurious additions of Christian au- iii. 1, &c. ; while, on the other hand, Ecclus. thorship. But in proof of the influence of xv 'ij_i7 seems rather to point in a the ( 'hristian teaching on the writer of the different direction. Fourth Book of Esdras we may call atten- 1 There can be no question that, despite tion, besides the adoption of the doctrine its strong polemical tendency against of original sin, to the remarkable appli- Christianity, the Fourth Book of Esdras cation to Israel of such N.T. expressions (II. Esdras in our Apocrypha), written at as ' the lirstborn,' the ' only-begotten,' the close of the first century of our era, and the ' well-beloved ' (IV. Esdras vi. 58 is deeply tinged with Christian doctrine. —in our Apocr. II. Esdras iv. 58). 168 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II » Nidd. 13 b b Yoma 19 6 « Ber. 32 6 ; 58 b ; 59 a j Sot. 48 a, and other places d Vayyikra R. 19 e Succ. 55 5 f Pesiqta,' ed. Buber, p. 145 a, last lines e Midr. on Ps. cxxxvii. h Pesiqta 148 6 1 Chag. 13 b k Shemoth H. 2, ed. Warsh. p. 7 6, lines 12 &c. «• Ber. 3 a ; f9a11 Pesiqta 1196; 120a because of the half-heartedness of the Jewish proselytes ; because of improper marriages, and other evil customs ;a and because of the gross dissoluteness of certain cities.b The consequences appeared not only in the political condition of Israel, but in the land itself, in the absence of rain and dew, of fruitfulness, and of plenty ; in the general disorder of society ; the cessation of piety and of religious study ; and the silence of prophecy.0 As significantly summed up, Israel was without Priesthood, without law, without God.d Nay, the world it self suffered in consequence of the destruction of the Temple. In a very remarkable passage,13 where it is explained, that the seventy bullocks offered during the Feast of Tabernacles were for the nations of the world, B. Jochanan deplores their fate, since while the Temple had stood the altar had atoned for the Gentiles, but who was now to do so ? The light, which had shone from out the Temple windows into the world, had been extinguished.* Indeed, but for the inter cession of the Angels the world would now be destroyed.g In the poetic language of the time, the heavens, sun, moon and stars, trees and mountains, even the Angels, mourned over the desolation of the Temple,11 and the very Angelic hosts had since been diminished.1 But, though the Divine Presence had been withdrawn, it still lingered near His own; it had followed them in all their banish ments ; it had suffered with them in all their sorrows.2 It is a touch ing legend, which represents the Shekhinah as still lingering over the western wall ofthe Temple k — the only one supposed to be still stand ing.3 Nay, in language still bolder, and which cannot be fully repro duced, God Himself is represented as mourning over Jerusalem and the Temple. He has not entered His Palace since then, and His hair is wet with the dew.4 He weeps over His children and their desolate- ness,m and displays in the heavens tokens of mourning, corresponding to those which an earthly monarch would show." All this is to be gloriously set right, when the Lord turneth the captivity of Zion, and the Messiah cometh. But when may He be expected, and what are the signs of His coming ? Or perhaps the question should thus be put : Why are the redemption of Israel and the coming of the Messiah so unaccountably delayed ? It is here 1 This is the Pesiqta, not that which is generally quoted either as Rabbathi or Sutarta. 2 This in very many Rabbinical pas sages. Comp. Castelli, II Messia, p. 176, note 4. * In proof they appeal to such passages as 2 Chr. vii. 16 ; Ps. iii. 4 ; Cant. ii. 9, proving it even from the decree of Cyrus (Ezra i. 3, 4), in which God is spoken of as still in desolate Jerusalem. 4 The passage from Yalkut on Is. lx. 1 is quoted in full in Appendix IX. WHY DELAYETH THE MESSIAH HIS COMING? 169 that the Synagogue finds itself in presence of an insoluble mystery. The explanations attempted are, confessedly, guesses, or rather at tempts to evade the issue. The only course left is, authoritatively to impose silence on all such inquiries — the silence, as they would put it, of implicit, mournful submission to the inexplicable, in faith that somehow, when least expected, deliverance would come ; or, as we would put it, the silence of ever-recurring disappointment and despair. Thus the grand hope of the Synagogue is, as it were, written in an epitaph on a broken tombstone, to be repeated by the thousands who, for these long centuries, have washed the ruins of the Sanctuary with unavailing tears. 5. Why delay eth the Messiah His coming ? Since the brief and broken sunshine of the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the sky over head has ever grown darker, nor have even the terrible storms, which have burst over Israel, reft the canopy of cloud. The first captivity passed, why not the second ? This is the painful question ever and again discussed by the Babbis. a Can they mean it seriously, that the • jer. sins of the second, are more grievous than those which caused the ed. Krot. p. first dispersion ; or that they of the first captivity repented, but not part ; sanh. they of the second? What constitutes this repentance which yet remains to be made ? But the reasoning becomes absolutely self- contradictory when, together with the assertion that, if Israel re pented but one day, the Messiah would come,b we are told, that Israel i> Midr. on will not repent till Elijah comes.0 Besides, bold as the language is, sanh'. 98 V there is truth in the expostulation, which the Midrash d puts into the ^u"^, mouth of the congregation of Israel : ' Lord of the world, it depends end^ on Thee that we repent.' Such truth, that, although at first the 21, ed. r . r, , ? 1 Warsh. vol. Divine reply is a repetition of Zechar. 1. 3, yet, when Israel reiterates iii. P. 77 a the words, ' Turn Thou us unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned,' supporting them by Ps. lxxxv. 4, the argument proves unanswerable. Other conditions of Israel's deliverance are, indeed, mentioned. But we can scarcely regard the Synagogue as seriously making the coming of Messiah dependent on their realisation. Among the most touching of these is a beautiful passage (almost reminding us of Heb. xi.), in which Israel's future deliverance is described as the reward of e Tanch. on faith.e Similarly beautiful is the thought/ that, when God redeems S'wl'rsh. Israel, it will be amidst their weeping.^ But neither can this be J;^6^ regarded as the condition of Messiah's coming ; nor yet such gene- «xi- 9 *«.t 1. • l Je Tanch. on ralities as the observance of the Law, or of some special command- 6en. xiv. 2, ments. The very variety of suggestions1" shows, how utterly unable ISanh"g7'5. 1 The reader will find these discussions summarised at the close of Appendix IX. !70 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK the Synagogue felt to indicate any condition to be fulfilled by Israel. 11 Such vague statements, as that the salvation of Israel depended on the merits of the patriarchs, or on that of one of them, cannot help •sanh. 98a us to a solution; and the long discussion in the Talmud4 leaves no doubt, that the final and most sober opinion was, that the time of Messiah's coming depended not on repentance, nor any other condi tion, but on the mercy of God, when the time fixed had arrived. But even so, we are again thrown into doubt by the statement, that it might be either hastened or retarded by Israel's bearing ! • In these circumstances, any attempt at determining the date of Messiah's coming would be even more hypothetical than such calcula tions generally are.2 Guesses on the subject could only be grounded on imaginary symbolisms. Of such we have examples in the Talmud.3 Thus, some fixed the date at 4000 years after the Creation — curiously enough, about the era of Christ — though Israel's sin had blotted out the whole past from the reckoning; others at 4291 from the Crea- •> shabb. 97 6 tion ; b others again expected it at the beginning, or end, of the eighty-fifth Jubilee — with this proviso, that it would not take plaoe earlier ; and so on, through equally groundless conjectures. A com paratively late work speaks of five monarchies — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Bome, and Ishmael. During the last of these God would « Pirqe de hear the cry of Israel,0 and the Messiah come, after a terrible war au.s'30 between Bome and Ishmael (the West and the East).d But as the rule of these monarchies was to last altogether one day (=1000 °ComP. years), less two-thirds of an hour (1 hour = 83^ years),e it would PirqjideB. f0ii0W; that ^^j. domination would last 944-i years.4 Again, accord ing to Jewish tradition, the rule of Babylon had lasted 70, that of Medo-Persia 34, and that of Greece 180 years, leaving 660f years for Bome and Ishmael. Thus the date for the expected Advent of the Messiah would have been about 661 after the destruction of Jerusalem, or about the year 729 of the Christian era.5 In the category of guesses we must also place such vague state ments, as that the Messiah would come, when all were righteous, or all wicked; or else nine months after the empire of Bome had ex- 1 See, on the whole subject, also from Sanh. DfwE'2; -a ¦ „ ' Pirqe deR. El. 28. The reasoning by 'We put aside, as universally repu- which this duration of the monarchies is diated, the opinion expressed by one derived from Lament i 13 and Zech Rabbi that Israel's Messianic era was xiv. 7, is a very curious specimen of Rab- past, the promises having been fulfilled binic argumentation in King Hezekiah (Sanh 98 S; 99 a). « Comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr., p. 277. 3 See, m Appendix IX. the extracts * NATURE, PERSON, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH. 171 tended over the whole world ; " or when all the souls, predestined to inhabit bodies, had been on earth. b But as, after years of unrelieved sufferings, the Synagogue had to acknowledge that, one by one, all , , the terms had passed, and as despair settled on the heart of Israel, it t>Ab. z. Ba; came to be generally thought, that the time of Messiah's Advent could not be known beforehand,0 and that speculation on the subiect " Targum -i i -i rrn • Pseudo-Jon. was dangerous, sinful, even damnable. The time of the end had, on Gen. xlix. 1 indeed, been revealed to two sons of Adam, Jacob and David; but neither of them had been allowed to make it known. d In view of " M4arasl1 . on Ps. xxxi. this, it can scarcely be regarded as more than a symbolical, though ^-J^inies significant guess, when the future redemption of Israel is expected j^° u on the Paschal Day, the 15th of Nisan.62 boUom 6. We now approach this most difficult and delicate question : ed. Buber, What was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue, as regarded sopiier. xxi. the Nature, Person, and qualifications of the Messiah ? In answer- swr haSMr. ing it — not at present from the Old Testament, but from the views warsh! vol. expressed in Babbinic literature, and, so far as we can gather from the Gospel-narratives, from those cherished by the contemporaries of Christ — two inferences seem evident. First, the idea of a Divine Per sonality, and of the union of the two Natures in the Messiah, seems to have been foreign to the Jewish auditory of Jesus of Nazareth, and even at first to His disciples. Secondly, they appear to have regarded the Messiah as far above the ordinary human, royal, pro phetic, and even Angelic type, to such extent, that the boundary-line separating it from Divine Personality is of the narrowest, so that, when the conviction of the reality of the Messianic manifestation in Jesus burst on their minds, this boundary-line was easily, almost naturally, overstepped, and those who would have shrunk from fram ing their belief in such dogmatic form, readily owned and worshipped Him as the Son of God. Nor need we wonder at this, even taking the highest view of Old Testament prophecy. For here also the principle applies, which underlies one of St. Paul's most wide-reaching utterances: 'We prophesy in part'3 (etc fiipovs irpotynTevofiev).* 'icor. xiii. In the nature of it, all prophecy presents but disjecta membra, and it almost seems, as if we had to take our stand in the prophet's valley of vision (Ezek. xxxvii."), waiting till, at the bidding of the Lord, 1 See Appendix IX. would add, that there is always a ' here- 2 Solitary opinions, however, place the after ' of further development in the future redemption in the month Tishri history of the individual believer, as in (Tanch. on Ex. xii. 37, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b, that of the Church— growing brighter line 2 from bottom). and brighter, with increased spiritual 3 See the telling remarks of Oehler in communication and knowledge, till at Herzog's Real-Encykl., vol. ix. p. 417. We last the perfect light is reached. . ix. 6 s I?2 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK the scattered bones should be joined into a body, to which the breath II of the Spirit would give life. These two inferences, derived from the Gospel-narratives, are in exact accordance with the whole line of ancient Jewish teaching. Beginning with the LXX. rendering of Genesis xlix. 10, and espe cially of Numbers xxiv. 7, 17, we gather, that the Kingdom of the Messiah1 was higher than any that is earthly, and destined to subdue them all. But the rendering of Psalm Ixxii. 5, 7 ; Psalm ex. 3 ; and especially of Isaiah ix., carries us much farther. They convey the idea, that the existence of this Messiah was regarded as premundane » Ps. ixxii. (before the moon,a before the morning-star b), and eternal,0 and His b Ps. ex. Person and dignity as superior to that of men and Angels : ' the Angel of the Great Council,'3 probably 'the Angel of the Face' — a view fully confirmed by the rendering of the Targum.3 The silence of the Apocrypha about the Person of the Messiah is so strange, as to be scarcely explained by the consideration, that those books were composed when the need "of a Messiah for the deliverance of Israel was not painfully felt.4 All the more striking are the allusions in the Pseudepigraphic Writings, although these also do not carry us beyond our two inferences. Thus, the third book of the Sibylline Oracles — which, with few exceptions,8 dates from more than a century and «w. 652-807 a half before Christ — presents a picture of Messianic times, e generally admitted to have formed the basis of Virgil's description of the Golden Age, and of similar heathen expectations. In these Oracles, 170 years before Christ, the Messiah is ' the King sent from heaven ' who fw. 285, 286 would 'judge every man in blood and splendour of fire.'f Similarly, the vision of Messianic times opens with a reference to 'the King bv. 652 Whom God will send from the sun.'g6 That a superhuman King- 1 No reasonable doubt can be left on of the heathen, does not deserve serious the mind, that the LXX. translators have refutation. here the Messiah in view. 5 These exceptions are, according to ' The criticism of Mr. Drummond on Friedlieb (Die Sibyllin. Weissag.) w. these three passages (Jewish Messiah, pp. 1-45, w. 47-96 (dating from 40-31 before 290, 291) cannot be supported on critical Christ), and w. 818-828. On the subject grounds. generally, see our previous remarks in 3 Three, if not four, different render- Book I. ings of the Targum on Is. ix. 6 are possi- s Mr. Drummond defends (at pp. 274 ble. But the minimum conveyed to my 275) Holtzmann's view, that the expres- mind implies the premundane existence, sion applies to Simon the Maccabee the eternal continuance, and the super- although at p. 291 he argues on the op- human dignity of the Messiah. (See also posite supposition that the text refers to the Targum on Micah v. 2.) the Messiah. It is difficult to under- 4 This is the view of Grimm, and more stand, how on reading the whole passage fully carried out by Oehler. The argu- the hypothesis of Holtzmann could be ment of Hengstenberg, that the mention of entertained. While referring to the 3rd such a Messiah was restrained from fear Book of the Sib. Or., another point of THE MESSIAH OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS. 11-0 dom of eternal duration, such as this vision paints," should have a superhuman King, seems almost a necessary corollary.1 Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called ' Book of Enoch.' Critics are substantially agreed, that the oldest part of it b dates from between 150 and 130 B.C.2 The part next in date is full of Messianic allusions ; but, as a certain class of modern writers has ascribed to it a post-Christian date, and, however ungrounded,3 to Christian authorship, it may be better not to refer to it in the present argument, the more so as we have other testimony from the time of Herod. Not to speak, therefore, of such peculiar designations of the Messiah as ' the Woman's Son,' ° ' the Son of Man,' d ' the Elect,' and ' the Just One,' we mark that the Messiah is expressly designated in the oldest portion as ' the Son of God ' (' I and My Son ').e That this implies, not, indeed, essential Sonship, but infinite superiority over all other servants of God, and rule over them, appears from the mystic description of- the Messiah as ' the first of the [now changed] white bulls,' ' the great Animal among them, having great and black CHAP. V D ch. i.- xxxvi. and Ixxii. -cv. = lxii. 5 d For ex. xlviii. 2 ; lxii. 7 ; lxix. 29 • ov. 2 considerable interest deserves notice. According to the theory which places the authorship of Daniel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes — or say about 165 B.C. — the ' fourth kingdom ' of Daniel must be the Grecian. But, on the other hand, such certainly was not the view entertained by Apocalypts of the year 165, since the 3rd Book of the Sib. Or., which dates from precisely that period, not only takes notice of the rising power of Rome, but anticipates the destruction of the Grecian Empire by Rome, which in turn is to be vanquished by Israel (w. 175-195 ; -520-544 ; 638-807). This most important fact would require to be accounted for by the opponents of the authenticity of Daniel. 1 I have purposely omitted all refer ences to controverted passages. But see Langen, D. Judenth. in Palest, pp. 401 &c. » The next oldest portion, consisting of the so-called Similitudes (ch. xxxvii.- lxxi.), excepting what are termed 'the Noachic ' parts, dates from about the time of Herod the Great. 3 Schiirer (Lehrb. d. Neutest. Zeitg. pp. 534, 535) has, I think, conclusively shown that this portion of the Book of Enoch is of Jewish authorship, and pre- Christian date. If so, it were deeply interesting to follow its account of the Messiah. He appears by the side of the Ancient of Days, His face like the ap pearance of a man, and yet so lovely, like that of one of the holy Angels. This ' Son of Man ' has, and with Him dwells, all righteousness ; He reveals the treasures of all that is hidden, being chosen by the Lord, is superior to all, and destined to subdue and destroy all the powers and kingdoms of wickedness (ch. xlvi.). Al though only revealed at the last, His Name had been named before God, be fore sun or stars were created. He is the staff on which the righteous lean, the light of nations, and the hope of all who mourn in spirit. All are to bow down before Him, and adore Him, and for this He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will continue before Him for ever (ch. xlviii. ). This ' Elect One ' is to sit on the throne of glory, and dwell among His saints. Heaven and earth would be removed, and only the saints would abide on the renewed earth (ch. xiv.). He is mighty in all the secrets of right eousness, and unrighteousness would flee as a shadow, because His glory lasted from eternity to eternity, and His power from generation to generation (ch. xlix.). Then would the earth, Hades, and hell give up their dead, and Messiah, sitting on His throne, would select and own the just, and open up all secrets of wisdom, amidst the universal joy of ransomed earth (ch. li., lxi., lxii.). 174 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. •v. 41 BOOK horns on His head ' a — Whom ' all the beasts of the field and all the II fowls of heaven dread, and to Whom they cry at all times.' ,"xc gg Still more explicit is that beautiful collection of eighteen Psalms, dating from about half a century before Christ, which bears the name of ' the Psalter of Solomon.' A chaste anticipation of the Messianic b in Ps. xi. Kingdom b is followed by a full description of its need and its bless- «inPs. xvii. ings,0 to which the concluding Psalm d forms an apt epilogue. The ° x™1- King Who reigns is of the house of David.e He is the Son of David, 'v. 23 Who comes at the time known to God only, to reign over Israeli e v. 35 He is a righteous King, taught of God.g He is Christ the Lord (X-pto-Tos Kvpios,11 exactly as in the LXX. translation of Lamentations iv. 20). ' He is pure from sin,' which qualifies Him for ruling His people, and banishing sinners by His word.1 ' Never in His days will He be infirm towards His God, since God renders Him strong in the Holy Ghost,' wise in counsel, with might and righteousness (' mighty in deed and word '). The blessing of the Lord being upon Him, He ' TT- i2' « does not fail.k ' This is the beauty of the King of Israel, Whom God hath chosen, to set Him over the house of Israel to rule it.' m Thus invincible, not by outward might, but in His God, He will bring His people the blessings of restoration to i^heir tribal possessions, and of righteousness, but break in pieces His enemies, not by outward weapons, but by the word of His mouth; purify Jerusalem, and judge the nations, who will be subject to His rule, and behold and own His glory .n Manifestly, this is not an earthly Kingdom, nor yet an earthly King. If we now turn to works .dating after the Christian era, we would naturally expect them, either simply to reproduce earlier opinions, or from opposition to Christ, to present the Messiah in a less exalted manner.1 But since, strange to say, they even more strongly assert the high dignity of the Messiah, we are warranted in regarding this as the rooted belief of the Synagogue.2 This estimate of the Messiah may be gathered from IV Esdras,0 3 with which the kindred picture of 1 v.47 ° xii. 32 ; " xiii. 26, 52 ; xiv. 9 1 In illustration of this tendency we follows, on Is. xliv. 6 : ' " I am the first " may quote the following, evidently —because He has no father ; " I am the polemical saying of R. Abbahu, ' If any last "—because He has no Son- "and man saith to thee, " I am God," he is a beside Me there is no God "—because He liar; "I am the Son of Man," he will at has no brother (equal)' (Shem R 29 last repent of it; "I go up to heaven," ed. Warsh. vol. ii. p. 41 a line " 8 from he saith it, but it' is not fulfilled' (Jer. bottom). Taan. ii. 1, ed. Krot. p. 65 b, line 7 from * It is, to say the least, a nitv that bottom). This R. Abbahu (279-320 of Mr. Drummond should have imLined our era) seems to have largely engaged that the question could be so easilv in controversy with Jewish Christians. settled on the premisses which he Thus he sought to argue against the presents. Sonship of Christ by commenting, as 3 The 4th Book of Esdras (in our Apocr. THE MESSIAH OF THE TALMUD. 175 the Messiah and His reign in the Apocalypse of Baruch a may be compared. But even in strictly Babbinic documents, the premundane, if not the eternal existence of the Messiah appears as matter of com mon belief. Such is the view expressed in the Targum on Is. ix. 6, and in that on Micah v. 2. But the Midrash on Prov. viii. 9 b ex pressly mentions the Messiah among the seven things created before the world.1 The passage is the more important, as it throws light on quite a series of others, in which the Name of the Messiah is said to have been created before the world.02 Even if this were an ideal ° Pirqe de conception, it would prove the Messiah to be elevated above the ordi- Midr.' on p3. , . . „ , . -n • xciii- l '< Pes- nary conditions of humanity. But it means much more than this, 5i " ; Nedar. since not only the existence ofthe Messiah long before His actual a. i;s ¦n • 7 i f • Tanch. on appearance, but His premundane state are clearly taught m other Numb. to. places. In the Talmud d it is not only implied, that the Messiah may vol. __..P. 56 b, already be among the living, but a strange story is related, according bottom* to which He had actually been born in the royal palace at Bethlehem, ti^vBf'a bore the name Menachem (Comforter), was discovered by one B. Judan through a peculiar device, but had been carried away by a storm. Similarly, the Babylon Talmud represents Him as sitting at the gate of Imperial Bome.e In general, the idea of the Messiah's c sanh. 98 « ; appearance and concealment is familiar to Jewish tradition.* But Jems'. Targ. the Eabbis so much farther back, and declare that from the time of 42; Pirqe de R. __'. 30 Judah's marriage,g ' God busied Himself with creating the light of and other the Messiah,' it being significantly added that, 'before the first op- fSeefor pressor [Pharaoh] was born, the final Deliverer [Messiah, the Son of S$i,%ct. David] was already born.' h In another passage the Messiah is ex- *8u£fr' »• pressly identified with Anani,1 and therefore represented as pre-existent « Gen. long before His actual manifestation.11 The same inference may be „ Ber B g6_ drawn from His emphatic designation as the First.m Lastly, in Yalkut ^'i^T*' on Is. lx., the words ' In Thy light shall we see light ' (Ps. xxxvi. 9) are > Mentioned ' * ° in 1 Chr. iii. 24" II. Esdras) dates from the end of the first came into His Mind to create them (the PJranoh' century of our era — and so does the Fathers, Israel, the Temple, and the Toiedoth, Apocalypse of Baruch. Name of the Messiah). u, ed. ¦These are: the Throne of Glory, * In Tanch. seven things are enumerated ™ arsn • P- Messiah the King, the Torah, (ideal) (the six as in Ber R., with the addition of m ^ ^ Israel, the Temple, repentance, and repentance), ' and some say : also Paradise ed Warsh. ' Gehenna. and Gehenna.' p. 114 6; 2 In Pirqe de R. El. and the other 5 In that passage the time of Messiah's Vayyikra authorities these seven things are : the concealment is calculated at forty-iive ^; T^ ^ Torah, Gehenna, Paradise, the Throne days, from a comparison of Dan. xii. 11 p. 47 « ; of Glory, the Temple, repentance, and with v. 12. Pes. 5 a the Name of the Messiah. ' The comment on this passage is 8 In Ber. R. six things are mentioned: curiously mystical, but clearly implies two actually created (the Torah and not only the pre-existence, but the super- the Throne of Glory), and four which human character of the Messiah. 176 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II ' Yalkut ii. p. 56 c 6 Shem. B. 1, ed. W. vol. ii. p. 5 & ; Tanch. Par. Tazrya, 8, ed. W. vol. ii. p. 20 a c Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 49 & d Sanh. 98 a c Pirqt. de R. El. 31, ed. Lemb. p. 38 a f PirqS de B. El. u. s., p. 39 a, closee Bemid. •B. 18, close of the Par. h Ps. Ixxii. 16 1 According to the last clause of (Englishversion)Joel iii. 18 (Midr. on Eccles. i. 9, cd. Warsh. vol. iv. p. 80 b) explained as meaning, that this is the light of the Messiah, — the same which God had at the first pronounced to be very good, and which,. before the world was created, He had hid beneath the throne of His glory for the Messiah and His age. When Satan asked for whom it was reserved, he was told that it was destined for Him Who would put him to shame, and destroy him. And when, at his request, he was shown the Messiah, he fell on his face and owned, that the Messiah would in the future cast him and the Gentiles into Gehenna.* Whatever else may be inferred from it, this passage clearly implies not only the pre-existence, but the premundane existence, ofthe Messiah.1 But, indeed, it carries us much farther. For, a Messiah, pre existent, in the Presence of God, and destined to subdue Satan and cast him into hell, could not have been regarded as an ordinary man. It is indeed true that, as the history of Elijah, so that of the Messiah is throughout compared with that of Moses, the ' first ' with ' the last Bedeemer.' As Moses was educated at the court of Pharaoh, so the Messiah dwells in Bome (or Edom) among His enemies. b Like Moses He comes, withdraws, and comes again.0 Like Moses He works deliverance. But here the analogy ceases, for, whereas the redemption by Moses was temporary and comparatively small, that of the Messiah would be eternal and absolute. All the marvels connected with Moses were to be intensified in the Messiah. The ass on which the Messiah would ride — and this humble estate was only caused by Israel's sin d — would be not only that on which Moses had come back to Egypt, but also that which Abraham had used when he went to offer up Isaac, and which had been specially created on the eve of the world's first Sabbath. e Similarly, the horns of the ram caught in the thicket; which was offered instead of Isaac, were destined for blowing — the left one by the Almighty on Mount Sinai, the right and larger one by the Messiah, when He would gather the outcasts of Israel (Is. xxvii. 13).f Again, the 'rod' of the Messiah was that of Aaron, which had budded, blossomed, and burst into fruit ; as also that on which Jacob had leaned, and which, through Judah, had passed to all the kings of Israel, till the destruction of the Temple.g And so the principle that ' the later Deliverer would be like the first ' was carried into every detail. As the first Beliverer brought down the Manna, so the Messiah ; h as the first Beliverer had made a spring of water to rise so would the second} 1 The whole of this very remarkable passage is given in Appendix IX., in the notes on Is. xxv. 8 ; lx. 1 ; lxiv. 4 ; Jer. xxxi. 8. RAPT JEWISH HOPE OF THE MESSIAH. 177 But even this is not all. That the Messiah had, without any CHAP. instruction, attained to knowledge of God ; * and that He had received, V directly from Him, all wisdom, knowledge, counsel, and grace,b is ? ' comparatively little, since the same was claimed for Abraham, Job B- u. ed. and Hezekiah. But we are told that, when God showed Moses all p- ss «' his successors, the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the Messiah j3Bemld- R- equalled that of all the others together.0 The Messiah would be "Yaikuton 'greater than the Patriarchs,' higher than Moses,1 and even loftier xxvii. ie, than the ministering Angels. ,d In view of this we can understand, 247' a how the Midrash on Psalm xxi. 3 should apply to the Messiah, in all Tofedoth T™ its literality, that ' God would set His own crown on His head,' and e Midr. clothe Him with His ' honour and majesty.' It is only consistent that warsii. n 3f_ h the same Midrash should assign to the Messiah the Divine designations : ' Jehovah is a Man of War,' and ' Jehovah our Bighteousness.' e One other quotation, from perhaps the most spiritual Jewish commentary, must be added, reminding us of that outburst of adoring wonder which once greeted Jesus of Nazareth. The pas sage first refers to the seven garments with which God successively robed Himself — the first of ' honour and glory,' at creation ; f the < Ps. civ. 1 second of ' majesty,' at the Bed Sea ; g the third of ' strength,' at s p3. xciu. 1 the giving of the Law ; h the fourth ' white,' when He blotteth out h Ps. xciii. j the sins of Israel ; * the fifth of ' zeal,' when He avengeth them of 1 Dan. vii. 9 their enemies ; k the sixth of ' righteousness,' at the time when the k Is. \^_ 17 Messiah should be revealed ; m and the seventh ' red,' when He would m ts. hx. 17 take vengeance on Edom (Bome).n ' But,' continues the commentary, - is. ixiu. ' the garment with which in the future He will clothe the Messiah, its splendour will extend from one end of the world to the other, as it is written : ° " As a bridegroom priestly in headgear." And Israel are » i8. iXi. 10 astounded at His light, and say : Blessed the hour in which the Messiah was created ; blessed the womb whence He issued ; blessed the genera tion that sees Him ; blessed the eye that is worthy to behold Him ; be cause the opening of His lips is blessing and peace, and His speech quiet ing of the spirit. Glory and majesty are in His appearance (vesture), and confidence and tranquillity in His words ; and on His tongue compassion and forgiveness; His prayer is a sweet-smelling odour, and His supplication holiness and purity. Happy Israel, what is reserved for you ! Thus it is written : p " How manifold is Thy » ps. xxxi. goodness, which Thou hast reserved to them that fear Thee." ' <¦ Such „ Pesiqta] a King Messiah might well be represented as sitting at the Bight pp.^?^ 1 This is the more noteworthy as, ac- so great as Moses, who was only inferior cording to Sotah 9 b, none in Israel was to the Almighty. VOL. I. N 178 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II a Midr. on Ps. xviii. 36, ed. Warsh. p. 27d b Midr. on Ps. ex. 1, ed. Warsh. >>. 80 b '¦ Ber. R. 23, i-d. Warsh. 1.45 6 d Gen. xix. 32 ' Ber. E. 51, ed "Warsh. p. 95 a .1; ' Ber. R. and 8 ; Vayyikra E. 14, ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p. 21 6 s Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. Warsh.p. 64 a, last line ; comp. Pesiqta,p. 148 a ; ' Midr. on Ps. xxi., and the very curious con cessions in a controversywith a Christian recorded in Sanh. 38 b Hand of God, while Abraham was only at His left ; a nay, as throw ing forth His Eight Hand, while God stood up to war for Him.b It is not without hesitation, that we make reference to Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Saviour. Yet there are two expressions, which convey the idea, if not of superhuman origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to His birth. The first occurs in connection with the birth of Seth. ' Babbi Tanchuma said, in the name of Babbi Samuel : Eve had respect [had regard, looked for ward] to that Seed which is to come from another place. And who is this ? This is Messiah the King.' ° The second appears in the narrative of the crime of Lot's daughters : d ' It is not written, " that we may preserve a son from our father," but " seed from our father." This is that seed which is coming from another place. And who is this ? This is the King Messiah.' e • That a superhuman character attached, if not to the Personality, yet to the Mission of the Messiah, appears from three passages, in which the expression, ' The Spirit of the Lord moved upon the face of the deep,' is thus paraphrased : ' This is the Spirit of the King Messiah.' f 2 Whether this implies some activity of the Messiah in connection with creation,3 or only that, from the first, His Mission was to have a bearing on all creation, it elevates His character and work above every other agency, human or Angelic. And, without pressing the argument, it is at least very remarkable that even the Ineffable Name Jehovah is expressly attributed to the Messiah.8 The 1 I am, of course, aware that certain Rabbinists explain the expression ' Seed from another place,' as referring to the descent of the Messiah from Ruth — a non- Israelite. Butif this explanation could be offered in reference to the daughters of Lot, it is difficult to see its meaning in reference to Eve and the birth of Seth. The connection there with the words (Gen. iv. 25), ' God hath appointed me another Seed,' would be the very loosest. 2 I am surprised, that Castelli (u. s. p. 207) should have contended, that the reading in Ber. R. 8 and Vay. R. 14 should be ' the Spirit of Adam.' For (1) the attempted correction gives neither sense, nor proper meaning. (2) The passage Ber. R. 1 is not impugned; yet that passage is the basis of the other two. (3) Ber. R. 8 must read, 'The Spirit of God moved on the deep — that is, the Spirit of Messiah the King,' because the proof-passage is immediately added, 'and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest npon Him,' which is a Messianic passage; and because, only two lines before the impugned passage, we are told, that Gen. i. 26, 1st clause, refers to the ' spirit of the first man.' The latter remark applies also to Vayyikra R. 14, where the context equally forbids the proposed cor rection. * It would be very interesting to com pare with this the statements of Philo as to the agency of the Logos in Crea tion. The subject is very well treated by Riehm (Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. Br. pp. 414-420), although I cannot agree with all his conclusions. 4 The whole of this passage, beginning at p. 147 b, is very curious and deeply in teresting. It would lead too far to quote it, or other parallel passages which might be adduced. The passage in the Midrash on Lament, i. 16 is also extremely inte resting. After the statement quoted in the text, there follows a discussion on the names of the Messiah, and then the PREPAREDNESS FOR OWNING HIM AS THE SON OF GOD. 179 fact becomes the more significant, when we recall that one of the CHAP. most familiar names of the Messiah was Anani — He Who cometh in y the clouds of heaven." . • In what has been stated, no reference has been made to the final conquests of Messiah, to His reign with all its wonders, or to the subdual of all nations — in short, to what are commonly called ' the last things.' This will be treated in another connection. Nor is it contended that, whatever individuals may have expected, the Syna gogue taught the doctrine of the Divine Personality of the Messiah, as held by the Christian Church. On the other hand, the cumulative evidence just presented must leave on the mind at least this con viction, that the Messiah expected was far above the conditions of the most exalted of God's servants, even His Angels ; in short, so closely bordering on the Divine, that it was almost impossible to distinguish Him therefrom. In such circumstances, it only needed the personal conviction, that He, Who taught and wrought as none other, was really the Messiah, to kindle at His word into the adoring confession, that He was indeed ' the Son of the Living God.' And once that point reached, the mind, looking back through the teaching of the Synagogue, would, with increasing clearness, perceive that, however ill-understood in the past, this had been all along the sum of the whole Old Testament. Thus, we can understand alike the prepared ness for, and yet the gradualness of conviction on this point ; then, the increasing clearness with which it emerged in the consciousness of the disciples ; and, finally, the unhesitating distinctness with which it was put forward in Apostolic teaching as the fundamental article of belief to the Church Catholic.1 curious story about the Messiah having final conclusion, that the Messiah was already been born in Bethlehem. truly the Son of God, while it has been 1 It will be noticed, that the cumulative our purpose simply to state, what was the argument presented in the foregoing expectation of the ancient Synagogue, not pages follows closely that in the first what it should liave been according to chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; the Old Testament. only, that the latter carries it up to its 180 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. CHAPTEB VI. THE NATIVITY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. (St. Matthew i. 25 ; St. Luke ii. 1-20.) BOOK Such then was ' the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers,' II for which the twelve tribes, ' instantly serving (God) night and day,' longed — with such vividness, that they read it in almost every event and promise ; with such earnestness, that it ever was the burden of their prayers ; with such intensity, that many and long centuries of disap pointment have not quenched it. Its light, comparatively dim in days of sunshine and calm, seemed to burn brightest in the dark and lonely nights of suffering, aa if each gust that swept over Israel only kindled it into fresh flame. To the question, whether this hope has ever been realised — or father, whether One has appeared Whose claims to the Messiahship have stood the test of investigation and of time — impartial history can make only one answer. It points to Bethlehem and to Nazareth. If the claims of Jesus have been rejected by the Jewish Nation, He has at least, undoubtedly, fulfilled one part of the Mission prophetically assigned to the Messiah. Whether or not He be the Lion of the tribe of Judah, to Him, assuredly, has been the gathering of the nations, and the isles have waited for His law. Passing the narrow bounds of obscure Judaea, and breaking down the walls of national prejudice and isolation, He has made the sublimer teaching of the Old Testament the common possession of the world, and founded a great Brotherhood, of which the God of Israel is the Father. He alone also has exhibited a life, in which absolutely no fault could be found ; and promulgated a teaching, to which absolutely no exception can be taken. Admittedly, He was the One perfect Man— the ideal of humanity; His doctrine the one absolute teaching. The world has known none other, none equal. And the world has owned it if not by the testimony of words, yet by the evidence of facts. Spring ing from such a people ; born, living, and dying in circumstances, and using means, the most unlikely of such results — the Man of Nazareth THE JOURNEY OF JOSEPH AND MARY TO BETHLEHEM. 181 has, by universal consent, been the mightiest Factor in our world's CHAP. history: alike politically, socially, intellectually, and morally. If VI He be not the Messiah, He has at least thus far done the Messiah's ' n ' work. If He be not the Messiah, there has at least been none other, before or after Him. If He be not the Messiah, the world has not, and never can have, a Messiah. To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old Testa ment prediction,* but the testimony of Babbinic teaching, unhesi- •Micsiv. % tatingly pointed. Yet nothing could be imagined more directly contrary to Jewish thoughts and feelings — and hence nothing less likely to suggest itself to Jewish invention 1— than the circumstances which, according to the Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. A counting of the people, or Census ; and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emperor, and executed by one so universally hated as Herod, would represent the ne plus ultra of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeing.2 If the account of the circumstances, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, has no basis in fact, but is a legend invented to locate the birth of the Nazarene in the royal City of David, it must be pronounced most clumsily devised. There is absolutely nothing to account for its origination — either from parallel events in the past, or from contemporary expectancy. Why then connect the birth of their Messiah with what was most repugnant to Israel, especially if, as the advocates of the legendary hypothesis contend, it did not occur at a time when any Jewish Census was taken, but ten years previously ? But if it be impossible rationally to account for any Isgendary origin of the narrative of Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, the historical grounds, on which its accuracy has been impugned, are equally insufficient. They resolve themselves into this : that (beyond the Gospel-narrative) we have no solid evidence that Cyrenius was at that time occupying the needful official position in the East, to order such a registration for Herod to carry out. But even this feeble con tention is by no means historically unassailable.3 At any rate, there 1 The advocates of the mythical theory (Leben Jesu i. 2, p. 393); but all the have not answered, not even faced or more complicated and inexplicable is the understood, what to us seems, on their origination of the legend, which accounts hypothesis, an insuperable difficulty. for the journey thither of Mary and Joseph. Granting, that Jewish expectancy would 2 In evidence of these feelings, we have suggest the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the account of Josephus of the con- why invent such circumstances to bring sequences of the taxation of Cyrenius Mary to Bethlehem 1 Keim may be right (Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Comp. Acts v. 37). in saying : ' The belief in the birth at * The arguments on what may be called Bethlehem originated very simply' the orthodox side have, from diiferent 182 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK are two facts, which render any historical mistake by St. Luke on II this point extremely difficult to believe. First, he was evidently a ' """' aware of" a Census under Cyrenius, ten years later ; * secondly, what- Actsv. 37 ever rendering of St. Luke ii. 2 may be adopted, it will at least be admitted, that the intercalated sentence about Cyrenius was not necessary for the narrative, and that the writer must have intended thereby emphatically to mark a certain event. But an author would not be likely to call special attention to a fact, of which he had only indistinct knowledge ; rather, if it must be mentioned, would he do so in the most indefinite terms. This presumption in favour of St. Luke's statement is strengthened by the consideration, that such an event as the taxing of Judsea must have been so easily ascertainable by him. We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning just set forth. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of the Roman Empire, and of subject and tributary states, is now generally ad mitted. This registration — for the purpose of future taxation — would also embrace Palestine. Even if no actual order to that effect had been issued during the lifetime of Herod, we can understand that he would deem it most expedient, both on account of his relations to the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a heathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registra tion, and that rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner. This Census, then, ordered by Augustus, and taken by Herod in his own manner, was, according to St. Luke, ' first [really] carried out when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria,' some years after Herod's death, and when Judsea had become a Boman province.1 We are now prepared to follow the course of the Gospel-narrative. In consequence of ' the decree of Caesar Augustus,' Herod directed a general registration to be made after the Jewish, rather than the Boman, manner. Practically the two would, indeed, in this instance be very similar. According to the Roman law, all country-people were to be registered in their ' own city ' — meaning thereby the town to which the village or place, where they were born, was attached. In points of view, been so often and well mentary ' (New Test. vol. i. pp 326-3291 stated— latterly by "Wieseler, Huschke, We substantially adopt the' view of Canon Zumpt, and Steinmeyer— and on the Cook, which, indeed, is fundamentally that other side almost ad nauseam by negative of Steinmeyer (u. s. pp. 36 &c ) critics of every school, that it seems un- > For the textual explanation we asrain necessary to go again over them. The refer to Canon Cook ; only we would reader will find the whole subject stated mark, with Steinmeyer, that the meaning- by Canon Cook, with his usual clearness of the expression iyhtro, in St Luke ii 2 and judgment, in the 'Speaker's Com- is determined by the similar use of itin IN BETHLEHEM. 183 so doing, the ' house and lineage ' (the nomen and cognomen) of each CHAP. were marked.1 According to the Jewish mode of registration, the VI people would have been enrolled according to tribes (n .do), families or ' ' ' clans (ninQB'o), and the house of their fathers (max iva). But as the ten tribes had not returned to Palestine, this could only take place to a very limited extent,2 while it would be easy for each to be registered in ' his own city.' In the case of Joseph and Mary, whose descent from David was not only known, but where, for the sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be distinctly noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they should have gone to Bethlehem. Perhaps also, for many reasons which will readily suggest themselves, Joseph and Mary might be glad to leave Nazareth, and seek, if possible, a home in Bethlehem. Indeed, so strong was this feeling, that it afterwards required special Divine direction to induce Joseph to relinquish this chosen place of residence, and to return into Galilee.* In these circumstances, Mary, »st. Matt. now the ' wife ' of Joseph, though standing to him only in the actual relationship of ' betrothed,' b would, of course, accompany her husband 5 st" Luke u" to Bethlehem. Irrespective of this, every feeling and hope in her must have prompted such a course, and there is no need to discuss whether Boman or Jewish Census-usage required her presence — a question which, if put, would have to be answered in the negative. The short winter's day was probably closing in,3 as the two travel lers from Nazareth, bringing with them the few necessaries of a poor Eastern household, neared their journey's end. If we think of Jesus as the Messiah from heaven, the surroundings of outward poverty, so far from detracting, seem most congruous to His Divine character. Earthly splendour would here seem like tawdry tinsel, and the utmost simplicity like that clothing of the lilies, which far surpassed all the glory of Solomon's court. But only in the East would the most absolute simplicity be possible, and yet neither it, nor the poverty from which it sprang, necessarily imply even the slightest taint of social inferiority. The way had been long and Acts xi. 28, where what was predicted is ' eine Sache der Unmoglichkeit.' said to have actually taken place (iytvero) ' This, of course, is only a conjecture ; at the time of Claudius Caesar. but I call it ' probable,' partly because 1 Comp. Huschke, Ueber d. z. Zeit d. one would naturally so arrange a journey Geb. J. C. gehalt. Census, pp. 119, 120. of several days, to make its stages as slow Most critics have written very confusedly and easy as possible, and partly from the on this point. circumstance, that, on their arrival, they 2 The reader will now be able to ap- found the khan full, which would scarcely preciate the value of Keim's objections have been the case, had they reached against such a Census, as involving a Bethlehem early in the day. 'wahre Volkswanderung ' (I), and being 184 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK weary— at the very least, three days' journey, whatever route had been II taken from Galilee. Most probably it would be that so commonly followed, from a desire to avoid Samaria, along the eastern banks of the Jordan, and by the fords near Jericho.1 Although passing through one of the warmest parts of the country, the season of the year must, even in most favourable circumstances, have greatly increased the difficulties of such a journey. A sense of rest and peace must, almost unconsciously, have crept over the travellers when at last they reached the rich fields that surrounded the ancient ' House of Bread,' and, passing through the valley which, like an amphitheatre, sweeps up to the twain heights along which Bethlehem stretches (2,704 feet above the sea), ascended through the terraced vineyards and gardens. Winter though it was, the green and silvery foliage of the olive might, even at that season, mingle with the pale pink of the almond — nature's ' early waker ' 2 — and with the darker colouring of the opening peach-buds. The chaste beauty and sweet quiet of the place would recall memories of Boaz, of Jesse, and of David. All the more would such thoughts suggest themselves, from the contrast between the past and the present. For, as the travellers reached the heights of Bethlehem, and, indeed, long before, the most prominent object in view must have been the great castle which Herod had built, and called after his own name. Perched on the highest hill south-east of Bethlehem, it was at the same time 'J^'it^' ma8'nmcent palace, strongest fortress, and almost courtier-city.a xv. 9. i ; ' With a sense of relief the travellers would turn from this to 8 ; 21.' io' mark the undulating outlines of the highland wilderness of Judsea, till the horizon was bounded by the mountain-ridges of Tekoa. Through the break of the hills eastward the heavy molten surface of the Sea of Judgment would appear in view ; westward wound the road to Hebron ; behind them lay the valleys and hills which separated Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and concealed the Holy City. But for the present such thoughts would give way to tbe pressing necessity of finding shelter and rest. The little town of Bethlehem was crowded with those who had come from all the outlying district to register their names. Even if the strangers from far-off Galilee had been personally acquainted with any one in Bethlehem who could have shown them hospitality, they would have found every 1 Comp. the account of the roads, inns, * The almond is called in Hebrew &c. in the ' Ilistory of the Jewish Nation,' ip&, 'the waker,' from the word 'to pp. 275 ; and the chapter on ' Travelling be awake.' It is quite possible, that many in Palestine, m 'Sketches of Jewish of the earliest spring flowers already Social Life in the Days of Christ.' made the landscape bright. THE NATIVITY. 185 house fully occupied. The very inn was filled, and the only available CHAP. space was, where ordinarily the cattle were stabled.1 Bearing in mind VI the simple habits of the East, this scarcely implies, what it would in the West ; and perhaps the seclusion and privacy from the noisy, chattering crowd, which thronged the khan, would be all the more welcome. Scanty as these particulars are, even thus much is gathered rather by inference than from the narrative itself. Thus early in this history does the absence of details, which painfully increases as we proceed, remind us, that the Gospels were not intended to furnish a biography of Jesus, nor even the materials for it ; but had only this twofold object : that those who read them 'might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' and that believing they ' might have life through His Name.' a The Christian » st. John heart and imagination, indeed, long to be able to localise the scene of comp. ' . . . IT • . n -, i _. st- Luke L * such surpassing importance, and linger with fond reverence over that Cave, which is now covered by ' the Church of the Nativity.' It may be — nay, it seems likely — that this, to which the most venerable tradition points, was the sacred spot of the world's greatest event.2 But certainty we have not. It is better, that it should be so. As to all that passed in the seclusion of that ' stable ' — the circumstances of ' the Nativity,' even its exact time after the arrival of Mary (brief as it must have been) — the Gospel-narrative is silent. This only is told, that then and there the Virgin-Mother ' brought forth her first born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger.' Beyond this announcement of the bare fact, Holy Scripture, with indescribable appropriateness and delicacy, draws a veil over that most sacred mystery. Two impressions only are left on the mind: that of utmost earthly humility, in the surrounding circum- 1 Dr. Geikie indeed 'feels sure' that same term oecurs in Aramaic form, in Eab- the Kardtopa was Hot an inn, but a binio wlitiD^ ^ D,t,Q8 or ^ =t,L guest-chamber, because the word is used ^ " 'w" •'?* ' , when he renders it by the said by Jethro to Moses (Ex. iv. 18), on neuter of the adjective. It is frequently which he prospered ; the latter by David used, in the LXX. for ni. IE"- 200 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II « Ber. R. 71, ed. Warsh. p. 131 b, end; 99, p. 179 a, lines 13 and 12 from bottom terrible end, when the veil of externalism which had so long covered the hearts of Israel's leaders would be rent, and the deep evil of their thoughts 1 laid bare. Such, as regarded Israel, was the history of Jesus, from His Baptism to the Cross ; and such is still the history of Jesus, as ever present to the heart of the believing, loving Church. Nor was Simeon's the only hymn of praise on that day. A special interest attaches to her who, coming that very moment, responded in praise to God 2 for the pledge she saw of the near redemption. A kind of mystery seems to invest this Anna (Channah). A widow, whose early desolateness had been followed by a long life of solitary mourning ; one of those in whose home the tribal genea logy had been preserved.3 We infer from this, and from the fact that it was that of a tribe which had not returned to Palestine, that hers was a family of some distinction. Curiously enough, the tribe of Asher alone is celebrated in tradition for the beauty of its women, and their fitness to be wedded to High-Priest or King.a But Anna had better claim to distinction than family-descent, or long, faithful memory of brief home-joys. These many years she had spent in the Sanctuary,4 and spent in fasting and prayer — yet not of that self-righteous, self-satisfied kind which was of the essence of popular religion. Nor, as to the Pharisees around, was it the Synagogue which was her constant and loved resort ; but the Temple, with its symbolic and unspoken worship, which Rabbinic self-asser tion and rationalism were rapidly superseding, and for whose services, indeed, Rabbinism could find no real basis. Nor yet were ' fasting and prayer ' to her the all-in-all of religion, sufficient in themselves ; sufficient also before God. Deepest in her soul was longing wait ing for the ' redemption ' promised, and now surely nigh. To her widowed heart the great hope of Israel appeared not so much, as to Simeon, in the light of ' consolation,' as rather in that of ' redemp tion.' The seemingly hopeless exile of her own tribe, the political state of Judasa, the condition — social, moral, and religious — of her own Jerusalem : all kindled in her, as in those who were like-minded deep, earnest longing for the time of promised 'redemption.' No 1 $taKoyiafi6s, generally used in an evil sense. 2 The verb kv9op.o\oyfiiT9ai may mean responsive praise, or simply praise (ni in). which in this case, however, would equally be ' in response ' to that of Si meon, whether responsive in form or not. 3 The whole subject of 'genealogies' is briefly, but well treated by Hamburger, Beal-Encykl., section ii. pp. 291 &c. It is a pity, that Hamburger so often treats his subjects from a Judseo-apologetic standpoint. 4 It is scarcely necessary to discuss the curious suggestion, that Anna ac tually lived in the Temple. No one, least of all a woman, permanently re sided in the Temple, though the High- Priest had chambers there. ANNA. 201 place so suited to such an one as the Temple, with its services — the CHAP. only thing free, pure, undefiled, and pointing forward and upward ; vn no occupation so befitting as ' fasting and prayer.' And, blessed be God, there were others, perhaps many such, in Jerusalem. Though Rabbinic tradition ignored them, they were the salt which preserved the mass from festering corruption. To her as the representative, the example, friend, and adviser of such, was it granted as prophetess to recognise Him, Whose Advent had been the burden of Simeon's praise. And, day by day, to those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem, would she speak of Him Whom her eyes had seen, though it must be in whispers and with bated breath. For they were in the city of Herod, and the stronghold of Pharisaism. 202 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. CHAPTER VIII. THE VISIT AND HOMAGE OF THE MAGI, AND THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. (St. Matt. ii. 1-18.) BOOK With the Presentation of the Infant Saviour in the Temple, and 11 His acknowledgment — not indeed by the leaders of Israel, but, charac teristically, by the representatives of those earnest men and women who looked for His Advent — the Prologue, if such it may be called, to the third Gospel closes. From whatever source its information was derived — perhaps, as has been suggested, its earlier portion from the Virgin-Mother, the later from Anna ; or else both alike from her, who with loving reverence and wonderment treasured it all in her heart — its marvellous details could not have been told with greater sim plicity, nor yet with more exquisitely delicate grace.1 On the other hand, the Prologue to the first Gospel, while omitting these, records other incidents of the infancy of the Saviour. The plan of these narratives, or the sources whence they may originally have been de rived, may account for the omissions in either case. At first sight it may seem strange, that the cosmopolitan Gospel by St. Luke should have described what took place in the Temple, and the homage of the Jews, while the Gospel by St. Matthew, which was primarily intended for Hebrews, records only the homage of the Gentiles, and the circumstances which led to the flight into Egypt. But of such seeming contrasts there are not a few in the Gospel-history — discords, which soon resolve themselves into glorious harmony. The story of the homage to the Infant Saviour by the Magi is told by St. Matthew, in language of which the brevity constitutes the 1 It is scarcely necessary to point out, have done so, and partly because the only how evidential this is of the truthfulness object served by repeating, what must so of the Gospel-narrative. In this respect deeply shock the Christian mind, would also the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, be to point the contrast between the with their gross and often repulsive le- canonical and the Apocryphal Gospels. gendary adornments, form a striking But this can, I think, be as well done by contrast. I have purposely abstained a single sentence, as by pages of quota- from reproducing any of these narra- tions. fives, partly because previous writers THE HOME OF THE MAGI. 203 CHAP. VIII So also in Acts viii. 9 ; chief difficulty. Even their designation is not free from ambiguity. The term Magi is used in the LXX., by Philo, Josephus, and by profane writers, alike in an evil and, so to speak, in a good sense • — in the former case as implying the practice of magical arts ; * in the latter, as referring to those Eastern (specially Chaldee) priest-sages, xiii. 6,8 whose researches, in great measure as yet mysterious and unknown to us, seem to have embraced much deep knowledge, though not untinged with superstition. It is to these latter, that the Magi spoken of by St. Matthew must have belonged. Their number — to which, however, no importance attaches — cannot be ascertained.2 Various suggestions have been made as to the country of ' the East,' whence they came. At the period in question the sacerdotal caste of the Medes and Persians was dispersed over various parts of the East,3 and the presence in those lands of a large Jewish diaspora, through which they might, and probably would, gain knowledge of the great hope of Israel,4 is sufficiently attested by Jewish history. The oldest opinion traces the Magi — though partially on insufficient grounds5 — to Arabia. And there is this in favour of it, that not only the closest intercourse existed between Palestine and Arabia, but that from about 120 B.C. to the sixth century of our era, the kings of Yemen professed the Jewish faith.6 For if, on the one hand, it seems unlikely, that Eastern Magi would spontaneously connect a celestial phenomenon with the birth of a Jewish king, 1 The evidence on this point is fur nished by J. G. MiiUer in Herzog's Beal- Enc, vol. viii. p. 682. The whole subject of the visit of the Magi is treated with the greatest ability and learning (as against Strauss) by Dr. Mill ('On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,' part ii. pp. 275 &c). 2 They are variously stated as twelve (Aug. Chrysost.) and three, the latter on account of the number of the gifts. Other legends on the subject need not be repeated. « Mill, u. s., p. 303. 4 There is no historical evidence that at the time of Christ there was among the nations any widespread expectancy of the Advent of a Messiah in Palestine. Where the knowledge of such a hope existed, it must have been entirely de rived from Jewish sources. The allusions to it by Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) and Sue tonius (Vesp. 4) are evidently derived from Josephus, and admittedly refer to the Flavian dynasty, and to a period Seventy years or more after the Advent of Christ. ' The splendid vaticination in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil,' which Arch deacon Farrar regards as among the ' un conscious prophecies of heathendom,' is confessedly derived from the Cumsean Sibyl, and based on the Sibylline Oracles, book iii. lines 784-794 (ed. Friedlieb, p. 86 ; see Einl. p.xxxix.). Almost the whole of book iii., inclusive of these verses, is of Jewish authorship, and dates probably from about 160 B.C. Archdeacon Farrar holds that, besides the above references, ' there is ample proof, both in Jewish and Pagan writings, that a guilty and weary world was dimly expecting the advent of its Deliverer.' But he offers no evidence of it, either from Jewish or Pagan writings. 5 Comp. Mill, u. s., p. 308, note 66. The grounds adduced by some are such references as to Is. viii. 4 ; Ps. Ixxii. 10, &c. ; and the character of the gifts. 8 Comp. the account of this Jewish monarchy in the ' History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 67-71 ; also Remond's Vers. e. Gesch. d. Ausbreit. d. Judenth. pp. 81 &c. ; and Jost, Gesch. d. Isr. vol. v. pp. 236 &c. 204 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK evidence will, on the other hand, be presented to connect the mean- II ing attached to the appearance of ' the star ' at that particular time ' with Jewish expectancy of the Messiah. But we are anticipating. Shortly after the Presentation of the Infant Saviour in the Temple, certain Magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem with strange tidings. They had seen at its ' rising ' 1 a sidereal appear ance,8 which they regarded as betokening the birth of the Messiah- King of the Jews, in the sense which at the time attached to that designation. Accordingly, they had come to Jerusalem to pay homage3 to Him, probably not because they imagined He must be born in the Jewish capital,4 but because they would naturally expect there to obtain authentic information, ' where ' He might be found. In their simplicity of heart, the Magi addressed themselves in the first place to the official head of the nation. The rumour of such an inquiry, and by such persons, would rapidly spread throughout the city. But it produced on King Herod, and in the capital, a far dif ferent impression from the feeling of the Magi. Unscrupulously cruel as Herod had always proved, even the slightest suspicion of danger to his rule — the bare possibility of the Advent of One, Who had such claims upon the allegiance of Israel, and Who, if acknow ledged, would evoke the most intense movement on their part — must have struck terror to his heart. Not that he would believe the tidings, though a dread of their possibility might creep over a nature such as Herod's ; but the bare thought of a Pretender, with such claims, would fill him with suspicion, apprehension, and impotent rage. Nor is it difficult to understand, that the whole city should, although on different* grounds, have shared the 'trouble' of the king. It was certainly not, as some have suggested, from appre hension of ' the woes ' which, according to popular notions, were to accompany the Advent of Messiah. Throughout the history of Christ the absence of such ' woes ' was never made a ground of objection to 1 This is the correct rendering, and most incongruous, but as an equivalent not, as in A.V., 'in the East,' the latter of the Hebrew ninnETIi as in Gen. xix. beihg expressed by the plural of amroKii, 1. So often in the LXX. and by profane in v. 1, while in vv. 2 and 9 the word is writers (comp. Schleuxner, a. s., t. ii. used in the singular. pp. 749, 750, and Vorstius, De Hebraismis 2 Sclileusner has abundantly proved N.T. pp. 637-641). that the word v v Deutsch's ' Literary Eemains,' p. 3.27). means not only a ' thousand ' but also a 2 The general principle, that St. Mat- Part of a tribe (Is. lx. 22), a clan, or thew rendered Mic. v. 2 targwmieally, Beth Abh (Judg. vi. 15); comp. also would, it seems, cover all the differences Numb. i. 16; x. 4, 36 ; Deut. xxxiii. 17; between his quotation and the Hebrew Josh. xxii. 21, 30 ; 1 Sam. x. 19 ; xxiii. 23 ; text. But it may be worth while, in this in which case the personification of these instance at least, to examine the differ- ' thousands ' ( = our ' hundreds ') by their ences in detail. Two of them are trivial, chieftains or ' princes ' would be a very viz,, ' Bethlehem, land of Juda,' instead apt Targumic rendering. Two other of of ' Ephratah ; ' ' princes ' instead of tne divergences are more important, viz., 'thousands,' though St. Matthew may, (1) 'Art not the least,' instead of 'though possibly, have pointed ^ ('princes '), *£ lotel XrZe^ZelTt ii.6 THE STAR GUIDING TO BETHLEHEM. 207 The further conduct of Herod was in keeping with his plans. CHAP. He sent for the Magi — for various reasons, secretly. After ascertain- VIII. ing the precise time, when they had first observed the ' star,' he ' directed them to Bethlehem, with the request to inform him when they had found the Child ; on pretence, that he was equally desirous with them to pay Him homage. As they left Jerusalem l for the goal of their pilgrimage, to their surprise and joy, the ' star,' which had attracted their attention at its ' rising,' 2 and which, as seems implied in the narrative, they had not seen of late, once more appeared on the horizon, and seemed to move before them, till ' it stood over where the young child was' — that is, of course, over Bethlehem, not over any special house in it. Whether at a turn of the road, close to Bethlehem, they lost sight of it, or they no longer heeded its position, since it had seemed to go before them to the goal that had been pointed out — for, surely, they needed not the star to guide them to Bethlehem — or whether the celestial phenomenon now disappeared, is neither stated in the Gospel-narrative, nor is, in deed, of any importance. Sufficient for them, and for us : they had been authoritatively directed to Bethlehem ; as they had set out for it, the sidereal phenomenon had once more appeared ; and it had seemed to go before them, till it actually stood over Bethlehem. And, since in ancient times such extraordinary ' guidance ' by a ' star ' was matter of belief and expectancy,3 the Magi would, from their stand point, regard it as the fullest confirmation that they had been rightly directed to Bethlehem — and ' they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.' It could not be difficult to learn in Bethlehem, where the Infant, around Whose Birth marvels had gathered, might be found. It appears that the temporary shelter of the ' stable ' had been ex changed by the Holy Family for the more permanent abode of a ' house ; ' a and there the Magi found the Infant-Saviour with His • T. u Mother. With exquisite tact and reverence the narrative attempts the Syriac interrogatively (' art thou serious divergence in the latter part of little 1 '), which suggests the rendering of the verse, it may be best here simply to St. Matthew ; and in the Arabic just as give for comparison the rendering of the by St. Matthew (vide Pocock, Porta Mosis, passage in the Targum Jonathan : ' Out Notse, c. ii. ; but Pocock does not give of thee shall come forth before Me the Targum accurately). Credner in- Messiah to exercise rule over Israel.' geniously suggested, that the rendering ' Not necessarily by night, as most of St. Matthew may have been caused writers suppose. by a Targumic rendering of the Hebrew '' So correctly, and not ' in the East,' "I lyV by T_7IO ; but he does not seem as in A.V. to have noticed, that this is the actual , * *™* ?f *is is abundantly "hed rendering in the Targum Jon. on the ^Wetstein, Nov. Tes- 1. 1. pp. 247 and passage. As for the second and more 'i*B' 208 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK not the faintest description of the scene. It is as if the sacred writer H had fully entered into the spirit of St. Paul, ' Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no ; 2 cor. v. more.' a And thus it should ever be. It is the great fact of the manifestation of Christ — not its outward surroundings, however pre cious or touching they might be in connection with any ordinary earthly being — to which our gaze must be directed. The externals may, indeed, attract our sensuous nature ; but they detract from the unmatched glory of the great supersensuous Beality.1 Around the Person of the God-Man, in the hour when the homage of the heathen world was first offered Him, we need not, and want not, the drapery of outward circumstances. That scene is best realized, not by de scription, but by silently joining in the silent homage and the silent offerings of ' the wise men from the East.' Before proceeding further, we must ask ourselves two questions : What relationship does this narrative bear to Jewish expectancy ? and, Is there any astronomical confirmation of this account ? Besides their intrinsic interest, the answer to the first question will deter mine, whether any legendary basis could be assigned to the narrative ; while on the second will depend, whether the account can be truth fully charged with an accommodation on the part of God to the superstitions and errors of astrology. For, if the whole was extra- natural, and the sidereal appearance specially produced in order to meet the astrological views of the Magi, it would not be a sufficient answer to the difficulty, ' that great catastrophes and unusual phe nomena in nature have synchronised in a remarkable manner with great events in human history.' 2 On the other hand, if the sidereal appearance was not of supernatural origin, and would equally have taken place whether or not there had been Magi to direct to Beth lehem, the difficulty is not only entirely removed, but the narrative affords another instance, alike of the condescension of God to the lower standpoint of the Magi, and of His wisdom and goodness in the combination of circumstances. As regards the question of Jewish expectancy, sufficient has beer> said in the preceding pages, to show that Eabbinism looked for a very different kind and manner of the world's homage to the Messiah 1 In this seems to lie the strongest spiritual, nor yet thus that the deepest condemnation of Romish and Bomanising and holiest impressions are made. True tendencies, that they ever seek to present religion is ever objectivistic, sensuous sub- — or, perhaps, rather obtrude — the ex- jectivistio, ternal circumstances. It is not thus that 2 Archdeacon Farrar. the Gospel most fully presents to us the clauses JEWISH ASTROLOGY. 209 than that of a few Magi, guided by a star to His Infant-Home. CHAP. Indeed, so far from serving as historical basis for the origin of such a VIII ' legend,' a more gross caricature of Jewish Messianic anticipation could scarcely be imagined. Similarly futile would it be to seek a background for this narrative in Balaam's prediction," since it is in- *^"™*- credible that any one could have understood it as referring to a brief sidereal apparition to a few Magi, in order to bring them to look for the Messiah.1 Nor can it be represented as intended to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah,b 2 that ' they shall bring gold and incense, and b ix. c, last they shall show forth the praises of the Lord.' For, supposing this figurative language to have been grossly liberalised,3 what would be come of the other part of that prophecy,4 which must, of course, have been treated in the same manner ; not to speak of the fact, that the whole evidently refers not to the Messiah (least of all in His In fancy), but to Jerusalem in her latter-day glory. Thus, we fail to perceive any historical basis for a legendary origin of St. Matthew's narrative, either in the Old Testament or, still less, in Jewish tradi tion. And we are warranted in asking : If the account be not true, what rational explanation can be given of its origin, since its invention would never have occurred to any contemporary Jew ? But this is not all. There seems, indeed, no logical connection between this astrological interpretation of the Magi, and any supposed practice of astrology among the Jews. Yet, strange to say, writers have largely insisted on this.5 The charge is, to say the least, grossly exaggerated. That Jewish — as other Eastern — impostors pretended to astrological knowledge, and that such investigations may have been secretly carried on by certain Jewish students, is readily admitted. 1 Strauss (Leben Jesu, i. pp. 224-249) * The ' multitude of camels and drome- finds a legendary basis for the Evangelic dairies,' the ' flocks of Kedar and the account in Numb. xxiv. 1 7, and also rams of Nebaioth ' (v. 7), and ' the isles,' appeals to the legendary stories of pro- and 'the ships of Tarshish' (v. 9). fane writers about stars appearing at the 5 The subject of Jewish astrology is birth of great men. well treated by Dr. Hamburger, both in 2 Keim (Jesu von Nazara, i. 2, p. 377) the first and second volumes of his Real- drops the appeal to legends of profane Encykl. The ablest summary, though writers, ascribes only a secondary influ- brief, is that in Dr. Gideon Brecher's ence to Numb. xxiv. 17, and lays the book, ' Das Transcendentale im Talmud.' main stress of ' the legend ' on Is. lx. — Gfrorer is, as usually, one-sided, and not with what success the reader may judge. always trustworthy in his translations. A 8 Can it be imagined that any person curious brochure by Rabbi Thein (Der would invent such a 'legend' on the Talmud, od. das Prinzip d. planet. Einfl.) strength of Is. lx. 6 ? On the other is one of the boldest attempts at special hand, if the event really took place, it pleading, to the ignoration of palpable is easy to understand how Christian facts on the other side. Hausrath 's dicta symbolism would — though uncritically — on this subject are, as on many others, have seen an adumbration of it in that assertions unsupported by historical evi- prophecy. dence. VOL. I. P 210 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN, BOOK II » Deb. B. 8 * Comp. Shabb. 75 a ; 156d c See for ex. Jos. War vi. 5. 3 " Shabb. 156 a a Shabb. u. a. Moed K. 16 a s Shabb. 145 b ; 146 a ; comp. Yeb. 103 b h Moed K. 28 a ' Comp. Baba K. 1 b ; Shabb 1216 » Ned. 39 b But the language of disapproval in which these pursuits are referred to — such as that knowledge of the Law is not found with astrologers " — and the emphatic statement, that he who learned even one thing from a Mage deserved death, show what views were authoritatively held.b x Of course, the Jews (or many of them), like most ancients, believed in the influence of the planets upon the destiny of man.0 But it was a principle strongly expressed, and frequently illustrated in the Tal mud, that such planetary influence did not extend to Israel.3 It must be admitted, that this was not always consistently carried out ; and there were Babbis who computed a man's future from the constellation (the Mazzal), either of the day, or the hour, under which he was born.c It was supposed, that some persons had a star of their own,f<-and the (representative) stars of all proselytes were said to have been present at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, they also, like Israel, had lost the defilement of the serpent (sin).g One Babbi even had it, that success, wisdom, the duration of life, and a posterity, depended upon the con stellation.11 Such views were carried out till they merged in a kind of fatalism,1 or else in the idea of a ' natal affinity,' by which persons born under the same constellation were thought to stand in sympathetic rapport* The farther statement, that conjunctions of the planets2 1 I cannot, however, see that Buxtorf charges so many Rabbis with giving themselves to astrology as Dr. Geikie imputes to him — nor how Humboldt can be quoted as corroborating the Chinese record of the appearance of a new star in 760 (see the passage in the Cosmosf Engl, transl. vol. i. pp. 92, 93). 2 Jewish astronomy distinguishes the seven planets (called ' wandering stars ') ; the twelve signs of the Zodiac, Mazza- loth (Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capri- cornus, Aquarius, Pisces) — arranged by astrologers into four trigons : that of fire (1, 5, 9) ; of earth (2, 6, 10) ; of air (3, 7, 11) ; and of water (4, 8, 12) ; and tbe stars. The Kabbalistic book Raziel (dating from the eleventh century) arranges them into three quadrons. The comets, which are called arrows or star- rods, proved a great difficulty to students. The planets (in their order) were : Shab- bathai (the Sabbatic, Saturn) ; Tsedeq (righteousness, Jupiter) ; Maadim (the red, blood-coloured, Mars) ; Chammah (the Sun); Nogah (splendour, Venus); Cokliabh (the star, Mercury) ; Lebhanah (the Moon). Kabbalistic works depict our system as a circle, the lower arc consisting of Oceanos, and the upper filled by the sphere of the earth ; next comes that of the surrounding atmosphere ; then suc cessively the seven semicircles of the planets, each fitting on the other —to use the Kabbalistic illustration— like the suc cessive layers in an onion (see Sepher Raziel, ed. Lemb. 1873, pp. 9 b, 10 a). Day and night were divided each into twelve hours (from 6 a.m. to 6 P.M., and from 6 P.M. to 6 a.m.). Each hour was under the influence of successive planets : thus, Sunday, 7 A.M., the Sun; 8 A.M., Venus ; 9 A.M., Mercury ; 10 a.m., Moon ; 11 A.M., Saturn; 12 A.M., Jupiter, and so on Similarly, we have for Monday, 7 A.M., the Moon &c. ; for Tuesday, 7 A.M., Mars; for Wednesday, 7 A.M., Mercury; for Thursday, 7 A.M., Jupiter ; tor Friday, 7 A.M., Venus ; and for Saturday, 7 A.M., Saturn. Most important were the Tequ- plwth, in which the Sun entered respec tively Aries (Tek. Nisan, spring-equinox, ' harvest '), Cancer (Tek. Tammuz, summer solstice, 'warmth'), Libra (Tek. Tishri, autumn-equinox, seed-time), Capricornus (Tek. Tebheth, winter-solstice, ' cold '). Comp. Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Gen. viii. 22 From one Tequphah to the other were 91 days 7| hours. By a beautiful figure the » Erub. 56 a THE EXPECTATION OF A 'STAR.* '211 affected the products of the earth," is scarcely astrological ; nor per- chap. haps this, that an eclipse of the sun betokened evil to the nations, an vm eclipse of the moon to Israel, because the former calculated time by the sun, the latter by the moon. But there is one illustrative Jewish statement which, though not astrological, is of the greatest importance, although it seems to have been hitherto overlooked. Since the appearance of Miinter's well- known tractate on the Star of the Magi,1 writers have endeavoured to show, that Jewish expectancy of a Messiah was connected with a peculiar sidereal conjunction, such as that which occurred two years before the birth of our Lord,b and this on the ground of a quotation " in 747 from the well-known Jewish commentator Abarbanel (or rather Abra- 7 'me.'' baneT)." In his Commentary on Daniel that Babbi laid it down, that "Bom 1437, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces be tokened not only the most important events, but referred especially to Israel (for which he gives five mystic reasons). He further argues that, as that conjunction had taken place three years before the birth of Moses, which heralded the first deliverance of Israel, so it would also precede the birth of the Messiah, and the final deliverance of Israel. But the argument fails, not only because Abarbanel's calcu lations are inconclusive and even erroneous,2 but because it is mani festly unfair to infer the state of Jewish belief at the time of Christ from a haphazard astrological conceit of a Babbi of the fifteenth cen tury. There is, however, testimony which seems to us not only reliable, but embodies most ancient Jewish tradition. It is contained in one of the smaller Midrashim, of which a collection has lately been pub lished.3 On account of its importance, one quotation at least from it should be made in full. The so-called Messiah-Haggadah (Aggadoth Mashiach) opens as follows : 'A star shall come out of Jacob. There is a Boraita in the name of the Babbis : The heptad in which the Son of David cometh — in the first year, there will not be sufficient nourish- suhdust is called 'filings of the day ' (as the untrustworthiness of such a testi- the word £io-fia) — that which falls off mony, it is necessary to study the history from the sunwheel as it turns (Toma of the astronomical and astrological pur- 20 b). suits of the Jews during that period, 1 ' Der Stern der Weisen,' Copenhagen, of which a masterly summary is given 1827. The tractate, though so frequently in Steinsahneider's History Of Jewish quoted, seems scarcely to have been suffi- Literature (Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. vol. ciently studied, most writers having xxvii.). Comp also Saehs, Relig. Poes. d. apparently rather read the references to Juden in Spanien, pp. 230 &c. it in ldeler's Handb. d. Math. u. techn. 3 By Dr. Jellinek, in a work in six Chronol. Miinters work contains much parts, entitled ' Beth ha-Midrash,' Leipz. that is interesting and important. and Vienna, 1853-1 878. 2 To form an adequate conception of p 2 212 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. • p. BOOK ment ; in the second year the arrows of famine are launched ; in the 11 third, a great famine ; in the fourth, neither famine nor plenty; in the fifth, great abundance, and the Star shall shine forth from the East, and this is the Star of the Messiah. And it will shine from the East for fifteen days, and if it be prolonged, it will be for the good of Israel ; in the sixth, sayings (voices), and announcements (hearings) ; in the seventh, wars, and at the close of the seventh the Messiah is to be expected.' A similar statement occurs at the close of a collection of three Midrashim- - respectively entitled, ' The Book of Elijah,' ' Chap ters about the Messiah,' and ' The Mysteries of E. Simon, the son of » Jellinek, Jochai ' a — where we read that a Star in the East was to appear two Midrash, years before the birth of the Messiah. The statement is almost equally remarkable, whether it represents a tradition previous to the birth of Jesus, or originated after that event. But two years before the birth of Christ, which, as we have calculated, took place in December 749 a.u.C, or 5 before the Christian era, brings us to the year 747 a.u.C, or 7 before Christ, in which such a Star should appear in the East.1 Did such a Star, then, really appear in the East seven years before the Christian era ? Astronomically speaking, and without any refer ence to controversy, there can be no doubt that the most remarkable conjunction of planets — that of Jupiter and Saturn in the constella tion Pisces, which occurs only once in 800 years — did take place no less than three times in the year 747 A.u.C, or two years before the birth of Christ (in May, October, and December). This conjunction is admitted by all astronomers. It was not only extraordinary, but presented the most brilliant spectacle in the night-sky, such as could not but attract the attention of all who watched the sidereal heavens but especially of those who busied themselves with astrology. In the year following, that is, in 748 A.u.C, another planet, Mars, joined this conjunction. The merit of first discovering these facts— of which it is unnecessary here to present the literary history 2— belongs to the 1 It would, of course, be possible to would have been emphasised instead of argue, that the Evangelic account arose being, as now, rather matter of inference from this Jewish tradition about the » The chief writers on the subiect have appearance of a star two years before the been: Miinter (\i.s.),Ideler(u s . and Wie birth of the Messiah. But it has been «e_e?-(Chronol.Synopsed 4 Evansr ri843l" already shown, that the hypothesis of a and again in Herzog's Real-Enc vol xxi Jewish legendary origin is utterly un- p. 544, and finally in his Beitr z Wiird A tenable. Besides, if St. Matthew ii. had Ev. 1869). In our own countrv write™ been derived from this tradition, the have, since the appearance of Professor narrative would have been quite dif- Pritchard's art. (' Star of the "Wise Men '1 ferently shaped, and more especially the in Dr. Smith's Bible Diet vol iii g-ene two years' interval between the rising of rally given up the astronomical' argument the star and the Advent of the Messiah without, however, clearly indicating CONJUNCTION OF PLANETS AT THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 213 great Kepler,' who, accordingly, placed the Nativity of Christ in the CHAP. year 748 A.U.C This date, however, is not only well nigh impos- VIII sible ; but it has also been shown that such a conjunction would, for „^"gJelta various reasons, not answer the requirements of the Evangelical narra- £°™ *Jj06 tive, so far as the guidance to Bethlehem is concerned. But it does fully account forthe attention of the Magi being aroused, and — even if they had not possessed knowledge of the Jewish expectancy above described — for their making inquiry of all around, and certainly, among others, of the Jews. Here we leave the domain of the certain, and enter upon that of the probable. Kepler, who was led to the discovery by observing a similar conjunction in 1603-4, also noticed, that when the three planets came into conjunction, a new, extraordinarily bril liant, and peculiarly coloured evanescent star was visible between Ju piter and Saturn, and he suggested that a similar star had appeared under the same circumstances in the conjunction preceding the Nati vity. Of this, of course, there is not, and cannot be, absolute certainty. But, if so, this would be ' the star ' of the Magi, ' in its rising.' There is yet another remarkable statement which, however, must also be assigned only to the domain of the probable. In the astronomical tables of the Chinese — to whose general trustworthiness so high an authority as Humboldt bears testimony b — the appearance of an evanescent star * cosmos. was noted. Pingre and others have designated it as a comet, and cal culated its first appearance in February 750 A.u.C, which is just the time when the Magi would, in all probability, leave Jerusalem for Bethlehem, since this must have preceded the death of Herod, which took place in March 750. Moreover, it has been astronomically ascertained, that such a sidereal apparition would be visible to those who left Jerusalem, and that it would point — almost seem to go before — in the direction of, and stand over, Bethlehem.1 Such, impartially stated, are the facts of the case — and here the subject must, in the present state of our information, be left.2 Only two things are recorded of this visit of the Magi to Beth lehem : their humblest Eastern homage, and their offerings.3 Viewed whether they regard the star as a mira- tion of the narrative in St. Matthew. culous guidance. I do not, of course, ' By the astronomer, Dr. Goldschmidt. presume to enter on an astronomical dis- (See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 72.) cussion with Professor Pritchard ; but as 2 A somewhat different view is pre- his reasoning proceeds on the idea that sented in the laborious and learned the planetary conjunction of 747 A.u.C, is edition of the New Testament by Mr. regarded as ' the Star of the Magi,' his Brown McClellan (vol. i. pp. 400-402). arguments do not apply either to the 8 Our A.V. curiously translates in v. view presented in the text, nor even to 11, 'treasures,' instead of 'treasury-cases.' that of Wieseler. Besides, I must guard The expression is exactly the same as in myself against accepting his interpreta- Deut. xxviii. 12, for which the LXX. use FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. as gifts, the incense and the myrrh would, indeed, have been strangely inappropriate. But their offerings were evidently intended as speci mens of the products of their country, and their presentation was, even as in our own days, expressive of the homage of their country to the new-found King. In this sense, then, the Magi may truly be regarded as the representatives of the Gentile world ; their homage as the first and typical acknowledgment of Christ by those who hitherto had been 'far off; ' and their offerings as symbolic of the world's tribute. This deeper significance the ancient Church has rightly apprehended, though, perhaps, mistaking its grounds. Its symbolism, twining, like the convolvulus, around the Divine Plant, has traced in the gold the emblem of His Boyalty ; in the myrrh, of His Humanity, and that in the fullest evidence of it, in His burying; and in the incense, that of His Divinity.1 As always in the history of Christ, so here also, glory and suffer ing appear in juxtaposition. It could not be, that these Magi should become the innocent instruments of Herod's murderous designs ; nor yet that the Infant-Saviour should fall a victim to the tyrant. Warned of God in a dream, the ' wise men ' returned ' into their own country another way ; ' and, warned by the Angel of the Lord in a dream, the Holy Family sought temporary shelter in Egypt. Baffled in the hope of attaining his object through the Magi, the reckless tyrant sought to secure it by an indiscriminate slaughter of all the children in Bethlehem and its immediate neighbourhood, from two years and under. True, considering the population of Bethlehem, their number could only have been small — probably twenty at most.2 But the deed was none the less atrocious ; and these infants may justly be regarded as the ' protomartyrs,' the first witnesses, of Christ, ' the blossom of martyrdom ' (' flores martyrum,' as Prudentius calls them). The slaughter was entirely in accordance with the character and former measures of Herod.3 Nor do we wonder, that it remained unrecorded by Josephus, since on other occasions also he has omitted the same words as the Evangelist. The 2 So Archdeacon Farrar rightly corn- expression is also used in this sense in putes it. the Apocr. and by profane writers. Comp. a An illustrative instance of the ruth- Wetstein and Meyer ad locum. Jewish less destruction of whole families on tradition also expresses the expectancy suspicion that his crown was in danger, that the nations of the world would offer occurs in Ant. xv. 8. 4. But the sugges- gifts unto the Messiah. (Comp. Pes. tion that Bagoas had suffered at the 118 b ; Ber. R. 78.) hands of Herod for Messianic predictions 1 So not only in ancient hymns (by is entirely an invention of Keim. (Schen- Sedulius, Juvencns, and Claudian), but kel, Bibel Lex., vol. iii. p. 37. Oomp. Ant. by the Fathers and later writers. (Comp. xvii. 2. 4.) Sepp, Leben Jesu, ii. 1, pp. 102, 103.) MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. 215 events which to us seem important.1 The. murder of a few infants in chap. an insignificant village might appear scarpely worth notice in a reign vtn stained by so much bloodshed, Besides, he had, perhaps, a special ' motive for this silence. Josephus always carefully suppresses, so far as possible, all that refers to the Christ 2 — probably not only in accordance with his own religious views, but because mention of a Christ might have been dangerous, certainly would have been in convenient, in a work written by an intense self-seeker, mainly for readers in Bome. Of two passages in his own Old Testament Scriptures the Evan gelist sees a fulfilment in these events. The flight into Egypt is to him the fulfilment of this expression by Hosea, ' Out of Egypt have I called My Son.' a In the murder of ' the Innocents,' he sees the " Hos- *'• J fulfilment of Bachel's lament* (who died and was buried in Bamah) 3 J5Jer- xxri over her children, the men of Benjamin, when the exiles to Babylon met in Bamah,0 and there was bitter wailing at the prospect of part- ¦ Jer. %\. 1 ing for hopeless captivity, and yet bitterer lament, as they who might have encumbered the onward march were pitilessly slaughtered. Those who have attentively followed the course of Jewish thinking, and marked how the ancient Synagogue, and that rightly, read the Old Testament in its unity, as ever pointing to the Messiah as the fulfilment of Israel's history, will not wonder at, but fully accord with, St. Matthew's retrospective view. The words of Hosea were in the highest sense ' fulfilled ' in the flight to, and return of, the Saviour from Egypt.4 To an inspired writer, nay, to a true Jewish reader of the Old Testament, the question in regard to any prophecy could not be : What did the prophetr— but, What did the prophecy — mean ? And this could only be unfolded in the course of Israel's history. Similarly, those who ever saw in the past the prototype of the future, and recognised in events, not only the principle, but the very features, of that which was to come, could not fail to perceive, in the bitter wail of the mothers of Bethlehem over their slaughtered children, the full realisation of the prophetic description of the scene 1 There are, in Josephus' history of s See the evidence for it summarised Herod, besides omissions, inconsistencies in ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the of narrative, such as about the execution Days of Christ,' p. 60. of Mariamme (Ant. xv. 3. 5-9 &c. ; comp. * In point of fact the ancient Syna- "War i. 22. 3, 4), and of chronology (as gogue did actually apply to the Messiah War i. 18. 2, comp. v. 9. 4 ; Ant. xiv. Ex. iv. 22, on which the words of Hosea 16. 2, comp. xv. 1. 2, and others). are based. See the Midrash on Ps. ii. 7. 2 Comp. an article on Josephus in The quotation is given in full in our Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christian remarks on Ps. ii. 7 in Appendix IX. Biogr. 216 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK enacted in Jeremiah's days. Had not the prophet himself heard, in 11 the lament of the captives to Babylon, the echoes of Bachel's voice in the past ? In neither one nor the other case had the utterances of the prophets (Hosea and Jeremiah) been predictions : they were prophetic. In neither one nor the other case was the ' fulfilment ' literal : it was Scriptural, and that in the truest Old Testament sense. THE DEATH OF HEROD. 217 CHAPTEE IX. THE CHILD-LIFE IH NAZARETH. (St. Matt. ii. 19-23; St. Luke ii. 39, 40.) The stay of the Holy Family in Egypt must have been of brief CHAP. duration. The ciip of Herod's misdeeds, but also of his misery, was IX full. During the whole latter part of his life, the dread of a rival ' to the throne had haunted him, and he had sacrificed thousands, among them those nearest and dearest to him, to lay that ghost.1 And still the tyrant was not at rest. A more terrible scene is not pre sented in history than that of the closing days of Herod. Tormented by nameless fears ; ever and again a prey to vain remorse, when he would frantically call for his passionately-loved, murdered wife Mariamme, and her sons ; even making attempts on his own life ; the delirium of tyranny, the passion for blood, drove him to the verge of madness. The most loathsome disease, such as can scarcely be described, had fastened on his body,2 and his sufferings were at times agonising. By the advice of his physicians, he had himself carried to the baths of Callirhoe (east of the Jordan), trying all remedies with the determination of one who will do hard battle for life. It was in vain. The namelessly horrible distemper, which had seized the old man of seventy, held him fast in its grasp, and, so to speak, played death on the living. He knew it, that his hour was come, and had himself conveyed back to his palace under the palm-trees of Jericho. They had known it also in Jerusalem, and, even before the last stage of his disease, two of the most honoured and loved Eabbis — Judas and Matthias — had headed the wild band, which would sweep away all traces of Herod's idolatrous rule. They began by pulling down the immense golden eagle, which hung over the great gate of the Temple. The two ringleaders, and forty of their followers, 1 And yet Keim speaks of his Hocuher- pp. 197, 198. zigkeitaninatiirlicher Edelsinn! (Leben 2 See the horrible description of his Jesu, i. 1. p. 184.) A much truer estimate living death in Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 5. is that of Schurer, Neutest: Zeitgesch. "218 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK allowed themselves to be taken by Herod's guards. A mock public 11 trial in the theatre at Jericho followed. Herod, carried out on a couch, was both accuser and judge. The zealots, who had made noble answer to the tyrant, were burnt alive ; and the High-Priest, who was suspected of connivance, deposed. After that the end came rapidly. On his return from Callirhoe, feeling his death approaching, the King had summoned the noblest of Israel throughout the land to Jericho, and shut ihem up in the Hippodrome, with orders to, his sister to have them slain immediately upon his death, in the grim hope that the joy of the people at his decease would thus be changed into mourning. Five days before his death one ray of passing joy lighted his couch. Terrible to say, it was caused by a letter from Augustus allowing Herod to execute his son Antipater — the false accuser and real murderer of his half- brothers Alexander and Aristobulus. The death of the wretched prince was hastened by his attempt to bribe the jailer, as the noise in the palace, caused by an attempted suicide of Herod, led him to suppose his father was actually dead. And now the terrible drama was hastening to a close. The fresh access of rage shortened the life which was already running out. Five days more, and the terror of Judsea lay dead. He had reigned thirty-seven years — thirty-four since his conquest of Jerusalem. Soon the rule for which he had so long plotted, striven, and stained himself with untold crimes, passed from his descendants. A century more, and the whole race of Herod had been swept away. We pass by the empty pageant and barbaric splendour of his burying in the Castle of Herodium, close to Bethlehem. The events of the last few weeks formed a lurid back-ground to the murder of ' the Innocents.' As we have reckoned it, the visit of the Magi took place in February 750 A.u.C On the 12th of March the Babbis and their adherents suffered. On the following night (or rather early morning) there was a lunar eclipse ; the execution of Antipater pre ceded the death of his father by five days, and the latter occurred from seven to fourteen days before the Passover, which in 750 took place on the 12th of April.1 1 See the calculation in Wieseler's Syn- statement of Josephus that Herod died opse, pp. 56 and 444. The ' Dissertatio close upon the Passover should have de Herode Magno,' by J. A. van der Chijs sufficed to show the impossibility of that (Leyden, 1855), is very clear and accurate. hypothesis. Indeed, there is scarcely Dr. Geikie adopts the manifest mistake any historical date on which competent of Caspari, that Herod died in January, writers are more agreed than that of 753, and holds that the Holy Family Herod's death. See Sehiirer, Neutest. spent three years in Egypt. The repeated Zejtg., pp. 222, 25?3. ACCESSION OF ARCHELAUS, 219 It need scarcely be said, that Salome (Herod's sister) and her husband were too wise to execute Herod's direction in regard to the noble Jews shut up in the Hippodrome. Their liberation, and the death of Herod, were marked by the leaders of the people as joyous events in the so-called Megillath Taanith, or Boll of Fasts, although the date is not exactly marked.* Henceforth this was to be a Yom * Meg. Taan. Tobh (feast-day), on which mourning was interdicted.1 wanh. ' Herod had three times before changed his testament. By the P' first will Antipater, the successful calumniator of Alexander and Aristobulus, had been appointed his successor, while the latter two were named kings, though we know not of what districts.b After the * •*"• war execution of the two sons of Mariamme, Antipater was named king, and, in case of his death, Herod, the son of Mariamme II. When the treachery of Antipater was proved, Herod made a third will, in which Antipas (the Herod Antipas of the New Testament) was named his successor." But a few days before his death he made vet another •/<». Ant. ' xvii. 6. 1 ; disposition, by which Archelaus, the elder brother of Antipas (both war i. 32. 7 sons of Malthake, a Samaritan), was appointed king ; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Persea; and Philip (the son of Cleopatra, of Jerusa lem a), tetrarch of the territory east of the Jordan.3 These testaments reflected the varying phases of suspicion and family-hatred through which Herod had passed. Although the Emperor seems to have authorised him to appoint his successor,3 Herod wisely made his dis- ? Jm- War position dependent on the approval of Augustus. e But the latter was . Ant. xvu. not by any means to be taken for granted. Archelaus had, indeed, 8- 2 been immediately proclaimed King by the army ; but he prudently declined the title, till it had been confirmed by the Emperor. The night of his father's death, and those that followed, were character istically spsnt by Archelaus in rioting with his friends.' But the r Ant. xvii people of Jerusalem were not easily satisfied. At first liberal pro mises of amnesty and reforms had assuaged the populace.8 But the e Aut, indignation excited by the late murder of the Eabbis soon burst 1 The Megillath Taanith itself, or ' Boll Gratz (Gesch. vol. iii. p. 427) and Deren- of Fasts,' does not mention the death of bourg (pp. 101, 164) have regarded the Herod. But the commentator adds to the 1st of Shebhat as really that of Herod's dates 7th Kislev (Nov.) and 2nd Shebhat death. But this is impossible ; and we (Jan.), both manifestly incorrect, the know enough of the historical inaccuracy notice that Herod had died — on the 2nd of the Rabbis not to attach any serious Shebhat, Jannai also— at the same time importance to their precise dates. telling a story about the incarceration 2 Herod had married no less than ten and liberation of ' seventy of the Elders times. See his genealogical table. of Israel,' evidently a modification ef _ ' Batanssa, Trachanitis, Auranitis, and Josephus' account of what passed in the Hippodrome of Jeric-ip> Accordingly, 8. i : 9. 5 xvii. 8.4 220 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. 11.1; War ii. 6. 1 BOOK into a storm of lamentation, and then of rebellion, which Archelaus II silenced by the slaughter of not less than three thousand, and that ~Ant' .. within the sacred precincts of the Temple itself." 9-1-3 Other and more serious difficulties awaited him in Eome, whither he went in company with his mother, his aunt Salome, and other relatives. These, however, presently deserted him to espouse the claims of Antipas, who likewise appeared before Augustus to plead for the royal succession, assigned to him in a former testament. The Herodian family, while intriguing and clamouring each on his own account, were, for reasons easily understood, agreed that they would rather not have a king at all, but be under the suzerainty of Eome ; though, if king there must be, they preferred Antipas to Archelaus. Meanwhile, fresh troubles broke out in Palestine, which were suppressed by fire, sword, and crucifixions. And now two other deputations arrived in the Imperial City. Philip, the step-brother of Archelaus, to whom the latter had left the administration of his kingdom, came to Ant. xvii. look after his own interests, as well as to support Archelaus.b l At the same time, a Jewish deputation of fifty, from Palestine, accompanied by eight thousand Boman Jews, clamoured for the deposition of the entire Herodian race, on account of their crimes,2 and the incorpora tion of Palestine with Syria — no doubt in hope of the same semi- independence under their own authorities, enjoyed by their fellow- religionists in the Grecian cities. Augustus decided to confirm the last testament of Herod, with certain slight modifications, of which the most important was that Archelaus should bear the title of Ethnarch, which, if he deserved it, would by-and-by be exchanged for that of King. His dominions were to be Judsea, Idumaea, and Samaria, with a revenue of 600 talents3 (about 230,000Z. to 240,000Z.). It is needless to follow the fortunes of the new Ethnarch. He began his rule by crushing all resistance by the wholesale slaughter of his opponents. Of the High-Priestly office he disposed after the manner of his father. But he far surpassed him in cruelty, oppression luxury, the grossest egotism, and the lowest sensuality, and that without possessing the talent or the energy of Herod.4 His brief reign ceased in the year 6 of our era, when the Emperor banished him, on account of his crimes, to Gaul. 1 I cannot conceive on what ground • The revenues of Antipas were 200 Keim (both in Schenkel's Bibel Lex*, and talents, and those of Philip 100 talents. in his ' Jesu von Nazara ') speaks of him * This is admitted even by Braun as a pretender to the throne. (Sonne d. Herodes, p. 8). Despite its 2 This may have been the historical pretentiousness, this tractate is un- basis of the parable of our Lord in St. trustworthy, being written in a party Luke xix. 12-27. spirit (Jewish). THE SETTLEMENT IN NAZARETH. 221 It must nave been soon after the accession of Archelaus,1 but CHAP. before tidings of it had actually reached Joseph in Egypt, that the IX Holy Family returned to Palestine. The first intention of Joseph ' ' seems to have been to settle in Bethlehem, where he had lived since the birth of Jesus. Obvious reasons would incline him to choose this, and, if possible, to avoid Nazareth as "the place of his residence. His trade, even had he been unknown in Bethlehem, would have easily supplied the modest wants of his household. But when, on reaching Palestine, he learned who the successor of Herod was, and also, no doubt, in what manner he had inaugurated his reign, common prudence would have dictated the withdrawal of the Infant-Saviour from the dominions of Archelaus. But it needed Divine direction to determine his return to Nazareth.2 Of the many years spent in Nazareth, during which Jesus passed from infancy to childhood, from childhood to youth, and from youth to manhood, the Evangelic narrative has left us but briefest notice. Of His childhood : that ' He grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him ; ' a of His youth : • st. Lute besides the account of His questioning the Eabbis in the Temple, the year before He attained Jewish majority — that ' He was subject to His Parents,' and that ' He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.' Considering what loving care watched over Jewish child-life, tenderly marking by not fewer than eight designations the various stages of its development,3 and the deep interest naturally attaching to the early life of the Messiah, that silence, in contrast to the almost blasphemous absurdities of the Apocryphal Gospels, teaches us once more, and most impressively, that the Gospels furnish a history of the Saviour, not a biography of Jesus of Nazareth. St. Matthew, indeed, summarises the whole outward history of 1 We gather this from the expression, not to enter the territory of Judsea. In ' When he heard that Archelaus did reign.' that case he would travel along the coast- Evidently Joseph had not heard who was line till he passed into Galilee.. The Herod's successor, when he left Egypt. impression left is, that the settlement at Archdeacon Farrar suggests, that the ex- Nazareth was not of his own choice. pression ' reigned ' (' as a king,' 0ao-i\evei — » Yeled, the newborn babe, as in Is. St. Matt. ii. 22) refers to the period be- ix. 6 ; Yoneq, the suckling, Is. xi. 8 ; Olel, fore Augustus had changed his title from the suckling beginning to ask for food, 'King' to Ethnarch. But this can scarcely Lam. iv. 4; Gamul, the weaned child, be pressed, the word being used of other Is. xxviii. 9 ; Taph, the child clinging to rule than that of » king, not only in its mother, Jer. xl. 7 ; Eiem, a child the New Testament and in the Apocrypha, becoming firm; Naar, the lad, literally, but by Josephus, and even by classical ' one who shakes himself free ; ' and writers. Baehur, the ripened one. (See ' Sketches 2 The language of St. Matthew (ii. 22, 23) of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 103, 104.) seems to imply express Divine direction 222 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II * In accord ance with Jer. xxiii. 5 ; xxxiii. 15 ; and especi ally Zech iii. 18 b So in Ber. E.76 the life ill Nazareth in one sentence. Henceforth Jesus would stand out before the Jews of His time — and, as we know, of all times ¦ — by the distinctive designation : ' of Nazareth,' nX3 (Notsri), Na£a>- paios, ' the Nazarene.' In the mind of a Palestinian a peculiar signi ficance would attach to the by-Name of the Messiah, especially in its connection with the general teaching of prophetic Scripture. And here we must remember, that St. Matthew primarily addressed his Gospel to Palestinian readers, and that it is the Jewish presentation of the Messiah as meeting Jewish expectancy. In this there is nothing derogatory to the character of the Gospel, no accommodation in the sense of adaptation, since Jesus was not Only the Saviour of the world, but especially also the King of the Jews, and we are now con sidering how He would stand out before the Jewish mind. On one point all were agreed : His Name was Notsri (of Nazareth). St. Matthew proceeds to point out, how entirely this accorded with prophetic Scripture — not, indeed, with any single prediction, but with the whole language of the prophets. From this 2 the Jews derived not fewer than eight designations or Names by which the Messiah was to be called. The most prominent among them was that of Tsemach, or ' Branch.' a We call it the most prominent, not only because it is based upon the clearest Scripture-testimony, but because it evidently occupied the foremost rank in Jewish thinking, being embodied in this earliest portion of their daily liturgy : ' The Branch of David, Thy Servant, speedily make to shoot forth, and His Horn exalt Thou by Thy Salvation. . . . Blessed art Thou Jehovah, Who causeth to spring forth (literally : to branch forth) the Horn of Salvation ' (15th Eulogy). Now, what is expressed by the word Tsemach is also conveyed by the term Netser, 'Branch,' in such passages as Isaiah xi. 1, which was likewise applied to the Messiah.3 Thus, starting from Isaiah xi. 1, Netser being equivalent to Tsemach, Jesus would, as Notsri or Ben Netser b 4 bear in popular parlance, and that on the ground of prophetic Scrip tures, the exact equivalent of the best-known designation of the Messiah.5 The more significant this, that it was not a self-chosen nor man-given name, but arose, in the Providence of God, from what otherwise might have been called the accident of His residence. We 1 This is still the common, almost uni versal, designation of Christ among the Jews. 2 Comp. ch. iv. of this book. 3 See Appendix IX. * Gomp Buxtorf, Lexicon Talm. p. 1383. s All this becomes more evident by Delitzsgh's ingenious suggestion (Zeitschr fiir luther. Theol. 1876, part iii. p. 402), that the real meaning, though not the literal rendering, of the words of St. Matthew, would be \typ 1^3 »3 ' for Nezer ['branch'] is His Name.' THE BRANCH OUT OF JESSE'S ROOTS. 223 admit that this is a Jewish view ; but then this Gospel is the Jewish CHAP. view of the Jewish Messiah. IX But, taking this Jewish title in its Jewish significance, it has also ' ' ' a deeper meaning, and that not only to Jews, but to all men. The idea of Christ as the Divinely placed ' Branch ' (symbolised by His Divinely-appointed early residence), small and despised in its forth- shooting, or then visible appearance (like Nazareth and the Nazarenes), but destined to grow as the Branch sprung out of Jesse's roots, is most marvellously true to the whole history of the Christ, alike as sketched ' by the prophets,' and as exhibited in reality. And thus to us all, Jews or Gentiles, the Divine guidance to Nazareth and the name Nazarene present the truest fulfilment of the prophecies of His history. Greater contrast could scarcely be imagined than between the in tricate scholastic studies of the Judseans, and the active pursuits that engaged men in Galilee. It was a common saying : ' If a person wishes to be rich, let him go north ; if he wants to be wise, let him come south ' — and to Judaea, accordingly, flocked, from ploughshare and workshop, whoever wished to become ' learned in the Law.' The very neighbourhood of the Gentile world, the contact with the gfeat commercial centres close by, and the constant intercourse with foreign ers, who passed through Galilee along one of the world's great high ways, would render the narrow exclusiveness of the Southerners impossible. Galilee was to Judaism ' the Court of the Gentiles ' — the Babbinic Schools of Judasa its innermost Sanctuary. The natural disposition of the people, even the soil and climate of Galilee, were not favourable to the all-engrossing passion for Eabbinic study. In Judasa all seemed to invite to retrospection and introspection ; to favour habits of solitary thought and study, till it kindled into fanaticism. Mile by mile as you travelled southwards, memories of the past would crowd around, and thoughts of the future would rise within. Avoiding the great towns as the centres of hated heathenism, the traveller would meet few foreigners, but everywhere encounter those gaunt representatives of what was regarded as the superlative excellency of his religion. These were the embodiment of Jewish piety and asceticism, the possessors and expounders of the mysteries of his faith, the fountain-head of wisdom, who were not only sure of heaven themselves, but knew its secrets, and were its very aristocracy ; men who could tell him all about his own religion, practised its most minute injunctions, and could interpret every stroke and letter of the Law — nay, whose it actually was to ' loose and to bind,' to pronounce 224 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK an action lawful or unlawful, and to ' remit or retain sins,' by declaring II a man liable to, or free from, expiatory sacrifices, or else punishment ' ' ' in this or the next world. No Hindoo fanatic would more humbly bend before Brahmin saints, nor devout Eomanist more venerate the members of a holy fraternity, than the Jew his great Eabbis.1 Eeason, duty, and precept, alike bound him to reverence them, as he reverenced the God Whose interpreters, representatives, deputies, intimate companions, almost colleagues in the heavenly Sanhedrin, they were. And all around, even nature itself, might seem to foster such tendencies. Even at that time Judsea was comparatively desolate, barren, grey. The decaying cities of ancient renown ; the lone high land scenery ; the bare, rugged hills ; the rocky terraces from which only artificial culture could woo a return ; the wide solitary plains, deep glens, limestone heights — with distant glorious Jerusalem ever in the far background, would all favour solitary thought and religious abstraction. It was quite otherwise in Galilee. The smiling landscape of Lower Galilee invited the easy labour of the agriculturist. Even the highlands of Upper Galilee 2 were not, like those of Judsea, sombre, lonely, enthusiasm-kindling, but gloriously grand, free, fresh, and bracing. A more beautiful country — hill, dale, and lake — could scarcely be imagined than Galilee Proper. It was here that Asher had ' dipped his foot in oil.' According to the Babbis, it was easier to rear a forest of olive-trees in Galilee than one child in Judsea. Corn grew in abundance ; the wine, though not so plentiful as the oil, was rich and generous. Proverbially, all fruit grew in perfection, and altogether the cost of living was about one-fifth that in Judsea. And then, what a teeming, busy population ! Making every allowance for exaggeration, we cannot wholly ignore the account of Josephus about the 240 towns and villages of Galilee, each with not less than 15,000 inhabitants. In the centres of industry all then known trades were busily carried on ; the husbandman pursued his happy toil on 1 One of the most absurdly curious On the south it was bounded by Samaria illustrations of this is the following : ' He — Mount Carmel on the Western, and the who blows his nose in the presence of his district of Scythopolis on the eastern Babbi is worthy of death ' (Erub. 99 a, side, being here landmarks ; while the line 11 from bottom). The dictum is Jordan and the Lake of Gennesaret supported by an alteration in the reading formed the general eastern boundary-line.' of Prov. viii. 36 I (Sketches of Jewish Soe. Life, p. 33.) It 2 Galilee covered the ancient posses- was divided into Upper and Lower sions of Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Galilee— the former beginning ' where Asher. ' In the time of Christ it stretched sycomores (not our sycamores) cease to northwards to the possessions of Tyre on grow.' Fishing in the Lake of Galilee the one side, and to Syria on the other, was free to all (Baba K. 81 b). RELIGIOUS TEACHING IN GALILEE. 225 genial soil, while by the Lake of Gennesaret, with its unrivalled CHAP. beauty, its rich villages, and lovely retreats, the fisherman plied his IX healthy avocation. By those waters, overarched by a deep blue sky, spangled with the brilliancy of innumerable stars, a man might feel constrained by nature itself to meditate and to pray ; he would not be likely to indulge in a morbid fanaticism. Assuredly, in its then condition, Galilee was not the home of Eabbinism, though that of generous spirits, of warm, impulsive hearts, of intense nationalism, of simple manners, and of earnest piety. Of course, there would be a reverse side to the picture. Such a race would be excitable, passionate, violent. The Talmud accuses them of being quarrelsome,1 but admits that they cared more for p-it3_ip>a honour than for money. The great ideal teacher of Palestinian ^w^61' schools was Akiba, and one of his most outspoken opponents a Ned-48a Galilean, Babbi Joss_.b In religious observances their practice was >>sipi_r<.on it t i p i.-ii • Numb. x. simpler ; as regarded canon-law they often took independent views, is. ed. i ,,, ii- . p, . .. friedmann, and generally followed the interpretations of those who, in opposition 4 « ; chag. to Akiba, inclined to the more mild and rational — we had almost said, the more human — application of traditionalism.1 The Talmud mentions several points in which the practice of the Galileans differed from that of Judasa — all either in the direction of more practical earnest ness, 2 or of alleviation of Babbinic rigorism.3 On the other hand, they were looked down upon as neglecting traditionalism, unable to rise to its speculative heights, and preferring the attractions of the Haggadah to the logical subtleties of the Halakhah.4 There was a general contempt in Babbinic circles for all that was Galilean. Although the Judaean or Jerusalem dialect was' far from pure,5 the people of Galilee were specially blamed for neglecting the study of their language, charged with errors in grammar, and especially with absurd malpronunciation, sometimes leading to ridiculous mistakes.6 1 Of which Jochanan, the son of Nuri, Ixxxvii.), and by Deutseh (u. s. pp. 357, may here be regarded as the exponent. 358). Several instances of ridiculous 2 As in the relation between bride- mistakes arising from it are recorded. groom and bride, the cessation of work Thus, a woman cooked for her husband the day before the Passover, &c, two lentilg ( t, } instead f 8 As m regard to animals lawful to be v ¦-«•*_./ eaten, vows, &c. (of an animal, isbo), as desired (Nedar. ' The doctrinal, or rather Halakhic, 66 *). On another occasion a woman differences between Galilee and Jud_ea malpronounced ' Come, I will give thee are partially noted by Lightfoot (Chro- milk.' into ' Companion, butter devour nogr. Matth. pram, lxxxvi.), and by thee ' ' (Erub. 63 *). In the same con- Hamburger (Real-Enc. i. p. 395). nection other similar stories are told. s See Deutseh's Eemains, p. 358. Comp, also Neubauer, Geogr. du Talmud, • The differences of pronunciation and P- 184, and G. de Rossi, della lingua prop. language are indicated by Lightfoot (u. s. di Crista, Dissert. I. passim. VOL. I. Q 226 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. * Eilib. S3 b BOOK ' Galilean — Fool ! ' was so common an expression, that a learned lady 11 turned with it upon so great a man as B. Jose, the Galilean, because he had used two needless words in asking her the road to Lydda.a ' Indeed, this B. Jose had considerable prejudices to overcome, before his remarkable talents and learning were fully acknowledged.2 Among such a people, and in that country, Jesus spent by far the longest part of His life upon earth. Generally, this period may be described as that of His true and full Human Development — physical, intellectual, spiritual — of outward submission to man, and inward submission to God, with the attendant results of ' wisdom,' ' favour,' and ' grace.' Necessary, therefore, as this period was, if the Christ was to be True Man, it cannot be said that it was lost, even so far as His Work as Saviour was concerned. It was more than the preparation for that work ; it was the commencement of it : subjectively (and passively), the self-abnegation of humiliation in His willing submission ; and objectively (and actively), the fulfilment of all righteousness through it. But into this ' mystery of piety ' we may only look afar off — simply remarking, that it almost needed for us also these thirty years of Human Life, that the overpowering thought of His Divinity might not overshadow that of His Humanity. But if He was subject to such conditions, they must, in the nature of things, have affected His development. It is therefore not pre sumption when, without breaking the silence of Holy Scripture, we follow the various stages of the Nazareth life, as each is, so to speak, initialled by the brief but emphatic summaries of the third Gospel. In regard to the Child-Life,3 -we read : ' And the Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,4 being filled with wisdom, and the grace » st Luke °f Gtad was uPon Him.' b This marks, so to speak, the lowest rung "•4l> in the ladder. Having entered upon life as the Divine Infant, He began it as the Human Child, subject to all its conditions, yet perfect in them. These conditions were, indeed, for that time, the happiest conceiv able, and such as only centuries of Old Testament life-training could have made them. The Gentile world here presented terrible contrast 1 The Babbi asked : What road leads to 3 Gelplte, Jugendgesch. des Herrn Dydda' — using four words. The woman has, at least in our days, httle value pointed out that, since it was not lawful beyond its title. to multiply speech with a woman, he * The words ' in spirit ' are of doubtful should have asked : Whither to Dydda ? authority. But their omission can be —in two words. of no consequence, since the ' waxing 2 In fact, only four great Galilean strong ' evidently refers to the mental Babbis are mentioned. The Galileans development, as the subsequent clause are said to have inclined towards mysti- shows. cal (Kabbalistic 1) pursuits. THE UPBRINGING OF A JEWISH CHILD. 227 alike in regard to the relation of parents and children, and the CHAP. character and moral object of their upbringing. Education begins *x in the home, and there were not homes like those in Israel; it is imparted by influence and example, before it comes by teaching ; it is acquired by what is seen and heard, before it is laboriously learned from books ; its real object becomes instinctively felt, before its goal is consciously sought. What Jewish fathers and mothers were ; what they felt towards their children ; and with what reverence, affection, and care the latter returned what they had received, is known to every reader of the Old Testament. The relationship of father has its highest sanction and embodiment in that of God towards Israel ; the tenderness and care of a mother in that of the watchfulness and pity of the Lord over His people. The semi-Divine relationship between children and parents appears in the location, the far more than outward duties which it implies in the wording, of the Fifth Commandment. No punishment more prompt than that of its breach ; "• no description more terribly realistic than that of the ven- • Deut. xxi. b 18-21 geance which overtakes such sin.1 ,, ,,t From the first days of its existence, a religious atmosphere sur- 17 rounded the child of Jewish parents. Admitted in the number of God's chosen people by the deeply significant rite of circumcision, when its name was first spoken in the accents of prayer,1 it was henceforth separated unto God. Whether or not it accepted the privileges and obligations implied in this dedication, they came to him directly from God, as much as the circumstances of his birth. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of the promises, claimed him, with all of blessing which this conveyed, and of responsibility which resulted from it. And the first wish expressed for him was that, ' as he had been joined to the covenant,' so it might also be to him in regard to the ' Torah ' (Law), to ' the Chuppah ' (the marriage-baldachino), and ' to good works ; ' in other words, that he might live ' godly, soberly, and righteously in this present world' — a holy, happy, and God-devoted life. And what this was, could not for a moment be in doubt. Putting aside the overlying Babbinic interpretations, the ideal of life was presented to the mind of the Jew in a hundred different forms — in none perhaps more popularly than in the words, ' These are the things of which a man enjoys the fruit in this world, but their possession continueth for the next : to honour father and mother, pious works, peacemaking 1 See the notice of these rites at the circumcision of John the Baptist, in ch. iv. of this Book. «2 228 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II • Peah i. 1 * Ber. ( c On which Deut.. vi. 4-9 and xl. 13-21 were in scribeda Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 13 ; Ber. iii. 3 ; Megiii. i. 8-, Moed K. iii. 4 8 Pa. cxxi. 8 between man and man* and the study of the Law, which is equivalent to them all.' a This devotion to the Law was, indeed, to the Jew the all in all — the sum of intellectual pursuits, the aim of life. What better thing could a father seek for his child than this inestimable boon ? The first education was necessarily the mother's.1 Even the Talmud owns this, when, among the memorable sayings of the sages, it records one of the School of Babbi Jannai, to the effect that know ledge of the Law may be looked for in those, who have sucked it in at their mother's breast.b And what the true mothers in Israel were, is known not only from instances in the Old Testament, from the praise of woman in the Book of Proverbs, and from the sayings of the son of Sirach (Ecclus. iii.2), but from the Jewish women of the New Testament.3 If, according to a somewhat curious traditional principle, women were dispensed from all such positive obligations as were incumbent at fixed periods of time (such as putting on phylac teries), other religious duties devolved exclusively upon them. The Sabbath meal, the kindling of the Sabbath lamp, and the setting apart a portion of the dough from the bread for the household, — these are but instances, with which every ' Taph,' as he clung to his mother's skirts, must have been familiar. Even before he could follow her in such religious household duties, his eyes must have been attracted by the Mezuzah attached to the doorpost, as the name of the Most High on the outside of the little folded parchment ° was reverently touched by each who came or went,, and then the fingers kissed that had come in contact with the Holy Name.d Indeed, the duty of the Mezuzah was incumbent on women also, and one can imagine it to have been in the heathen-home of Lois and Eunice in the far-off ' dispersion,' where Timothy would first learn to wonder at, then to understand, its meaning. And what lessons for the past and for the present might not be connected with it ! In popular opinion it was the symbol of the Divine guard over Israel's homes, the visible emblem of this joyous hymn : ' The Lord shall preserve thy going out and coming in, from this time forth, and even for evermore.' e There could not be national history, nor even romance, to compare with that by which a Jewish mother might hold her child entranced. 1 Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 86-160, the literature there quoted ; Dnschak, Schulgesetzgebung d. alten Isr. ; and Dr. Marcus, Psedagog. d. Isr. Volkes. 2 The counterpart is in Ecclus. xxx. 3 Besides the holy women who are named in the Gospels, we would refer to the mothers of Zebedee's children and of Mark, to Dorcas, Lydia, Lois, Eunice, Priscilla, St. John's 'elect lady,' and others. A JEWISH HOME AND ITS INFLUENCES 229 And it was his own history — that of his tribe, clan, perhaps family ; CHAP. of the past, indeed, but yet of the present, and still more of the IX glorious future. Long before he could go to school, or even Synar- ' ' ' gogue, the private and united prayers and the domestic rites, whether of the weekly Sabbath or of festive seasons, would indelibly impress themselves upon his mind. In mid-winter there was the festive illumination in each home. In most houses, ithe first night only one candle was lit, the next two, and so on to the eighth day ; and the child would learn that this was symbolic, and commemorative of the Bedi- cation of the Temple, its purgation, and the restoration of its services by the lion-hearted Judas the Maccabee. Next came, in earliest spring, the merry time of Purim, the Feast of Esther and of Israel's deliverance through her, with its good cheer and boisterous enjoy ments.1 Although the Passover might call the rest of the family to Jerusalem, the rigid exclusion of all leaven during the whole week could not .pass without its impressions. Then, after the Feast of Weeks, came bright summer. But its golden harvest and its rich fruits would remind of the early dedication of the first and best to the Lord, and of those solemn processions in which it was carried up to Jerusalem. As autumn seared the leaves, the Feast of the New Year spoke of the casting up of man's accounts in the great Book of Judgment, and the fixing of destiny for good or for evil. Then followed the Fast of the Day of Atonement, with its tremendous solemnities, the memory of which could never fade from mind or imagination ; and, last of all, in the week of the Feast of Tabernacles, there were the strange leafy booths in which they lived and joyed, keeping their harvest-thanksgiving, and praying and longing for the better harvest of a renewed world. But it was not only through sight and hearing that, from its very inception, life in Israel became religious. There was also from the first positive teaching, of which the commencement would necessarily de volve on the mother. It needed not the extravagant laudations, nor the promises held out by the Eabbis, to incite Jewish women to this duty. Jf they were true to their descent, it would come almost naturally to them. Scripture set before them a continuous succession of noble Hebrew mothers. How well they followed their example, we learn from the instance of her, whose son, the child of a Gentile father, and reared far away, where there was not even a Synagogue to sustain religious life, had ' from an infant 2 known the Holy Scriptures,' and 1 Some of its customs almost remind 2 The word Ppeipos has no other mean- US of our 6th of November. ing than that of ' infant ' or ' babe.' 230 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. d Jos . Ag. Apion ii. 2 comp. i. 8. 12 ; ii. 27 Sanh. 99 6 e Kidd. 30 a h Meg. 6 6 1 Sot. 22 a k Succ. 42 a "» Ab. iii. 10 n Ps. cxiii.- cxviii. 0 Baba B. 20 a; Keth. 80 a that in their life-moulding influence." It was, indeed, no idle boast that the Jews ' were from their swaddling-clothes . . . trained to recognise God as their Father, and as the Maker of the world ;' that, ' having been taught the knowledge (of the laws) from earliest youth, they bore in their souls the image of the commandments ; ' b that ' from their earliest consciousness they learned the laws, so as to have them, as it were, engraven upon the soiil ; ' c and that they were ' brought up in learning,' ' exercised in the laws,' ' and made acquainted with the acts of their predecessors in order to their imitation of them.' d But while the earliest religious teaching would, of necessity, come from the lips of the mother, it was the father who was ' bound to teach his son.' e To impart to the child knowledge of the Torah conferred as great spiritual distinction, as if a man had received the Law itself on Mount Horeb.f Every other engagement, even the necessary meal, should give place to this paramount duty ; g nor should it be forgotten that, while here real labour was necessary, it would never prove fruitless.11 That man was of the profane vulgar (an Am ha-arets), who had sons, but failed to bring them up in knowledge of the Law.1 Directly the child learned to speak, his religious instruc tion was to begin k — no doubt, with such verses of Holy Scripture as composed that part of the Jewish liturgy, which answers to our Creed.1 Then would follow other passages from the Bible, short prayers, and select sayings of the sages. Special attention was given to the culture of the memory, since forge tfulness might prove as fatal in its conse quences as ignorance or neglect of the Law.™ Very early the child must have been taught what might be called his birthday-text — some verse of Scripture beginning, or ending with, or at least containing, the same letters as his Hebrew name. This guardian-promise the child would insert in its daily prayers.2 The earliest hymns taught would be the Psalms for the days of the week, or festive Psalms, such as the Hallel,11 or those connected with the festive pilgrimages to Zion. The regular instruction commenced with the fifth or sixth year (according to strength), when every child was sent to school.0 There can be no reasonable doubt that at that time such schools existed throughout the land. We find references to them at almost every period ; indeed, the existence of higher schools and Academies would not have been possible without such primary instruction. Two Eabbis 1 The Shema. 2 Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 159 &c. The enigmatic mode of wording and writing was very common. Thus, the year is marked by a verse, gene rally from Scripture, which contains the letters that give the numerical value of the year. These letters are indicated by marks above them. SCHOOLS IN PALESTINE. 231 of Jerusalem, specially distinguished and beloved on account of their CHAP. educational labours, were among the last victims of Herod's cruelty.4 IX Later on, tradition ascribes to Joshua the son of Gamla the introduc- "~ ' "" 7 a Jos. Ant. tion of schools in every town, and the compulsory education in them xvii. 6. 2 of all children above the age of six.b Such was the transcendent " Baba B- & 21 a merit attaching to this act, that it seemed to blot out the guilt of the purchase for him of the High-Priestly office by his wife Martha, shortly before the commencement of the great Jewish war.0 * To pass over e^'Toma the fabulous number of schools supposed to have existed in Jerusalem, 18a tradition had it that, despite of this, the City only fell because of the neglect of the education of children.3 It was even deemed unlawful Xf^f^' to live in a place where there was no school.e Such a city deserved » sanh. 17 » to be either destroyed or excommunicated.f f shabb. u. s. It would lead too far to give details about the appointment of, and provision for, teachers, the arrangements of the schools, the method of teaching, or the subjects of study, the more so as many of these regulations date from a period later than that under review. Suffice it that, from the teaching of the alphabet or of writing, onwards to the farthest limit of instruction in the most advanced Academies of the Babbis, all is marked by extreme care, wisdom, accuracy, and a moral and religious purpose as the ultimate object. For a long time it was not uncommon to teach in the open air ;g but this must have been « shabb. chiefly in connection with theological discussions, and the instruc- Moedk. i6a tion of youths. But the children were gathered in the Synagogues, or in School-houses,2 where at first they either stood, teacher and pupils alike, or else sat on the ground in a semicircle, facing the teacher, as it were, literally to carry into practice the prophetic say ing : ' Thine eyes shall see thy teachers.' h The introduction of benches ' is. xxx. 20 or chairs was of later date ; but the principle was always the same, that in respect of accommodation there was no distinction between teacher and taught.3 Thus, encircled by his pupils, as by a crown of glory (to use the language of Maimonides), the teacher — generally the Chazzan, or Officer of the Synagogue * — should impart to them the ' For ex- precious knowledge of the Law, with constant adaptation to their capa- ISabb. 11 a city, with unwearied patience, intense earnestness, strictness tempered by kindness, but, above all, with the highest object of their training ever in view. To keep children from all contact with vice ; to train them 1 He was succeeded by Matthias, the of Ischoli, with its various derivations, son of Theophilos, under whose Pontifi- evidently from the Greek ax°*4, sclwla. eate the war against Bome began. s The proof-passages from the Talmud 2 Among the names by which the are collated by Dr. Marcus (Psedagog. d. schools are designated there is also that Isr. Volkes, ii. pp. 16, 17). 232 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II t> 1 Maca i. 57 ; comp. Jos. Ant. xii. 5.4 to gentleness, even when bitterest wrong had been received ; to show sin in its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify by its consequences ; to train to strict truthfulness ; to avoid all that might lead to dis agreeable or indelicate thoughts ; and to do all this without showing partiality, without either undue severity, or laxity of discipline, with judicious increase of study and work, with careful attention to thoroughness in acquiring knowledge — all this and more constituted the ideal set before the teacher, and made his office of such high esteem in Israel. Boughly classifying the subjects of study, it was held, that, up to ten years of age, the Bible exclusively should be the text-book ; from ten to fifteen the Mishnah, or traditional law ; after that age, the student should enter on those theological discussions which occupied time and attention in the higher Academies of the Babbis.3 Not that this progression would always be made. For, if after three, or, at most, five years of tuition — that is, after having fairly entered on Mishnic studies — the child had not shown decided aptitude, little hope was to be entertained of his future. The study of the Bible commenced with that of the Book of Leviticus.1 Thence it' passed to the other parts of the Pentateuch ; then to the Prophets ; and, finally, to the Hagiographa. What now constitutes the Gemara or Talmud was taught in the Academies, to which access could not be gained till after the age of fifteen. Care was taken not to send a child too early to school, nor to overwork him when there. For this purpose the school-hours were fixed, and attendance shortened during the summer-months. The teaching in school would, of course, be greatly aided by the services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of home-life. We know that, even in the troublous times which preceded the rising of the Maccabees, the possession of parts or the whole of the Old Testament (whether in the original or the LXX. rendering) was so common, that during the great persecutions a regular search was made throughout the land for every copy of the Holy Scriptures, and those punished who possessed them.b After the triumph of the Macca bees, these copies of the Bible would, of course, be greatly multi plied. And, although perhaps only the wealthy could have purchased 1 Altingius (Academic. Dissert, p. 335) curiously suggests, that this was done to teach a child its guilt and the need of justification. The Babbinical interpre tation (Vayyikra B. 7) is at least equally far-fetched: that, as children are pure and sacrifices pure, it is fitting that the pure should busy themselves with the pure ihe obvious reason seems, that Leviticus treated of the ordinances with which every Jew ought to have been -acquainted. THE CHILD-LIFE OF JESUS. 233 a MS. of the whole Old Testament in Hebrew, yet some portion or CHAP. portions of the Word of God, in the original, would form the most IX cherished treasure of every pious household. Besides, it appears that libraries were attached to every school-house," in which copies of the *J«. Meg- Holy Scripture would be kept. From anxious care to preserve the integrity of the text, it was deemed unlawful to make copies of small portions of a book of Scripture.1 But exception was made of certain sections which were eOpied for the instruction of children. Among them, the history of the Creation to that of the Flood ; Lev. i.— ix. ; and Numb, i— x. 35, are specially mentioned.b , » sopher. v. It was in such circumstances, and under such influences, that the ditt. 60 a ; early years of Jesus passed. To go beyond this, and to attempt lifting ufs. eS' the veil which lies over His Child-History, would not only be pre sumptuous,2 but involve us in anachronisms. Fain would we know it, whether the Child Jesus frequented the Synagogue School ; who was His teacher, and who those who sat beside Him on the ground, earnestly gazing on the face of Him Who repeated the sacrificial ordi nances in the Book of Leviticus, that were all to be fulfilled in Him. But it is all ' a mystery of Godliness.' We do not even know quite certainly whether the school-system had, at that time, extended to far- off Nazareth ; nor whether the order and method which have been described were universally observed at that time. In all probability, however, there was such a school in Nazareth, and, if so, the' Child- Saviour would conform to the general practice of attendance. We may thus, still with deepest reverence, think of Him as learning His earliest earthly lesson from the Book of Leviticus. Learned Babbis there were not in Nazareth — either then or afterwards.3 He would attend the services of the Synagogue, where Moses and the prophets 1 Herzfeld (Gesch. d. V. Isr. iii. p. 267, specimens of this ' quiet gossip ' a number note) strangely misquotes and misinter- of Babbinic quotations from the German prets this matter. Comp. Dr. MiiUer, translation in Dukes' ' Babbinische Blu- Massech. Sofer. p. 75. menlese.' To this it is sufficient answer : 2 The most painful instances of these 1. There were no such learned Babbis in are the legendary accounts of the early Nazareth. 2. If there had been, they history of Christ in the Apocryphal would not have been visitors in the house Gospels (well collated by Keim, i. 2, pp. of Joseph. 3. If they had been visitors 413-468, passim). But later writers are there, they would not have spoken what unfortunately not wholly free from the Dr. Geikie quotes from Dukes, since some charge. of the extracts are from mediaeval books, 3 I must here protest against the in- and only one a proverbial expression. troduction of imaginary ' Evening Scenes 4. Even if they had so spoken, it would in Nazareth,' when, according to Dr. at least have been in the words which Geikie, 'friends or neighbours of Joseph's Dukes has translated, without the changes circle would meet for an hour's quiet and additions which Dr. Geikie has in- gossip.' Dr. Geikie here introduces as troduced in some instances. 234 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. were read, and, as afterwards by Himself," occasional addresses delivered.1 That His was pre-eminently a pious home in the highest sense, it seems almost irreverent to say. From His intimate familiarity with Holy Scripture, in its every detail, we may be allowed to infer that the home of Nazareth, however humble, possessed a precious copy of the Sacred Volume in its entirety. At any rate, we know that from earliest childhood it must have formed the meat and drink b st. Matt, of the God-Man. The words of the Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew b Jgt L and St. Luke,c also imply that the Holy Scriptures which He read xvi. 17 were in the original Hebrew, and that they were written in the square, or Assyrian, characters.2 Indeed, as the Pharisees and Sadducees always appealed to the Scriptures inthe original, Jesus could not have met them on any other ground, and it was this which gave such point to His frequent expostulations with them : ' Have ye not read ? ' But far other thoughts than theirs gathered around His study of the Old Testament Scriptures. When comparing their long discus sions on the letter and law of Scripture with His references to the Word of God, it seems as if it were quite another book which was handled. As we gaze into the vast glory of meaning which He opens to us ; follow the shining track of heavenward living to which He points ; behold the lines of symbol, type, and prediction converging in the grand unity of that Kingdom which became reality in Him ; or listen as, alternately, some question of His seems to rive the darkness as with flash of sudden light, or some sweet promise of old to lull the storm, some earnest lesson to quiet the tossing waves — we catch faint, it may be far-off, glimpses of how, in that early Child-life, when the Holy Scriptures were His special study, He must have read them, and what thoughts must have been kindled by their light. And thus better than before can we understand it : ' And the Child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him.' 1 See Book III., the chapter on ' The an expression as < One iota, or one little Synagogue of Nazareth.' hook,'— not ' tittle,' as in the A.V. 2 This may be gathered even from such GOING UP TO JERUSALEM. 235 CHAPTEE X. IN THE HOUSE OP HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHEE — THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM — THE RETIREMENT AT NAZARETH. (St. Luke ii. 41-52.) Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there." It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the ¦ ps. ixxxvii. City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem ; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of ' our feet ' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed ; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said : ' Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But ' glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' — in the past, and in the near future ' the thrones of David ' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.1* b p^ c^u. In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence at- ~5 tendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called ' a son of the Commandment,' or ' of the Torah.' ° But, as a ' Ab- T- 21 matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.*1 It was in accordance with this custom that,1 4 Toma 82 * 1 Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. went to the Temple because He was 'a ii. The common statement, that Jesus Son of the Commandment,' is obviously 236 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. * Jer. Kidd. 61c b From 4 B.C. tO 6 A.D. ' 6-11 (?) A.D.a Acts v. 37 ; Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the ' company ' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont • to go up to the Temple ; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance," Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Babbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary. Politically, times had changed. The weak and wicked rule of Archelaus had lasted only nine years* when, in consequence of the charges against him, he was banished to Gaul. Judasa, Samaria and Idumaea were now incorporated into the Boman province of Syria, under its Governor, or Legate. The special administration of that part of Palestine was, however, entrusted to a Procurator, whose ordinary residence was at Cassarea. It will be remembered, that the Jews themselves had desired some such arrange ment, in the vain hope tha,t, freed from the tyranny of the Herodians, they might enjoy the semi-independence of their brethren in the Grecian cities. But they found it otherwise. Their privileges were not secured to them ; their religious feelings and prejudices were constantly, though perhaps not intentionally, outraged ; 2 and their Sanhedrin shorn of its real power, though the Bomans would probably not interfere in what might be regarded as purely religious questions. Indeed, the very presence of the Boman power in Jerusalem was a constant offence, and must necessarily have issued in a life and death struggle. One of the first measures of the new Legate of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius,c after confiscating the ill-gotten wealth of Archelaus, was to order a census in Palestine, with the view of fixing the taxation of the country.d The popular excitement which this called forth was due, probably, not so much to opposition on principle,3 as to this, that the census was regarded as the badge of servitude, and But what rendered Rome so obnoxious to Palestine was the cultus of the Emperor, as the symbol and impersonation of Im perial Bome. On this cultus Eome insisted in all countries, not perhaps so much on religions grounds as on political, as being the expression of loyalty to the empire. But in Judsea this cultus necessarily met resistance to the death. (Comp. Schneckenburger, Neutest. Zeiteesch dd 40-61.) e HP' 3 This view, for which there is no historic foundation, is urged by those whose interest it is to deny the possi bility of a census during the reign of Herod. erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this re- raarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became ' a Son of the Law.' 1 We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the pre sent tense (ava^aivivrav), and not in the aorist. 2 The Bomans were tolerant of the religion of all subject nations— except ing only Gaul and Carthage.' This for reasons which cannot here be discussed. THE ' NATIONALISTS ' IN THEIR RELATION TO THE ' KINGDOM.' 237 incompatible with the Theocratic character of Israel.1 Had a census CHAP. been considered absolutely contrary to the Law, the leading Babbis x would never have submitted to it ; 2 nor would the popular resistance to the measure of Quiriniu-s have been quelled by the representations of the High-Priest Joazar. But, although through his influence the census was allowed to be taken, the popular agitation was not sup pressed. Indeed, that movement- formed part of the history of the time, and not only affected political and religious parties in the land, but must have been presented to the mind of Jesus Himself, since, as will be shown, it had a representative within His own family circle. The accession of Herod, misnamed the Great, marked a period in Jewish history, which closed with the war of despair against Bome and the flames of Jerusalem and the Temple. It gave rise to the appearance of what Josephus^ despite his misrepresentation of them, rightly calls a fourth party — besides the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes — that of the Nationalists. .*¦ A deeper and more independent * Ant. xviii. view of the history of the times would, perhaps, lead us to regard the whole country as ranged either with or against that party. As after wards expressed in its purest and simplest form, their watchword was, negatively, to call no human being their absolute lord ; b positively, * Ant. xviii. that God alone was to lead as absolute Lord'.0 It was, in fact, a revival „ u s and of the Maccabean movement, perhaps more fully in its national than in ^aa^™ its religious aspect, although the two could scarcely be separated in Israel, and their motto almost reads like that which, according to some, furnished the letters whence the name Maccabee d was composed : *33o d Mi Oamochah Baelim Jehovah, ' Who like Thee among the gods, Jehovah ? ' e It is characteristic of the times and religious tendencies, • Ex. xv. u that their followers were no more called, as before, Assideans or Cha sidim, ' the pious,' but Zealots (tyiktorai), or by the Hebrew equivalent Qannaim (Canancsans, not ' Canaanites,' as in A.V.). The real home of that party was not Judsea nor Jerusalem, but Galilee. Quite other, and indeed antagonistic, tendencies prevailed in the stronghold of the Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees. Of the latter only a small portion had any real sympathy with the national move ment. Each party followed its own direction. The Essenes, absorbed in theosophic speculations, not untinged with Eastern mysticism, with drew from all contact with the world, and practised an ascetic life. With them, whatever individuals may have felt, no such movement could have originated ; nor yet with the Herodians or Boethusians, who 1 That these were the sole grounds of Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 6. resistance to the census, appears from Jos. l As unquestionably they did. 238 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. ' Judg. xi. 3-6 b Ant. xiv. 9.2-5cSinh. I9m BOOK combined strictly Pharisaic views with Herodian political partisan- 11 ship ; nor yet with the Sadducees ; nor, finally, with what constituted the great bulk of the Babbinist party, the School of Hillel. But the brave, free Highlanders of Galilee, and of the region across their glorious lake, seemed to have inherited the spirit of Jephthah," and to have treasured as their ideal — alas ! often wrongly apprehended — their own Elijah, as, descending in wild, shaggy garb from the moun tains of Gilead, he did battle against all the might of Ahab and Jezebel. Their enthusiasm could not be kindled by the logical subtleties of the Schools, but their hearts burned within them for their God, their land, their people, their religion, and their freedom. It was in Galilee, accordingly, that such wild, irregular resistance to Herod at the outset of his career, as could be offered, was organised by guerilla bands, which traversed the country, and owned one Ezekias as their leader. Although Josephus calls them ' robbers,' a far different estimate of them obtained in Jerusalem, where, as we remember, the Sanhedrin summoned Herod to answer for the execution of Ezekias. What followed is told in substantially the same manner, though with difference of form ' and, sometimes, nomenclature, by Josephus,b and in the Talmud." The story has already been related in another connection. Suffice it that, after the accession of Herod, the Sanhe drin became a shadow of itself. It was packed with Sadducees and Priests of the King's nomination, and with Doctors of the canon-law whose only aim was to pursue in peace their subtleties ; who had not and, from their contempt of the people, could not have, any real sympathy with national aspirations ; and whose ideal heavenly King dom was a miraculous, heaven-instituted, absolute rule of Babbis. Accordingly, the national movement, as it afterwards developed, received neither the sympathy nor support of the leading Eabbis. Perhaps the most gross manifestation of this was exhibited, shortly before the taking of Jerusalem, by B. Jochanan ben Saccai, the most renowned among its teachers. Almost unmoved he had witnessed the portent of the opening of the Temple-doors by an unseen Hand which, by an interpretation of Zech. xi. 1, was popularly regarded as ' Toma 39 b betokening its speedy destruction.*12 There is cynicism as well as want of sympathy, in the story recorded by tradition, that when in the straits of famine during the siege, Jochanan saw people eagerly 1 The Talmud is never to be trusted story in what may be called an allegorical as to historical details. Often it seems form. purposely to alter, when it intends the * The designation ' Lebanon ' is often experienced student to read between the applied in Talmudic writings to the lines, while at other times it presents a Temple. HILLEL AND SHAMMAI IN THEIR RELATION TO NATIONALISM. 239 feasting on soup made from straw, he sneered at the idea of such a garrison resisting Vespasian, and immediately resolved to leave the city." In fact, we have distinct evidence that E. Jochanan had, as leader of the School of Hillel, used all his influence, although in vain, to persuade the people to submission to Eome.b We can understand it, how this School had taken so little interest in anything purely national. Generally only one side of the character of Hillel has been presented by writers, and even this in greatly exaggerated language. His much lauded gentleness, peacefulness, and charity were rather negative than positive qualities. He was a philosophic Babbi, whose real interest lay in a far other direction than that of sympathy with the people — and whose motto seemed, indeed, to imply, ' We, the sages, are the people of God ; but this people, who know not the Law, are cursed.' ° A far deeper feeling, and intense, though misguided earnestness pervaded the School of Shammai. It was in the minority, but it sympathised with the aspirations of the people. It was not philosophic nor eclectic, but intensely national. It opposed all approach to, and by, the stranger ; it repelled proselytes,3 even the most distinguished (such as Akylas or Onkelos) ; e it passed, by first murdering a number of Hillelites who had come to the deliberative assembly, eighteen decrees, of which the object was to prevent all intercourse with Gentiles ; • and it furnished leaders or supporters of the national movement. We have marked the rise of the Nationalist party in Galilee at the time of Herod's first appearance on the scene, and learned how c Comp. Ab. i. 13 a Shabb. 31 a • Ber. R. 70 1 This celebrated meeting, of which, however, but scant and incoherent notices are left us (Shabb. i. 7, and specially inthe Jer. Talmud on the passage p. 3 e, d ; and Shabb. 17 a ; Tos. Shabb. i. 2), took place in the house of Chananyah, ben Chizqiyah, ben Garon, a noted Shammaite. On arriving, many ot the Hillelites were killed in the lower room, and then a majority of Shammaites carried the so- called eighteen decrees. The first twelve forbade the purchase of the most neces sary articles of diet from Gentiles ; the next five forbade the learning of their language, declared their testimony in valid, and their offerings unlawful, and interdicted all intercourse with them; while the last referred to firstfruits. It was on the ground o£ these decrees that the hitherto customary burnt-offering for the Emperor was intermitted, which was really a declaration of war against Bome. The date of these decrees was probably about four years before the_ destruction of the Temple (see Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, vol. iii. pp. 494-502). These decrees were carried by the influence of B. Eleazar, son of Chananyah the High- Priest, a very wealthy man, whose father and brother belonged to the opposite or peace party. It was on the proposal of this strict Shammaite that the offering for the Emperor was intermitted (Jos. Jew. War ii. 17. 2, 3). Indeed, it is impossible to over-estimate the intluence of these Shammaite decrees on the great war with Bome. Eleazar, though opposed to the extreme party, one of whose chiefs he took aiid killed, was one of the leaders of the national party in the war (War ii. 17. 9, 10). There is, however, some con fusion about various persons who bore the same name. It is impossible in this place to mention the various Shammaites who took part in the last Jewish war. Suffice it to indicate the tendency of that School. 240 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK mercilessly he tried to suppress it : first, by the execution of Ezekias II and his adherents, and afterwards, when he became King of Judsea, by ' ' ' the slaughter of the Sanhedrists. The consequence of this unsparing severity was to give Eabbinism a different direction. The School of Hillel, which henceforth commanded the majority, were men of no political colour, theological theorists, self-seeking Jurists, vain rather than ambitious. The minority, represented by the School of Shammai, were Nationalists. Defective and even false as both tendencies were, there was certainly more hope, as regarded the Kingdom of God, of the Nationalists than of the Sophists and Jurists. It was, of course, the policy of Herod to suppress all national aspirations. No one understood the meaning of Jewish Nationalism so well as he ; no one ever opposed it so systematically. There was internal fitness, so to speak, in his attempt to kill the King of the Jews among the infants of Bethlehem. The murder of the Sanhedrists, with the consequent new anti-Messianic tendency of Eabbinism, was one measure in that direction ; the various appointments which Herod made to the High- Priesthood another. And yet it was not easy, even in those times, to deprive the Pontificate of its power and influence. The High- Priest was still the representative of the religious life of the people, and he acted on all occasions, when the question under discussion was not one exclusively of subtle canon-law, as the President of the Sanhedrin, in which, indeed, the members of his family had evidently • Aotaiv. e seat and vote." The four families1 from which, with few exceptions, the High-Priests- — however often changed — were chosen, absorbed the wealth, and commanded the influence, of a state-endowed establish ment, in its worst times. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance to make wise choice of the High-Priest. With the exception of the brief tenure by Aristobulus, the last of the Maccabees — whose appointment, too soon followed by his murder, was at the time a necessity — all the Herodian High-Priests were non-Palestinians. A keener blow than this could not have been dealt at Nationalism. The same contempt for the High-Priesthood characterised the brief reign of Archelaus. On his death-bed, Herod had appointed to the Pontificate Joazar, a son of Boethos, the wealthy Alexandrian priest, whose daughter, Mariamme II., he had married. TheBoethu- sian family, allied to Herod, formed a party — the Herodians who combined strict Pharisaic views with devotion to the reigninc family.2 Joazar took the popular part against Archelaus, on his accession. 1 See the list of High-Priests in Ap- than four High-Priests during the period pendix VI. between the reign of Herod and that of 2 The Boethusians furnished no fewer Agrippa I. (41 a.d.). THE HIGH-PRIESTS AND THE NATIONALIST PARTY. 241 For this he was deprived of his dignity in favour of another son of CHAP. Boethos, Eleazar by name. But the mood of Archelaus was fickle X — perhaps he was distrustful of the family of Boethos. At any rate, Eleazar had to give place to Jesus, the son of Sie, an otherwise un known individual. At the time of the taxing of Quirinius we find Joazar again in office," apparently restored to it by the multitude, 'Ant. xvin. which, having taken matters into its own hands at the change of government, recalled one who had formerly favoured national aspira tions.1" It is thus that we explain his influence with the people, in •> Ant. xviii persuading them to submit to the Boman taxation. But if Joazar had succeeded with the unthinking populace, he failed to conciliate the more advanced of his own party, and, as the event proved, the Boman authorities also, whose favour he had hoped to gain. It will be remembered, that the Nationalist party — or ' Zealots,' as they were afterwards called — first appeared in those guerilla-bands which traversed Galilee under the leadership of Ezekias, whom Herod executed. But the National party was not destroyed, only held in check, during his iron reign. It was once more the family of Ezekias that headed the movement. During the civil war which followed the accession of Archelaus, or rather was carried on while he was pleading his cause in Bome, the standard of the Nationalists was again raised in Galilee. Judas, the son of Ezekias, took possession of the city of Sepphoris, and armed his followers from the royal arsenal there. At that time, as we know, the High-Priest Joazar sympathised, at least indirectly, with the Nationalists. The rising, which indeed was general through out Palestine, was suppressed by fire and sword, and the sons of Herod were enabled to enter on their possessions. But when, after the deposition of Archelaus, Joazar persuaded the people to submit to the taxing of Quirinius, Judas was not disposed to follow what he regarded as the treacherous lead of the Pontiff. In conjunction with a Shammaite Babbi, Sadduk, he raised again the standard of revolt, although once more unsuccessfully.0 How the Hillelites looked ° Ant. xviii. _. upon this movement, we gather even from the slighting allusion of Gamaliel.11 The family of Ezekias furnished other martyrs to the "Acts v. 37. National cause. The two sons of Judas died for it on the cross in 46 A.D.' Yet a third son, Manahem, who, from the commencement 5A!nt-xx- of the war against Eome, was one of the leaders of the most fanatical Nationalists, the Sicarii — the Jacobins of the party, as they have been aptly designated — died under unspeakable sufferings/ while a 'Jewish fourth member of the family, Eleazar, was the leader of Israel's 8aandU9 ' VOL. I. R 242 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. forlorn hope, and nobly died at Masada, in the closing drama of the Jewish war of independence." Of such stuff were the Galilean Zealots made. But we have to take this intense Nationalist tendency 'Jewish " war, vii. 7-9 also into account in the history of Jesus, the more so that at least one of His disciples, and he a member of His family, had at one time belonged to the party. Only the Kingdom of which Jesus was the King was, as He Himself said, not of this world, and of far different conception from that for which the Nationalists longed. At the time when Jesus went up to the feast, Quirinius was, as already stated, Governor of Syria. The taxing and the rising of Judas were alike past ; and the Boman Governor, dissatisfied with the trimming of Joazar, and distrustful of him, had appointed in his stead Ananos, the son of Seth, the Annas of infamous memory in the New Testament. With brief interruption, he or his son held the Pontifical office till, under the Procuratorship of Pilate, Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, succeeded to that dignity. It has already been stated that, subject to the Eoman Governors of Syria, the rule of Palestine devolved on Procurators, of whom Ooponius was the first. *• 9-12 a.d. Of him an(i nls immediate successors — Marcus Ambivius,b Annius « is-15 a.d. Eufus,0 and Valerius Gratus,d we know little. Thev were, indeed, " 1 5-26 A.D. . . . J ' guilty of the most grievous fiscal oppressions, but they seem to have respected, so far as was in them, the religious feelings of the Jews. We know, that they even removed the image of the Emperor from the standards of the Eoman soldiers before marching them into Jerusalem, so as to avoid the appearance of a cultus of the Csesars. It was reserved for Pontius Pilate to force this hated emblem on the Jews, and otherwise to set their most sacred feelings at defiance. But we may notice, even at this stage, with what critical periods in Jewish history the public appearance of Christ synchronised. His first visit to the Temple followed upon the Boman possession of Judsea, the taxing, and the national rising, as also the institution of Annas to the High-Priesthood. And the commencement of His public Mi nistry was contemporaneous with the accession of Pilate, and the institution of Caiaphas. Whether viewed subjectively or objectively, these things also have a deep bearing upon the history of the Christ. It was, as we reckon it, in spring a.d. 9, that Jesus for the first time went up to the Paschal Feast in Jerusalem. Coponius would be there as the Procurator ; and Annas ruled in the Temple as High- Priest, when He appeared among its doctors. But far other than political thoughts must have occupied the mind of Christ. Indeed for a time a brief calm had fallen upon the land. There was nothing CKXX1T. IN THE TEMPLE AS THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHER. 243 to provoke active resistance, and the party of the Zealots, although CHAP. existing, and striking deeper root in the hearts of the people, was, for X the time, rather what Josephus called it, ' the philosophical party ' — "~ ' their minds busy with an ideal, which their hands were not yet pre paring to make a reality. And so, when, according to ancient wont," * ^ *mj94 ; the festive company from Nazareth, soon swelled by other festive bands, went up to Jerusalem, chanting by the way those ' Psalms of Ascent ' b » a.v. to the accompaniment of the flute, they might implicitly yield them- Ps. cp_.- selves to the spiritual thoughts kindled by such words. When the pilgrims' feet stood within the gates of Jerusalem, there could have been no difficulty in finding hospitality, however crowded the City may have been on such occasions [ — the more so when we remember the extreme simplicity of Eastern manners and wants, and the abundance of provisions which the many sacrifices of the season would supply. But on this subject, also, the Evangelic narrative keeps silence. Glorious as a view of Jerusalem must have seemed to a child coming to it for the first time from the retirement of a Galilean village, we must bear in mind, that He Who now looked upon it was not an ordinary Child. Nor are we, perhaps, mistaken in the idea that the sight of its grandeur would, as on another occasion,0 awaken in Him « st. inie not so much feelings of admiration, which might have been akin to those of pride, as of sadness, though He may as yet have been scarcely conscious of its deeper reason. But the one all-engrossing thought would be of the Temple. This, His first visit to its halls, seems also to have called out the first outspoken — and, may we not infer, the first conscious — thought of that Temple as the House of His Father, and with it the first conscious impulse of His Mission and Being. Here also it would be the higher meaning, rather than the structure and appearance, of the Temple, that would absorb the mind. And yet there was sufficient, even in the latter, to kindle enthusiasm. As the pilgrim ascended the Mount, crested by that symmetrically proportioned building, which could hold within its gigantic girdle not fewer than 210,000 persons, his wonder might well increase at every step. The Mount itself seemed like an island, abruptly rising from out deep valleys, surrounded by a sea of walls, palaces, streets, and hbuses, and crowned by a mass of snowy marble and glittering gold, rising terrace upon terrace. Altogether it measured a square of about 1,000 feet, or, to give a more exact equivalent of the measurements furnished by 1 It seems, however, that the Feast of than that of the Passover (comp. Acts ii. Pentecost would see even more pilgrims — 9-11). at least from a distance — in Jerusalem, R 2 xix. 41 244 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. *Jos. War vi. 3. 2. BOOK the Eabbis, 927 feet. At its north-western angle, and connected with 11 it, frowned the Castle of Antonia, held by the Eoman garrison. The lofty walls were pierced by massive gates — the unused gate (Tedi) on the north ; the Susa Gate on the east, which opened on the arched roadway to the Mount of Olives ; [ the two so-called ' Huldah ' (pro bably, ' weasel ') gates, which led by tunnels 2 from the priest-suburb Ophel into the outer Court ; and, finally, four gates on the west. Within the gates ran all around covered double colonnades, with here and there benches for those who resorted thither for prayer or for conference. The most magnificent of these was the southern, or twofold double colonnade, with a wide space between ; the most vener able, the ancient ' Solomon's Porch,' or eastern colonnade. Entering from the Xystus bridge, and under the tower of John," one would pass along this southern colonnade (over the tunnel of the Huldah-gates) to its eastern extremity, over which another tower rose, probably ' the pinnacle ' of the history of the Temptation. From this height yawned the Kedron valley 450 feet beneath. From that lofty pin nacle the priest each morning watched and announced the earliest streak of day. Passing alon r the eastern colonnade, or Solomon's Porch, we would, if the description of the Eabbis is trustworthy, have reached the Susa Gate, the carved representation of that city over the gateway reminding us of the Eastern Dispersion. Here the standard measures of the Temple are said to have been kept ; and here, also we have to locate the first or lowest of the three Sanhedrins which "Sanh.xi.2 according to the Mishnah,b held their meetings in the Temple; the second, or intermediate Court of Appeal, being in the ' Court of the Priests' (probably close to the Nicanor Gate) ; and the highest, that of the Great Sanhedrin, at one time in the ' Hall of Hewn Square Stones ' (Lishkath ha-Gazith). Passing out of these ' colonnades,' or ' porches,' you entered the ' Court of the Gentiles,' or what the Eabbis called ' the Mount of the House,' which was widest on the west side, and more and more narrow respectively on the east, the south, and the north. This was called the Choi, or ' profane ' place, to which Gentiles had access. Here must have been the market for the sale of sacrificial animals, the tables of the money-changers, and places forthe sale of other needful articles.0 3 was close to the entrance into the Court ot the Priests. _ s The question what was sold in this market, and its relation to 'the bazaar' ot the family of Annas (the Chanuyoth beney Chanan) will be discussed in a later part. * St. John ii. 14 ; St. Matt. xxi. 12 ; Jems. Chag. p. 78 a; comp. Neti. xiii. 4 1 So according to the Rabbis ; Josephus does not mention it. In general, the ac count here given is accordingto the Rabbis. 2 These tunnels were divided by colon nades respectively into three and into two, the double colonnade being probably used by the priests, since its place of exit THE SANCTUARY. 245 Advancing within this Court, you reached a low breast-wall (the Soreg), which marked the space beyond which no Gentile, nor Levitically un clean person, might proceed— tablets, bearing inscriptions to that effect, warning them off. Thirteen openings admitted into the inner part of the Court. Thence fourteen steps led up to the Chel or Terrace, which was bounded by the wall of the Temple-buildings in the stricter sense. A flight of steps led up to the massive, splendid gates. The two on the west side seem to have been of no importance, so far as the wor shippers were concerned, and probably intended for the use of work men. North and south were four gates.1 But the most splendid gate was that to the east, termed ' the Beautiful.' " • Acts iii. 2 Entering by the latter, you came into the Court of the Women, so called because the women occupied in it two elevated and separated galleries, which, however, filled only part of the Court. Fifteen steps led up to the Upper Court, which was bounded by a wall, and where was the celebrated Nicanor Gate, covered with Corinthian brass. Here the Levites, who conducted the musical part of the service, were placed. In the Court of the Women were the Treasury and the thir teen ' Trumpets,' while at each corner were chambers or halls, destined for various purposes. Similarly, beyond the fifteen steps, there were repositories for the musical instruments. The Upper Court was divided into two parts by a boundary — the narrow part forming the Court -of Israel, and the wider that of the Priests, in which were the great Altar and the Laver. The Sanctuary itself was on a higher terrace than the Court of the Priests. Twelve steps led up to its Porch, which extended beyond it on either side (north and south). Here, in separate chambers, all that was necessary for the sacrificial service was kept. On two marble tables near the entrance the old shewbread which was taken out, and the new that was brought in, were respectively placed. The Porch was adorned by votive presents, conspicuous among them a massive golden vine. A two-leaved gate opened into the Sanctuary itself, which was divided into two parts. The Holy Place had the Golden Candlestick (south), the Table of Shewbread (north), and the Golden Altar of Incense between them. A heavy double veil con cealed the entrance to the Most Holy Place, which in the second 1 The question as to their names and grave doubts as to their historical trust- arrangement is not without difficulty. worthiness. It seems to me that the The subject is fully treated in ' The Babbis always give rather the ideal than Temple and its Services.' Although I the real, — what, according to their theory, have followed in the text the arrange- should have been, rather than what ments of the Eabbis, I must express my actually was. 246 FROM BETHLEHExM TO JORDAN. BOOK II * So accord ing to the Rabbis generally. Comp. Hoff mann, Abh. ii. d. pent. G-es. pp. 65,66 " St. Luke Temple was empty, nothing being there but the piece of rock, called the Ebhen Shethiyah, or Foundation Stone, which, according to tradition, covered the mouth of the pit, and on which, it was thought, the world- was founded. Nor does all this convey an adequate idea of the vast- ness of the Temple-buildings. For all around the Sanctuary and each of the Courts were various chambers and out-buildings, which served different purposes connected with the Services of the Temple.1 In some part of this Temple, ' sitting in the midst of the Doetors,2 both hearing them and asking them questions,' we must look for the Child Jesus on the third and the two following days of the Feast on which He first visited the Sanctuary. Only on the two first days of the Feast of Passover was personal attendance in the Temple necessary. With the third day commenced the so-called half-holydays, when it was lawful to return to one's home" — a provision of which, no doubt, many availed themselves. Indeed, there was really nothing of special interest to detain the pilgrims. For, the Passover had been eaten, the festive sacrifice (or Chagigah) offered, and the first ripe barley reaped and brought to the Temple, and waved as the Omer of first flour before the Lord. Hence, in view of the well-known Babbinic provision, the expression in the Gospel-narrative concerning the ' Parents ' of Jesus, ' when they had fulfilled the days,' b cannot necessarily imply that Joseph and the Mother of Jesus had remained in Jerusalem during the whole Paschal week.3 On the other hand, the circumstances connected with the presence of Jesus in the Temple render this sup position impossible. For, Jesus could not have been found among the Doctors after the close of the Feast. The first question here is as to the locality in the Temple, where the scene has to be laid. It has, indeed, been commonly supposed that there was a Synagogue in the Temple ; but of this there is, to say the least, no historical evidence.4 But even if such had existed, the worship and addresses of the Syna gogue would not have offered any opportunity for the questioning on the part of Jesus which the narrative implies. Still more groundless is the idea that there was in the Temple something like a Beth ha- 1 For a full description, I must refer to ' The Temple, its Ministry and Services at the time of Jesus Christ.' Some repeti tion of what had been alluded to in pre vious chapters has been unavoidable in the present description of the Temple. 2 Although comparatively few really great authorities in Jewish Canon Law Eved at that time, more than a dozen names could be given of Babbis cele brated in Jewish literature, who must have been His contemporaries at one or another period of His life. 3 In fact, an attentive consideration of what in the tractate Moed K. (comp. also Chag. 17 b), is declared to be lawful occupation during the half-holydays, leads us to infer that a very large proportion must have returned to their homes. ' For a full discussion of this impor tant question, see Appendix X. : ' The Sup posed Temple-Synagogue.' AMONG THE DOCTORS. 247 Midrash, or theological Academy, not to speak of the circumstance that a child of twelve would not, at any time, have been allowed to take part in its discussions. But there were occasions on which the Temple became virtually, though not formally, a Beth ha-Midrash. For we read in the Talmud," that the members of the Temple-Sanhedrin, • sanh. 88 b who on ordinary days sat as a Court of Appeal, from the close of the Morning- to the time ofthe EveningrSacrifice, were wont on Sabbaths and feast-days to come out upon 'the Terrace' of the Temple, and there to teach. In such popular instruction the utmost latitude of questioning would be given. It is in this audience, which sat on the ground, surrounding and mingling with the Doctors — and hence during, not after the Feast — that we must seek the Child Jesus. But we have yet to show that the presence and questioning of a Child of that age did not necessarily imply anything so extraordinary, as to convey the idea of supernaturalness to those Doctors or others in the audience. Jewish tradition gives other instances of pre cocious and strangely advanced students. Besides, scientific theo logical learning would not be necessary to take part in such popular discussions. If we may judge from later arrangements, not only iu Babylon, but in Palestine, there were two kinds of public lectures, and two kinds of students. The first, or more scientific class, was designated Kallah (literally, bride), and its attendants Beney- Kallah (children of the bride). These lectures were delivered in the last month of summer (Elul), before the Feast of the New Year, and in the last winter month (Adar), immediately before the Feast of Passover. They implied considerable preparation on the part of the lecturing Eabbis, and at least some Talmudic knowledge on the part of the attendants. On the other hand, there were Students of the Court, (Chatsatsta, and in Babylon Tarbitsa), who during ordinary lectures sat separated from the regular students by a kind of hedge, outside, as it were in the Court, some of whom seem to have been ignorant even of the Bible. The lectures addressed to such a general audience would, of course, be of a very different character.b „ Comp Jer But if there was nothing so unprecedented as to render His t^ndVter Presence and questioning marvellous, yet all who heard Him ' were passages amazed ' at His ' combinative insight ' 1 and ' discerning answers.' 2 1 The expression oiveois means origi- The LXX. render by it no less than eight nally concur sus, and (as Schleusner rightly different Hebrew terms. puts it) intelligentia in the sense of per- 2 The primary meaning of the verb, spicacia qua res probe cognitse subtiliter from which the word is derived, is ac diligenter a se invicem discernuntur. secerno, discerno. 248 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II a Jer. Pes. .-. 1; Pes. 66 ,1 'St. Matt. xxii. 42-45 'Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 5 d Maas. Sh. v. 2 We scarcely venture to inquire towards what His questioning had been directed. Judging by what we know of such discussions, we infer that they may have been connected with the Paschal solemni ties. Grave Paschal questions did arise. Indeed, the great Hillel obtained his rank as chief when he proved to the assembled Doctors, that the Passover might be offered even on the Sabbath." Many other questions might arise on the subject of the Passover. Or did the Child Jesus — as afterwards, in connection with Messianic teach ing1' — lead up by His questions to the deeper meaning ofthe Paschal solemnities, as it was to be unfolded, when Himself was offered up, ' the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world ' ? Other questions also almost force themselves on the mind — most notably this : whether on the occasion of this His first visit to the Temple, the Virgin-Mother had told her Son the history of His Infancy, and of what had happened when, for the first time, He had been brought to the Temple. It would almost seem so, if we might judge from the contrast between the Virgin-Mother's complaint about the search of His father and of her, and His own emphatic appeal to the business of His Father. But most surprising — truly wonderful it must have seemed to Joseph, and even to the Mother of Jesus, that the meek, quiet Child should have been found in such company, and so engaged. It must have been quite other than what, from His past, they would have expected ; or they would not have taken it for granted, when they left Jerusalem, that He was among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, perhaps mingling with the children. Nor yet would they, in such case, after they missed Him at the first night's halt — at Sichem,0 if the direct road north, through Samaria,1 was taken (or, according to the Mishnah, at Akrabah a) — have so anxiously sought Him by the way,2 and in Jerusalem ; nor yet would they have been ' amazed ' when they found Him in the assembly of the Doctors. The reply of Jesus to the half-reproachful, half-relieved expostulation of them who had sought Him ' sorrowing ' these three days,3 sets clearly these three things before us. He had been so entirely absorbed by the awakening thought of His Being and Mission, however kindled, as to be not only neglectful, but forgetful of all around. Nay, it even seemed to Him impossible to under stand how they could have sought Him, and not known where He ' According to Jer. Ab. Z. ii d, the soil, « The first day would be that of miss- ¦ the fountains, the houses, and the roads ing Him, the second that of the return of Samaria were ' clean.' and the third that of the search in Jeru- 2 This is implied in the use of the salem. present participle. THE AWAKENING OF THE CHRIST-CONSCIOUSNESS. 249 had lingered. Secondly : we may venture to say, that He now CHAP. realised that this was emphatically His Father's House. And, X thirdly : so far as we can judge, it was then and there that, for the ' "" first time, He felt the strong and irresistible impulse — that Divine necessity of His Being — to be ' about His Father's business.' l We all when first awakening to spiritual consciousness — or, perhaps, when for the first time taking part in the feast of the Lord's House may, and, learning from His example, should, make this the hour of decision in which heart and life shall be wholly consecrated to the ' business ' of our Father. But there was far more than this in the bearing of Christ on this occasion. That forgetfulness of His Child-life was a sacrifice — a sacrifice of self; that entire absorption in His Father's business, without a thought of self, either in the gratification of curiosity, the acquisition of knowledge, or personal ambition — a consecration of Himself unto God. It was the first manifestation of His passive and active obedience to the Will of God. Even at this stage, it was the forth-bursting of the inmost meaning of His Life : ' My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work.' And yet this awakening of the Christ- consciousness on His first visit to the Temple, partial, and perhaps even temporary, as it may have been, seems itself like the morning- dawn which from the pinnacle of the Temple the Priest watched, ere he summoned his waiting brethren beneath to offer the early sacrifice. From what we have already learned of this History, we do not wonder that the answer of Jesus came to His parents as a fresh surprise. For, we can only understand what we perceive in its totality. But here each fresh manifestation came as something separate and new — not as part of a whole ; and therefore as a sur prise, of which the purport and meaning could not be understood, except in its organic connection and as a whole. And for the true human development of the God-Man, what was the natural was also the needful process, even as it was best for the learning of Mary herself, and for the future reception of His teaching. These three 1 The expression iv rols tov rrarpis fiov (2) It seems unaccountable how the word may be equally rendered, or rather sup- ' house ' could have been left out in the plemented, by 'in My Father's house,' Greek rendering of the Aramaean words of and ' about My Father's business.' The Christ — but quite natural, if the word to former is adopted by most modern com- be supplemented was ' things ' or ' busi- mentators. But (1) it does not accord ness.' (3) A reference to the Temple as with the word that must be supplemented His Father's house could not have seemed in the two analogous passages in the so strange on the lips of Jesus — nor, in- LXX. Neither in Esth. vii. 9, nor in deed, of any Jewish child — as to fill Ecclus. xiii. 10, is it strictly ' the house,' Joseph and Mary with astonishment. 250 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II » St. Luke ii. 52 subsidiary reasons may once more be indicated here in explanation of the Virgin-Mother's seeming ignorance of her Son's true character : the necessary gradualness of such a revelation ; the necessary de velopment of His own consciousness ; and the fact, that Jesus could not have been subject to His Parents, nor had true and proper human training, if they had clearly known that He was the essential Son of God. A further, though to us it seems a downward step, was His quiet, immediate, unquestioning return to Nazareth with His Parents, and His willing submission • to them while there. It was self-denial, self-sacrifice, self-consecration to His Mission, with all that it im plied. It was not self-exinanition but self-submission, all the more glorious in proportion to the greatness of that Self. This constant contrast before her eyes only deepened in the heart of Mary the ever- present impression of ' all those matters,' 2 of which she was the most cognisant. She was learning to spell out the word Messiah, as each of ' those matters ' taught her one fresh letter in it, and she looked at them all in the light of the Nazareth-Sun. With His return to Nazareth began Jesus' Life of youth and early manhood, with all of inward and outward development, of heavenly and earthly approbation which it carried." Whether or not He went to Jerusalem on recurring Feasts, we know not, and need not inquire. For only once during that period — on His first visit to the Temple, and in the awakening of His Youth-Life could there have been such outward forth-bursting of His real Being and Mission. Other influences were at their silent work to weld His inward and outward development, and to determine the manner of His later Manifesting of Himself. We assume that the School-education of Jesus must have ceased soon after His return to Nazareth. Henceforth the Nazareth-influences on the Life and Thinking of Jesus may be grouped — and progressively as He advanced from youth to manhood — under these particulars: Home Nature, and Prevailing Ideas. 1. Home. Jewish Home-Life, especially in the country, was of the simplest. Even in luxurious Alexandria it seems often 'to have been such, alike as regarded the furnishing of the house and the provisions of the table.3 The morning and midday meal must have been of the plainest, and even the larger evening meal of the 1 The voluntariness of His submission equivalent to the Hphrow *..,., (.- is implied by the present part. mid. of „„ ., ... a*or<™ O^^rj >3 = the verb. tL f-.l • ^F' Pt Luke uses *e 2 The Authorised Version renders « say- iq m a fm sense in *¦ 65 > i;- i6, ings.' But I think the expression is clearly jZ ' Ao*? ,T- ,32 ; x. 37 ; xiii. i2. & r ' 8ComP-^Z0inFla<;c.ed.Frcf.p.977&o. THE 'BRETHREN' OF THE LORD. 251 simplest, in the home at Nazareth. Only the Sabbath and festivals, CHAP. whether domestic or public, brought what of the best lay within X reach. But Nazareth was not the city of the wealthy or influential, "" "' and such festive evening-entertainments, with elaborate ceremonious- ness of reception, arranging of guests according to rank, and rich spread of board, would but rarely, if ever, be witnessed in those quiet homes/ The same simplicity would prevail in dress and manners.1 But close and loving were the bonds which drew together the members of a family, and deep the influence which they exercised on each other. We cannot here discuss the vexed question whether ' the brothers and sisters ' of Jesus were such in the real sense, or step-brothers and sisters, or else cousins, though it seems to us as if the primary meaning of the terms would scarcely have been called in question, but for a theory of false asceticism, and an undervaluing of the sanctity of the married estate." But, what- » comp. ever the precise relationship between Jesus, and these ' brothers and 24'; st. Lute sisters,' it must, on any theory, have been of the closest, and exercised Matt. xii. its influence upon Him.2 56 • st. Mark Passing over Joses or Joseph, of whose history we know next to 3;'ActsT nothing, we have sufficient materials to enable us to form some judg- ix.'s; Gai.i. 19 ment of what must have been the tendencies and thoughts of two of His brothers James and Jude, before they were heart and soul followers of the Messiah, and of His cousin Simon.3 If we might venture on a general characterisation, we would infer from the Epistle of St. James, that his religious views had originally been cast in the mould of Sham mai. Certainly, there is nothing of the Hillelite direction about it, but all to remind us of the earnestness, directness, vigour, and rigour of Shammai. Of Simon we know that he had belonged to the National ist party, since he is expressly so designated (Zelotes* Cananoean)." "st. Luke Lastly, there are in the Epistle of St. Jude, one undoubted, and lets _.' 13 another probable reference to two of those (Pseudepigraphic) Apoca- ¦ifti8Mark lyptic books, which at that time marked one deeply interesting phase of the Messianic outlook of -Israel."1 We have thus within the narrow a st. Jude circle of Christ's Family-Life-^-not to speak of any intercourse with the ^ book of sons of Zebedee, who probably were also His cousins 4— the three most ^probably to the 1 For details as to dress, food, and 8 I regard this Simon (Zelotes) as the Assum. manners in Palestine, I must refer to son of Clopas (brother of Joseph, the of Mosea other parts of this book. Virgin's husband) and of Mary.' For 2 The question of the real relationship the reasons of this view, see Book III. of Christ to His 'brothers' has been so ch. xvii. and Book V. ch. xv. often discussed in the various Cyclo- * On the maternal side. We read St. psedias that it seems unnecessary here to John xix. 25 as indicating four women — enter upon the matter in detail. See His Mother's sister being Salome, accord- also Dr. Lightfoot 's Dissertation in his ing to St. Mark xv. 40. Comment, on Galat.pp. 282-291. 252 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. Kidd. 29 b ' hopeful and pure Jewisn tendencies, brought into constant contact with Jesus : in Pharisaism, the teaching of Shammai ; then, the Nationalist ideal ; and, finally, the hope of a glorious Messianic future. To these there should probably be added, at least knowledge of the lonely preparation of His kinsman John, who, though certainly not an Essene, had, from the necessity of his calling, much in his outward bearing that was akin to them. But we are anticipating. From what are, necessarily, only sugges tions, we turn again to what is certain in connection with His Family- Life and its influences. From St. Mark vi. 3, we may infer with great "Comp. probability, though not with absolute certainty," that He had adopted. xiii. 5S;' the trade of Joseph. Among the Jews the contempt for manual 42' " labour, which was one of the painful characteristics of heathenism, did not exist. On the contrary, it was deemed a religious duty, frequently and most earnestly insisted upon, to learn some trade, provided it did not minister to luxury, nor tend to lead away from IbTib- personal observance of the Law.b There was not such separation between rich and poor as with us, and while wealth might confer social distinction, the absence of it in no way implied social inferiority. Nor could it be otherwise where wants were so few, life was so simple, and its highest aim so ever present to the mind. We have already spoken of the religious influences in the family, so blessedly different from that neglect, exposure, and even murder of children among the heathen, or their education by slaves, who cor rupted the mind from its earliest opening.2 The love of parents to -children, appearing even in the curse which was felt to attach to childlessness ; the reverence towards parents, as a duty higher than any of outward observance ; and the love of brethren, which Jesus had learned in His home, form, so to speak, the natural basis of many of the teachings of Jesus. They give us also an insight into the family- life of Nazareth. And yet there is nothing sombre nor morose about it ; and even the joyous games of children, as well as festive gatherings of families, find their record in the words and the life of Christ. This also is characteristic of His past. And so are His deep sympathy with all sorrow and suffering, and His love for the family circle as evidenced in the home of Lazarus. That He spoke Hebrew and used 1 See the chapter on ' Trades and its abominations, pp. 723-726. Nothing Tradesmen,' in the ' Sketches of Jewish can cast a more lurid light on the need Social Life.' for Christianity, if the world was not to 2 Comp. this subject in Ddllinger, 'Hei- perish of utter rottenness, than a, study denthum u. Judenthum,' in regard to the of ancient Hellas and Rome, as presented Greeks, p. b92 ; in regard to the Eomans, by Ddllinger in his admirable work. pp. 716-722 ; in regard to education and CHRIST'S SYMPATHY WITH NATURE AND MAN. 253 and quoted the Scriptures in the original, has already been shown, CHAP. although, no doubt, He understood Greek, possibly also Latin. X Secondly : Nature and Every-day Life. The most superficial ' perusal of the teaching of Christ must convince how deeply sympathetic He was with nature, and how keenly observant of man. Here there is no contrast between love of the country and the habits of city life ; the two are found side by side. On His lonely walks He must have had an eye for the beauty of the lilies of the field, and thought of it, how the birds of the air received their food from an Unseen Hand, and with what maternal affection the hen gathered her chickens under her wing. He had watched the sower or the vinedresser as he went forth to his labour, and read the teaching of the tares which sprang up among the wheat. To Him the vocation of the shepherd must have been full of meaning, as he led, and fed, and watched his flock, spoke to his sheep with well-known voice, brought them to the fold, or followed, and tenderly carried back, those that had strayed, ever ready to defend them, even at the cost of his own life. Nay, He even seems to have watched the habits of the fox in its secret lair. But he also equally knew the joys, the sorrows, the wants and sufferings of the busy multitude. The play in the market, the marriage processions, the funeral rites, the wrongs of injustice and oppression, the urgent harshness of the creditor, the bonds and prison of the debtor, the palaces and luxury of princes and courtiers, the self-indulgence of the rich, the avarice of the covetous, the exactions of the tax-gatherer, and the oppression of the widow by unjust judges, had all made an indelible impression on His mind. And yet this evil world was not one which He hated, and from which He would withdraw Himself with His disciples, though ever and again He felt the need of periods of meditation and prayer. On the contrary, while He confronted all the evil in it, He would fain pervade the mass with the new leaven ; not cast it away, but renew it. He recognised the good and the hopeful, even in those who seemed most lost ; He quenched not the dimly burning flax, nor brake the bruised reed. It was not contempt of the world, but sadness over it ; not condemnation of man, but drawing him to His Heavenly Father ; not despising of the little and the poor, whether outwardly or inwardly such, but encouragement and adoption of them — together with keen insight into the real under the mask of the apparent, and withering denunciation and unsparing exposure of all that was evil, mean, and unreal, wherever it might appear. Such were some of the results gathered from His past life, as presented in His teaching. Thirdly : Of the prevailing ideas around, with which He was 254 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN BOOK brought in contact, some have already been mentioned. Surely, the II earnestness of His Shammaite brother, if such we may venture to designate him ; the idea of the Kingdom suggested by the Nationalists, only in its purest and most spiritual form, as not of this world, and as truly realising the sovereignty of God in the individual, who ever he might be ; even the dreamy thoughts of the prophetic litera ture of those times, which sought to read the mysteries of the coming Kingdom ; as well as the prophet-like asceticism of His forerunner and kinsman, formed at least so many points of contact for His teaching. Thus, Christ was in sympathy with all the highest ten dencies of His people and time. Above all, there was His intimate converse with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. If, in the Syna gogue, He saw much to show the hollowness, self-seeking, pride, and literalism which a mere external observance of the Law fostered, He would ever turn from what man or devils said to what He read, to what was ' written.' Not one dot or hook of it- could fall to the ground — all must be established and fulfilled. The Law of Moses in all its bearings, the utterances of the prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah," Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi — and the hopes and consolations of the Psalms, were all to Him literally true, and cast their light upon the building which Moses had reared. It was all one : a grand unity ; not an aggregation of different parts, but the unfolding of a living organism. Chiefest of all, it was the thought of the Messianic bearing of all Scripture in its unity, the idea of the King dom of God and the King of Zion, which was the light and life of all. Beyond this, into the mystery of His inner converse with God, the unfolding of His spiritual receptiveness, and the increasing communication from above, we dare not enter. Even what His bodily appearance may have been, we scarcely venture to imagine.1 It could not but be that His outer man in some measure bodied forth His ' Inner Being.' Yet we dread gathering around our thoughts of Him the artificial flowers of legend.2 What His manner and mode of re ceiving and dealing with men were, we can portray to ourselves from His life. And so it is best to remain content with the simple account of the Evangelic narrative : ' Jesus increased in favour with God and man.' 1 Even the poetic conception of the Gieseler, Kirchengesch i vr> 86 Rfl painter can only furnish his own ideal, . Of these there are, alls ! only too and that of one special mood. Speaking many. The reader interested in the as one who has no claim to knowledge ot matter will find a good summary in Kehn art, only one picture of Christ ever really i. 2, pp. 460-463. One of the few noTe- impressed me It was that of an Ecce worthy remarks recorded is this de- Homo,' ^ Carlo Dolci, in the Pitti scription of Christ, in the spurious Epistfe Gallery at Horence. ior an account of of Leutulus, -Who was never seen to the early pictorial representations, comp. laugh, but often to weep.' ELIJAH AND THE BAPTIST. 251: CHAPTER XI. IN THE FIFTEENTH TEAR OF TIBERIUS C_BSAR AND UNDER THE PONTIFICATE OF ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS — A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS. (St. Matthew iii. 1-12 ; St. Mark i. 2-8 ; St. Luke iii. 1-18.) There is something grand, even awful, in the almost absolute silence CHAP. which lies upon the thirty years between the Birth and the first ^ Messianic Manifestation of Jesus. In a narrative like that of the Gospels, this must have been designed ; and, if so, affords presump tive evidence of the authenticity of what follows, and is intended to teach, that what had preceded concerned only the inner History of Jesus, and the preparation of the Christ. At last that solemn silence was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry as startling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed, the two messengers and their times bore singular likeness. It was to a society secure, prosperous, and luxurious, yet in imminent danger of perishing from hidden, festering disease ; and to a religious com munity which presented the appearance of hopeless perversion, and yet contained the germs of a possible regeneration, that both Elijah and John the Baptist came. Both suddenly appeared to threaten terrible judgment, but also to open unthought-of possibilities of good. And, as if to deepen still more the impression of this contrast, both ap peared in a manner unexpected, and even antithetic to the habits of their contemporaries. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of Judaea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead ; John bore the same strange ascetic appearance as his predecessor ; the message of John was the counterpart of that of Elijah ; his baptism that of Elijah's novel rite on Mount Carmel. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, with all of memory and hope which it awakened, even the more minute details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that of John. Yet history never repeats itself. It fulfils in its develop ment that of which it gave indication at its commencement. Thus, 256 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK the history of John the Baptist was the fulfilment of that of Elijah 11 in ' the fulness of time.' For, alike in the Boman world and in Palestine, the time had fully come ; not, indeed, in the sense of any special expectancy, but of absolute need. The reign of Augustus marked, not only the climax, but the crisis, of Boman history. Whatever of good or of evil the ancient world contained, had become fully ripe. As regarded politics, philosophy, religion, and society, the utmost limits had been reached.1 Beyond them lay, as only alternatives, ruin or regeneration. It was felt that the boundaries of the Empire could be no further extended, and that henceforth the highest aim must be to preserve what had been conquered. The destinies of Rome were in the hands of one man, who was at the same time general-in-chief of a standing army of about three hundred and forty thousand men, head of a Senate (now sunk into a mere court for registering the commands of Csesar), and High-Priest of a religion, of which the highest expression was the apotheosis of the State in the person of the Emperor. Thus, all power within, without, and above, lay in his hands. Within' the city, which in one short reign was transformed from brick into marble, were, side by side, the most abject misery and almost boundless luxury. Of a population of about two millions, well-nigh one half were slaves ; and, of the rest, the greater part either freedmen and their descendants, or foreigners. Each class contributed its share to the common decay. Slavery was not even what we know it, but a seething mass of cruelty and oppression on the one side, and of cunning and corruption on the other. More than any other cause, it contributed to the ruin of Roman society. The freedmen, who had very often acquired their liberty by the most disreputable Courses, and had prospered in them com bined in shameless manner the vices of the free with the vileness of the slave. The foreigners — specially Greeks and Syrians— who crowded the city, poisoned the springs of its life by the corruption which they brought. The free citizens were idle, dissipated, sunken ; their chief thoughts of the theatre and the arena ; and they were mostly sup ported at the public cost. While, even in the time of Augustus, more than two hundred thousand persons were thus maintained by the State, what of the old Roman stock remained was rapidly decaying partly from corruption, but chiefly from the increasing cessation of mar riage, and the nameless abominations of what remained of family-life. » Instead of detailed quotations I Sittengeschichte Boms, and to Dollin- would here generally refer to works oh ger's exhaustive work, Heidenthum „nd Roman history, especially to Fnedlander's Judenthum. THE ANCIENT ROMAN WORLD. 257 The state of the provinces was in every respect more favourable. CHAP. But it was the settled policy of the Empire, which only too surely XI succeeded, to destroy all separate nationalities, or rather to absorb and to Grecianise all. The only real resistance came from the Jews. Their tenacity was religious, and, even in its extreme of intolerant exclusiveness, served a most important Providential purpose. And so Bome became to all the centre of attraction, but also of fast-spread ing destructive corruption. Yet this unity also, and the common bond of the Greek language, served another important Providential purpose. So did, in another direction, the conscious despair of any possible internal reformation. This, indeed, seemed the last word of all the institutions in the Boman world : It is not in me ! Beli- gion, philosophy, and society had passed through every stage, to that of despair. Without tracing the various phases of ancient thought, it may be generally said that, in Bome at least, the issue lay between Stoicism and Epicureanism. The one flattered its pride, the other gratified its sensuality; the one was in accordance with the original national character, the other with its later decay and cor ruption. Both ultimately led to atheism and despair —the one, by turning all higher aspirations self-ward, the other, by quenching them in the enjoyment of the moment ; the one, by making the ex tinction of all feeling and self-deification, the other, the indulgence of every passion and the worship of matter, its ideal. That, under such conditions, all real belief in a personal con tinuance after death must have ceased among the educated classes, needs not demonstration. If the older Stoics held that, after death, the soul would continue for some time a separate existence — in the case of sages till the general destruction of the world by fire, it was the doctrine of most of their successors that, immediately after death, the soul returned into ' the world-soul ' of which it was part. But even this hope was beset by so many doubts and misgivings, as to make it practically without influence or comfort. Cicero was the only one who, following Plato, defended the immortality of the soul, while the Peripatetics denied the existence of a soul, and leading Stoics at least its continuance after death. But even Cicero writes as one overwhelmed by doubts. With his contemporaries this doubt deepened into absolute despair, the only comfort lying in present indulgence of the passions. Even among the Greeks, who were most tenacious of belief in the non-extinction of the individual, the prac tical upshot was the same. The only healthier tendency, however mixed with error, came from the Neo-Platonic School, which accord- VOL. I. s 258 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. ingly offered a point of contact between ancient philosophy and the new faith. In such circumstances, anything like real religion was manifestly impossible. Bome tolerated, and, indeed, incorporated, all national rites. But among the populace religion had degenerated into abject superstition. In the East, much of it consisted of the vilest rites ; while, among the philosophers, all religions were considered equally false or equally true — the outcome of ignorance, or else the uncon scious modifications of some one fundamental thought. The only religion on which the State insisted was the deification and worship of the Emperor.1 These apotheoses attained almost incredible de velopment. Soon not only the Emperors, but their wives, paramours, children, and the creatures of their vilest lusts, were deified"; nay, any private person might attain that distinction, if the survivors possessed sufficient means.2 Mingled with all this was an increasing amount of superstition — by which term some understood the worship of foreign gods, the most part the existence of fear in religion. The ancient Boman religion had long given place to foreign rites, the more mysterious and unintelligible the more enticing. It was thus that Judaism made its converts in Bome ; its chief recommendation with many being its contrast to the old, and the unknown possibili ties which its seemingly incredible doctrines opened. Among the most repulsive symptoms of the general religious decay may be reckoned prayers for the death of a rich relative, or even for the satisfaction of unnatural lusts, along with horrible blasphemies when such prayers remained unanswered. We may here contrast the spirit of the Old and New Testaments with such sentiments as this, on the tomb of a child : ' To the unjust gods who robbed me of life ; ' or on that of a girl of twenty : ' I lift my hands against the god who took me away, innocent as I am.' It would be unsavoury to describe how far the worship of in decency was carried; how public morals were corrupted by the mimic representations of everything that was vile, and even by the pandering of a corrupt art. The personation of gods, oracles, divination, dreams, astrology, magic, necromancy, and theurgy,3 all > The only thorough resistance to this . One of the most painful, and to the worship came from hated Jud_ea, and, we Christian almost incredible manifestations mayadd,fromBritain(^^r,p.611) of religious decay wa Tthe Sfi tv f +°m «* "tt °T t0 S"1* °f manner in which *he priests practised im? Diocletmn, fifty-three such apotheoses posture upon the people. Numerous and took place, including those_ of fifteen terrible instances of this could be riven women belonging to the Imperial families. The evidence of this is not only derived MORALS, SOCIETY, AND PHILOSOPHY. 259 contributed to the general decay. It has been rightly said, that the CHAP. idea of conscience, as we understand it, was unknown to heathenism. XI Absolute right did not exist. Might was right. The social relations ~~ ' exhibited, if possible, even deeper corruption. The sanctity of mar riage had ceased. Female dissipation and the general dissoluteness led at last to an almost entire cessation of marriage. Abortion, and the exposure and murder of newly-born children, were common and tolerated ; unnatural vices, which even the greatest philosophers prac tised, if not advocated, attained proportions which defy description. But among these sad signs of the times three must be specially mentioned : the treatment of slaves ; the bearing towards the poor ; and public amusements. The slave was entirely unprotected ; males and females were exposed to nameless cruelties, compared to which death by being thrown to the wild beasts, or fighting in the arena, might seem absolute relief. Sick or old slaves were cast out to perish from want. But what the influence of the slaves must have been on the free population? and especially upon the young — whose tutors they generally were — may readily be imagined. The^heart- lessness towards the poor who crowded the city is another well-known feature of ancient Boman society. Of course, there were neither hospitals, nor provision for the poor; charity and brotherly love in their every manifestation are purely Old and New Testament ideas. But even the bestowal of the smallest alms on the needy was regarded as very questionable ; best, not to afford them the means of protracting a useless existence. Lastly, the account which Seneca has to give of what occupied and amused the idle multitude — for all manual labour, except agriculture, was looked upon with utmost contempt — horrified even himself. And so the only escape which remained for the philosopher, the satiated, or the miserable, seemed the power of self-destruction ! What is worst, the noblest spirits of the time felt, that the state of things was utterly hopeless. Society could not reform itself; philosophy and religion had nothing to offer: they had been tried and found wanting. Seneca longed for some hand from without to lift up from the mire of despair ; Cicero pictured the enthusiasm which would greet the embodiment of true virtue, should it ever appear on earth ; Tacitus declared human life one from the Fathers, but a work has been (Comp. ' The Pneumatics of Hero,' trans- preserved in which formal instructions are lated by B. Woodcroft.) The worst was, given, how temples and altars are to be that this kind of imposture on the igno- constructed in order to produce false mira- rant populace was openly approved by cles, and by what means impostures of the educated. (Dbllmger, p. 647.) this kind may be successfully practised. s2 260 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK great farce, and expressed his conviction that the Roman world lay II under some terrible curse. All around, despair, conscious need, and unconscious longing. Can greater contrast be imagined, than the proclamation of a coming Kingdom of God amid such a world; or clear evidence be afforded of the reality of this Divine message, than that it came to seek and to save that which was thus lost ? One synchronism, as remarkable as that of the Star in the East and the Birth of the Messiah, here claims the reverent attention of the student of history. On the 19th of December A.D. 69, the Boman Capitol, with its ancient sanctuaries, was set on fire. Eight months later, on the 9th of Ab a.d. 70, the Temple of Jerusalem was given to the flames. It is not a coincidence but a conjunction, for upon the ruins of heathenism and of apostate Judaism was the Church of Christ to be reared. A silence, even more complete than that concerning the early life of Jesus, rests on the thirty years and more, which intervened between the birth and the open forthshowing ' »of John in his character as Forerunner of the Messiah. Only his outward and inward develop- ^st. Luke i. ment, and his being ' in the deserts,' 2 are briefly indicated.* The latter, assuredly, not in order to learn from the Essenes3 but to attain really, in lonely fellowship with God, what they sought extern ally. It is characteristic that, while Jesus could go straight from the home and workshop of Nazareth to the Baptism of Jordan, His Forerunner required so long and peculiar preparation : characteristic of the difference of their Persons and Mission, characteristic also of the greatness of the work to be inaugurated. St. Luke furnishes precise notices of the time of the Baptist's public appearance — not merely to fix the exact chronology, which would not have required so many details, but for a higher purpose. For, they indicate, more clearly than the most elaborate discussion, the fitness of the moment for the Advent of 'the Kingdom of Heaven.' For the first time since the Babylonish Captivity, the foreigner, the Chief of the hated Boman Empire— according to the Babbis, the fourth beast of Daniel's *At>.zar.2& vision b — was absolute and undisputed master of Judasa • and the ' lht SfmS ^efr" -waning of the the passage). On the fulfilment- by the Tri / v^ t '• l0, °0mp- A°tS '• U Baptist of Is- xl- 3> see the discussion of (m_ ™ A'Y,' Snhe^> , «. A ot T v that passaSe in APPendix XI. 2 The plural mdicates that St. John . Godet has, in a few forcible sentences, was not always m the same 'wilder- traced" what may be called not merely ness/ The plural form in regard to the the difference, but the contrast between ' wildernesses which are m the land of the teaching and aims of the Essenes and Israel,' is common m Rabbinic writings those of John. (comp. Baba K. vii. 7 and the Gemaras on THE SONS AND SUCCESSORS OF HEROD. 261 chief religious office divided between two, equally unworthy of its CHAP. functions. And it deserves, at least, notice, that of the Rulers XI mentioned by St. Luke, Pilate entered on his office1* only shortly J^'^bi-' before the public appearance of John, and that they all continued *™*r s till after the Crucifixion of Christ. There was thus, so to speak, a A-D- continuity of these powers during the whole Messianic period. As regards Palestine, the ancient kingdom of Herod was now divided into four parts, Judsea being under the direct administration of Bome, two other tetrarchies under the rule of Herod's sons (Herod Antipas and Philip), while the small principality of Abilene was governed by Lysanias.1 Of the latter no details can be furnished, nor are they necessary in this history. It is otherwise as regards the sons of Herod, and especially the character of the Boman government at that time. Herod Antipas, whose rule extended over forty-three years, reigned over Galilee and Peraea — the districts which were respec tively the principal sphere of the Ministry of Jesus and of John the Baptist. Like his brother Archelaus, Herod Antipas possessed in an even aggravated form most of the vices, without any of the greater qualities, of his father. Of deeper religious feelings or convictions he was entirely destitute, though his conscience occasionally misgave, if it did not restrain, him. The inherent weakness of his character left him in the absolute control of his wife, to the final ruin of his for tunes. He was covetous, avaricious, luxurious, and utterly dissipated ; suspicious, and with a good deal of that fox-cunning which, especially in the East, often forms the sum total of state-craft. Like his father he indulged a taste for building — always taking care to propitiate Eome by dedicating all to the Emperor. The most extensive of his undertakings was the building, in 22 a.d., of the city of Tiberias, at the upper end of the Lake of Galilee. The site was under the disadvantage of having formerly been a burying-place, which, as implying Levitical uncleanness, for some time deterred pious Jews from settling- there. Nevertheless, it rose in great magnificence from among the reeds which had but lately covered the neighbourhood (the ensigns armorial of the city were ' reeds '). Herod Antipas made it his residence, and built there a strong castle and a palace of ' Till quite lately, those who impugn the notice of St. Luke is strictly correct; the veracity of the Gospels — Strauss, and and that, besides the other Lysanias, even Keim— have pointed to this notice one of the same name had reigned over of Lysanias as an instance of the un- Abilene at the time of Christ. Comp. historical character of St. Luke's Gospel. Wieseler, Beitr. pp. 196-204, and Schurer But it is now admitted on all hands that in Riehm's Handwdrterb. p. 931. 262 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK unrivalled splendour. The city, which was peopled chiefly by ad- 11 venturers, was mainly Grecian, and adorned with an amphitheatre, of which the ruins can still be traced. A happier account can be given of Philip, the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. He was undoubtedly the best of Herod's sons. He showed, indeed, the same abject submission as the rest of his family to the Boman Emperor, after whom he named the city of Csesarea Philippi, which he built at the sources of the Jordan ; just as he changed the name of Bethsaida, a village of which he made an opulent city, into Julias, after the daughter of Augustus. But he was a moderate and just ruler, and his reign of thirty-seven years contrasted favourably with that of his kinsmen. The land was quiet and prosperous, and the people contented and happy. As regards the Boman rule, matters had greatly changed for the worse since the mild sway of Augustus, under which, in the language » rmio, of Philo, no one throughout the Empire dared to molest the Jews." Leg. 1015 The only innovations to which Israel had then to submit were, the daily sacrifices for the Emperor and the Boman people, offerings on festive days, prayers for them in the Synagogues, and such partici- »u. s. 1031, pation in national joy or sorrow as their religion allowed.b It was far other when Tiberius succeeded to the Empire, and Judsea was a province. Merciless harshness characterised the ad ministration of Palestine ; while the Emperor himself was bitterly hostile to Judaism and the Jews, and that although, personally, 'Suet. Tiber, openly careless of all religion.0 Under his reign the persecution of the Roman Jews occurred, and Palestine suffered almost to the verge of endurance. The first Procurator whom Tiberius appointed over Judsea, changed the occupancy of the High-Priesthood four times, till he found in Caiaphas a sufficiently submissive instrument of Roman tyranny. The exactions, and the reckless disregard of all Jewish feelings and interests, might have been characterised as reaching the extreme limit, if worse had not followed when Pontius Pilate succeeded to the procurator ship. Venality, violence, robbery, persecutions, wanton malicious insults, judicial murders without even the formality of a legal process, and cruelty — such are the ^nuo, », s. charges brought against his administration.3 If former governors • jm. Ant. had, to some extent, respected the religious scruples of the Jews 'St. Luke' Pilate set them purposely at defiance; and this not only once, but Tint xviii aoam an^ agam> m Jerusalem,6 in Galilee/ and even in Samaria,8 4. i, 2. until the Emperor himself interposed.11 *Phih,Leg. Such, then, was the political condition of the land, when John THE HIGH-PRIESTS AND THEIR FAMILIES. 263 appeared to preach the near Advent of a Kingdom, with which CHAP. Israel associated all that was happy and glorious, even beyond the XI dreams of the religious enthusiast. And equally loud was the -call ' " for help in reference to those who held chief spiritual rule over the people. St. Luke significantly joins together, as the highest religious authority in the land, the names of Annas and Caiaphas.1 The former had been appointed by Quirinius. After holding the Pontifi cate for nine years, he was deposed, and succeeded by others, of whom the fourth was his son-in-law Caiaphas. The character of the High-Priests during the whole of that period is described in the Talmud* in terrible language. And although there is no evidence » Pes. 57 a that ' the house of Annas ' 2 was guilty of the same gross self- indulgence, violence,b luxury, and even public indecency,0 as some of » Jos. Ant. their successors, they are included in the woes pronounced on the t yoma 35 h corrupt leaders of the priesthood, whom the Sanctuary is represented as bidding depart from the sacred precincts, which their presence defiled.3 It deserves notice, that the special sin with which the dPes. u. s. house of Annas is charged is that of 'whispering' — or hissing like vipers — which seems to refer 3 to private influence on the judges in their administration of justice, whereby 'morals were corrupted, judgment perverted, and the Shekhinah withdrawn from Israel.' e «Tos.Sot. In illustration of this, we recall the terrorism which prevented San hedrists from taking the part of Jesus/ and especially the violence ' st. John which seems to have determined the final action of the Sanhedrin,6 e st. John against which not only such men as Nicodemus and Joseph of Ari- xl"47 50 mathasa, but even a Gamaliel, would feel themselves powerless. But although the expression ' High-Priest ' appears sometimes to have been used in a general sense, as designating the sons of the High- Priests, and even the principal members of their families,11 there could, WarVif sT? 1 The Procurators were Imperial fin- (KS»jA or perhaps rather — according to ancial officers, with absolute power of \,_,tt^_Lj.„„ w ¦»_ _._.._ t_- ¦ v. , . ' „ . ., " mi. the reading Koimos — HQT). ELaipha, or government m smaller territories. The x:i-' r office was generally in the hands of the Kaiphah. The name occurs in the Mishnah Roman knights, which chiefly consisted as Kayaph [so, and not Knph, correctly] of financial men, bankers, chief publicans, (Parah iii. 5). Professor Delitzsch does &c. The order of knighthood had sunk not venture to explain its meaning. to a low state, and the exactions of such Would it be too bold to suggest a deriva- a rule, especially in Judaea, can better be tion from KSp, and the meaning to be : imagined than described. Comp. on the He who is ' at the top ' ? whole subject, Friedlander, Sittengesch. ' If we may take a statement in the Roms, vol. i. p. 268 &c. Talmud, where the same word occurs, as 2 Annas, either Cbanan (|jn). or else a commentary. Chana or Channa, a common name. 'Pro- 4 I do not, however, feel sure that the f essor Delitzsch has rightly shown that word ' high-priests ' in this passage should the Hebrew equivalent for Caiaphas is be closely pressed. It is iust one of those not Keyplw, (SEl'J) = Peter, but Kayapha instances in which it would suit Josephus -264 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. * St. John xi. 49 St. John xviii. 13 = 779 A.U.C. * St. Luke iii. 3 • St. John i. 28 1 2 Kings i. of course, be only one actual High-Priest. The conjunction of the two names of Annas and Caiaphas1 probably indicates that, although Annas was deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside over the Sanhedrin — a conclusion not only borne out by Acts iv. 6, where Annas appears as the actual President, and by the terms in which Caiaphas is spoken of, as merely ' one of them,' a but by the part which Annas took in the final condemnation of Jesus.b Such a combination of political and religious distress, surely, con stituted the time of Israel's utmost need. As yet, no attempt had been made by the people to right themselves by armed force. In these cir cumstances, the cry that the Kingdom of Heaven was near at hand, and the call to preparation for it, must have awakened echoes through out the land, and startled the most careless and unbelieving. It was, according to St. Luke's exact statement, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar — reckoning, as provincials would do,2 from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign), in the year 26 A.D.° According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year.3 The scene of John's first public appearance was in ' the wilderness of Judaea,' that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan. We know not whether John baptized in this place,4 nor yet how long he continued there ; but we are expressly told, that his stay was not confined to that locality."1 Soon afterwards we find him at Bethabara/ which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the habits of the Messenger corresponded to the character and object of his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes ¦ 5 and the former, at least, like that of Elijah/ whose mission he was now to ' fulfil.' to give such a grandiose title to those who joined the Romans. 1 This only in St. Luke. 2 Wieseler has, I think, satisfactorily es tablished this. Comp. Beitr. pp. 191-194. 3 St. Luke speaks of Christ being ' about thirty years old ' at the time of His baptism, if John began his public mi nistry in the autumn, and some months elapsed before Jesus was baptized, our Lord would have just passed His thirtieth year when He appeared at Bethabara. We have positive evidence that the ex pression ' about ' before a numeral meant either a little more or a little less than that exact number. See Midr. on Ruth i. 4, ed. Warsh. p. 39 b. * Here tradition, though evidently falsely, locates the Baptism of Jesus. 5 In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's masterly Essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians ^ especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animai food, omits the mention of the ' locusts ' of St. Matt. iii. 4 (see Mr. Nicholsons the Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35) But proof positive is derived from' Jer' Nedjii-. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted. " Our A.V. wrongly translates ' a hairy man,' instead of 'a man with a hairy THE ' KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ' AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. 265 This was evidenced alike by what he preached, and by the new chap. symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of ' Baptist.' The xl grand burden of his message was : the announcement of the approach of ' the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of* his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and, negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was ' the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in John's preaching was but subsidiary. Concerning this ' Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great mes sage of John, and the great work of Christ Himself,1 we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament — as did the mystery of its realisation.1 But this rule of heaven and Kingship of * Hom- xvi. Jehovah was the verv substance of the Old Testament; the object Epn. i!s; • • p-r -pi-i Co1- *• 26' 27 of the calling and mission of Israel ; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious ; 2 the underlying idea of all its institutions.3 It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood ; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven, and of the Kingship of its Lord. But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance — internal and external — which ' the Kingdom ' encountered, indicated this. The former arose from the resistance of Israel to their King ; the latter from the oppo sition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these (camel's hair) raiment.' This seems after- Keim designates as the ' treibenden wards to have become the distinctive dress Gedanken des Alten Testamentes ' — those of the prophets (comp. Zech. xiii. 4). of the Kingdom and the King. A King- 1 Keim beautifully designates it : Das dom of God without a King ; a Theocracy Liebling snort Jesu. without the rule of God ; a perpetual 2 If, indeed, in the preliminary dispen- Davidic Kingdom without a ' Son of sation these two can be well separated. David ' — these are antinomies (to borrow 3 I confess myself utterly unable to the term of Kant) of which neither the understand, how anyone writing a Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Psend- History of the Jewish Church can epigraphic writings, nor Rabbinism were apparently eliminate from it what even guilty. 266 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised 11 Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His Spirit) the right relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God. This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as •xiv. 9- had been the glowing hope held out by Zechariah/ the glorious "vii. 13, u» vision beheld by Daniel.b Three ideas especially did this Kingdom of God imply : universality, heavenliness, and permanency. Wide as God's domain would be His Dominion ; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth, and God to man, would be its character ; and triumphantly lasting its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and the great hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in contrast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the blanched ideas of modern culture. How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous in vestigations have shown. In truth, the men of that period possessed only the term — as it were, the form. What explained its meaning, filled, and fulfilled it, came once more from heaven. Eabbinism and Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it ; and in their own way filled the soul with its longing — just as the distress in Church and State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness of anguish. As throughout this history, the form was of that time ; the substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, but outwardly. Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question : ' Art Thou then a King ? ' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest meaning of His Mission, repHed: 'My Kingdom is not of this world : if my Kingdom were of this world, then 'would Mv servants fight.' c According to the Babbinic views of the time, the terms < King dom,' ' Kingdom of heaven,' 3 and ' Kingdom of God ' (in the Targum > 'And the Lord shall be King over all given Him dominion, and glory and a Lorfand M^L" * * ^ If^' *?* g ^°' nSs and Lord and His JName one languages, should serve Him : His domi- 11 SoI ^-"g? „7Z.' ,T± SS *« «¦*"** Pinion,8 Xch ¦ St. John xviii. 33-37 behold One hke the Son of Man came shall not pa^^J^^™ with the clouds of heaven, and came to that which shall not be destroyed ' g (l" x n'""lni' '" ":iV': : " ! ">' 'Occasionally we find, instead Malkhuth Sliamayim, (' Kingdom of the Ancient of Days, and they brought » Occasionally we find, instead nf Him near before Him. And there was Malkhuth fi/,L„„im _-. ™„^*_ °l THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH VIEW. 267 on Micah iv. 7 ' Kingdom of Jehovah '), were equivalent. In fact, CHAP. the word ' heaven ' was very often used instead of ' God,' so as to XI avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name.1 This, ' ' ' probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression ' Kingdom of Heaven ' in the Gospel by St. Matthew.2 And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression ' the Kingdom of God ' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Babbinic writings." • -AsinShebh. This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be dis- n.liei"' tinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Mai- Ts^bT' khutha dimeshichab), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma "As in the deathey dimeshicha*), ' the days of the Messiah,' ' the age to come ' ps- xiv. 7, (sceculum futurum, the Athid labho3 — both this and the previous "ii. io Expression d), ' the end of days,' e and ' the end of the extremity of T«gSn on days' (Soph Eqebh Yomaya*). This is the more important, since the 33^Ja3)T' ' Kingdom of Heaven ' has so often been confounded with the period d *<» ex- ... A ample, in of its triumphant manifestation m ' the days, or in ' the Kingdom, Ber- B- 88. of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of p. is? a 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration pSifo-Jon. of the Messiah.4 Not His first appearance, but His triumphant ^n*"*1' manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called ' sorrows of the ' Jer- TarS- Messiah ' (the Ghebhley shel Mashiach), ' the tribulations of the latter 16 ; Jer- and days.' 5 Tarsr. on . . n . Numb. xxiv. A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the 14 Jewish mind, the expression ' Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Bule of God — as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God : the taking upon oneself of the ' yoke ' of ' the Kingdom,' or of the command ments — the former preceding and conditioning the latter.8 Accord- l^J^'^ Mechilta, p. 74 b ; Sea.-ven'),Malkhvthadireqiya('KingAom habba (the world to come),and the Athid Yalkut, of the firmament '), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebh. labho (the age to come), is important. It {^"'JJ: 35 b. But in the former passage, at will be more fully referred to by-and- line' least, it seems to apply rather to God's by. In the meantime, suffice it, that Providential government than to His the Athid labho is the more specific de- moral reign. signation of Messianic times. The two 1 The Talmud (Shebh. 35 b) analyses terms are expressly distinguished, for the various passages of Scripture in which example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, it is used in a sacred and in the common lines 2, 3. sense. 4 This will be more fully explained 2 In St. Matthew the expression occurs and shown in the sequel. For the present thirty-two times ; six times that of ' the we refer only to Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 75 d, Kingdom ; ' five times that of ' Kingdom and the Midr on Buth ii. 14. of God.' 5 The whole subject is fully treated in 8 The distinction between the Olam Book V. ch. vi. » Ber. ii. 2 268 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. J OOK ingly, the Mishnah a gives this as the reason why, in the collection II of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called ' Shema,'1 the confession, Deut. vi. 4 &c, precedes the admonition, Deut. xi. 13 &c, because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Bule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as ' taking upon "For ex- oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' b Similarly, the putting on of iftl'ilT phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking and the5 ' upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God.2 To give other storyho"s instances : Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom timsbtaktaga of God at Mount Sinai ; c the children of Jacob at their last inter- sei? the yoke view with their father ; d and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic in the hom office,e where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and martyrdom, gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are fr6.1/ said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven.f While thus the c bo often. ° §p™p. U2 acknowledgment of the Bule of God, both in profession and practice, b> 143 h was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifesta- n ™" ' ' tion was expected only in the time ofthe Advent of Messiah. Thus y in ver. 5 except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism 2 as its the world to come we are told (Is. lxiv. 4) that ' eye hath not seen, &c.' ; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come ; and while Is. xxiv. 21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contra dictory passage, Is. xxx. 26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo- Jonathan on Exod. xvii. 16, we read of there generations : that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram : Alma deathey = olam habba). Comp. Er. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. lxxxi. 2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (accord ing to Ps. cxix. 164) ; in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Ps. xii.) ; and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Ps. xcii. 3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. ii. p. 213) contain, as not un- frequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschcn, Nov: Test. pp. 1116 &c. 1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. xiii. 3-9 ; 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. xix. 12 ; vi. 33 ; and vi. 10, are utterly inconsistent with it. 2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1 Peter iii. 21, which I would thus render : ' which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism ; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty) for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this- sense that baptism is designated in Tit. iii. 5, as the ' washing,' or ' bath of re generation,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism — not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized — saves us, but this through the Besurrec tion of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Bisen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with His Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant- Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis. 270 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of II that Kingdom. In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression ' Kingdom ' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God ; ' which was manifested in and through Christ ; 2 is apparent in, the Church ; 3 gradually develops amidst hindrances ; 4 is triumphant at the second coming of Christ 5 (' the end ') ; and, finally, perfected in the world to come.6 Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Beign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance — a ' change of mind ' — with all that this implied ; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two com bined might be summed up in the call : ' Change your mind' — repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind.7 And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated ' the baptism of repentance.' The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was ii. is a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching." The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their 1 In this view the expression occurs sages: St. Matt. xi. 12; xiii. 11, 19 24 thirty-four times, viz.; St. Matt. vi. 33; 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52 ; xviii 23'- xx 1- xii. 28; xiii. 38; xix. 24; xxi. 31; St. xxii. 2; xxv. 1, 14; St Mark iv' 11 26- Mark i. 14; x. 15, 23, 24, 25 ; xii.-34; 30; St. Luke viii. 10; ix. 62 • xiii' 18' 20- St. Luke i. 33 ; iv. 43 ; ix. 11 ; x. 9, 11 ; Acts i. 3 ; Eev. i. 9. xi. 20 ; xii. 31 ; xvii. 20, 21 ; xviii. 17, 24, * As in the following twelve passages • 25, 29 ; St. John m. 3 ; Acts i. 3 ; viii. St. Matt. xvi. 28; St. Mark ix 1 - xv 43- 12; xx. 25; xxviii. 31; Bom. xiv. 17; St. Luke ix. 27; xix II- xxi 31 • xxii' 1 Cor. iv. 20 ; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 16, 18 ; Acts i. 3 ; 2 Tim iv 1 '• He'b xii' Bev. i. 9. 28 ; Eev. i. 9. ' ' 2 As in the following seventeen pas- « As in the following thirty-one pas sages, viz. : St. Matt, ni, 2 ; iv. 17, 23 ; sages : St. Matt. v. 19 20 • vii 9\ ¦ viii v. 3, 10 ; ix. 35 ; x. 7 ; St. Mark i. 15 ; 11 ; xiii. 43 ; xviii. 3 ; xxv ' 34 •' xxvi 29 ¦ xi. 10; St. Luke vm. 1; ix. 2 ; xvi. 16; St. Mark ix. 47; x. 14; xiv 25'- St Luke xix. 12, 15 ; Acts i. 3 ; xxviii. 23 ; Eev. vi. 20 ; xii. 32 ; xiii. 28, 29 ; xiv' 15 '• xviii i- 9- 16 ! xx"- 29 ; Acts i. 3 ; xiv 22 • 1 Cor' » As in the following eleven passages : vi. 9, 10 ; xv. 24, 50 -Gal » 21 ¦ 'u„>, „' St. Matt. xi. 11; xiii. 41; xvi. 19; xviii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; St James ii 5 2 1; xxi. 43; xxiii. 13; St. Luke vii. 28; Peter i. 11; Eev i 9 ¦ xii 10 ' ' ' St. John iii. 5 ; Acts i. 3 ; Col. i. 13 ; Eev. t The term . re^entance , includes i-9- ta_t,h m Christ, as in St. Luke xxiv. 47 ¦ * As in the following twenty-four pas- Acts v. 31. ' 'WE HAVE ABRAHAM TO OUR FATHER.' 271 sins,1 lived in sucn security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really CHAP. understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming XI ' Kingdom ' ? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in pro- ' fession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles,2 while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape — in the words of the Talmud, that ' the night ' (Is. xxi. 12) was ' only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel' ?» m?-™"" For, no principle was more fully established in the popular convic tion, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. x. 1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament,15 from Philo, and * st. John Josephus, but from many Babbinic passages. 'The merits of the ™" ' ' Bathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Babbis.3 Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite 4 who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. e c Ber. e. 48 ; t _» i i ¦ -i r. ait comp. Midr. in tact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were °n Ps- Ti- 1 ; , . _ . , Pirke d. R. nobles,a infinitely higher than any proselytes. ' What,' exclaims the ™es. o. 29; Talmud, ' shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the Yaikiit i. p. ' proselyte be in heaven ? ' e In fact, the ships on the sea were pre- served through the merit of Abraham ; the rain descended on account vii. 1 ; Baba of it.f For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into „ jer. chag. heaven, and to receive the Law ; for his sake the sin of the golden 76a or Ber. R 39 calf had been forgiven ; B his righteousness had on many occasions g shem.R. been the support of Israel's cause ; h Daniel had been heard for the f . ¦"Vayyikra sake of Abraham ; * nay, his merit availed even for the wicked.k 5 In E- 36 its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham : ' If thv ' Ber' 7i D r r J k Shabb. 65 a 1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, were to come upon Eome). regard the expression ' generation of s ' Everything comes to Israel on ac- vipers ' as an allusion to the filthy legend count of the merits ofthe fathers ' (Siphre about the children of Eve and the ser- on Deut. p. 1 08 *). In the same category pent, but believe that it refers to such we place the extraordinary attempts to passages as Ps. Iviii. 4. show that the sins of Biblical personages ' In proof that such was the common were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and view, I shall here refer to only a few the idea of Israel's merits as works of passages, and these exclusively from the supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a). Targumim: Jer. Targ. on Gen. xlix. 11; * I will not mention the profane device Targ. on Is. xi. 4 ; Targ. on Amos ix. 11 ; by which apostate and wicked Jews are at Targ. on Nah. i. 6 ; on Zech. x. 3, 4. See that time to be converted into non-Jews. also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut i. p. 64 a ; also . 5 Professor Wiinsche quotes an inapt 56 * (where it is shown how plagues passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or exactly corresponding to those of Egypt is ignorant of, the evidence .above given. 272 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or 11 bones, thy merit would avail for them ! ' a »Ber.R. ed. But ^ sucn had Deen tne inner thoughts of his hearers, John Warsk P. so warne(l them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the ' Perhaps river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham ; bl or, reverting to his enee to is." former illustration of ' fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclama tion of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past ; 2 yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-im portant aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely con nected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, ' if Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would im- • For ex. Jer. mediately come.' ° But here John pointed them to the difference between himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple.3 His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in 4 the Holy Spirit and fire 5 — in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified,6 and so effectively qualified for the 1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a ; Jer Kidd. the words ' children ' — banim — and i. 3 ; Kidd. 22 *. In Kethub. 90 a it is ' stones ' — ¦ abhanim. Both words are described as also the duty of a disciple derived from bana, to build, which is towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. also used by the Eabbis in a moral xxi. 2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified sense like our own ' upbuilding,' and in as only lawful for a teacher so to employ that of the gift or adoption of children. his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta x. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts it is described as the common practice. from the general impression, to see in 4 Godet aptly ca'ls attention to the use the stones an allusion to the Gentiles. of the preposition in here while as 2 Thus the view that charity delivered regards the baptism of water no prepo- from Gehenna was very commonly enter- sition is used, as denoting merely an tained (see, for example, Baba B. \0 a). instrumentality. Similarly, it was the main charge against 5 The same writer points out that the the publicans that they exacted more want of the preposition before ' fire ' than their due (see, for example, Baba K. shows that it cannot refer to the fire of 113 a). The Greek oipiiviov, or wage of judgment, but must be a further enlarge- the soldiers, has its Babbinic equivalent ment of the word ' Spirit.' Probably it of Afsanya (a similar word also in the denotes the negative or purgative effect Syriac). of this baptism, as the word 'holy' " Volkmar is mistaken in regarding indicates its positive and sanctifying- this as the duty of the house-porter effect. ° towards arriving guests. It is expressly « The expression "baptism of fire' mentioned as one of the characteristic was certainly not unknown to the Jews THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 273 ' Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but pre paring work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner ; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff — the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextin guishable.1 Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time ; that both belonged to Him ; and that the final separa tion would only come at the last, and by His own Hand. What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became ' proselytes of righteousness,' or ' pro selytes of the Covenant ' (Qerey hatstsedea or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism,2 and sacrifice— the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a ' baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms.3 Was it intended, In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor immersion of God in fire, based on Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T. ; Is. lxvi. 15. An immersion or baptism Mots. The three terms are, however, com- of fire is proved from Numb. xxxi. 23. bined in a. curiously illustrative parable More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the ( Ber. B. 83), referring to the destruction statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah of Eome and the preservation of Israel, (the Law) was bound in white fire, graven when the grain refers the straw, stubble, of black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake hewn oat of fire, and given by fire, the field existed, to the time when the according to -Deut. xxxiii. 2. owner would gather the corn into his 1 This is the meaning of -toiSeo-Tos. The barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and word occurs only in St. Matt. iii. 12 chaff. St. Luke iii. 17; St. Mark ix. 43, 45 (1), i For a full discussion of the ques- but frequently in the classics. The tion of the baptism of proselytes, see question of ' eternal punishment ' will be Appendix XII discussed in another place. The simile . The followi significant passage of the fan and the garner is derived from here be ^ J . ? man ^ «* the Eastern practice of threshing out the ilt of si a^d mafces oonfessi and corn m the open by means of oxen, after does riot tum bom it to whom ig he ^ , which whatofthestraw had been trampled To a man who has in hig hand defili under foot (not merely the chaff,™ in the til wh eyen if he immerses in J A.V) was burned This use of the straw the waters of ft world M ba ism for fire is referred to m the Mishnah as avails him notM ^ ^ h]m ^ -t m Shabb. m. 1 ; Par. iv 3. But in that ^ his hand a*d he immerses in case the Hebrew equivalent for it is e>p_ only forty geah of Water> immedjately his (Qash) — as in the above passages, and not baptism avails him.' On the same page VOL. I. T 274 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their re- , , pentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on them selves the Bule of God ? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a ' baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions ; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was xxx™P2 Gen' directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons a and j Ex. xix. 10, their garments,* so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God ? ' In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Bule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai.2 of the Talmud there are some very apt Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told and beautiful remarks on the subject of of ' baptism ' as one of the three things repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the by which Israel was admitted into the end). Covenant. 1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides 2 This may help us, even at this stage, traces even the practice of baptizing to understand why our Lord, in the ful- proselytes to Ex. xix. 10, 14 (Hilc. filment of all righteousness, submitted to Issurey Biah xiii. 1 ; Yad haCh. vol. ii. baptism. It seems also to explain why, p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for after the coming of Christ, the baptism the 'baptism' of Israel before entering of John was alike unavailing and even into covenant with God. In Kerith., 9 a meaningless (Acts xix. 3-5). Lastly, it 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from also shows how he that is least in the Ex. xxiv. 5, since every sprinkling of Kingdom of God is really greater than blood was supposed to be preceded by John himself (St. Luke vii. 28). immersion. In Siphrfi on Numb. (ed. THE CALL TO 'THE KINGDOM.' 275 CHAPTEB XII. THE BAPTISM OF JESUS . ITS HIGHER MEANING. (St. Matt. iii. 13-17 ; St. Mark i. 7-11 ; St. Luke iii. 21-23 ; St. John i. 32-34.) The more we think of it, the better do we seem to understand how that CHAP. ' Voice crying in the wilderness : Bepent ! for the Kingdom of Heaven XII is at hand,' awakened echoes throughout the land, and brought from v~ ' city, village, and hamlet strangest hearers. For once, every distinc tion was levelled. Pharisee and Sadducee, outcast publican and semi-heathen soldier, met here as on common ground. Their bond of union was the common ' hope of Israel ' — the only hope that re mained : that of ' the Kingdom.' The long winter of disappointment had not destroyed, nor the storms of suffering swept away, nor yet could any plant of spurious growth overshadow, what had struck its roots so deep in the soil of Israel's heart. That Kingdom had been the last word of the Old Testament. As the thoughtful Israelite, whether Eastern or Western,1 viewed even the central part of his worship in sacrifices, and remembered that his own Scriptures had spoken of them in terms which pointed to some thing beyond their offering,2 he must have felt that ' the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,' could 1 It may be said that the fundamental view of the cessation of sacrifices in tendency of Eabbinism was anti-sacrificial, the ' Athid labho ' (Vay. u. s. ; Tanch. on as regarded the value of sacrifices in com- Par. Shemini). Soon, prayer or study mending the offerer to God. After the were put even above sacrifices (Ber. 32 b ; destruction of the Temple it was, of Men. 110 a), and an isolated teacher went course, the task of Eabbinism to show so far as to regard the introduction of that sacrifices had no intrinsic import- sacrificial worship as merely intended to ance, and that their place was taken by preserve Israel from conforming to prayer, penitence, and good works. So heathen worship (Vayyikra E. 22, u. s. p. against objectors (on the ground of Jer. 34i,close). On the other hand, individuals xxxiii. 18 — but see the answer in Yalkut seem to have offered sacrifices even after on the passage, vol. ii. p. 67 a, towards the destruction of the Temple (Eduy. viii. the end) dogmatically (Bab. B. 10 b ; 6 ; Mechilta on Ex. xviii. 27, ed. Weiss, Vayyikra E. 7, ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p. 12 a) : p. 68 b). ' he that doeth repentance, it is imputed 2 Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22 ; Ps. xl. 6-8 ; to him as if he went up to Jerusalem, li. 7, 17; Is. i. 11-13; Jer. vii. 22, 23; built the Temple and altar, and wrought Amos v. 21, 22 ; Ecclus. vii. 9 ; xxxiv. 18, all the sacrifices in the Law't and in 19; xxxv. 1, 7. T 2 276 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK only ' sanctify to the purifying of the flesh ; ' that, indeed, the whole- , body of ceremonial and ritual ordinances ' could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.' They were only ' the shadow of good things to come ; ' of ' a new ' and ' better cove nant, established upon better promises.' 1 It was otherwise with the thought of the Kingdom. Each successive link in the chain of pro phecy bound Israel anew to this hope, and each seemed only more firmly welded than the other. And when the voice of prophecy had ceased, the sweetness of its melody still held the people spell-bound, even when broken in the wild fantasies of Apocalyptic literature. Yet that ' root of Jesse,' whence this Kingdom was to spring, was buried deep under ground, as the remains of ancient Jerusalem are now under the desolations of many generations. Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Boman had trodden it under foot ; the Maccabees had come and gone, and it was not in them ; the Herodian kingdom had risen and fallen ; Pharisaism, with its learning, had overshadowed thoughts of the priesthood and of prophetism ; but the hope of that Davidic Kingdom, of which there was not a single trace or representative left, was even stronger than before. So closely has it been intertwined with the very life of the nation, that, to all believing Israelites, this hope has, through the long night of ages, been like that eternal lamp which burns in the darkness of the Synagogue, in front of the heavy veil that shrines the Sanctuary, which holds and conceals the precious rolls of the Law and the Prophets. This great expectancy would be strung to utmost tension during the pressure of outward circumstances more hopeless than any hitherto experienced. Witness here the ready credence which im postors found, whose promises and schemes were of the wildest character; witness the repeated attempts at risings, which only despair could have prompted; witness, also, the last terrible war against Bome, and, despite the horrors of its end, the rebellion of Bar-Kokhabh, the false Messiah. And now the cry had been suddenly raised : ' The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand ! ' It was heard in the wilderness of Judasa, within a few hours' distance from Jerusalem. No wonder Pharisee and Sadducee flocked to the spot. How many of them came to inquire, how many remained to be baptized, or how many went away disappointed in their hopes of ' the Kingdom,' we know not.3 But they would not see anything in the messenger that 1 Hebr. ix. 13, 9 ; x. 1 ; viii. 6, 13. On 1867). this subject we refer lo the classical work 2 Ancient commentators supposed that of Riehm (LehrbegrifE des Hebraerbrief es, they came from hostile motives ; later THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST. 277 could have given their expectations a rude shock. His was not a call CHAP. to armed resistance, but to repentance, such as all knew and felt must XII precede the Kingdom. The hope which he held out was not of earthly possessions, but of purity. There was nothing negative or controversial in what he spoke ; nothing to excite prejudice or passion. His appearance would command respect, and his character was in accordance with his appearance. Not rich nor yet Pharisaic garb with wide Tsitsith,1 bound with many-coloured or even priestly girdle, but the old prophet's poor raiment held in by a leathern girdle. Not luxurious life, but one of meanest fare.2 And then, all in the man was true and real. ' Not a reed shaken by the wind,' but unbendingly firm in deep and settled conviction; not ambitious nor self-seeking, but most humble in his self-estimate, discarding all claim but that of lowliest service, and pointing away from himself to Him Who was to come, and Whom as yet he did not even know. Above all, there was the deepest earnestness, the most utter disregard of man, the most firm belief in what he announced. For himself he sought nothing ; for them he had only one absorbing thought : The Kingdom was at hand, the King was coming — let them prepare ! Such entire absorption in his mission, which leaves us in ignorance of even the details of his later activity, must have given force to his message.3 And still the voice, everywhere proclaiming the writers that curiosity prompted them. then eleven times with a double knot Neither of these views is admissible, nor (11 numerically = nl) ; and lastly thir- does St. Luke vii. 30 imply, that all the teen times (13 numerically = in_{; or, al- Pharisees who come to him rejected his together iriX nin,i Jehovah One). Again, baptism. it is pointed out that as Tsitsith is nu- 1 Comp. St. Matt, xxiii. 5. The Tsitsith merically equal to 600 (JVVX). tnis> (plural, Tsitsiyoth), or borders (corners, with the eight threads and five knots, 'wings') of the garments, or rather the gives the number 613, which is that fringes fastened to them. The observ- of the Commandments. At present the ance was based on Numb. xv. 38-41, Tsitsith are worn as a special under- and the Jewish practice of it is indicated garment (the ]"| 1S_D J7X1K) or on the not only in the N.T. (u. s., comp. also Tallith or prayer-mantle, but anciently St. Matt.- ix. 20; xiv. 36) but in the they seem to have been worn on the Targumim on Numb. xv. 38, 39 (comp. outer garment itself. In Bemidbar E. also Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Numb. xvi. 17, end (ed Warsh. vol. iv. p. 69 a), the 1, 2, where the peculiar colour of the blue is represented as emblematic of the Tsitsith is represented as the cause of the sky, and the latter as of the throne of controversy between Moses and Korah. God (Ex. xxiv. 10). Hence to look upon But see the version of this story in Jer. the Tsitsith was like looking at the throne Sanh. x. p. 27 d, end). The Tsitsith were of glory (Schurer is mistaken in sup- originally directed to be of white threads, posing that the tractate Tsitsith in the with one thread of deep blue in each Septem Libri Talmud, par. pp. 22, 23, con- ' fringe. According to tradition, each of tains much information on the subject). these white fringes is to consist of 2 Such certainly was John the Bap- eight threads, one of them wound round tist's. Some locusts were lawful to be the others : first, seven times with a eaten, Lev. xi. 22. Comp. Terum. 59 a ; double knot ; then eiyht times with a and, on the various species, Chull. 65. double knot (7 + 8 numerically = ^i); 3 Deeply as we appreciate the beauty 278 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK same message, travelled upward, along the winding Jordan which II cleft the land of promise. It was probably the autumn of the year ' ' 779 (a.u.C.), which, it may be noted, was a Sabbatic year.1 Beleased from business and agriculture, the multitudes flocked around him as he passed on his Mission. Bapidly the tidings spread from town and village to distant homestead, still swelling the numbers that hastened to the banks of the sacred river. He had now reached what seems to have been the most northern point of his Mission-journey,2 Beth-Abara (' the house of passage,' or ' of shipping ') — according to the ancient reading, Bethany (' the house of shipping') — one ofthe best » St. John i. known fords across the Jordan into Peraea.3 Here he baptized.11 The ford was little more than twenty miles from Nazareth. But long before John had reached that spot, tidings of his word and work must have come even into the retirement of Jesus' Home-Life. It was now, as we take it, the early winter of the year 780.4 Jesus had waited those months. Although there seems not to have been any personal acquaintance between Jesus and John — and how could there be, when their spheres lay so widely apart ? — each must have heard and known of the other. Thirty years of silence weaken most human impressions — or, if they deepen, the enthusiasm that had accompanied them passes away. Yet, when the two met, and perhaps had brief conversation, each bore himself in accordance with his previous history. With John it was deepest, reverent humility — even to the verge of misunderstanding his special Mission, and work of initiation and preparation for the Kingdom. He had heard of Him before by the hearing of the ear, and when now he saw Him, of Keim's remarks about the character s It is one of the merits of Lieut. and views of John, we feel only the more Conder to have identified the site of that such a man could not have taken the Beth-Abara. The word probably means public position nor made such public pro- ' the house of passage ' (fords), but may clamation of the Kingdom as at hand, also mean ' the house of shipping,' the without a direct and objective call to word Abarah in Hebrew meaning ' ferry- it from God. The treatment of John's boat,' 2 Sam. xix. 18. The reading earlier history by Keim is, of course, Bethania instead of Bethabara seems without historical basis. undoubtedly the original one, only the 1 The year from Tish/ri (autumn) 779 word must not be derived (as by Mr. to Tishri 780 was a Sabbatic year. Conder, whose explanations and com- Comp. the evidence in Wieseler, Synopse ments are often untenable), from the d. Evang. pp. 204, 205. province Batanea, but explained as 2 We read of three places where John Beth- Oniyah, the ' house of shipping.' baptized : ' the wilderness of Judsea ' — (See Liicke, Comment, ii. d. Evang. Joh. i. probably the traditional site 'near Jericho, pp. 392, 393.) __Enon, near Salim, on the boundary * Considerable probability attaches to between Samaria and Judsea (Conder 's the tradition of the Basilideans, that our Handbook of the Bible, p. 320) ; and Lord's Baptism took place on the 6th Beth-Abara, the modern Abarah, ' one of or 10th of January. (See Bp. Mlicott's the main Jordan fords, a little north of Histor. Lect. on the Life of our Lord Beis&n' (u. s.). Jesus Christ, p. 105, note 2.) WHY DID JESUS COME TO BE BAPTIZED? 279 that look of quiet dignity, of the majesty of unsullied purity in the „„. p only Unfallen, Unsinning Man, made him forget even the express XII command of God, which had sent him from his solitude to preach and ' ¦ ' baptize, and that very sign which had been given him by which to recognise the Messiah.* 1 In that Presence it only became to him a • st. John i. 33 question of the more ' worthy,' to the misunderstanding of the nature of his special calling. But Jesus, as He had not made haste, so was He not capable of misunderstanding. To Him it was ' the fulfilling of all righteousness. From earliest ages it has been a question why Jesus went to be baptized. The heretical Gospels put into the mouth of the Virgin- Mother an invitation to go to that baptism, to which Jesus is supposed to have replied by pointing to His own sinlessness, except it might be on the score of ignorance, in regard to a limitation of knowledge.2 Objections lie to most of the explanations offered by modern writers. They include a bold denial of the fact of Jesus' Baptism; the profane suggestion of collusion between John and Jesus ; or such suppositions, as that of His personal sinfulness, of His coming as the Bepresentative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of the sins of others, or of acting in solidarity with His people — or else to separate Himself from the sins of Israel ; of His surrendering Himself thereby unto death for man ; of His purpose to do honour to the baptism of John ; or thus to elicit a token of His Messiahship ; or to bind Himself to the observance of the Law ; or in this manner to commence His Messianic Work; or to consecrate Himself solemnly to it ; or, lastly, to receive the spiritual qualification for it.3 To these and similar views must be added the latest conceit of Renan, 4 who arranges a scene between Jesus, Who comes with some disciples, and John, when Jesus is content for a time to grow in the shadow of John, and to submit to a rite which was evidently so generally acknowledged. But the most reverent of these explanations involve a twofold mistake. They represent the Baptism of John as one of repentance, and they imply an ulterior motive in the coming of Christ to the banks of Jordan. But, as already shown, the Baptism of John was in itself only a consecration to, and preparatory 1 The superficial objection on the sup- theories. The views of Godet come posed discrepancy between St. Matthew nearest to what we regard as the true iii. 14 and St. John i. 33 has been well explanation. put aside by Bp. Ellicott (u. s. p. 107, 4 I must here, once for all, express -note). my astonishment that a book so frivol- 2 Comp. Nicholson, Gospel according ous and fantastic in its treatment of to the Hebrews, pp. 38, 92, 93. the Life of Jesus, and so superficial and s It would occupy too much space to often inaccurate, should have excited so give the names of the authors of these much public attention. 280 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK initiation for, the new Covenant of the Kingdom. As applied to II sinful men it was indeed necessarily a ' baptism of repentance ;' but r~~' not as applied to the sinless Jesus. Had it primarily and always been a ' baptism of repentance,' He could not have submitted to it. Again, and most important of all, we must not seek for any ulterior motive in the coming of Jesus to this Baptism. He had no ulterior motive of any kind : it was an act of simple submissive obedience on the part of the Perfect One — and submissive obedience has no motive beyond itself. It asks no reasons ; it cherishes no ulterior purpose. And thus it was ' the fulfilment of all righteousness.' And it was in perfect harmony with all His previous life. Our dif ficulty here lies — if we are unbelievers, in thinking simply of the Humanity of the Man of Nazareth ; if we are believers, in making abstraction of His Divinity. But thus much, at least, all must concede, that the Gospels always present Him as the God-Man, in an inseparable mystical union of the two natures, and that they present to us the even more mysterious idea of His Self-exinanition, of the voluntary obscuration of His Divinity, as part of His Humiliation. Placing ourselves on this standpoint — which is, at any rate, that of the Evangelic narrative — we may arrive at a more correct view of this great event. It seems as if, in the Divine Self-exinanition, ap parently necessarily connected with the perfect human development of Jesus, some corresponding outward event were ever the occasion of a fresh advance in the Messianic consciousness and work. The first event of that kind had been His appearance in the Temple. These two things then stood out vividly before Him — not in the ordinary human, but in the Messianic sense : that the Temple was the House of His Father, and that to be busy about it was His Life-work. With this He returned to Nazareth, and in willing subjection to His Parents fulfilled all righteousness. And still, as He grew in years, in wisdom, and in favour with God and man, this thought — rather this burning consciousness, was the inmost spring of His Life. What this business specially was, He knew not yet, and waited to learn ; the how and the when of His life-consecration, He left unasked and unanswered in the still waiting for Him. And in this also we see the Sinless, the Perfect One. When tidings of John's Baptism reached His home, there could be no haste on His part. Even with knowledge of all that concerned John's relation to Him, there was in the ' fulfilment of all righteous ness ' quiet waiting. The one question with Him was, as He after wards put it : ' The Baptism of John, whence was it ? from heaven, or CHRIST FULFILLING ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. 281 of men ? ' (St. Matt. xxi. 25). That question once answered, there CHAP. could be no longer doubt nor hesitation. He went- — not for any XII ulterior purpose, nor from any other motive than that it was of God. He went voluntarily, because it was such — and because 'it became Him ' in so doing ' to fulfil all righteousness.' There is this great difference between His going to that Baptism, and afterwards into the wilderness : in the former case, His act was of preconceived purpose ; in the latter it was not so, but ' He was driven ' — without previous purpose to that effect — under the constraining power ' of the Spirit,' without premeditation and resolve of it ; without even know ledge of its object. In the one case He was active, in the other passive ; in the one case He fulfilled righteousness, in the other His righteousness was tried. But as, on His first visit to the Temple, *7 this consciousness about His Life-business came to Him in His Father's House, ripening slowly and fully those long years of quiet submission and growing wisdom and grace at Nazareth, so at His Baptism, with the accompanying descent of the Holy Ghost, His abiding in Him, and the heard testimony from His Father, the knowledge came to Him, and, in and with ' that knowledge, the qualification for the busi ness of His Father's House. In that hour He learned the when, and in part the how, of His Life-business ; the latter to be still farther, and from another aspect, seen in the wilderness, then in His life, in His suffering, and, finally, in His death. In man the subjective and the objective, alike intellectually and morally, are ever separate ; in God they are one. What He is, that He wills. And in the God-Man also we must not separate the subjective and the objective. The consciousness of the when and the how of His Life-business was necessarily accompanied, while He prayed, by the descent, and the abiding in Him, of the Holy Ghost, and by the testifying Voice from heaven. His inner knowledge was real qualification — the forth- bursting of His Power; and it was inseparably accompanied by outward qualification, in what took place at His Baptism. But the first step to all was His voluntary descent to Jordan, and in it the fulfilling of all righteousness. His previous life had been that of the Perfect Ideal Israelite — believing, unquestioning, submissive— in pre paration for that which, in His thirteenth year, He had learned as its business. The Baptism of Christ was the last act of His private life ; and, emerging from its waters in prayer, He learned: when His business was to commence, and how it would be done. 1 But the latter must be firmly upheld. 282 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAJST. BOOK That one outstanding thought, then, 'I must be about My II Father's business,' which had been the principle of His Nazareth life, ' ' had come to full ripeness when He knew that the cry, ' The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' was from God. The first great question was now answered. His Father's business was the Kingdom of Heaven. It only remained for Him to ' be about it,' and in this determination He went to submit to its initiatory rite of Baptism. We have, as we understand it, distinct evidence— even if it were not otherwise • st. Lute necessary to suppose this — that ' all the people had been baptized,' a when Jesus came to John. Alone the two met — probably for the first time in their lives. Over that which passed between them Holy Scripture has laid the veil of reverent silence, save as regards i the beginning and the outcome of their meeting, which it was necessary for us to know. When Jesus came, John knew Him not. And even j when he knew Him, that was not enough. Not remembrance of what he had heard and of past transactions, nor the overwhelming power of that spotless Purity and Majesty of willing submission, were sufficient. For so great a witness as that which John was to bear, a present and visible demonstration from heaven was to be given. Not that God sent the Spirit-Dove, or heaven uttered its voice, for the purpose of giving this as a sign to John. These mani festations were necessary in themselves, and, we might say, would have taken place quite irrespective of the Baptist. But, while necessary in themselves, they were also to be a sign to John. And this may perhaps explain why one Gospel (that of St. John) seems to describe the scene as enacted before the Baptist, whilst others (St. Matthew and St. Mark) tell it as if only visible to Jesus.1 The one bears reference to ' the record,' the other to the deeper and absolutely necessary fact which underlay ' the record.' And, beyond this, it may help us to perceive at least one aspect of what to man is the miraculous : as in itself the higher Necessary, with casual and secondary manifestation to man. We can understand how what he knew of Jesus, and what he now saw and heard, must have overwhelmed John with the sense of Christ's transcendentally higher dignity, and led him to hesitate about, if not to refuse, administering to Him the rite of Baptism.2 Not because it was ' the baptism of repentance,' but because he stood 1 The account by St. Luke seems to tists is thus met. me to include both. The common objec- 2 The expression Sieh^e,. (St Matt tion on the score of the supposed diver- iii. 14 : ' John forbad Him ') implies ear- gence between St. John and the Synop- nest resistance (comp. Meyer ad locum) THE BAPTIST IN PRESENCE OF THE CHRIST. 283 in the presence of Him ' the latchet of Whose shoes ' he was ' not CHAP. worthy to loose.' Had he not so felt, the narrative would not have XII been psychologically true ; and, had it not been recorded, there "~ would have been serious difficulty to our reception of it. And yet, withal, in so ' forbidding ' Him, and even suggesting his own baptism by Jesus, John forgot and misunderstood his mission. John himself was never to be baptized; he only held open the door of the new Kingdom ; himself entered it not, and he that was least in that Kingdom was greater than he. Such lowliest place on earth seems ever conjoined with greatest work for God. Yet this misunder standing and suggestion on the part of John might almost be regarded as a temptation to Christ. Not, perhaps, His first, nor yet this His first victory, since the ' sorrow ' of His Parents about His absence from them when in the Temple must to the absolute sub- missiveness of Jesus have been a temptation to turn aside from His path, all the more felt in the tenderness of His years, and the inex perience of a first public appearance. He then overcame by the clear consciousness of His Life-business, which could not be contra vened by any apparent call of duty, however specious. And He now overcame by falling back upon the simple and clear principle which had brought Him to Jordan : ' It becometh us to fulfil all righteous ness.' Thus simply putting aside, without argument, the objection of the Baptist, He followed the Hand that pointed Him to the open door of ' the Kingdom.' Jesus stepped out of the baptismal waters ' praying.' a One °.?t-,Luka prayer, the only one which He taught His disciples, recurs to our minds.1 We must here individualise and emphasise in their special application its opening sentences : ' Our Father Which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name ! Thy Kingdom come ! Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven ! ' The first thought and the first petition had been the conscious outcome of the Temple-visit, ripened during the long years at Nazareth. The others were now the full expression of His submission to Baptism. He knew His Mission ; He had con secrated Himself to it in His Baptism : ' Father Which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name.' The unlimited petition for the doing of God's Will on earth with the same absoluteness as in heaven, was His self-consecration : the prayer of His Baptism, as the other was its 1 It seems to me that the prayer which prayer has, of course, no application to the Lord taught His disciples must have Him, but is His application of the doc- had its root in, and taken its start from, trine of the Kingdom to our state and His own inner Life. At the same time it wants. is adapted to our wants. Much in that 284 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK confession. And the ' hallowed be Thy Name ' was the eulogy, because II the ripened and experimental principle of His Life. How this Will, ~~~' ' connected with ' the Kingdom,' was to be done by Him, and when, He was to learn after His Baptism. But strange, that the petition which followed those which must have been on the lips of Jesus in that hour should have been the subject of the first temptation or assault by the Enemy ; strange also, that the other two temptations should have rolled back the force of the assault upon the two great ex periences He had gained, and which formed the burden of the petitions, ' Thy Kingdom come ; Hallowed be Thy Name.' Was it then so, that all the assaults which Jesus bore only concerned and tested the reality of a past and already attained experience, save those last in the Garden and on the Cross, which were ' sufferings ' by which He ' was made perfect ' ? But, as we have already seen, such inward forth-bursting of Messianic consciousness could not be separated from objective qualifi cation for, and testimony to it. As the prayer of Jesus winged heavenwards, His solemn response to the call of the Kingdom — ' Here am I ; ' ' Lo, I come to do Thy Will ' — the answer came, which at the same time was also the predicted sign to the Baptist. Heaven seemed cleft, and, in bodily shape like a dove, the Holy Ghost descended on l Jesus, remaining on Him. It was as if, symbolically, in the • 1 st. Pet. words of St. Peter,a that Baptism had been a new flood, and He Who now emerged from it, the Noah — or rest- and comfort-bringer — Who took into His Ark the dove bearing the olive-branch, indicative of a new life. Here, at these waters, was the Kingdom, into which Jesus had entered in the fulfilment of all righteousness ; and from them He emerged as its Heaven-designated, Heaven-qualified, and Heaven- proclaimed King. As such He had received the fulness of the Spirit for His Messianic Work — a fulness abiding in Him — that out of it we might receive, and grace for grace. As such also the voice from Heaven proclaimed it, to Him and to John : ' Thou art (' this is ') My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.' The ratification of the great Davidic promise, the announcement of the fulfilment of its predictive import in Psalm ii.2 was God's solemn declaration of Jesus iii. 21 1 Whether or not we adopt the reading come help. It paraphrases : ' Beloved as eis avrov in St. Mark i. 10, the remaining a son to his father art Thou to Me ' Keim of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus is clearly regards the words, ' Thou art my beloved expressed in St. John i. 32. Son,' &c, as a mixture of Is. xiii 1 and 2 Here the Targum on Ps. ii. 7, which Ps. ii. 7. I cannot agree with this view is evidently intended to weaken the though this history is the fulfilment of the Messianic interpretation, gives us wei- prediction in Isaiah. THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT AND THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN. 285 as the Messiah, His public proclamation of it, and the beginning of CHAP. Jesus' Messianic work. And so the Baptist understood it, when he XII ' bare record ' that He was ' the Son of God.' a ' ' ' ° St. John i. Quite intelligible as all this is, it is certainly miraculous; not, 3i indeed, in the sense of contravention of the Laws of Nature (illogical as that phrase is), but in that of having nothing analogous in our present knowledge and experience. But would we not have expected the supra-empirical, the directly heavenly, to attend such an event — that is, if the narrative itself be true, and Jesus what the Gospels represent Him ? To reject, therefore, the narrative because of its supra-empirical accompaniment seems, after all, a sad inversion of reasoning, and begging the question. But, to go a step further : if there be no reality in the narrative, whence the invention of the legend ? It certainly had no basis in contemporary Jewish teaching ; and, equally certainly, it would not have spontaneously occurred to ' Jewish minds. Nowhere in Babbinic writings do we find any hint of a Baptism of the Messiah, nor of a descent upon Him of the Spirit in the form of a dove. Bather would such views seem, d priori, repugnant to Jewish thinking. An attempt has, however, been made in the direction of identifying two traits in this narrative with Babbinic notices. The ' Voice from heaven ' has been represented as the ' Bath-Qol,' or ' Daughter- Voice,' of which we read in Babbinic writings, as bringing heaven's testimony or decision to perplexed or hardly bestead Babbis, And it has been further asserted, that among the Jews ' the dove ' was regarded as the emblem of the Spirit. In taking notice of these assertions some warmth of language may be forgiven. We make bold to maintain that no one, who has impartially ex amined the matter,1 could find any real analogy between the so-called Bath-Qol, and the ' Voice from heaven ' of which record is made in the New Testament. However opinions might differ, on one thing all were agreed : the Bath-Qol had come after the voice of prophecy and (the Holy Ghost had ceased in Israel,b and, so to speak, had taken Ver-Sot- their place.2 But at the Baptism of Jesus the descent of the Holy J0^^. 48 b ; Sanh. 1 Dr. Wiinseke's Babbinic notes on the translation and profane misinterpretation a Bath-Qol (Neue Beitr. pp. 22, 23) are of the words ' She has been more righ- taken from Hamburger's Eeal-Encykl. teous' (Gen. xxxviii. 26) occur (Jer. (Abth. ii. pp. 92 &c). Sot. ix. 7), at all bears out this suggestion. 2 Hamburger, indeed, maintains, on It is quite untenable in view of the distinct the ground of Mace. 23 J, that occasionally statements (Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Sot. 48 b ; it was identified with the Holy Spirit. and Sanh. 1 1 a), that after the cessation But carefully read, neither this passage, of the Holy Spirit the Bath-Qol took His nor the other, in which the same mis- place. 286 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN. BOOK II • Nov. Test. i. p. 268 b Jahrh. des Heils, vol. ii. p. 433 Ghost was accompanied by the Voice from Heaven. Even on this ground, therefore, it could not have been the Babbinic Bath-Qol. But, further, this ' Daughter- Voice ' was regarded rather as the echo of, than as the Voice of God itself1 (Tos. Sanh. 11). The occasions on which this ' Daughter- Voice ' was supposed to have been heard are so various, and sometimes so shocking, both to common and to moral sense, that a comparison with the Gospels is wholly out of the question. And here it also deserves notice, that references to this Bath-Qol increase the farther we remove from the age of Christ.2 We have reserved to the last the consideration of the statement, that among the Jews the Holy Spirit was presented under the symbol of a dove. It is admitted, that there is no support for this idea either in the Old Testament or in the writings of Philo (Liicke, Evang. Joh. i. pp. 425, 426) ; that, indeed, such animal symbolism of the Divine is foreign to the Old Testament. But all the more confident appeal is made to Babbinic writings. The suggestion was, apparently, first made by Wetstein.* It is dwelt upon with much confidence by Gfrorer 3 and others, as evidence of the mythical origin of the Gospels ; b it is repeated by Wiinsche, and even reproduced by writers who, had they known the real state of matters, would not 1 Comp. on the subject Pinner in his Introduction to the tractate Berakhoth. 2 In the Targum Onkelos it is not at all mentioned. In the Targum Pseudo- Jon, it occurs four times (Gen. xxxviii. 26; Numb. xxi. 6; Deut. xxviii. 15; xxxiv. 5), and four times in the Targum on the Hagiographa (twice in Ecclesiastes, once in Lamentations, and once in Esther). In Mechilta and Siphra it does not occur at all, and in Siphrfi only once, in the absurd legend that the Bath-Qol was heard a distance of twelve times twelve miles proclaiming the death of Moses (ed. Friedmann, p. 149 b). In the Mishnah it is only twice mentioned (Yeb. xvi. 6, where the sound of a Bath-Qol is supposed to be sufficient attestation of a man's death to enable his wife to marry again ; and in Abhoth vi. 2, where it is impossible to understand the language otherwise than figuratively). In the Jeru salem Talmud the Bath-Qol is referred to twenty times, and in the Babylon Talmud sixty-nine times. Sometimes the Bath-Qol gives sentence in favour of a, popular Babbi, sometimes it attempts to decide controversies, or bears witness; or else it is said every day to proclaim : Such an one's daughter is destined for such an one (Moed Kat. 18 b; Sot. 2 a; Sanh. 22 a). Occasionally it utters curious or profane interpretations of Scripture (as in Toma 22 b ; Sot. ] 0 b), or silly legends, as in regard to the insect Yattush which was to torture Titus (Gitt. 56 b), or as warning against a place where a hatchet had fallen into the water, descending for seven years without reaching the bottom. Indeed, so strong became the feeling against this super stition, that the more rational Babbis protested against any appeal to the Bath- Qol (Baba Metsia 59 b). 3 The force of fffrdrer's attacks upon the Gospels lies in his cumulative at tempts to prove that the individual miraculous facts recorded in the Gospels are based upon Jewish notions. It is, therefore, necessary to examine each of them separately, and such examination, if careful and conscientious, shows that his quotations are often untrustworthy, and his conclusions fallacies. None the less taking are they to those who are imperfectly acquainted with Eabbinic literature. Wiinsche's Talmudic and Midrashic Notes on the N.T. (Gottingen, 1878) are also too often misleading. MISTAKEN JEWISH ANALOGIES. 287 have lent their authority to it. Of the two passages by which this strange hypothesis is supported, that in the Targum on Cant. ii. 12 may at once be dismissed, as dating considerably after the close of the Talmud. There remains, therefore, only the one passage in the Talmud," which is generally thus quoted : ' The Spirit of God moved * chag. 15 a on the face of the waters, like a dove.' b That this quotation is ^ farrar, incomplete, omitting the most important part, is only a light charge Christ, i. against it. For, if fully made, it would only the more clearly be seen to be inapplicable. The passage (Chag. 15 a) treats of the supposed distance between ' the upper and the lower waters,' which is stated to amount to only three fingerbreadths. This is proved by a reference to Gen. i. 2, where the Spirit of God is said to brood over the face of the waters, ' just as a dove broodeth over her young without touching them.' It will be noticed, that the comparison is not between the Spirit and the dove, but between the closeness with which a dove broods over her young without touching them, and the supposed proximity of the Spirit to the lower waters without touching them.1 But, if any doubt could still exist, it would be removed by the fact that in a parallel passage,0 the expression used . Ber. r. 2 is not ' dove,' but ' that bird.' Thus much for this oft-misquoted passage. But we go farther, and assert, that the dove was not the symbol of the Holy Spirit, but that of Israel. As such it is so universally adopted as to have become almost historical.11 If, there- d Comp. the fore, Babbinic illustration of the descent of the Holy Spirit with the tratLnsIn visible appearance of a dove must be sought for, it would lie in the song i. is °n acknowledgment of Jesus as the ideal typical Israelite, the Bepre- Ber. k 39 • ... j. tT. -n i Yalkut on sentative ot His .People. ps. iT. 7, ana The lengthened details, which have been necessary for the exposure sagls pM" of the mythical theory, will not have been without use, if they carry to the mind the conviction that this history had no basis in existing Jewish belief. Its origin cannot, therefore, be rationally accounted for — except by the answer which Jesus, when He came to Jordan, gave to that grand fundamental question: 'The Baptism of John, whence was it ? From Heaven, or of men ? ' e • st. Matt. xxi. 25 1 The saying in Chag. 15 a is of Ben coarsely satirised in the Talmud. Eabbi Soma, who is described in Babbinic litera- Lorn (Lebensalter, p. 58) suggests that ture as tainted with Christian views, and in Ben Soma's figure of the dove there whose belief in the possibility of the may have been a Christian reminiscence. supernatural birth of the Messiah is so Book III. THE ASCENT FEOM THE KIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. nt in inuniw kvid nns rfapn bv imus kxid nrise' mpo ^3 Doirm wbiwo, nw_i:a *ijb>. mina aim ' In every passage of Scripture where thou findest the Majesty of God, thou also findest close by His Condescension (Humility). So it is written down in the Law [Deut. x. 17, followed by verse 18], repeated in the Prophets [Is. Ivii. 15], and reiterated in the Hagiographa [Ps. lxviii. 4k followed by verse 5].'— Megill. 31 a. VOL. I. THE GEEAT ANTITHESIS. 291 CHAPTER I. THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. (St. Matt. iv. 1-11 ; St. Mark i. 12, 13; St. Luke iv. 1-13.) The proclamation and inauguration of the ' Kingdom of Heaven ' at CHAP, such a time, and under such circumstances, was one of the great * antitheses of history. With reverence be it said, it is only God Who would thus begin His Kingdom. A similar, even greater antithesis, was the commencement of the Ministry of Christ. From the Jordan to the wilderness with its wild beasts ; from the devout acknowledg ment of the Baptist, the consecration and filial prayer of Jesus, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the heard testimony of Heaven, to the utter forsakenness, the felt want and weakness of Jesus, and the assaults of the Devil — no contrast more startling could be conceived. And yet, as we think of it, what followed upon the Baptism, and that it so followed, was necessary, ae regarded the Person of Jesus His Work, and that which was to result from it. Psychologically, and as regarded the Work of Jesus, even reverent negative Critics1 have perceived its higher need. That at His consecration to the Kingship of the Kingdom, Jesus should have become clearly conscious of all that it implied in a world of sin ; that the Divine method by which that Kingdom should be esta blished, should have been clearly brought out, and its reality tested ¦ and that the King, as Representative and Founder of the Kingdom, should have encountered and defeated the representative, founder and holder of the opposite power, ' the prince of this world ' — these are thoughts which must arise in everyone who believes in any Mis sion of the Christ. Yet this only as, after the events, we have learned to know the character of that Mission, not as we might have preconceived it. We can understand, how a Life and Work such as 1 No other terms would correctly de- Strauss, or the picturesque inaccuracies scribe the book of Keim to which I of a Hausrath, no serious student need be specially refer How widely it differs, not told Perhaps on that ground it is only only from the superficial trivialities of a the more dangerous. Eenan, but from the stale arguments of TT 2 292 FEOM JOED AN TO THE MOUNT OF TEANSFIGUEATION. BOOK that of Jesus, would commence with ' the Temptation,' but none other III than His. Judaism never conceived such an idea ; because it never ' conceived a Messiah like Jesus. It is quite true that long previous Biblical teaching, and even the psychological necessity of the case, must have pointed to temptation and victory as the condition of spiritual greatness. It could not have been otherwise in a world hostile to God, nor yet in man, whose conscious choice determines his position. No crown of victory without previous contest, and that proportionately to its brightness ; no moral ideal without personal attainment and probation. The patriarchs had been tried and proved ; so had Moses, and all the heroes of faith in Israel. And Babbinic legend, enlarging upon the Biblical narratives, has much to tell of the original envy of the Angels ; of the assaults of Satan upon Abraham, when about to offer up Isaac ; of attempted resistance by the Angels to Israel's reception of the Law ; and of the final vain endeavour of Satan to take away the soul of Moses.1 Foolish, repulsive, and even blasphemous as some of these legends are, thus much at least clearly stood out, that spiritual trials must precede spiritual elevation. In their own language : ' The Holy One, blessed be His Name, does not elevate a man to dignity till He has first tried and searched him • and if he stands in temptation, then He raises him to dignity.' a iT.Tm™1' Thus far as regards man. But in reference to the. Messiah there irom bottom ls not a nmt °f any temptation or assault by Satan. It is of such importance to mark this clearly at the outset of this wonderful history that proof must be offered even at this stage. In whatever manner negative critics may seek to account for the introduction of Christ's Temptation at the commencement of His Ministry, it cannot have been derived from Jewish legend. The ' mythical ' interpretation of the Gospel-narratives breaks down in this almost more manifestly than in any other instance.2 So far from any idea obtaining that Satan was to assault the Messiah, in a well-known passage, which i_Yf*i,t0n nas been previously quoted,b the Arch-enemy is represented as overwhelmed and falling on his face at sight of Him, and owning ' On the temptations of Abraham see horrible story of the death of Moses in Book of Jubilees ch xvii ; Sanh. 89 b Debar. E. 11 (ed. Warsh. iii. p. 22 a and b). (and differently butnot less blasphemously But I am not aware of any temptation of in Pirke de B. Bhes. 31); Pirke de E. Moses by Satan Blies 31, 32 (where also about Satan's • Thus Gfrorer can only hope that temptation of Sarah, who dies m con- some Jewish parallelism may yet be dis- sequence of his tidings) ; Ber. E. 32, 56 ; covered (1) • while Keim suggests, of Yalkut i. c 98, p. 28 J; and Tanchuma, course without a tittle of evidence, ad- where the story is related with most repul- ditions by the early Jewish Christians sive details. As to Moses, see for example But whence and why these imariiS^v aT Shabb. 89 a; and especially the truly ditions? V imaginary ad- 6 Bemidb. B, 15, ed. vol. ii. p. 5G THE MESSIAH OF JUDAISM THE ANTI-CHEIST OF THE GOSPELS. 293 his complete defeat.1 On another point in this history we find the CHAP. same inversion of thought current in Jewish legend. In the Com- I mentary just referred to,a the placing of Messiah on the pinnacle of ~ "~"7 the Temple, so far from being of Satanic temptation, is said to mark the hour of deliverance, of Messianic proclamation, and of Gentile voluntary submission. ' Our Babbis give this tradition : In the hour when King Messiah cometh, He standeth upon the roof of the Sanc tuary, and proclaims to Israel, saying, Ye poor (suffering), the time of your redemption draweth nigh. And if ye believe, rejoice in My Light, which is risen upon you. . . . Is. lx. 1 . . . upon you only ... Is. lx. 2. ... In that hour will the Holy One, blessed be His Name, make the Light of the Messiah and of Israel to shine forth ; and all shall come to the Light of the King Messiah and pf Israel, as it is written ... Is. lx. 3. . . . And they shall come and lick the dust from under the feet of the King Messiah, as it is written, Is. xlix. 23. . . . And all shall come and fall on their faces before Messiah and before Israel, and say, We will be servants to Him and to Israel. And every one in Israel shall have 2,800 servants,2 as it is written, Zech. viii. 23.' One more quotation from the same Commentary : b ' In that hour, the Holy One, blessed be His Name, *,u;£e_ , exalts the Messiah to the heaven of heavens, and spreads over Him thet dowu of the splendour of His glory before the nations of the world, before the wicked Persians. They say to Him, Ephraim, Messiah, our Bighteousness, execute judgment upon them, and do to them what Thy soul desireth.' In another respect these quotations are important. They show that such ideas were, indeed, present to the Jewish mind, but in a sense opposite to the Gospel-narratives. In other words, they were regarded as the rightful manifestation of Messiah's dignity ; whereas in the Evangelic record they are presented as the suggestions of Satan, and the Temptation of Christ. Thus the Messiah of Judaism is the Anti-Christ of the Gospels. But if the narrative cannot be traced to Babbinic legend, may it not be an adaptation of an Old Testament narrative, such as the account of the forty days' fast of Moses on the mount, or of Elijah in the wilderness ? Viewing the Old Testament in its unity, and the Messiah as the apex in the column of its history, we admit — or rather, we must expect — 1 Keim (Jesu von Naz. i. b, p. 564) 2 The number is thus reached : as there seems not to have perused the whole are seventy nations, and ten of each are to passage, and, quoting it at second-hand, take hold on each of the four corners of has misapplied it. The passage (Yalkut a Jew's garment, we have 70 x 10 x 4 = on Is. lx. 1) has been given before. 2,800. 294 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OB1 TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK throughout points of correspondence between Moses, Elijah, and the 111 Messiah. In fact, these may be described as marking the three stages in the history of the Covenant. Moses was its giver, Elijah its restorer, the Messiah its renewer and perfecter. And as such they all had, in a sense, a similar outward consecration for their work. But that neither Moses nor Elijah was assailed by the Devil, consti tutes not the only, though a vital, difference between the fast of Moses and Elijah, and that of Jesus. Moses fasted in the middle, Elijah at the end, Jesus at the beginning of His ministry. Moses fasted in the Presence of God ; ' Elijah alone ; Jesus assaulted by the Devil. Moses had been called up by God ; Elijah had gone forth in the bitterness of his own spirit ; Jesus was driven by the Spirit. Moses failed after his forty days' fast, when in indignation he cast the Tables of the Law from him ; Elijah failed before his forty days' fast ; Jesus was assailed for forty days and endured the trial. Moses was angry against Israel ; Elijah despaired of Israel ; Jesus overcame for Israel. Nor must we forget that to each the trial came not only in his human, but in his representative capacity — as giver, restorer, or perfecter of the Covenant. When Moses and Elijah failed, it was not only as individuals, but as giving or restoring the Covenant. And when Jesus conquered, it was not only as the Unfallen and Perfect Man, but as the Messiah. His Temptation and Victory have therefore a twofold aspect : the general human, and the Messianic, and these two are closely connected. Hence we draw also this happy inference : in whatever Jesus overcame, we can overcome. Each victory which He has gained secures its fruits for us who are His disciples (and this alike objectively and subjectively). We walk in His foot-prints ; we can ascend by the rock-hewn steps which His Agony has cut. He is the Perfect Man; and as each temptation marks a human assault (assault on humanity), so it also marks a human victory (of humanity). But He is also the Messiah; and alike the assault and the victory were of the Messiah. Thus each victory of humanity becomes a victory for humanity ; and so is ful filled, in this respect also, that ancient hymn of royal victory, ' Thou hast ascended on high ; Thou hast led captivity captive ; Thou hast received gifts for men ; yea, for the rebellious also, that Jehovah God »Ps. lxviii. might dwell among them.'a2 18 ° ° 1 The Eabbis have it, that a man must Mount lived of ' the bread of the Torah ' accommodate himself to the ways of the (Shem. E. 47). place where he is. Hence Moses on the 2 The quotation in Eph. iv. 8 resembles WAS THE TEMPTATION REAL AND OUTWARD ? 295 But even so, there are other considerations necessarily preliminary CHAP. to the study of one of the most important parts in the Life of Christ. I They concern these two questions, so closely connected that they can scarcely be kept quite apart : Is the Evangelic narrative to be re garded as the account of a real and outward event ? And if so, how was it possible — or, in what sense can it be asserted — that Jesus Christ, set before us as the Son of God, was ' tempted of the Devil ' ? All subsidiary questions run up into these two. As regards the reality and outwardness of the temptation of Jesus, several suggestions may be set aside as unnatural, and ex post facto attempts to remove a felt difficulty. Renan's frivolous conceit scarcely deserves serious notice, that Jesus went into the wilderness in order to imitate the Baptist and others, since such solitude was at. the time regarded as a necessary preparation for great things. We equally dismiss as more reverent, but not better grounded, such sug gestions as that an interview there with the deputies of the Sanhedrin, or with a Priest, or with a Pharisee, formed the historical basis of the Satanic Temptation ; or that it was a vision, a dream, the reflection of the ideas of the time ; or that it was a parabolic form in which Jesus afterwards presented to His disciples His conception of the Kingdom, and how they were to preach it.1 Of all such explanations it may be said, that the narrative does not warrant them, and that they would probably never have been suggested, if their authors had been able simply to accept the Evangelic history. But if so it would have been both better and wiser wholly to reject (as some have done) the authenticity of this, as of the whole early history of the Life of Christ, rather than transform what, if true, is so unspeakably grand into a series of modern platitudes. And yet (as Keim has felt) it seems impossible to deny, that such a transaction at the beginning of Christ's Messianic Ministry is not only credible, but almost a necessity ; and that such a transaction must have assumed the form of a contest with Satan. Besides, throughout the Gospels there is not only allusion to this first great conflict (so that it does not belong only to the early history of Christ's Life), but constant reference to the power of Satan in the world, as a kingdom opposed to that of God, and of which the Devil is the king.2 And the reality of such a kingdom of evil no earnest mind would call in question, nor would it pronounce a the rendering of the Targum (see vidual writers who have broached these Delitzsch, Comm. ii. d. Psalter, vol. i. p. and other equally untenable hypotheses. 503). 2 The former notably in St. Matt. xii. 1 We refrain from naming the indi- 25-28 ; St. Luke xi. 17 &c. The import of 296 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION BOOK priori against the personality of its king. Reasoning d priori, its HI credibility rests on the same kind of, only, perhaps, on more generally " ' patent, evidence as that of the beneficent Author of all Good, so that — with reverence be it said — we have, apart from Holy Scripture, and, as regards one branch of the argument, as much evidence for believing in a personal Satan, as in a Personal God. Holding, therefore, by the reality of this transaction, and finding it equally impossible to trace it to Jewish legend, or to explain it by the coarse hypothesis of misunder standing, exaggeration, and the like, this one question arises : Might it not have been a purely inward transaction, — or does the narrative present an account of what was objectively real ? At the outset, it is only truthful to state, that the distinction does not seem of quite so vital importance as it has appeared to some, who have used in regard to it the strongest language.1 On the other hand it must be admitted that the narrative, if naturally interpreted, suggests an outward and real event, not an inward trans action ; 2 that there is no other instance of ecstatic state or of vision recorded in the life of Jesus, and that (as Bishop Ellicott has shown),3 the special expressions used are all in accordance with the natural view. To this we add, that some of the objections raised — notably that of the impossibility of showing from one spot all the kingdoms of the world — cannot bear close investigation. For, no rational interpretation would insist on the absolute literality of this statement, any more than on that of the survey of the whole extent ofthe land of Israel by Moses xri_v.'i-3 from Pisgah.a 4 All the requirements of the narrative would be met by supposing Jesus to have been placed on a very high mountain, whence south, the land of Judaea and far-off Edom ; east, the swelling plains towards Euphrates; north, snow-capped Lebanon; and west, the cities of Herod, the coast of the Gentiles, and beyond, the wide sea dotted with sails, gave far-off prospect of the kingdoms of this world. To His piercing gaze all their grandeur would seem to unroll, and pass before Him like a moving scene, in which the sparkle of beauty and wealth dazzled the eye, the sheen of arms glittered in the far whether exegetically or dogmatically. Happily, they fall far short of the notion of any internal solicitation to sin in the case of Jesus, which Bishop Ellicott so justly denounces in strongest laneua_re. 3 U. s. p. 110, note 2. 4 According to Siphre (ed. Friedmann, p. 149 a and b), God showed to Moses Israel in its happiness, wars, and misfor tunes ; the whole world from the Day of Creation to that of the Besurrection; Paradise, and Gehenna. this, as looking back upon the history of the Temptation, has not always been sufficiently recognised. In regard to Satan and his power many passages will occur to the reader, such as St. Matt. vi. 1 3 ; xii. 22 ; xiii. 19, 25, 39 ; xxvi. 41 ; St. Luke x. 18 ; xxii. 3, 28, 31 ; St. John viii. 44 ; xii. 31 ; xiii. 27 ; xiv. 30; xvi. 11. 1 So Bishop Ellicott, Histor. Lectures, p. 111. 2 Professor Godet's views on this sub ject are very far from satisfactory, THE TEMPTATION BOTH 'OUTWARD' AND 'INWARD.' 297 distance, the tramp of armed men, the hum of busy cities, and the CHAP- sound of many voices fell on the ear like the far-off rush of the sea, I while the restful harmony of thought, or the music of art, held and ' ' ' bewitched the senses — and all seemed to pour forth its fulness in tribute of homage at His feet in Whom all is perfect, and to Whom all belongs. But in saying this we have already indicated that, in such circum stances, the boundary-line between the outward and the inward must have been both narrow and faint. Indeed, with Christ it can scarcely be conceived to have existed at such a moment. The past, the present, and the future must have been open before Him like a map unrolling. Shall we venture to say that such a vision was only inward, and not outwardly and objectively real ? In truth we are using terms which have no application to Christ. If we may venture once more to speak in this wise of the Divine Being : With Him what we view as the opposite poles of subjective and objective are absolutely one. To go a step further : many even of our temptations are only (contrastedly) inward, for these two reasons, that they have their basis or else their point of contact within us, and that from the limitations of our bodily condition we do not see the enemy, nor can take active part in the scene around. But in both respects it was not so with the Christ. If this be so, the whole question seems almost irrelevant, and the dis tinction of outward and inward inapplicable to the present case. Or rather, we must keep by these two landmarks : First, it was not in ward in the sense of being merely subjective ; but it was all real — a real assault by a real Satan, really under these three forms, and it con stituted a real Temptation to Christ. Secondly, it was not merely outward in the sense of being only a present assault by Satan ; but it must have reached beyond the outward into the inward, and have had for its further object that of influencing the future Work of Christ, as it stood out before His Mind. A still more difficult and solemn question is this : In what respect could Jesus Christ, the Perfect Sinless Man, the Son of God, have been tempted of the Devil ? That He was so tempted is of the very essence of this narrative, confirmed throughout His after-life, and laid down as a fundamental principle in the teaching and faith of the Church.* On the other hand, temptation without the inward corre- * Hebr. iv. spondence of existent sin is not only unthinkable, so far as man is concerned,11 but temptation without the possibility of sin seems unreal n st. James — a kind of Docetism.1 Yet the very passage of Holy Scripture in 1 The heresy which represents the Body of Christ as only apparent, not real. 298 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK which Christ's equality with us as regards all temptation is expressed, III also emphatically excepts from it this one particular, sin,*- not only in ¦ H*Mv~i5 *^e sense tnat Christ actually did not sin, nor merely in this, that * st. James ' 0ur concupiscence ' b had no part in His temptations, but emphati cally in this also, that the notion of sin has to be wholly excluded from our thoughts of Christ's temptations.1 To obtain, if we can, a clearer understanding of this subject, two points must be kept in view. Christ's was real, though unfallen Human Nature ; and Christ's Human was in inseparable union with His Divine Nature. We are not attempting to explain these mysteries, nor at present to vindicate them ; we are only arguing from the standpoint of the Gospels and of Apostolic teaching, which proceeds on these premisses — and proceeding on them, we are trying to under stand the Temptation of Christ. Now it is clear, that human nature, that of Adam before his fall, was created both sinless and peccable. If Christ's Human Nature was not like ours, but, morally, like that of Adam before his fall, then must it likewise have been both sinless and in itself peccable. We say, in itself— for there is a great dif ference between the statement that human nature, as Adam and Christ had it, was capable of sinning, and this other, that Christ was peccable. From the latter the Christian mind instinctively recoils, even as it is metaphysically impossible to imagine the Son of God peccable. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself human nature with all its infirmities and weaknesses — but without the moral taint of the Fall : without sin. It was human nature, in itself capable of sinning, but not having sinned. If He was absolutely sinless, He must have been unfallen. The position ofthe first Adam was that of being capable of not sinning, not that of being incapable of sinning. The Second Adam also had a Nature capable of not sinning, but not incapable of sinning. This explains the possibility of ' temptation ' or assault upon Him, just as Adam could be tempted before there was in him any in ward consensus to it.2 The first Adam would have been ' perfected ' — : or passed from the capability of not sinning to the incapability of sin ning — by obedience. That ' obedience ' — or absolute submission to the Will of God — was the grand outstanding characteristic of Christ's work; 1 Comp. Riehm, Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. Br. stood on the same level with us in regard p. 363. But I cannot agree with the to all temptations have been exempt from views which this learned theologian ex- sin 1 presses. Indeed, it seems to me that he 2 The latter was already sin. Tet'temp- does not meet the real difficulties of tation ' means more than mere ' assault.' the question; on the contrary, rather There may be conditional mental assensns aggravates them. They lie in this : How without moral consensus— and so tempta- could One Who (according to Riehm) tion without sin. See p. 301, note. A PECCABLE NATURE BUT AN IMPECCABLE PERSON. 299 but it was so, because He was not only the Unsinning, Unfallen Man, CHAP. but also the Son of God. Because God was His Father, therefore He I must be about His Business, which was to do the Will of His Father. With a peccable Human Nature He was impeccable ; not because He obeyed, but being impeccable He so obeyed, because His Human was inseparably connected with His Divine Nature. To keep this Union of the two Natures out of view would be Nestorianism.1 To sum up : The Second Adam, morally unfallen, though voluntarily subject to all the conditions of our Nature, was, with a peccable Human Nature, absolutely impeccable as being also the Son of God — a peccable Nature, yet an impeccable Person : the God-Man, ' tempted in re gard to all (things) in like manner (as we), without (excepting) sin.' All this sounds, after all, like the stammering of Divine words by a babe, and yet it may in some measure help us to understand the character of Christ's first great Temptation. Before proceeding, a few sentences are required in explanation of seeming differences in the Evangelic narration of the event. The historical part of St. John's Gospel begins after the Temptation — that is, with the actual Ministry of Christ ; since it was not , within the purport of that work to detail the earlier history. That had been sufficiently done in the Synoptic Gospels. Impartial and serious critics will admit that these are in accord. For, if St. Mark only summarises, in his own brief manner, he supplies the two-fold notice that Jesus was ' driven ' into the wilderness, ' and was with the wild beasts,' which is in fullest internal agreement with the detailed nar ratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The only noteworthy difference between these two is, that St. Matthew places the Temple-temptation before that of the world-kingdom, while St. Luke inverts this order, probably because his narrative was primarily intended for Gentile readers, to whose mind this might present itself as to them the true gradation of temptation. To St. Matthew we owe the notice, that after the Temptation ' Angels came and ministered ' unto Jesus ; to St. Luke, that the Tempter only ' departed from Him for a season.' To restate in order our former conclusions, Jesus had deliberately, of His own accord and of set firm purpose, gone to be baptized. That one grand outstanding fact of His early life, that He must be about His Father's Business, had found its explanation when He knew that the Baptist's cry, ' the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' was from God. His Father's Business, then, was ' the Kingdom of Heaven,' and to it 1 The heresy which unduly separated the two Natures. 300 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK He consecrated Himself, so fulfilling all righteousness. But His 111 ' being about it ' was quite other than that of any Israelite, however devout, who came to Jordan. It was His consecration, not only to the Kingdom, but to the Kingship, in the anointing and permanent possession of the Holy Ghost, and in His proclamation from heaven. That Kingdom was His Father's Business ; its Kingship, the manner in which He was to be ' about it.' The next step was not, like the first, voluntary, and of preconceived purpose. Jesus went to Jordan ; He was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness. Not, indeed, in the sense of His being unwilling to go,1 or having had other purpose, such as that of immediate return into Galilee, but in that of not being willing, of having no will or purpose in the matter, but being, ' led up,', unconscious of its purpose, with irresistible force, by the Spirit. In that wilderness He had to test what He had learned, and to learn what He had tested. So would He have full proof for His Work of the What — His Call and Kingship ; so would He see its How — the manner of it ; so, also, would, from the outset, the final issue of His Work appear. Again — banishing from our minds all thought of sin in connection » Hebr. iv. 15 with Christ's Temptation," He is presented to us as the Second Adam, both as regarded Himself, and His relation to man. In these two respects, which, indeed, are one, He is now to be tried. Like the first, the Second Adam, sinless, is to be tempted, but under the existing conditions of the Fall : in the wilderness, not in Eden ; not in the enjoyment of all good, but in the pressing want of all that is neces sary for the sustenance of life, and in the felt weakness consequent upon it. For (unlike the first) the Second Adam was, in His Tempta tion, to be placed on an absolute equality with us, except as regarded sin. Yet even so, there must have been some point of inward con nection to make the outward assault a temptation. It is here that opponents (such as Strauss and Keim) have strangely missed the mark, when objecting, either that the forty days' fast was intrinsically unnecessary, or that the assaults of Satan were clumsy suggestions, in capable of being temptations to Jesus. He is ' driven ' into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted.2 The history of humanity ¦ This is evident even from the terms seems to imply some human shrinking on used by St. Matthew (ai%s'0 and St. His part— at least at the outset. Luke (fyero). I cannotagree with Godet, 2 The place of the Temptation could that Jesus would have been inclined to not, of course, have been the traditional return to Galilee and begin teaching. ' Quarantania,' but must have been near Jesus had no inclination save this— to do Bethabara. See also Stanley's Sinai and the Will of His Father. And yet the Palestine, p. 308. expression ' driven ' used by St. Mark THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEMPTATION. 301 is taken up anew at the point where first the kingdom of Satan was CHAP. founded, only under new conditions. It is not now a choice, but a I contest, for Satan is the prince of this world. During the whole ' ' "* forty days of Christ's stay in the wilderness His Temptation continued, though it only attained its high point at the last, when, after the long fast, He felt the weariness and weakness of hunger. As fasting oc cupies but a very subordinate, we might almost say a tolerated, place in the teaching of Jesus ; and as, so far as we know, He exercised on no other occasion such ascetic practices, we are left to infer internal, as well as external, necessity for it in the present instance. The for mer is easily understood in His pre-occupation ; the latter must have had for its object to reduce Him to utmost outward weakness, by the depression of all the vital powers. We regard it as a psychological fact that, under such circumstances, of all mental faculties the memory alone is active, indeed, almost preternaturally active. During the preceding thirty-nine days the plan, or rather the future, of the Work to which He had been consecrated, must have been always before Him. In this respect, then, He must have been tempted. It is wholly im possible that He hesitated for a moment as to the means by which He was to establish the Kingdom of God. He could not have felt tempted to adopt carnal means, opposed to the nature of that Kingdom, and to the Will of God. The unchangeable convictions which He had already attained must have stood out before Him : that His Father's business was the Kingdom of God ; that He was furnished to it, not by outward weapons, but by the abiding Presence of the Spirit ; above all, that absolute submission to the Will of God was the way to it, nay, itself the Kingdom of God. It will be observed, that it was on these very points that the final attack of the Enemy was directed in the utmost weakness of Jesus. But, on the other hand, the Tempter could not have failed to assault Him with considerations which He must have felt to be true. How could He hope, alone, and with such principles, to stand against Israel ? He knew their views and feel ings ; and as, day by. day, the sense of utter loneliness and forsaken ness increasingly gathered around Him, in His increasing faintness and weakness, the seeming hopelessness of such a task as He had undertaken must have grown upon Him with almost overwhelming power.1 Alternately, the temptation to despair, presumption, or the cutting short of the contest in some decisive manner, must have 1 It was this which would make the mental assensus — without implying any ' assault ' a ' temptation ' by vividly set- inward consensus to the manner in which ting before the mind the reahty and the Enemy proposed to have them set rationality of these considerations — a aside. 302 FROM JOEDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TEANSFIGUEATION. BOOK presented itself to His mind, or rather have been presented to it by HI the Tempter. And this was, indeed, the essence of His last three great tempta tions ; which, as the whole contest, resolved themselves into the one question of absolute submission to the Will of God,1 which is the sum and substance of all obedience. If He submitted to it, it must be suffering, and only suffering — helpless, hopeless suffering to the bitter end ; to the extinction of life, in the agonies of the Cross, as a male factor ; denounced, betrayed, rejected by His people ; alone, in very God-forsakenness. And when thus beaten about by temptation, His powers reduced to the lowest ebb of faintness, all the more vividly would memory hold out the facts so well known, so keenly realised at that moment, in the almost utter cessation of every other mental faculty : 2 the scene lately enacted by the banks of Jordan, and the two great expectations of His own people, that the Messiah was to head Israel from the Sanctuary of the Temple, and that all kingdoms of the world were to become subject to Him. Here, then, is the inward basis of the Temptation of Christ, in which the fast was not unneces sary, nor yet the special assaults of the Enemy either ' clumsy sug gestions,' or unworthy of Jesus. He is weary with the contest, faint with hunger, alone in that wilderness. His voice falls on no sympathising ear ; no voice reaches Him but that of the Tempter. There is nothing bracing, strengthen ing in this featureless, barren, stony wilderness — only the picture of desolateness, hopelessness, despair. He must, He will absolutely submit to the Will of God. But can this be the Will of God ? One word of power, and the scene would be changed. Let Him despair of all men, of everything — He can do it. By His will the Son of God, as the Tempter suggests — not, however, calling thereby in question His Sonship, but rather proceeding on its admitted reality3 can change the stones into bread. He can do miracles — put an end to present want and question, and, as visibly the possessor of absolute miraculous power, the goal is reached ! But this would really have been to change the idea of Old Testament miracle into the heathen conception of magic, which was absolute power inherent in an indi- 1 All the assaults of Satan were really vividly in Christ's memory at that moment directed against Christ's absolute sub- that was flashed before Him as in a mirror mission to the Will of God, which was under the dazzling light of temptation His Perfectness. Hence, by every one of ¦ Satan's • if ' was rather a taunt than these temptations, as Weiss says in regard a doubt Nor could it have been i to the first, 'ruttelter an Seiner Vollkom- tended to call in question His ability to menheit: do miracles. Doubt on that point would 2 I regard the memory as affording the already have been a fall basis for the Temptation. What was so THE FIRST, AND THE SECOND TEMPTATION. 303 vidual, without moral purpose. The moral purpose — the grand moral CHAP. purpose in all that was of God — was absolute submission to the Will I of God. His Spirit had driven Him into that wilderness. His cir- ' cumstances were God-appointed; and where He so appoints them, He will support us in them, even as, in the failure of bread, He sup ported Israel by the manna.8- ' And Jesus absolutely submitted to »Deut.v___.3 that Will of God by continuing in His present circumstances. To have set Himself free from what they implied, would have been despair of God, and rebellion. He does more than not succumb : He conquers. The Scriptural reference to a better life upon the Word of God marks more than the end of the contest ; it marks the conquest of Satan. He emerges on the other side triumphant, with this expression of His assured conviction of the sufficiency of God. It cannot be despair — and He cannot take up His Kingdom alone, in the exercise of mere power ! Absolutely submitting to the Will of God, He must, and He can, absolutely trust Him. But if so, then let Him really trust Himself upon God, and make experiment- — nay more, public demonstration — of it. If it be not despair of God, let it be presumption ! He will not do the work alone ! Then God-up borne, according to His promise, let the Son of God suddenly, from that height, descend and head His people, and that not in any profane manner, but in the midst of the Sanctuary, where God was specially near, in sight of incensing priests and worshipping people. So also will the goal at once be reached. The Spirit of God had driven Jesus into the wilderness ; the spirit of the Devil now carried Him to Jerusalem. Jesus stands on the lofty pinnacle of the Tower, or of the Temple-porch,2 presumably that on which every day a Priest was stationed to watch, as the pale morning light passed over the hills of Judsea far off to Hebron, to announce it as the signal for offering the morning sacrifice.3 If we might indulge our imagination, the moment chosen would be just as the Priest had quitted 1 The supply of the manna was only where indeed there would scarcely an exemplification and application of the have been standing-room. It certainly general principle, that man really lives formed the watch-post of the Priest. Pos- by the Word of God. sibly it may have been the extreme corner 2 It cannot be regarded as certain, that of the ' wing- like ' porch, or ulam,, which theirr€pti7iovToi!ifpoCwas,ascommentators led into the Sanctuary. Thence a Priest generally suppose, the Tower at the south- could easily have communicated with his eastern angle of the Temple Cloisters, brethren in the court beneath. To this where the Eoyal (southern) and Solomon's there is, however, the objection that in (the eastern) Porch met, and whence the that case it should have been tov vaoi. At viewintotheKedronValleybeneathwasto p. 244, the ordinary view of this locality the stupendous depth of 450 feet. Would has been taken. this angle be called ' a wing ' (irrepiyiov) 1 3 Comp. ' The Temple, its Ministry and Nor can I agree with Delitzsch, that Services,' p. 132. it was the 'roof of the Sanctuary, 304 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK that station. The first desert-temptation had been in the grey of break- III ing light, when to the faint and weary looker the stones of the wilder ness seemed to take fantastic shapes, like the bread for which the faint body hungered. In the next temptation Jesus stands on the watch-post which the white-robed priest has just quitted. Fast the rosy morning- light, deepening into crimson, and edged with gold, is spreading over the land. In the Priests' Court below Him the morning-sacrifice has been offered. The massive Temple-gates are slowly opening, and the blast of the priests' silver trumpets is summoning Israel to begin a new day by appearing before their Lord. Now then let Him descend, Heaven-borne, into the midst of priests and people. What shouts of acclamation would greet His appearance ! What homage of worship would be His ! The goal can at once be reached, and that at the head of believing Israel. Jesus is surveying the scene. By His side is the Tempter, watching the features that mark the work ing of the spirit within. And now he has whispered it. Jesus had overcome in the first temptation by simple, absolute trust. This was the time, and this the place to act upon this trust, even as the very Scriptures to which Jesus had appealed warranted. But so to have done would have been not trust — far less the heroism of faith — but presumption. The goal might indeed have been reached ; but not the Divine goal, nor in God's way — and, as so often, Scripture itself explained and guarded the Divine promise by a preceding Divine command.1 And thus once more Jesus not only is not overcome, but He overcomes by absolute submission to the Will of God. To submit to the Will of God ! But is not this to acknowledge His authority, and the order and disposition which He has made of all things ? Once more the scene changes. They have turned their back upon Jerusalem and the Temple. Behind are also all popular prejudices, narrow nationalism, and limitations. They no longer 1 Bengel : ' Scriptura per Scripturam Jochanan to quote a verse. The child interpretanda et concilianda.' This is quoted Deut. xiv. 22, at the same time also a Eabbinic canon. The Eabbis propounding the question, why the seoond frequently insist on the duty of not ex- clause virtually repeated the first. The posing oneself to danger, in presump- Eabbi replied, ' To teach us that the giving tuous expectation of miraculous deliver- of tithes maketh rich.' ' How do you know ance. It is a curious saying : Do not it 1 ' asked the child. ' By experience,' stand over against an ox when he comes answered the Eabbi. 'But,' said the child, from the fodder; Satan jumps out from ' such experiment is not lawful, since we between his horns. (Pes. 112 b.) David are not to tempt the Lord our God.' (See had been presumptuous in Ps. xxvi. 2 — the very curious book of Eabbi Soloniey- and failed. (Sanh. 107 a.) But the most ezyk, Die Bibel, d. Talm. u. d. Evang. apt illustration is this: On one occasion p. 132.) the child of a Eabbi was asked by E. THE THIRD TEMPTATION. 305 breathe the stifled air, thick with the perfume of incense. They have taken their flight into God's wide world. There they stand on the top of some very high mountain. It is in the full blaze of sun light that He now gazes upon a wondrous scene. Before Him rise, from out the cloud-land at the edge of the horizon, forms, figures, scenes — come words, sounds, harmonies. The world in all its glory, beauty, strength, majesty, is unveiled. Its work, its might, its greatness, its art, its thought, emerge into clear view. And still the horizon seems to widen as He gazes ; and more and more, and beyond it still more and still brighter appears. It is a world quite other than that which the retiring Son of the retired Nazareth-home had ever seen, could ever have imagined, that opens its enlarging wonders. To us in the circumstances the temptation, which at first sight seems, so to speak, the clumsiest, would have been well nigh irresistible. In measure as our intellect was enlarged, our heart attuned to this world-melody, we would have gazed with bewitched wonderment on that sight, surrendered ourselves to the harmony of those sounds, and quenched the thirst of our soul with maddening draught. But passingly sublime as it must have appeared to the Perfect Man, the God-Man — and to Him far more than to us from His infinitely deeper appreciation of, and wider sympathy with the good, the true, and the beautiful — He had already overcome. It was, indeed, not ' worship,' but homage which the Evil One claimed from Jesus, and that on the truly stated and apparently rational ground, that, in its present state, all this world ' was delivered ' unto him, and he exercised the power of giving it to whom he would. But in this very fact lay the answer to the suggestion. High above this moving scene of glory and beauty arched the deep blue of God's heaven, and brighter than the sun, which poured its light over the sheen and dazzle beneath, stood out the fact : ' I must be about My Father's business ; ' above the din of far-off sounds rose the voice : ' Thy Kingdom come ! ' Was not all this the Devil's to have and to give, because it was not the Father's Kingdom, to which Jesus had consecrated Himself ? What Satan sought was, ' My kingdom come ' — a Satanic Messianic time, a Satanic Messiah ; the final realisation of an empire of which his present possession was only temporary, caused by the alienation of man from God. To destroy all this : to destroy the works of the Devil, to abolish his kingdom, to set man free from his dominion, was the very object of Christ's Mission. On the ruins of the past shall the new arise, in proportions of grandeur and beauty hitherto unseen, only gazed at afar by prophets' rapt sight. VOL. I. X •506 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK It is to become the Kingdom of God ; and Christ's consecration to it III is to be the corner-stone of its new Temple. Those scenes are to be ' transformed into one of higher worship; those sounds to mingle and melt into a melody of praise. An endless train, unnumbered multitudes from afar, are to bring their gifts, to pour their wealth, to consecrate their wisdom, to dedicate their beauty — to lay it all in lowly worship as humble offering at His feet : a world God-restored, God-dedicated, in which dwells God's peace, over which rests God's glory. It is to be the bringing of worship, not the crowning of rebellion, which is the Kingdom. And so Satan's greatest be comes to Christ his coarsest temptation,1 which He casts from Him ;' and the words : ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,' which now receive their highest fulfilment, mark not only Satan's defeat and Christ's triumph, but the principle of His Kingdom — of all victory and all triumph. Foiled, defeated, the Enemy has spread his dark pinions towards that far-off world of his, and covered it with their shadow. The sun no longer glows with melting heat ; the mists have gathered on the edge of the horizon, and enwrapped the scene which has faded from view. And in the cool and shade that followed have the Angels 2 come and ministered to His wants, both bodily and mental. He has refused to assert power ; He has not yielded to despair ; He would not fight and conquer alone in His own strength ; and He has received power and refreshment, and Heaven's company unnumbered in their ministry of worship. He would not yield to Jewish dream ; He did not pass from despair to presumption ; and lo, after the contest, with no reward as its object, all is His. He would not have Satan's vassals as His legions, and all Heaven's hosts are at His command. It had been victory ; it is now shout of triumphant praise. He Whom God had anointed by His Spirit had conquered by the Spirit ; He Whom Heaven's Voice had proclaimed God's beloved Son, in Whom He was well pleased, had proved such, and done His good pleasure. They had been all overcome, these three temptations against submission to the Will of God, present, personal, and specifically Messianic. Yet all His life long there were echoes of them : of the first, in the suggestion of His brethren to show Himself • a of the second, in the popular attempt to make Him a king, and perhaps also in what constituted the final idea of Judas Iscariot ; of the i Sin always intensifies in the coarse- and Demonology see Appendix XIH • ness of its assaults ¦ Jewish Angelology and Demonology.' " 2 For the Jewish views on Angelology ^' • St. John vii. 3-5 THE VICTORY. 307 third, as being most plainly Satanic, in the auestion of Pilate : ' Art CHAP. Thou then a king ? ' I The enemy ' departed from Him ' — yet only ' for a season.' But ' this first contest and victory of Jesus decided all others to the last. These were, perhaps not as to the shaping of His Messianic plan, nor through memory of Jewish expectancy, yet still in substance the same contest about absolute obedience, absolute submission to the Will of God, which constitutes the Kingdom of God. And so also from first to last was this the victory : ' Not My will, but Thine, be done.' But as, in the first three petitions which He has taught us, Christ has enfolded us in the mantle of His royalty, so has He Who shared our nature and our temptations gone up with us, want-pressed, sin-laden, and temptation-stricken as we are, to the Mount of Temptation in the four human petitions which follow the first. And over us is spread, as the sheltering folds of His mantle, this as the outcome of His royal contest and glorious victory : ' For Thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever ! ' l 1 This quotation of the Doxology leaves, mined, whether the words were part of of course, the critical question undeter- the ' Lord's Prayer ' in its original form. X2 308 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEE II. THE DEPUTATION FEOM JERUSALEM THE THBEE SECTS OP THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND ESSENES EXAMINATION OF THEIR DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES.1 (St. John i. 19-24.) BOOK Apart from the repulsively carnal form which it had taken, there is m something absolutely sublime in the continuance and intensity of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. It outlived not only the delay of long centuries, but the persecutions and scattering of the people; it continued under the disappointment of the Maccabees, the rule of a Herod, the administration of a corrupt and contemptible Priesthood, and, finally, the government of Bome as represented by a Pilate ; nay, it grew in intensity almost in proportion as it seemed unlikely of realisation. These are facts which show that the doctrine of the Kingdom, as the sum and substance of Old Testament teach ing, was the very heart of Jewish religious life ; while, at the same time, they evidence a moral elevation which placed abstract religious conviction far beyond the reach of passing events, and clung to it with a tenacity which nothing could loosen. Tidings of what these many months had occurred by the banks of the Jordan must have early reached Jerusalem, and ultimately stirred to the depths its religious society, whatever its preoccupation with ritual questions or political matters. For it was not an ordinary movement, nor in connection with any of the existing parties, religious or political. An extraordinary preacher, of extraordinary appearance and habits, not aiming, like others, after renewed zeal in legal observances, or increased Levitical purity, but preaching repentance and moral renovation in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and sealing this novel doctrine with an equally novel rite, had drawn 1 This chapter contains, among other was necessary in a work on ' The Times,' matter, a detailed and critical examina- as well as ' The Life,' of Christ. tion of the great Jewish Sects, such as THE DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM. 309 from town and country multitudes of all classes — inquirers, penitents, and novices. The great and burning question seemed, what the real character and meaning of it was ? or rather, whence did it issue, and whither did it tend ? The religious leaders of the people pro posed to answer this by instituting an inquiry through a trust worthy deputation. In the account of this by St. John certain points seem clearly implied ; a on others only suggestions can be • i. 19-28 ventured. That the interview referred to occurred after the Baptism of Jesus, appears from the whole context.1 Similarly, the statement that the deputation which came to John was ' sent from Jerusalem ' by 'the Jews,' implies that it proceeded from authority, even if it did -not bear more than a semi-official character. For, although the ex pression ' Jews ' in the fourth Gospel generally conveys the idea of contrast to the disciples of Christ (for ex. St. John vii. 15), yet it refers to the people in their corporate capacity, that is, as repre sented by their constituted religious authorities.1" On the other j0^1'^' hand, although the term ' scribes and elders' does not occur in the 16; ix-.?.8' ' o 22 ; xvui. 12, Gospel of St. John,2 it by no means follows that ' the Priests and 31 Levites' sent from the capital either represented the two great divisions of the Sanhedrin, or, indeed, that the deputation issued from the Great Sanhedrin itself. The former suggestion is entirely ungrounded ; the latter at least problematic. It seems a legitimate inference that, considering their own tendencies, and the political dangers connected with such a step, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem would not have come to the formal resolution of sending a regular deputation on such an inquiry. Moreover, a measure like this would have been entirely outside their recognised mode of procedure. The Sanhedrin did not, and could not, originate charges ; it only investigated those brought before it. It is quite true that judgment upon false prophets and religious seducers lay with it ;c but the ° Saah- 1 5 Baptist had not as yet said or done anything to lay him open to such an accusation. He had in no way infringed the Law by word or deed, nor had he even claimed to be a prophet.3 If, nevertheless, it seems most probable that 'the Priests and Levites' came from the Sanhedrin, we are led to the conclusion that theirs was an informal mission, rather privately arranged than publicly determined upon, 1 This point is fully discussed by the expression in St. John viii. 3 is un- Liicke, Evang. Joh., vol. i. pp. 396-398. authentic. 2 So Professor Westeott, in his Commen- 3 Of this the Sanhedrin must have tary on the passage (Speaker's Comment., been perfectly aware. Comp. St. Matt. N.T., vol. ii. p. 18), where he notes that iii. 7 ; St. Luke iii. 15 &c. 310 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK And with this the character of the deputies agrees. 'Priests HI and Levites ' — the colleagues of John the Priest — would be selected " ' " for such an errand, rather than leading Babbinic authorities. The presence of the latter would, indeed, have given to the movement an importance, if not a sanction, which the Sanhedrin could not have wished. The only other authority in Jerusalem from which such a deputation could have issued was the so-called ' Council of the Temple,' ' Judicature of the Priests,' or ' Elders of the Priest- YomaTs hood,' a which consisted of the fourteen chief officers of the Temple. But although they may afterwards have taken their full part in the condemnation of Jesus, ordinarily their duty was only connected with the services of the Sanctuary, and not with criminal questions or doctrinal investigations.1 It would be too much to suppose, that they would take the initiative in such a matter on the ground that the Baptist was a member of the Priesthood. Finally, it seems quite natural that such an informal inquiry, set on foot most probably by the Sanhedrists, should have been entrusted exclusively to the Pharisaic party. It would in no way have interested the Sadducees ; uP? &ctt' an corresponding inward reality, and with hypocrisy. These It itau ' charges cannot have come upon the people by surprise, and they may xxiii. 25, 20 account for the circumstance that so many of the learned kept aloof from the ' Association ' as such. Indeed, the sayings of some of the Babbis in regard to Pharisaism and the professional Pharisee are more withering than any in the New Testament. It is not necessary here to repeat the well-known description, both in the Jerusalem and the Babylon Talmud, of the seven kinds of ' Pharisees,' of whom six (the ' Shechemite,' the ' stumbling,' the ' bleeding,' the ' mortar,' the ' I want to know what is incumbent on me,' and ' the Pharisee from fear ') mark various kinds of unreality, and only one is ' the Pharisee je?*Ber.6iL fr°m l°ve-' f Such an expression as ' the plague of Pharisaism ' is not uncommon ; and a silly pietist, a clever sinner, and a female Pharisee, i sot. iii. 4 are ranked among ' the troubles of life.' g ' Shall we then explain a verse according to the opinions of the Pharisees ? ' asks a Babbi, in » Pes. 70 b supreme contempt for the arrogance of the fraternity.11 ' It is as a ' A**°'h a° tradition among the Pharisees * to torment themselves in this world a. Jn atlian 5 ° . and yet they will gain nothing by it in the next.' The Sadducees had some reason for the taunt, that ' the Pharisees would by-and-by 7Sd';Totf' subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications,'11 the more chag. m. g0 tBat their assertions of purity were sometimes conjoined with Epicurean maxims, betokening a very different state of mind, such as, ' Make • haste to eat and drink, for the world which we quit 1 Abba Saul would also have freed all nificant time when this alteration was students from that formality. introduced, in ' Sketches of Jewish Social 2 Comp. the suggestion as to the sig- Life,' pp. 228, 229. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 313 resembles a wedding feast ; ' or this : ' My son, if thou possess any- CHAP. thing, enjoy thyself, for there is no pleasure in Hades,1 and death II grants no respite. But if thou sayest, What then would I leave to my sons and daughters ? Who will thank thee for this appointment in Hades ? ' Maxims these to which, alas ! too many of their re corded stories and deeds form a painful commentary.2 But it would be grossly unjust to identify Pharisaism, as a religious direction, with such embodiments of it, or even with the official ' fraternity.' While it may be granted that the tendency and logical sequence of their views and practices were such, their system, as opposed to Sadduceeism, had very serious bearings: dogmatic, ritual, and legal. It is, however, erroneous to suppose, either that their system represented traditionalism itself, or that Scribes and Pharisees are convertible terms,3 while the Sadducees represented the civil and political element. The Pharisees represented only the pre vailing system of, not traditionalism itself; while the Sadducees also numbered among them many learned men. They were able to enter into controversy, often protracted and fierce, with their opponents, and they acted as members of the Sanhedrin, although they had diverging traditions of their own, and even, as it would appear, at one time a complete code of canon-law. a 4 Moreover, the admitted T_S?per fact, that when in office the Sadducees conformed to the principles ^a^ p 9 and practices of the Pharisees, proves at least that they must have " been acquainted with the ordinances of traditionalism.5 Lastly, there were certain traditional ordinances on which both parties were at one.b Thus it would seem that Sadduceeism was rather a specula- *sani_. 33 6; 1 Horay. 4 a tive than a practical system, starting from simple and well-defined principles, but wide-reaching in its possible consequences. Perhaps it may best be described as a general reaction against the extremes of Pharisaism, springing from moderate and rationalistic tendencies ; intended to secure a footing within the recognised bounds of Judaism ; and seeking to defend its principles by a strict literalism of 1 Erub. hi a. I give the latter clause, much under the influence of Geiger and not as in our edition of the Talmud, but Kuenen. according to a more correct reading * Wellhausen has carried his criticisms (Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. vol. ii. p. 102). and doubts of the Hebrew Scholion on 2 It could serve no good purpose to the Megiii. Taan. (or ' Boll of Fasts ') give instances. They are readily acces- too far. sible to those who have taste or curiosity s Even such a book as the Meg. Taan. in that direction. does not accuse them of absolute ignor- 3 So, erroneously, Wellhausen, in his ance, but only of being unable to prove treatise ' Pharisaer u. Sadduc' ; and par- their dicta from Scripture (comp. Pereq tially, as it seems to me, even Schurer x. p. 15 b, which may well mark the ex- (Neutest. Zeitgesch.). In other respects treme of Anti-Sadduceeism). also these two learned men seem too 314 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III • Ab. iii. 11 : b Jos. War i. 5.2 c Ant. xviii. 1.3 interpretation and application. If so, these interpretations would be intended rather for defensive than offensive purposes, and the great aim of the party would be after rational freedom — or, it might be, free rationality. Practically, the party would, of course, tend in broad, and often grossly unorthodox, directions. The fundamental dogmatic differences between the Pharisees and, Sadducees concerned : the rule of faith and practice ; the ' after death ; ' the existence of angels and spirits ; and free will and pre destination. In regard to the first of these points, it has already been stated that the Sadducees did not lay down the principle of absolute rejection of all traditions as such, but that they were opposed to traditionalism as represented and carried out by the Pharisees. When put down by sheer weight of authority, they would probably carry the controversy further, and retort on their opponents by an appeal to Scripture as against their traditions, per haps ultimately even by an attack on traditionalism ; but always as represented by the Pharisees.1 A careful examination of the state ments of Josephus on this subject will show that they convey no more than this.2 The Pharisaic view of this aspect of the contro versy appears, perhaps, most satisfactorily, because indirectly, in cer tain sayings of the Mishnah, which attribute all national calamities to those persons, whom they adjudge to eternal perdition, who interpret Scripture ' not as does the Halakhah,' or established Pharisaic rule." In this respect, then, the commonly received idea concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees will require to be seriously modified. As regards the practice of the Pharisees, as distinguished from that of the Sadducees, we may safely treat the statements of Josephus as the exaggerated representations of a partisan, who wishes to place his party in the best light. It is, indeed, true that the Pharisees, ' interpreting the legal ordinances with rigour,' b 3 imposed on them selves the necessity of much self-denial, especially in regard to food,0 but that tlieir practice was under the guidance of reason, as Josephus Babbinic equivalent for Josephus' cucpi$eia is SOD-IR, heaviness, and that the Pha risees were the p^OTO, or 'makers heavy.' What a commentary this on the charge of Jesus about 'the heavy bur dens ' of the Pharisees I St. Paul uses the same term as Josephus to describe the Pharisaic system, where our A.V. renders ' the perfect manner ' (Acts xxii. 3). Comp. also Acts xxvi. 5 : Kara tV OK/3i(3eo-T(£Tr)y a'lpeoiv. 1 Some traditional explanation of the Law of Moses was absolutely necessary, if it was to be applied to existing cir cumstances. It would be a great his torical inaccuracy to imagine that the Sadducees rejected the whole irapoiSoo-is rav irpeafiiiTepwv (St. Matt. xv. 2) from Ezra downwards. 2 This is the meaning of Ant. xiii. 10. 6, and clearly implied in xviii. 1. 3, 4, and War ii. 8. 14. 3 M. Derenbourg (Hist, de la Palest., p. 122, note) rightly remarks, that the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 315 asserts, is one of those bold mis-statements with which he has too CHAP. often to be credited. His vindication of their special reverence for II age and authority a must refer to the honours paid by the party to ' ' ~f. ' the Elders,' not to the old. And that there was sufficient ground i- 3 for Sadducean opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike in prin ciple and in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to which we add, by way of explanation, that the wearing of phylacte ries was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the phylactery for the head was to consist (according to tradition) of four compartments. 'Against the words of the Scribes is more punish able than against the words of Scripture. He who says, No phy lacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not guilty (free) ; five compartments — to add to the words of the Scribes — he is guilty.' b l * Sanh. xi. 3 The second doctrinal difference between Pharisees and Sadducees concerned the ' after death.' According to the New Testament,0 the " st- Matt- xxii l)3 and. Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, while Josephus, paraifeipas- . . -, sages ; Acts going further, imputes to them denial of reward or punishment after iv-.i. 2; death,4 and even the doctrine that the soul perishes with the body.e „ War u 8 The latter statement may be dismissed as among those inferences w which theological controversialists are too fond of" imputing to their i.t' """ opponents. This is fully borne out by the account of a later work,f ^^ajR' to the effect, that by successive misunderstandings of the saying of Antigonus of Socho, that men were to serve God without regard to reward, his later pupils had arrived at the inference that there was no other world — which, however, might only refer to the Pharisaic ideal of ' the world to come,' not to the denial of the immortality of the soul — and no resurrection of the dead. We may therefore credit Josephus with merely reporting the common inference of his party. But it is otherwise in regard to their denial of the resurrec tion of the dead. Not only Josephus, but the New Testament and Babbinic writings attest-this. The Mishnah expressly states * that « Ber. ix. 5 the formula 'from age to age,' or rather 'from world to world,' had been introduced as a protest against the opposite theory; while the Talmud, which records disputations between Gamaliel and the ¦Sadducees 2 on the subject of the resurrection, expressly imputes the 1 The subject is discussed at length the other the Scribes (' prophesy ') ; (2) in Jer. Ber. i. 7 (p. 3 b), where the from the fact that the Prophets needed superiority of the Scribe over the Pro- the attestation of miracles (Deut. xiii. phet is shown (1) from Mic. ii. 6 (with- 2), but not the Scribes (Deut. xvii. 11). out the words in italics), the one class 2 This is admitted even by Geiger being the Prophets (' prophesy not '), (Urscbr. u. Uebers. p. 130, note), though 0 Acts xxiii. 316 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK denial of this doctrine to the ' Scribes of the Sadducees.' In fairness 111 is is perhaps only right to add that, in the discussion, the Sadducees seem only to have actually denied that there was proof for this doctrine in the Pentateuch, and that they ultimately professed them selves convinced by the reasoning of Gamaliel.1 Still the concurrent testimony of the New Testament and of Josephus leaves no doubt, that in this instance their views had not been misrepresented. Whether or not their opposition to the doctrine of the Besurrection arose in the first instance from, or was prompted by, Bationalistic views, which they endeavoured to support by an appeal to the letter of the Pentateuch, as the source of traditionalism, it deserves notice that in His controversy with the Sadducees Christ appealed to the Pentateuch in proof of His teaching.2 Connected with this was the equally Bationalistic opposition to belief in Angels and Spirits. It is only mentioned in the New Testament," but seems almost to follow as a corollary. Bemembering what the Jewish Angelology was, one can scarcely wonder that in controversy the Sadducees should have been led to the opposite extreme. The last dogmatic difference between the two ' sects ' concerned that problem which has at all times engaged religious thinkers : man's free will and God's pre-ordination, or rather their compati bility. Josephus — or the reviser whom he employed — indeed, uses the purely heathen expression ' fate ' (slftapfisv-r)) 3 to designate the Jewish idea of the pre-ordination of God. But, properly understood, the real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees seems to have amounted to this : that the former accentuated God's pre- in the passage above referred to he nection with the question of the Saddu- would emendate : ' Scribes of the Samari- cees, that it raised another point in con- tans.' The passage, however, implies troversy between the Pharisees and the that these were Sadducean Scribes, and ' Samaritans,' or, as I would read it, the that they were both willing and able Sadducees, since ' the Samaritans' (Sad- to enter into theological controversy ducees ?) only allowed marriage with the with their opponents. betrothed, not the actually wedded wife 1 Babbi Gamaliel's proof was taken of a deceased childless brother (Jer. from Deut. i. 8 : ' Which Jehovah sware Yebam. i. 6, p. 3 a). The Sadducees in unto your fathers to give unto them.' the Gospel argue on the Pharisaic theory, It is not said 'unto you,' but 'unto them,' apparently for the twofold object of which implies the resurrection of the casting ridicule on the doctrine of the dead. The argument is kindred in cha- Resurrection, and on the Pharisaic prac- racter, but far inferior in solemnity and tice of marriage with the espoused wife weight, to that employed by our Lord, of a deceased brother. St. Matt. xxii. 32, from which it_ is evi- 3 The expression is used in the heathen dently taken. (See book v. ch. iv., the (philosophical) sense of fate by Philo, remarks on that passage.) De Incorrupt. Mundi. § 10, ed. Mangey, 2 It is a curious circumstance in con- vol. ii. p. 496 (ed. Frcf. p. 947). 1. 3 5. 9 ' PREDESTESTATION ' AND ' FREE WILL.' 317 ordination, the latter man's free will ; and that, while the Pharisees CHAP. admitted only a partial influence of the human element on what II happened, or the co-operation of the human with the Divine, the " ' ' Sadducees denied all absolute pre-ordination, and made man's choice of evil or good, with its consequences of misery or happiness, to depend entirely on the exercise of free will and self-determination. And in this, like many opponents of ' Predestinarianism,' they seem to have started from the principle, that it was impossible for God ¦ ' either to commit or to foresee [in the sense of fore-ordaining] anything evil.' The mutual misunderstanding here was that common in all such controversies. Although * Josephus writes as if, according . in Jewish to the Pharisees, the chief part in every good action depended upon fate [pre-ordination] rather than on man's doing, yet in another place b he disclaims for them the notion that the will of man was <>A__t. xviii. destitute of spontaneous activity, and speaks somewhat confusedly- for he is by no means a good reasoner — of ' a mixture ' of the Divine and human elements, in which the human will, with its sequence of virtue or wickedness, is subject to the will of fate. A yet further modification of this statement occurs in another place,0 where we are • Ant. xiii. told that, according to the Pharisees, some things depended upon fate, and more on man himself. Manifestly, there is not a very wide difference between this and the fundamental principle of the Sadducees in what we may suppose its primitive form. But something more will have to be said as illustrative of Phari saic teaching on this subject. No one who has entered into the spirit of the Old Testament can doubt that its outcome was faith, in its twofold aspect of acknowledgment of the absolute Bule, and simple submission to the Will, of God. What distinguished this so widely from fatalism was what may be termed Jehovahism — that is, the moral element in its thoughts of God, and that He was ever presented as in paternal relationship to men. But the Pharisees carried their accentuation of the Divine to the verge of fatalism. Even the idea that God had created man with two impulses, the one to good, the other to evil ; and that the latter was absolutely necessary for the continuance of this world, would in some measure trace the causation of moral evil to the Divine Being. The absolute and unalterable pre-ordination of every event, to its minutest details, is frequently insisted upon. Adam had been shown all the generations that were to spring from him. Every incident in the history of Israel had been foreordained, and the actors in it — for good or for evil — were only instruments for carrying out the Divine Will. What were even 318 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK Moses and Aaron ? God would have delivered Israel out of Egypt, HI and given them the Law, had there been no such persons. Similarly was it in regard to Solomon, to Esther, to Nebuchadnezzar, and others. Nay, it was because man was predestined to die that, the serpent came to seduce our first parents. And as regarded the history of each individual : all that concerned his mental and physical capacity, or that would betide him, was prearranged. His name, place, position, circumstances, the very name of her whom he was to wed, were proclaimed in heaven, just as the hour of his death was foreordered. There might be seven years of pestilence in the land, • Sanh. 29 6 and yet no one died before his time." Even if a man inflicted a cut * ca_u__. ib on his finger, he might be sure that this also had been preordered.b Nay, ' wheresoever a man was destined to die, thither would his feet carry him.' x We can well understand how the Sadducees would oppose notions like these, and all such coarse expressions of fatalism. And it is significant of the exaggeration of Josephus,2 that neither the New Testament, nor Babbinic writings, bring the charge of the denial of God's prevision against the Sadducees. But there is another aspect of this question also. While the Pharisees thus held the doctrine of absolute preordination, side by side with it they were anxious to insist on man's freedom of choice his personal responsibility, and moral obligation.3 Although every event depended upon God, whether a man served God or not was .entirely in his own choice. As a logical sequence of this, fate had no influence as regarded Israel, since all depended on prayer, repentance, and good works. Indeed, otherwise that repentance, on which Eab binism so largely insists, would have had no meaning. Moreover, it seems as if it had been intended to convey that, while our evil actions were entirely our own choice, if a man sought to amend his ways, he = Yoma 58 & would be helped of God.c It was, indeed, true that God had created 1 The following curious instance of this is given. On one occasion King Solomon, when attended by his two Scribes, Elihoreph and Ahiah (both sup posed to have been Ethiopians), sud denly perceived the Angel of Death. As he looked so sad, Solomon ascertained as its reason, that the two Scribes had been demanded at his hands. On this Solomon transported them by magic into the land of Luz, where, according to legend, no man ever died. Next morn ing Solomon again perceived the Angel of Death, but this time laughing, be cause, as he said, Solomon had sent these men to the very place whence he had been ordered to fetch them fSucc 53 a). K 2 Those who understand the character of Josephus' writings will be at no loss for his reasons in this. It would suit his purpose to speak often of the fatal ism of the Pharisees, and to represent them as a philosophical sect like the Stoics. The latter, indeed, he does in so many words. 3 For details comp. Hamburger, Eeal- Encykl. ii. pp. 103-106— though there is some tendency to ' colouring ' in this as in other articles of the work. CEREMONIAL DIFFERENCES. 319 the evil impulse in us ; but He had also given the remedy in the Law.a This is parabolically represented under the figure of a man seated at the parting of two ways, who warned all passers that if they chose one road it would lead them among the thorns, while on the «¦ other brief difficulties would end in a plain path (joy).b Or, to put * siphr* on it in the language of the great Akiba c : ' Everything is foreseen ; free 53, ei. Mea- determination is accorded to man ; and the world is judged in good- „ Ab- ^_ 16 ness.' With this simple juxtaposition of two propositions equally true, but incapable of metaphysical combination, as are most things in which the empirically cognisable and uncognisable are joined together, we are content to leave the matter. The other differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees can be easily and briefly summed up. They concern ceremonial, ritual, and juridical questions. In regard to the first, the opposition of the Sad ducees to the excessive scruples of the Pharisees on the subject of Levitical defilements led to frequent controversy. Pour points in dispute are mentioned, of which, however, three read more like ironical comments than serious divergences. Thus, the Sadducees taunted their opponents with their many lustrations, including that of the Golden Candlestick in the Temple.3 Two other similar instances d.Jer. Chag. are mentioned.** By way of guarding against the possibility of pro- chag.'m., fanation, the Pharisees enacted, that the touch of any thing sacred reader w_u ' defiled ' the hands. The Sadducees, on the other hand, ridiculed dent proof the idea that the Holy Scriptures ' defiled ' the hands, but not such a sadducees book as Homer.1 In the same spirit, the Sadducees would ask the the wrong Pharisees how it came, that water pouring from a clean into an unclean °t J° Tadp 1T< vessel did not lose its purity and purifying power.2 If these represent no serious controversies, on another ceremonial question there was real difference, though its existence shows how far party-spirit could lead the Pharisees. No ceremony was surrounded with greater care to prevent defilement than that of preparing the ashes of the Bed Heifer.3 1 The Pharisees replied by asking on ments of the Sadducees on their doings what ground the bones of a High-Priest (comp. Parah iii. 3). 'defiled,' but not those of a donkey. And' 2 Wellhausen rightly denounces the when the Sadducees ascribed it to the strained interpretations of Gieger, who great value of the former, lest a man would find here— as in other points — should profane the bones of his parents hidden political allusions. by making spoons of them, the Pharisees s Comp. ' The Temple, its Ministry and pointed out that the same argument Services,' pp. 309-312. The rubrics are applied to defilement by the Holy Scrip- in the Mishnic tractate Parah, and in tures. In general, it seems that the Pha- Tos. Par. risees were afraid of the satirical com- 320 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III ° Parati iii. ; Tos. Par. 3 b Parah iii. 7 " Shabb. 108 a a Vv. 15, 16 e Men. x. 3 ; 65 a ; Chag. ii. 4 'RoshhaSh. i. 7 ; ii. 1 ; Tos. Rosh haSh. 1. 11 « Succ. 48 b ; comp. Jos. Ant. xiii. 13. 6 What seem the original ordinances,3- directed that, for seven days pre vious to the burning of the Bed Heifer, the priest was to be kept in separation in the Temple, sprinkled with the ashes of all sin-offerings, and kept from the touch of his brother-priests, with even greater rigour than the High-Priest in his preparation for the Day of Atone ment. The Sadducees insisted that, as ' till sundown ' was the rule in all purifications, the priest must be in cleanness till then, before burn ing the Bed Heifer. But, apparently for the sake of opposition, and in contravention to their own principles, the Pharisees would actually ' defile ' the priest on his way to the place of burning, and then im mediately make him take a bath of purification which had been pre pared, so as to show that the Sadducees were in error.b 1 In the same spirit, the Sadducees seem to have prohibited the use of anything made from animals which were either interdicted as food, or by reason of their not having been properly slaughtered; while the Pharisees allowed it, and, in the case of Levitically clean animals which had died or been torn, even made their skin into parchment, which might be used for sacred purposes.0 These may seem trifling distinctions, but they sufficed to kindle the passions. Even greater importance attached to differences on ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoretical. For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the prevail ing Pharisaic practices. Thus, the Sadducees would have interpreted Lev. xxiii. 11, 15, 16, as meaning that the wave-sheaf (or, rather, the Omer) was to be offered on ' the morrow after the weekly Sabbath ' — that is, on the Sunday in Easter-week — which would have brought the Feast of Pentecost always on a Sunday; d while the Pharisees understood the term ' Sabbath ' of the festive Paschal day.e 2 Con nected with this were disputes about the examination of the witnesses who testified to the appearance of the new moon, and whom the Pharisees accused of having been suborned by their opponents.f The Sadducean objection to pouring the water of libation upon the altar on the Feast of Tabernacles, led to riot and bloody reprisals on the only occasion on which it seems to have been carried into practiced 3 Similarly, the Sadducees objected to the Pharisaic custom 1 The Mishnic passage is difficult, but I believe I have given the sense cor rectly. 2 This difference, which is more in tricate than appears at first sight, re quires a longer discussion than can be given in this place. ¦ For details about the observances on this festival, I must refer to ' The Temple its Ministry and Services.' ' ¦ u. s., and DIFFERENCES ON JURIDICAL QUESTIONS. 321 of beating off the willow-branches after the procession round the altar on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.* Again, the Sadducees would have had the High-Priest, on the Day of Atonement, kindle the incense before entering the Most Holy Place ; the Pharisees after in the Jems. he had entered the Sanctuary.* Lastly, the Pharisees contended that Tos. the cost of the daily Sacrifices should be discharged from the general i.^'yomT Temple treasury, while the Sadducees would have paid it from free- 196; 53ft will offerings. Other differences, which seem not so well established, need not here be discussed. Among the divergences on juridical questions, reference has already been made to that in regard to marriage with the ' betrothed,' or else actually espoused widow of a deceased, childless brother. Josephus, indeed, charges the Sadducees with extreme severity in criminal matters ; " but this must refer to the fact that the ingenuity»or punc- "Specially tiliousness of the Pharisees would afford to most offenders a loophole of escape. On the other hand, such of the diverging juridical prin ciples of the Sadducees, as are attested on trustworthy authority,1 seem more in accordance with justice than those of the Pharisees. They concerned (besides the Levirate marriage) chiefly three points. According to the Sadducees, the punishment d against false witnesses ¦> Decreed in was only to be executed if the innocent person, condemned on their eu ' "*" 21 testimony, had actually suffered punishment, while the Pharisees held that this was to be done if the sentence had been actually pronounced, although not carried out.e Again, according to Jewish law, only a "Mace, i.e son, but not a daughter, inherited the father's property. From this the Pharisees argued, that if, at the time of his father's decease, that son were dead, leaving only a daughter, this granddaughter would (as representative of the son) be the heir, while the daughter would be excluded. On the other hand, the Sadducees held that, in such a case, daughter and granddaughter should share alike.f Lastly, the 'BabaB. Sadducees argued that if, according to Exodus xxi. 28, 29, a man was t'os. Yad. 2 responsible for damage done by his cattle, he was equally, if not more, responsible for damage done by his slave, while the Pharisees refused to recognise any responsibility on the latter score.8 2 g Taa. iv. 1 For the sake of completeness it has been necessary to enter into YaiT°s- Other differences, which rest merely Article on ' The Sadducees,' in Kitto's on the authority of the Hebrew Com- Bibl. Encycl. mentary on ' The Boll of Fasts,' I have 2 Geiger, and even Derenbourg, see in discarded as unsupported by historical these things deep political allusions — evidence. I am sorry to have in this which, as it seems to me, have no other respect, and on some other aspects of existence than in the ingenuity of these the question, to differ from the learned writers. VOL. I. Y 322 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK details, which may not possess a general interest. This, however, will HI be marked, that, with the exception of dogmatic differences, the con- ' troversy turned on questions of ' canon-law.' Josephus tells us that -Ant. xiii. t]ie pllarigees comman(iea the masses," and especially the female * Ant. xvii. WOrld,b while the Sadducees attached to their ranks only a minority, and that belonging to the highest class. The leading priests in Jerusalem formed, of course, part of that highest class of society; and from the New Testament and Josephus we learn that the High- «Actsv. 17; Priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party." But to conclude Ant. xx. 9. i from th.g^, eitner that the Sadducees represented the civil and political aspect of society, and the Pharisees the religious ; or, that the Sad ducees were the priest-party,2 in opposition to the popular and demo cratic Pharisees, are inferences not only unsupported, but opposed to historical facts. For, not a few of the Pharisaic leaders were actually '* sheqai. iv. priests,4 while the Pharisaic ordinances make more than ample re- Eta"' viii. 2; cognition of the privileges and rights of the Priesthood. This would certainly not have been the case if, as some have maintained, Sad ducean and priest-party had been convertible terms. Even as regards the deputation to the Baptist of ' Priests and Levites ' from Jerusalem, est. John i. we are expressly told that they ' were of the Pharisees.' e This bold hypothesis seems, indeed, to have been invented chiefly for the sake of another, still more unhistorical. The derivation of the name ' Sadducee ' has always been in dispute. According to a Jewish legend ' in the Ab. of about the seventh century of our era/ the name was derived from one c. 5 ' Tsadoq (Zadok),3 a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, whose principle of not serving God for reward had been gradually misinterpreted into Sadduceeism. But, apart from the objection that in such case the party should rather have taken the name of Antigonites, the story itself receives no support either from Josephus or from early Jewish writings. Accord ingly modern critics have adopted another hypothesis, which seems at least equally untenable. On the supposition that the Sadducees were the ' priest-party,' the name of the sect is derived from Zadok (Tsadoq), the High-Priest in the time of Solomon. But the objections to this are insuperable.4 Not to speak of the linguistic difficulty of deriving Tsadduqim (Zaddukim, Sadducees) from Tsadoq (Zadok),5 1 So Wellhausen, u. o. a few of the statements hazarded by Dr. 2 So Geiger, u. s. Geiger seem to me to have no historical 3 This and Zaddukim mark the different foundation, and the passages quoted in transliteration of the same words. support either do not convey such mean- 1 This theory, defended with ingenuity ing, or else are of no authority. by Geiger, has been of late adopted by most 5 So Dr. Low, as quoted in Dr. Gins- writers, and even by Schiirer. But not burg's article. DERIVATION OF THE NAMES: 'PHARISEE' AND ' SADDUCEE.' 323 neither Josephus nor the Babbis know anything of such a connection CHAP. between Tsadoq and the Sadducees, of which, indeed, the rationale II would be difficult to perceive. Besides, is it likely that a party would ' ' have gone back so many centuries for a name, which had no connec tion with their distinctive principles ? The name of a party is, if self-chosen (which is rarely the case), derived from its founder or place of origin, or else from what it claims as distinctive principles or practices. Opponents might either pervert such a name, or else give a designation, generally opprobrious, which would express their own relation to the party, or to some of its supposed peculiarities. But on none of these principles can the origin of the name of Sadducees from Tsadoq be accounted for. Lastly, on the supposition mentioned, the Sadducees must have given the name to their party, since it can not be imagined that the Pharisees would have connected their op ponents with the honoured name of the High-Priest Tsadoq. If it is highly improbable that the Sadducees, who, of course, professed to be the right interpreters of Scripture, would choose any party-name, thereby stamping themselves as sectaries, this derivation of their name is also contrary to historical analogy. For even the name Pharisees, ' Perushim,' ' separated ones,' was not taken by the party itself, but given to it by their opponents. a ¦ From 1 Mace. ii. 42 ; » Taa. iv. 6 vii. 13 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 6, it appears that originally they had taken the sacred name of Chasidim, or ' the pious.' b This, no doubt, on the * ps. xxx. 4 ; ground that they were truly those who, according to the directions xxxv ii. 28 of Ezra," had separated themselves (become nibhdalim) ' from the c vi. 21 ; ix. filthiness of the heathen ' (all heathen defilement) by carrying out Neh.'ix! 2 the traditional ordinances.2 In fact, Ezra marked the beginning of the ' later,' in contradistinction to the ' earlier,' or Scripture- Ghasidim.d If we are correct in supposing that their opponents had a Ber. v. 1 ; called them Perushim, instead of the Scriptural designation of vayyifcraR. Nibhdalim, the inference is at hand, that, while the ' Pharisees ' would t!iii!p. 5™ ' arrogate to themselves the Scriptural name of Chasidim, or ' the pious,' their opponents would retort that they were satisfied to be Tsaddiqim3 or ' righteous.' Thus the name of Tsaddiqim would become that of the party opposing the Pharisees, that is, of the Sadducees. 1 The argument as against the deriva- * Here it deserves special notice that tion of the term Saddncee would, of course, the Old Testament term Chasid, which hold equally good, even if each party had the Pharisees arrogated to themselves, is assumed, not received from the other, its rendered in the Peshito by Zaddiq. Thus, characteristic name. as it were, the opponents of Pharisaism 2 Comp. generally, ' Sketches of Jewish would play off the equivalent Tsaddiq Social Life,' pp. 230, 231. against the Pharisaic arrogation of Cliasid. v 2 324 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK There is, indeed, an admitted linguistic difficulty in the change of III the sound i into u (Tsaddiqim into Tsadduqim), but may it not have " ' " heen that this was accomplished, not grammatically, but by popular witticism ? Such mode of giving a ' by-name ' to a party or govern ment is, at least, not irrational, nor is it uncommon.1 Some wit might have suggested : Bead not Tsaddiqim, the ' righteous,' but Tsadduqim (from Tsadu, -m), 'desolation,' 'destruction.' Whether or not this suggestion approve itself to critics, the derivation of Sadducees from Tsaddiqim is certainly that which offers most probability.2 This uncertainty as to the origin of the name of a party leads almost naturally to the mention of another, which, indeed, could not be omitted in any description of those times. But while the Pharisees and Sadducees were parties within the Synagogue, the Essenes ('EcroT/j/o/, or 'Ecrcraioi — the latter always in Philo) were, although strict Jews, yet separatists, and, alike in doctrine, worship, and practice, outside the Jewish body ecclesiastic. Their numbers •¦Phiio, Quod amounted to only about 4,000.a They are not mentioned in the bus nber, New Testament, and only very indirectly referred to in Babbinic Mang. ii. p. writings, perhaps without clear knowledge on the part of the W. xviii. Babbis. If the conclusion concerning them, which we shall by-and- by indicate, be correct, we can scarcely wonder at this. Indeed, their entire separation from all who did not belong to their sect, the terrible oaths by which they bound themselves to secrecy about their doctrines, and which would prevent any free religious discussion, as well as the character of what is known of their views, would account for the scanty notices about them. Josephus and Philo,3 who speak of them in the most sympathetic manner, had, no doubt, taken special pains to ascertain all that could be learned. For this Josephus .seems to have enjoyed special opportunities.4 Still, the secrecy of their doctrines renders us dependent on writers, of whom at least one (Josephus) lies open to the suspicion of colouring and 1 Such by-names, by a play on a word, passage in Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1. 6), are not unfrequent. Thus, in Shem. which expressly calls the Nationalists a B. 5 (ed. Warsh. p. 14 a, lines 7 and 8 fourth party, by the side of the Pharisees, from top), Pharaoh's charge that the Sadducees, and Essenes. That in practice Israelites were D'SIJ, ' idle,' is, by a trans- they would carry out the strict Judaism position of letters,' made to mean that °* the Pharisees, does not make them they were *6pvoi. PharJf es. 2 It seems strange, that so accurate a lhe7 are also mentioned by Pliny scholar as Schiirer should have regarded (Hist. Natur. v. 16). the ' national party ' as merely an offshoot Thls may be inferred from Josephus1 from the Pharisees (Neutest. Zeitgesch. *££&, c- 2- p. 431), and appealed in proof to a ESSENISM. 325 exaggeration. But of one thing we may feel certain : neither John the Baptist, and his Baptism, nor the teaching of Christianity, had any connection with Essenism. It were utterly unhistorical to infer such from a few points of contact — and these only of similarity, not identity — when the differences between them are so fundamental. That an Essene would have preached repentance and the Kingdom of God to multitudes, baptized the uninitiated, and given supreme testimony to One like Jesus, are assertions only less extravagant than this, that One Who mingled with society as Jesus did, and Whose teaching, alike in that respect, and in all its tendencies, was so utterly Non-, and even Anti-Essenic, had derived any part of His doctrine from Essenism. Besides, when we remember the views of the Essenes on purification, and on Sabbath observance, and their denial of the Besurrection, we feel that, whatever points of resemblance critical ingenuity may emphasise, the teaching of Christianity was in a direction the opposite from that of Essenism.1 We possess no data for the history of the origin and development (if such there was) of Essenism. We may admit a certain con nection between Pharisaism and Essenism, though it has been greatly exaggerated by modern Jewish writers. Both directions originated from a desire after ' purity,' though there seems a funda mental difference between them, alike in the idea of what consti tuted purity, and in the means for attaining it. To the Pharisee it was Levitical and legal purity, secured by the ' hedge ' of ordinances which they drew around themselves. To the Essene it was absolute purity in separation from the ' material,' which in itself was defiling. The Pharisee attained in this manner the distinctive merit of a saint ; the Essene obtained a higher fellowship with the Divine, 'inward' purity, and not only freedom from the detracting, degrading influ ence of matter, but command over matter and nature. As the result of this higher fellowship with the Divine, the adept possessed the power of prediction ; as the result of his freedom from, and command 1 This point is conclusively disposed dissent being few and unimportant. The of by Bishop Lightfoot in the third Dis- reader who wishes to see a statement of sertation appended to his Commentary the supposed analogy between Essenism on the Colossians (pp. 397-419). In and the teaching of Christ will find it general, the masterly discussion of the in Dr. Ginsburg's Article ' Essenes,' in whole subject by Bishop Lightfoot, alike Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian in the body of the Commentary and in Biography. The same line of argument the three Dissertations appended, may be has been followed by Frankel and Gratz, ¦ said to form a new era in the treatment The reasons for the opposite view are set of the whole question, the points on forth in the text. which we would venture to express 326 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III • Jos. Ant. xiii. 5. 9 b 105-104 B.C.; Ant. xiii. U. 2 ; War i. 3. 5 ° Philo, ii. p. 467 d Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 16, 17 c Philo, u. s. p. 632 ; Jos. Jewish War ii. 8.4 ' Ant. xiii. 11. 2; xv. 10. 5 ; xvii. 13.3e War v. 4. 2 h Philo, u. s. p. 632 ' War ii. 8. 9 over matter, the power of miraculous cures. That their purifications, strictest Sabbath observance, and other practices, would form points of contact with Pharisaism, follows as a matter of course ; and a little reflection will show, that such observances would naturally be adopted by the Essenes, since they were within the lines of Judaism, although separatists from its body ecclesiastic. On the other hand, their fundamental tendency was quite other than that of Pharisaism, and strongly tinged with Eastern (Parsee) elements. After this the inquiry as to the precise date of its origin, and whether Essenism was an offshoot from the original (ancient) Assideans or Chasidim, seems needless. Certain it is that we find its first mention about 150 B.C.,a and that we meet the first Essene in the reign of Aristobulus I.b Before stating our conclusions as to its relation to Judaism and the meaning of the name, we shall put together what information may be derived of the sect from the writings of Josephus, Philo, and Pliny.1 Even its outward organisation and the mode of life must have made as deep, and, considering the habits and circumstances of the time, even deeper impression than does the strictest asceticism on the part of any modern monastic order, without the unnatural and repulsive characteristics of the latter. There were no vows of absolute silence, broken only by weird chaunt of prayer or ' memento mori ; ' no penances, nor self-chastisement. But the person who had entered the ' order ' was as effectually separated from all outside as if he had lived in another world. Avoiding the large cities as the centres of immorality,0 they chose for their settlements chiefly villages, one of their largest colonies being by the shore of the Dead Sea.d At the same time they had also ' houses ' in most, if not all the cities of Palestine,e notably in Jerusalem/ where, indeed, one of the gates was named after them.s In these ' houses ' they lived in com mon,11 under officials of their own. The affairs of 'the order' were administered by a tribunal of at least a hundred members.1 They wore a common dress, engaged in common labour, united in common prayers, partook of common meals, and devoted themselves to works of charity, for which each had liberty to draw from the com- 1 Compare Josephus, Ant. xiii. 5, 9 ; xv. 10. i, 5; xviii. 1. 5 ; Jewish War, ii. 8, 2-13 ; Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, § 12, 13 (ed. Mangey, ii. 457-459; ed. Par. and Frcf. pp. 876-879 ; ed. Richter, vol. v. pp. 285-288) ; Pliny, N.H. v. 16, 17. For references in the Fathers see Bp. Lightfoot on Colossians, pp. 83, 84 (note). Comp. the literature there and in Schiirer (Neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 599), to which I would add Dr. Ginburg's Art. ' Essenes ' in Smith's and Wace's Diet, of Chr. Biogr., vol. ii. VIEWS AND OBSERVANCES OF THE ESSENES. 327 mon treasury at his own discretion, except in th*e case of relatives.* CHAP. It scarcely needs mention that they extended fullest hospitality II to strangers belonging to the order; in fact, a special official was ^ar '.. g ' appointed for this purpose in every city.b Everything was of the t>u. s. §4 simplest character, and intended to purify the soul by the great est possible avoidance, not only of what was sinful, but of what was material. Bising at dawn, no profane word was spoken till they had offered their prayers. These were addressed towards, if not to, the rising sun — probably, as they would have explained it, as the emblem of the Divine Light, but implying invocation, if not adoration, of the sun.1 After that they were dismissed by their officers to common work. The morning meal was preceded by a lustration, or bath. Then they put on their ' festive ' linen garments, and entered, purified, the common hall as their Sanctuary. For each meal was sacrificial, in fact, the only sacrifices which they acknow ledged. The ' baker,' who was really their priest — and naturally so, since he prepared the sacrifice— set before each bread, and the cook a mess of vegetables. The meal began with prayer by the pre siding priest, for those who presided at these ' sacrifices ' were also 'priests,' although in neither case probably of Aaronic descent, but consecrated by themselves.0 The sacrificial meal was again concluded 'Jos. wax a. 8 5 * Aut by prayer, when they put off their sacred dress, and returned to their xviii. 1. 5 labour. The evening meal was of exactly the same description, and partaken of with the same rites as that of the morning. Although the Essenes, who, with the exception of a small party among them, repudiated marriage, adopted children to train them in the principles of their sect,2 yet admission to the order was only granted to adults, and after a novitiate which lasted three years. On entering, the novice received the three symbols of purity : an axe, or rather a spade, with which to dig a pit, a foot deep, to cover up the excrements ; an apron, to bind round the loins in bathing ; and a white dress, which was always worn, the festive garment at meals being of linen. At the end of the first year the novice was 1 The distinction is Schiirer's, although (Comp. ed. Mangey, ii. p. 632, from he is disposed to minimise this point. Misebius' Prapar. Evang. lib. viii. cap. 8.) More on this in the sequel. I have adopted the view of Bishop Light- 2 Schiirer regards these children as foot on the subject. Even the marrying forming the first of the four ' classes ' or order of the Essenes, however, only ad- ' grades 'into which the Essenes were mitted of wedlock under great restrictions, arranged. But this is contrary to the and as a necessary evil (War, u. s. § 13). express statement of Philo, that only Bishop Lightfoot suggests, that these were adults were admitted into the order, and not Essenes in the strict sense, but only hence only such could have formed a ' like the third order of a Benedictine or 'grade' or 'class' of the community. Franciscan brotherhood.' 328 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK admitted to the lustrations. He had now entered on the second HI grade, in which he remained for another year. After its lapse, he was advanced to the third grade, but still continued a novice until, at the close of the third year of his probation, he was admitted to the fourth grade — that of full member, when, for the first time, he -was admitted to the sacrifice of the common meals. The mere touch of one of a lower grade in the order defiled the Essene, and necessitated the lustration of a bath. Before admission to full membership, a terrible oath was taken. As, among' other things, it bound to the most absolute secrecy, we can scarcely suppose that its form, as » War ii. 8. 7 given by Josephus,a contains much beyond what was generally allowed to transpire. Thus the long list given by the Jewish his torian of moral obligations which the Essenes undertook, is probably only a rhetorical enlargement of some simple formula. More credit attaches to the alleged undertaking of avoidance of all vanity, false hood, dishonesty, and unlawful gains. The last parts of the oath alone indicate the peculiar vows of the sect, that is, so far as they could be learned by the outside world, probably chiefly through the practice of the Essenes. They bound each member not to conceal anything from his own sect, nor, even on peril of death, to disclose their doctrines to others ; to hand down their doctrines exactly as they had received them ; to abstain from robbery ; ¦ and to guard the books belonging to their sect, and. the names of the Angels. It is evident that, while all else was intended as "safeguards of a rigorous sect of purists, and with the view of strictly keeping it a secret order, the last-mentioned particulars furnish significant indica tions of their peculiar doctrines. Some of these may be regarded as only exaggerations of Judaism, though not of the Pharisaic kind.2 Among them we reckon the extravagant reverence for the name of their legislator (presumably Moses), whom to blaspheme was a capital offence ; their rigid abstinence from all prohibited food ; and their exaggerated Sabbath-observance, when, not only no food was prepared, but not a vessel moved, nay, not even nature eased.3 But this latter was connected with their fundamental idea of inherent im- 1 Can this possibly have any connection few, if any, traces of Pharisaism in the in the mind of Josephus with the later distinctive sense of the term. Even their Nationalist movement ? This would agree frequent washings had a different object with his insistance on their respect for from those of the Pharisees. those in authority. Otherwise the empha- s For a similar reason, and in order ' not sis laid on abstinence from robbery seems to affront the Divine rays of light' the strange in such a sect. light as symbol, if not outcome, of the 2 I venture to think that even Bishop Deity — they coverec themselves, in such Lightfoot lays too much stress on the circumstances, with the mantle which affinity to Pharisaism. I can discover was their ordinary dress in winter. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESSENISM AND ORTHODOX JUDAISM. 329 purity in the body, and, indeed, in all that is material. Hence, also, CHAP. their asceticism, their repudiation of marriage, and their frequent II lustrations in clean water, not only before their sacrificial meals, but upon contact even with an Essene of a lower grade, and after attend ing to the calls of nature. Their undoubted denial of the resurrection of the body seems only the logical sequence from it. If the soul was a substance of the subtlest ether, drawn by certain natural enticement into the body, which was its prison, a state of perfectness could not have consisted in the restoration of that which, being material, was in itself impure. And, indeed, what we have called the exaggerated Judaism of the sect — its rigid abstinence from all forbidden food, and peculiar Sabbath-observance — may all have had the same object, that of tending towards an external purism, which the Divine legislator would have introduced, but the ' carnally- minded ' could not receive. Hence, also, the strict separation of the order, its grades, its rigorous discipline, as well as its abstinence from wine, meat, and all ointments — from every luxury, even from trades which would encourage this, or any vice. This aim after external purity explains many of their outward arrangements, such as that their labour was of the simplest kind, and the commonality of all property in the order ; perhaps, also, what may seem more ethical ordinances, such as the repudiation of slavery, their refusal to take an oath, and even their scrupulous care of truth. The white garments, which they always wore, seem to have been but a symbol of that purity which they sought. For this purpose they submitted, not only to strict asceticism, but to a discipline which gave the officials authority to expel all offenders, even though in so doing they virtually condemned them to death by starvation, since the most terrible oaths had bound all entrants into the order not to partake of any food other than that prepared by their ' priests.' In such a system there would, of course, be no place for either an Aaronic priesthood, or bloody sacrifices. In fact, they repudiated both. Without formally rejecting the Temple and its services, there was no room in their system for such ordinances. They sent, indeed, thank-offerings to the Temple, but what part had they in bloody sacrifices and an Aaronic ministry, which constituted the main busi ness of the Temple ? Their ' priests ' were their bakers and presidents ; their sacrifices those of fellowship, their sacred meals of purity. It is quite in accordance with this tendency when we learn from Philo that, in their diligent study of the Scriptures, they chiefly adopted the allegorical mode of interpretation/ ii. p; ^T9' 330 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK We can scarcely wonder that such Jews as Josephus and Philo, HI and such heathens as Pliny, were attracted by such an unworldly ' ' and lofty sect. Here were about 4,000 men, who deliberately separated themselves, not only from all that made life pleasant, but from all around ; who, after passing a long and strict novitiate, were content to live under the most rigid rule, obedient to their superiors ; who gave up all their possessions, as well as the earnings of their daily toil in the fields, or of their simple trades; who held all things for the common benefit, entertained strangers, nursed their sick, and tended their aged as if their own parents, and were charitable to all men ; who renounced all animal passions, eschewed anger, ate and drank in strictest moderation, accumulated neither wealth nor possessions, wore the simplest white dress till it was no longer fit for use ; repudiated slavery, oaths, marriage ; ab stained from meat and wine, even from the common Eastern anoint ing with oil ; used mystic lustrations, had mystic rites and mystic prayers, an esoteric literature and doctrines ; whose every meal was a sacrifice, and every act one of self-denial; who, besides, were strictly truthful, honest, upright, virtuous, chaste, and charitable — in short, whose life meant, positively and negatively, a continual purifi cation of the soul by mortification of the body. To the astonished onlookers this mode of life was rendered even more sacred by doctrines, a literature, and magic power known only to the initiated. Their mysterious traditions made them cognisant of the names of Angels, by which we are, no doubt, to understand a theosophic knowledge, fellowship with the Angelic world, and the power of employing its ministry. Their constant purifications, and the study of their prophetic I'is-Zom*' writings. gave them the power of prediction ; a the same mystic ^xiii.n. -writings revealed the secret remedies of plants and stones for the xvii. 13. 3 healing of the body,1 as well as what was needed for the cure of souls. It deserves special notice that this intercourse with Angels, this secret traditional literature, and its teaching concerning mysterious remedies in plants and stones, are not unfrequently referred to in that Apocalyptic literature known as the ' Pseudepigraphic Writings.' Con fining ourselves to undoubtedly Jewish and pre-Christian documents,2 we know what development the doctrine of Angels received both in the Book of Enoch (alike in its earlier and in its later portion b) and in the Book of Jubilees,3 and how tbe 'seers' received Angelic 1 There can be no question that these the 8ibylline books which seems of Essene cures were magical, and their Christian authorship. knowledge of remedies esoteric. s Comp. Lucius, Essenismus, p. 109. 2 Bishop Lightfoot refers to a part of This brochure, the latest on the subject, b Ch. xxxi.- lxxi. ORIGIN OF ESSENISM. 331 instruction and revelations. The distinctively Babbinic teaching on these subjects is fully set forth in another part of this work.1 Here we would only specially notice that in the Book of Jubilees a Angels are represented as teaching Noah all ' herbal remedies ' for diseases,b while in the later Pirqe de B. Eliezer ° this instruction is » Comp. also said to have been given to Moses. These two points (relation to the Noaoh m Angels, and knowledge of the remedial power of plants — not to speak Beth ha- of visions and prophecies) seem to connect the secret writings of the hi. pp. iss, Essenes with that ' outside ' literature which in Babbinic writings „ e. 4s is known as Sepharim. haGhitsonim, ' outside writings.' 2 The point is of greatest importance, as will presently appear. It needs no demonstration, that a system which proceeded from a contempt of the body and of all that is material ; in some manner identified the Divine manifestation with the Sun ; denied the Besur rection, the Temple-priesthood, and sacrifices ; preached abstinence from meats and from marriage ; decreed such entire separation from all around that their very contact defiled, and that its adherents would have perished of hunger rather than join in the meals of the outside world ; which, moreover, contained not a trace of Messianic elements — indeed, had no room for them — could have had no internal connec tion with the origin of Christianity. Equally certain is it that, in respect of doctrine, life, and worship, it really stood outside Judaism, as represented by either Pharisees or Sadducees.* The question whence the foreign elements were derived, which were its distinctive characteristics, has of late been so learnedly discussed, that only the conclusions arrived at require to be stated. Of the two theories, of which the one traces Essenism to Neo-Pythagorean,3 the other to Persian sources,4 the latter seems fully established — without, however, wholly denying at least the possibility of Neo-Pythagorean influences. To the grounds which have been so conclusively urged in support ofthe Eastern origin of Essenism,5 in its distinctive features, may be added this, that Jewish Angelology, which played so great a part in the system, was derived from Chaldee and Persian sources, and perhaps also the curious notion, that the knowledge of medicaments, originally though interesting, adds little to our 3 So Zeller, Philosophie d. G-riechen, knowledge. ed. 1881, iii. pp. 277-337. 1 See Appendix XIII. on the Angelology, 4 So Bishop Lightfoot, in his masterly Satanology, and Demonology of the Jews. treatment of the whole subject in his 2 Only after writing the above I have Commentary on the Ep. to the Colossians. noticed, that Jellinek arrives at the same 5 By Bishop Lightfoot, u. s. pp. 382-396. conclusion as to the Essene character of In general, I prefer on many points — such the Book of Jubilees (Beth ha-Midr. as the connection between Essenism and iii. p. xxxiv, xxxv), and of the Book of Gnosticism &c, simply to refer readers to Enoch (u. a. ii. p. xxx). the classic work of Bishop Lightfoot. 332 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. derived by Noah from the angels, came to the Egyptians chiefly through the magic books of the Chaldees.a ' It is only at the conclusion of these investigations, that we are prepared to enter on the question of the origin and meaning of the name Essenes, important as this inquiry is, not only in itself, but in regard to the relation of the sect to orthodox Judaism. The eighteen or nineteen proposed explanations of a term, which must undoubtedly be of Hebrew etymology, all proceed on the idea of its derivation from something which implied praise of the sect, the two least objec tionable explaining the name as equivalent either to ' the pious,' or else to ' the silent ones.' But against all such derivations there is the obvious objection, that the Pharisees, who had the moulding of the theological language, and who were in the habit of giving the hardest names to those who differed from them, would certainly not have bestowed a title implying encomium on a sect which, in principle and practices, stood so entirely outside, not only of their own views, but even of the Synagogue itself. Again, if they had given a name of encomium to the sect, it is only reasonable to suppose that they would not have kept, in regard to their doctrines and practices, a silence which is only broken by dim and indirect allusions. Yet, as we examine it, the origin and meaning of the name seem implied in their very position towards the Synagogue. They were the only real sect, strictly outsiders — and their name Essenes ('Ea-er-r/zW, 'Ecra-a-tot) seems the Greek equivalent for Ghitsonim (mixti), ' the outsiders.' Even the circumstance that the axe, or rather spade (agivdpiov), which every novice received, has for its Babbinic equivalent the word Ghatsina, is here not without significance. Linguistically, the words Essenoi and Ghitsonim are equivalents, as admittedly are the similar designations Chasidim (D'TPEi) and Asidaioi (AaiSaloi). For, in rendering Hebrew into Greek, the ch (ri) is ' often entirely omitted, or represented by a spiritus lenis in the beginning,' while ' in regard to the vowels no distinct rule is to be laid down.' 2 Instances of a change of the Hebrew i into the Greek e are frequent, and of the Hebrew o into the Greek e not rare. As one instance will suffice, we select a case in which exactly the same transmutation of the two vowel-sounds occurs — that of the Bab binic Abhginos (DU»)3«J) for the Greek (svyev-qs) Eugenes (' well-born').3 1 Can it be that, after all, the Essenes were derived from the kindred sect of the Tlierapeutm, near Alexandria 1 Bi shop Lightfoot (u. s. p. 385) denies this, but, as I venture to think, on a ground which is not convincing. 2 The quotations are from Deutsch's Remains, pp. 360 and 359. 3 As other instances may be quoted such as Istagioth (ni'l3!3D_<) = o-r<=-y?j, roof; Istuli (»^BpN) = 'o-rfov, a pillar; Dikhsumini (y^'pa^) = S^a^vl), cis tern. DERIVATION OF THE NAME ' ESSENES.' 333 This derivation of the name Essenes, which strictly expresses the CHAP. character and standing of the sect relatively to orthodox Judaism, u and, indeed, is the Greek form of the Hebrew term for ' outsiders,' is "" ' ' also otherwise confirmed. It has already been said, that no direct statement concerning the Essenes occurs in Babbinic writings. Nor need this surprise us, when we remember the general reluctance of the Babbis to refer to their opponents, except in actual controversy ; and that, when traditionalism was reduced to writing, Essenism, as a Jewish sect, had ceased to exist. Some of its elements had passed into the Synagogue, influencing its general teaching (as in regard to Angelology, magic, &c), and greatly contributing to that mystic direction which afterwards found expression in what is now known as the Kabbalah. But the general movement had passed beyond the bounds of Judaism, and appeared in some forms of the Gnostic heresy. But still there are Babbinic references to the ' Chitsonim,' which seem to identify them with the sect of the Essenes. Thus, in one passage * certain practices of the Sadducees and of the Chitsonim are aMegm.24», mentioned together, and it is difficult to see who could be meant by from bottom the latter if not the Essenes. Besides, the practices there referred to seem to contain covert allusions to those of the Essenes. Thus, the Mishnah begins by prohibiting the public reading of the Law by those who would not appear in a coloured, but only in a white dress. Again, the curious statement is made, that the manner of the Chitsonim was to cover the phylacteries with gold — a statement unexplained in the Gemara, and inexplicable, unless we see in it an allusion to the Essene practice of facing the rising Sun in their morning prayers.1 Again, we know with what bitterness Babbinism denounced the use of the externe writings (the Sepharim haChitsonim) to the extent of ex cluding from eternal life those who studied them.b But one of the * sanh. i. 1 best ascertained facts concerning the Essenes is, that they possessed secret, ' outside,' holy writings of their own, which they guarded with special care. And, although it is not maintained that the Sepharim haChitsonim were exclusively Essene writings,2 the latter must have been included among them. We have already seen reason for believ- 1 The- practice of beginning prayers Malkhiyoth, Zilihronoth, and Shophroth), before, and ending them as the sun had shows that they were not Essenes, since just risen, seems to have passed from the such Rabbinic practices must have been Essenes to a party in the Synagogue itself, alien to their system. and is pointedly alluded to as a character- 2 In Sanh. 100 b they are explained as istic of the so-called Vethikin, Ber. 9b; ' the writings of the Sadducees,' and by 25 b ; 26 a. But another peculiarity about another Rabbi as ' the Book of Sirach ' them, noticed in Sanh. 32 b (the repetition (Ecclus. in the Apocrypha). Hamburger, of all the verses in the Pentateuch con- as sometimes, makes assertions on this taining the record of God in the so-called point which cannot be supported (Beal- 334 from JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK mg, that even the so-called Pseudepigraphic literature, notably such III works as the Book of Jubilees, was strongly tainted with Essene views ; v ' if, indeed, in perhaps another than its present form, part of it was not actually Essene. Lastly, we find what seems to us yet another • in sanh. x. covert allusion a to Essene practices, similar to that which has already "Meg. 24 6 been noticed.b For, immediately after consigning to destruction all who denied that there was proof in the Pentateuch for the Besurrec tion (evidently the Sadducees), those who denied that the Law was from heaven (the Minim, or heretics — probably the Jewish Christians), and all ' Epicureans ' • (materialists), the same punishment is assigned to those ' who read externe writings' (Sepharim haChitsonim) and 1 who whispered ' (a magical formula) ' over a wound.' 2 Both the ° sanh. 101 Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud ° offer a strange explanation p.' 28 b ' of this practice ; perhaps, because they either did not, or else would not, understand the allusion. But to us it seems at least significant that as, in the first quoted instance, the mention of the Chitsonim is conjoined with a condemnation of the exclusive use of white garments in worship, which we know to have been an Essene peculiarity, so the condemnation of the use of Chitsonim writings with that of magical cures.3 At the same time, we are the less bound to insist on these allusions as essential to our argument, since those, who have given another derivation than ours to the name Essenes, express themselves unable to find in ancient Jewish writings any trustworthy reference to the sect. On one point, at least, our inquiry into the three ' parties ' can leave no doubt. The Essenes could never have been drawn either to the person, or the preaching of John the Baptist. Similarly, the Sadducees would, after they knew its real character and goal, turn Worterb. ii. p. 70). Jer. Sanh. 28 a ex- (heathen) Epicureans, and Israelitish plains, ' Such as the books of Ben Sirach Epicureans. With the latter it is unwise and of BenLanah' — the latter apparently to enter into argument. also an Apocryphal book, for which the 2 Both in the Jer. and Bab. Talm. it is Midr. Kohel. (ed. Warsh. iii. p. 106 b) has conjoined with ' spitting,' which was a ' the book of Ben Tagla.' ' La'nah ' and mode of healing, usual at the time. The ' Tagla ' could scarcely be symbolic names. Talmud forbids the magical formula, On the other hand, I cannot agree with only in connection with this ' spitting ' Fiirst (Kanon d. A.T. p. 99), who iden- —and then for the curious reason that tiries them with Apollonius of Tyana and the Divine Name is not to be recorded Empedocles. Dr. Neubauer suggests that while ' spitting.' But, while in the Bab. Ben La'nah may be a corruption of Talm. the prohibition bears against such Sibylline Oracles. ' spitting ' before pronouncing the formula, ' The ' Epicureans,' or ' freethinkers,' in the Jer. Talm. it is after uttering it. are explained to be such as speak con- a Bishop Lightfoot has shown that the temptuously of the Scriptures, or of the Essene cures were magical (u s pp 91 Rabbis (Jer. Sanh. 27 d). In Sanh. 38 b &c. and p. 377). a distinction is made between ' stranger ' SUBJECT OF PHARISAIC INQUIRY REGARDING JOHN. 335 contemptuously from a movement which would awaken no sympathy CHAP. in them, and could only become of interest when it threatened to IJ endanger their class by awakening popular enthusiasm, and so rousing the suspicions of the Bomans. To the Pharisees there were questions of dogmatic, ritual, and even national importance involved, which made the barest possibility of what John announced a question of supreme moment.. And, although we judge that the report which the earliest Pharisaic hearers of John" brought to Jerusalem — no °.st-Matt- o m. 7 doubt, detailed and accurate — and which led to the despatch of the deputation, would entirely predispose them against the Baptist, yet it behoved them, as leaders of public opinion, to take such cognisance of it, as would not only finally determine their own relation to the movement, but enable them effectually to direct that of others also. 336" FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB III. THE TWOFOLD TESTIMONY OP JOHN— THE FIEST SABBATH OF JESUS'S MINISTBY — THE FIBST SUNDAY THE FIKST DISCIPLES. (St. John i. 15-51.) BOOK The forty days, which had passed since Jesus had first come to him, 111 must have been to the Baptist a time of soul-quickening, of unfold ing understanding, and of ripened decision. We see it in his more emphasised testimony to the Christ ; in his fuller comprehension of those prophecies which had formed the warrant and substance of his Mission ; but specially in the yet more entire self-abnegation, which led him to take up a still lowlier position, and acquiescingly to realise that his task of heralding was ending, and that what remained was to point those nearest to him, and who had most deeply drunk of his spirit, to Him Who had come. And how could it be otherwise ? On first meeting Jesus by the banks of Jordan, he had felt the seeming incongruity of baptizing One of Whom he had rather need to be baptized. Yet this, perhaps, because he had beheld himself by the Brightness of Christ, rather than looked at the Christ Himself. What he needed was not to be baptized, but to learn that it became the Christ to fulfil all righteousness. This was the first lesson. The next, and completing one, came when, after the Baptism, the heavens opened, the Spirit descended, and the Divine Voice of Testimony pointed to, and explained the promised sign.1 It told him, that the work, which he had begun in the obedience of faith, had reached the ; reality of fulfilment. The first was a lesson about the Kingdom ; the second about the King. And then Jesus was parted from him, and led of the Spirit into the wilderness. Forty days since then — with these events, this vision, those words ever present to his mind ! It had been the mightiest impulse ; nay, it must have been a direct call from above, which first brought John from his life-preparation of lonely communing with God to the task of preparing Israel for that which he knew was preparing for them. St. John i. 33. THE ISAIAH-PREACHING OF JOHN. 337 He had entered upon it, not only without illusions, but with such CHAP. entire self-forgetfulness, as only deepest conviction of the reality of HI what he announced could have wrought. He knew those to whom he ~~ "~~ was to speak — the preoccupation, the spiritual dulness, the sins of the great' mass ; the hypocrisy, the unreality, the inward impenitence of their spiritual leadeTS ; the perverseness of their direction ; the hollowness and delusiveness of their confidence as being descended from Abraham. He saw only too clearly their real character, and knew the near end of it all : how the axe was laid to the barren tree, and how terribly the fan would sift the chaff from the wheat. And yet he preached and baptized ; for, deepest in his heart was the conviction, that there was a Kingdom at hand, and a King coming. As we gather the elements of that conviction, we find them chiefly in the Book of Isaiah. His speech and its imagery, and, especially, the burden of his message, were taken from those prophecies.1 Indeed, his mind seems saturated with them ; they must have formed his own religious training ; and they were the preparation for his work. This gathering up of the Old Testament rays of light and glory into the burning-glass of Evangelic prophecy had set his soul on fire. No wonder that, recoiling equally from the externalism of the Pharisees, and the merely material purism of the Essenes, he preached quite another doctrine, of inward repentance and renewal of life. One picture was most brightly reflected on those pages of Isaiah. It was that of the Anointed, Messiah, Christ, the Bepresentative Israelite, the Priest, King, and Prophet," in Whom the institution » is. ix. 6 and sacramental meaning of the Priesthood, and of Sacrifices, found xiii.'; m. 13 their fulfilment.1* In his announcement of the Kingdom, in his call iii! to inward repentance, even in his symbolic Baptism, that Great Personality always stood out before the mind of John, as the One all- overtopping and overshadowing Figure in the background. It was the Isaiah-picture of 'the King in His beauty,' the vision of 'the ' This is insisted upon by Keim, in xlvii. 14 ; floor and fan, xxi. 10 ; xxviii. his beautiful sketch of the Baptist. 27 &c. ; xxx. 24 ; xl. 24 ; xii. 15 &c. ; Would that he had known the Master bread and coat to the pom-, Iviii. 7 ; the in the glory of His Divinity, as he garner, xxi. 10. Besides these, the Isaiah understood the Forerunner in the beauty reference in his Baptism (Is. Iii. 15 : of his humamty I To show how the i. 16), and that to the Lamb of God — whole teaching of the Baptist was, so to indeed many others of a more indirect speak, saturated with Isaiah-language and character, will readuy occur to the reader. thoughts, comp. not only Is. xl. 3, as the Similarly, when our Lord would after- burden of his mission, but as to his wards instruct him in his hour of dark- imagery (after Keim) : Generation of ness (St. Matt. xi. 2), He points for the vipers, Is. lix. 5 ; planting of the Lord, solution of his doubts to the well-remem- Is. v. 7 ; trees, vi. 13 ; x. 15, 18, 33 ; bered prophecies of Isaiah (Is. xxxv. 5, xl. 24 ; fire, i. 31 ; ix. 18 ; x. 17 ; v. 24 ; 6; lxi. 1 ; viii. 14, 15). VOL. I. Z b Is. liii. 338 BOOK III a Is. xxxiii. 17 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TJtANSFIGURATION. land of far distances ' a •—to him a reality, of which Sadducee and Essene had no conception, and the Pharisee only the grossest mis conception. This also explains how the greatest of those born ot women was also the most hamble, the most retiring, and self-forgetful. In a picture such as that which filled his whole vision, there was no room for self. By the side of such a Figure all else appeared in its real littleness, and, indeed, seemed at best but as shadows cast by its light. All the more would the bare suggestion on the part of the Jerusalem deputation, that he might be the Christ, seem like a blas phemy, from which, in utter self-abasement, he would seek shelter in the scarce-ventured claim to the meanest office which a slave could discharge. He was not Elijah. Even the fact that Jesus afterwards, in significant language, pointed to the possibility of his becoming such to Israel (St. Matt. xi. 14), proves that he claimed it not ; 2 not ' that prophet ' ; not even a prophet. He professed not visions, revelations, special messages. All else was absorbed in the great fact : he was only the voice of one that cried, ' Prepare ye the way ! ' Viewed especially in the light of those self-glorious times, this reads not like a fictitious account of a fictitious mission ; nor was such the pro fession of an impostor, an associate in a plot, or an enthusiast. There was deep reality of all-engrossing conviction which underlay such self- denial of mission. And all this must have ripened during the forty days of probably comparative solitude,3 only relieved by the presence of such ' disci ples ' as, learning the same hope, would gather around him. What he had seen and what he had heard threw him back upon what he had expected and believed. It not only fulfilled, it transfigured it. Not that, probably, he always maintained the same height which he then attained. It was not in the nature of things that it should be so. We often attain, at the outset of our climbing, a glimpse, after wards hid from us in our laborious upward toil till the supreme height is reached. Mentally and spiritually we may attain almost at a bound results, too often lost to us till again secured by long 1 I cannot agree with Mr. Clieyne (Prophecies of Is. vol. i. p. 183), that there no Messianic reference here. It may not be in the most literal sense 'personally Messianic ; ' but surely this ideal presen tation of Israel in the perfectness of its kingdom, and the glory of its happiness, is one of the fullest Messianic pictures (comp. vv. 17 to end). 2 This is well pointed out by Keim. ' We have in a previous chapter sug gested that the Baptism of Jesus had taken place at Bethabara, that is the fur thest northern point of his activity, and probably at the close ot his baptismal ministry. It is not possible in this place to detail the reasons for this view But the learned reader will find remarks on it in Kevm, l. 2, p. 524. THE TEMPTATION OF THE BAPTIST. 339 reflection, or in the course of painful development. This in some CHAP. measure explains the fulness of John's testimony to the Christ as HI ' the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world,' when at the beginning we find ourselves almost at the goal of New Testa ment teaching. It also explains that last strife of doubt and fear, when the weary wrestler laid himself down to find refreshment and strength in the shadow of those prophecies, which had first called him to the contest. But during those forty days, and in the first meetings with Jesus which followed, all lay bathed in the morning- light of that heavenly vision, and that Divine truth wakened in him the echoes of all those prophecies, which these thirty years had been the music of his soul. And now, on the last of those forty days, simultaneously with the final great Temptation of Jesus : which must have summed up all that had preceded it in the previous days, came the hour of John's temptation by the deputation from Jerusalem.2 Very gently it came to him, like the tempered wind that fans the fire into flame, not like that keen, desolating storm-blast which swept over the Master. To John, as now to us, it was only the fellowship of His sufferings, which he bore in the shelter of that great Bock over which its intense- ness had spent itself. Yet a very real temptation it was, this pro voking to the assumption of successively lower grades of self-asser tion, where only entire self-abnegation was the rightful feeling. Each suggestion of lower office (like the temptations of Christ) marked an increased measure of temptation, as the human in his mission was more and more closely neared. And greatest temptation it was when, after the first victory, came the not unnatural challenge of his authority for what he said and did. This was, of all others, the question which must at all times, from the beginning of his mission to the hour of his death, have pressed most closely upon him, since it touched not only his conscience, but the very ground of his mission, nay, of his life. That it was such temptation is evidenced by the fact that, in the hour of his greatest loneliness and depression, it formed his final contest, in which he temporarily paused, like Jacob in his Israel- struggle, though, like him, he failed not in it. For what was the meaning of that question which the disciples of John brought to 1 This, of course, on the supposition since evidently it was not for the sake of that the Baptism of Jesus took place at any personal intercourse with John. Bethabara, and hence that the 'wilderness' 2 This is most beautifully suggested into which He was driven, was close by. by Canon Westeott in his Commentary on It is difficult to see why, on any other the passage. supposition, Jesus returned to Bethabara, z 2 340 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III • St. Luke i. 17 » St.Markix. 13 ; St. Matt. xvii. 12 Jesus : ' Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another ? ' other than doubt of his own warrant and authority for what he had said and done ? But in that first time of his trial at Betha bara he overcame — the first temptation by the humility of his intense sincerity, the second by the absolute simplicity of his own experimental conviction ; the first by what he had seen, the second by what he had heard concerning the Christ at the banks of Jordan. And so also, although perhaps ' afar off,' it must ever be to us in like temptation. Yet, as we view it, and without needlessly imputing malice prepense to the Pharisaic deputation, their questions seemed but natural. After his previous emphatic disclaimer at the beginning of his preaching (St. Luke iii. 15), of which they in Jerusalem could scarcely have been ignorant, the suggestion of his Messiahship — not indeed expressly made, but sufficiently implied to elicit what the language of St. John ¦ shows to have been the most energetic denial — could scarcely have been more than tentative. It was otherwise with their question whether he were ' Elijah ' ? Yet, bearing in mind what we know of the Jewish expectations of Elijah, and how his appearance was always readily recognised,2 this also could scarcely have been meant in its full literality — but rather as ground for the further question after the goal and warrant of his mission. Hence also John's disavowing of such claims is not satisfactorily accounted for by the common ex planation, that he denied being Elijah in the sense of not being what the Jews expected of the Forerunner of the Messiah : the real, identical Elijah of the days of Ahab ; or else, that he denied being such in the sense of the peculiar Jewish hopes attaching to his reappearance in ' the last days.' There is much deeper truth in the disclaimer of the Baptist. It was, indeed, true that, as foretold in the Angelic announcement,* he was sent ' in the spirit and power of Elias,' that is, with the same object and the same qualifications. Similarly, it is true what, in His mournful retrospect of the result of John's mission, and in the prospect of His own end, the Saviour said of him : ' Elias is indeed come,' but ' they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.' b But on this very recognition and reception of him by the Jews depended his being to them -Elijah — who should ' turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the 1 ' He confessed, and denied not ' (St. John i. 20). Canon Westeott points out, that ' the combination of a positive and negative ' is intended to ' express the fulness of truth,' and that ' the first term marks the readiness of his testimony, the second its completeness.' 2 See Appendix VIII. : ' Babbinic Tra ditions about Elijah, the Forerunner of the Messiah.' THE QUESTIONING OF THE PHARISEES. 341 disobedient to the wisdom of the just,' and so ' restore all things.' CHAP. Between the Elijah of Ahab's reign, and him of Messianic times, lay III the wide cleft of quite another dispensation. The ' spirit and power of Elijah' could 'restore all things,' because it was the dispensation of the Old Testament, in which the result was outward, and by outward means. But ' the spirit and power ' of the Elijah of the New Testa ment, which was to accomplish the inward restoration through peni tent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality, could only accomplish that object if 'they received it' — if 'they knew him.' And as in his own view, and looking around and forward, so also in very fact the Baptist, though Divinely such, was not really Elijah to Israel — and this is the meaning of the words of Jesus : ' And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.' a * st. Matt. ' ' xi. 14 More natural still — indeed, almost quite truthful, seems the third question of the Pharisees, whether the Baptist was 'that prophet.' The reference here is undoubtedly to Deut. xviii. 15, 18. Not that the reappearance of Moses as lawgiver was expected. But as the prediction of the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, especially when taken in connection with the promise b of a ' new covenant ' ^ **="• with a ' new law ' written in the hearts of the people, implied a change in this respect, it was but natural that it should have been expected in Messianic days by the instrumentality of ' that prophet.' ¦ Even the various opinions broached in the Mishnah,0 as to what -Eduy. viii. were to be the reformatory and legislative functions of Elijah, prove that such expectations were connected with the Forerunner of the Messiah. But whatever views the Jewish embassy might have entertained concerning the abrogation, renewal, or renovation of the Law2 in Messianic times, the Baptist repelled the suggestion of his being ' that prophet ' with the same energy as those of his being either the Christ or Elijah. And just as we notice, as the result of those forty days ' communing, yet deeper humility and self-abnegation on the part of the Baptist, so we also mark increased intensity and direct ness in the testimony which he now bears to the Christ before the Jerusalem deputies.* ' His eye is fixed on the Coming One.' ' He is a st- John >• as a voice not to be inquired about, but heard ; ' and its clear and 1 Can the reference in St. Stephen's does not deny the charge, and that his speech (Acts vii. 37) apply to this ex- contention is, that the Jews wickedly re- pected alteration of the Law? Atanyrate sisted the authority of Jesus (vv. 51-53). St. Stephen is on his defence for teaching 2 For the Jewish views on the Law in the abolition by Jesus of the Old Testa- Messianic times, see Appendix XIV. : ' The ment economy. It is remarkablethat he Law in Messianic Days.' liii 342 from JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK unmistakable, but deeply reverent utterance is : ' The Coming One HI has come.' 1 The reward of his overcoming temptation— yet with it also the fitting for still fiercer conflict (which two, indeed, are always con joined), was at hand. After His victorious contest with the Devil, Angels had come to minister to Jesus in body and soul. But better than Angels' vision came to refresh and strengthen His faithful witness John. On the very day of the Baptist's temptation Jesus had left the wilderness. On the morrow after it, ' John seeth Jesus coming unto him,- and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world ! ' We cannot doubt, that the thought here present to the mind of John was the description of ' The Servant of » is. iii. 13 Jehovah,' a as set forth in Is. liii. If all along the Baptist had been filled with Isaiah-thoughts of the Kingdom, surely in the forty days after he had seen the King, a new ' morning ' must have risen upon <> is. viu. 20 them,b and the halo of His glory shone around the well-remembered is. ui. 13- prophecy. It must always have been Messianically understood ; u it formed the groundwork of Messianic thought to the New Testament HattTiiT' wrfters d — nor did the Synagogue read it otherwise, till the necessities ixliS37^uke °^ controversy diverted its application, not indeed from the times, Acts vm. but from the Person of the Messiah.2 But we can understand how, 32 ; 1 Pet. n. ' 22 during those forty days, this greatest height of Isaiah's conception of the Messiah was the one outstanding fact before his view. And what he believed, that he spake, when again, and unexpectedly, he saw Jesus. Yet, while regarding his words as an appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, two other references must not be excluded from them : those to the Paschal Lamb, and to the Daily Sacrifice. These are, if not directly pointed to, yet implied. For the Paschal Lamb was, in a sense, the basis of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, not only from its saving import to Israel, but as that which really made them 'the Church,'3 and people of God. Hence the institution of the Paschal Lamb was, so to speak, only enlarged and applied in the daily sacrifice of a Lamb, in which this twofold idea of redemption and fellowship was exhibited. Lastly, the prophecy of Isaiah liii. was 1 The words within quotations are those and exhaustive discussions by Dr. Pusey of Archdeacon Watkins, in his Commen- in his Introduction to the catena of tary on St. John. Jewish Interpretations of Is. liii. 2 Manifestly, whatever interpretation is 3 To those persons who deny to the made of Is. Iii. 13-liii., it applies to Mes- people of God under the Old Testament sianic times, even if the sufferer were, as the designation Church, we commend the the Synagogue now contends, Israel. On use of that term by St. Stephen in Acts the whole subject comp. the most learned vii. 38. 'THE LAMB OF GOD.' 343 but the complete realisation of these two ideas in the Messiah. CHAP. Neither could the Paschal Lamb, with its completion in the Daily HI Sacrifice, be properly viewed without this prophecy of Isaiah, nor yet that prophecy properly understood without its reference to its two great types. And here one Jewish comment in regard to the Daily, Sacrifice (not previously pointed out) is the more significant, that it dates from the very time of Jesus. The passage reads almost like a Christian interpretation of sacrifice. It explains how the morning and evening sacrifices were intended to atone, the one for the sins of the night, the other for those of the day, so as ever to leave Israel guiltless before God ; and it expressly ascribes to them the efficacy of a Paraclete — that being the word used.* Without further following "Pesiqta ed. ° m ° Buber, p. 61 this remarkable Babbinic commentation,15 which stretches back its view & ; comp ' _ more fully of sacrifices to the Paschal Lamb, and, beyond it, to that offering of ia J^ut Isaac by Abraham which, in the Babbinic view, was the substratum t, m of all sacrifices, we turn again to its teaching about the Lamb of the 1- p' Daily Sacrifice. Here we have the express statement, that both the school of Shammai and that of Hillel — the latter more fully — insisted on the symbolic import of this sacrifice in regard to the forgiveness of sin. ' Kebhasim ' (the Hebrew word for ' lambs '), explained the school of Shammai, 'because, according to Micah vii. 19, they suppress [in the A.V. ' subdue '] our iniquities (the Hebrew word Kabhash mean ing he who suppresseth).' • Still more strong is the statement of the school of Hillel, to the effect that the sacrificial lambs were termed Kebhasim (from kabhas, ' to wash '), ' because they wash away the sins of Israel.'0 The quotation just made gains additional interest c And this n ¦,. i • , t .,/¦[. -i with special from the circumstance, that it occurs m a ' meditation (if such it reference to may be called) for the new moon of the Passover-month (Nisan). In view of such clear testimony from the time of Christ, less positiveness of assertion might, not unreasonably, be expected from those who declare that the sacrifices bore no reference to the forgiveness of sins, just as, in the face of the application made by the Baptist and other New Testament writers, more exegetical modesty seems called for on the part of those who deny the Messianic references in Isaiah. If further proof were required that, when John pointed the by standers to the Figure of Jesus walking towards them, with these words : ' Behold, the Lamb of God,' he meant more than His gentle ness, meekness, and humility, it would be supplied by the qualifying 1 This appears more clearly in the same, 0^33. In Hillel's derivation it Hebrew, where both words (' lambs' and is identified with the root D3_- = K'_1_J- ' suppressors ') are written exactly the s. i. 18 344 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK explanation, ' Which taketh away the sin of the world.' We prefer III rendering the expression ' taketh away ' instead of ' beareth,' because it is in that sense that the LXX. uniformly use the Greek term. Of course, as we view it, the taking away presupposes the taking upon Himself of the sin of the world. But it is not necessary to suppose that the Baptist clearly understood that manner of His Saviourship, which only long afterwards, and reluctantly, came to the followers of the Lamb.1 That he understood the application of His ministry to the whole world, is only what might have been expected of one taught by Isaiah ; and what, indeed, in one or another form, the Synagogue has always believed of the Messiah. What was distinctive in the words of the Baptist, seems his view of sin as a totality, rather than sins : implying the removal of that great barrier between God and man, and the triumph in that great contest indicated in Gen. iii. 15, which Israel after the flesh failed to perceive. Nor should we omit here to notice an undesigned evidence of the Hebraic origin of the fourth Gospel ; for an Ephesian Gospel, dating from the close of the second century, would not have placed in its forefront, as the first public testimony of the Baptist (if, indeed, it would have introduced him at all), a quotation from Isaiah — still less a sacrificial reference. The motives which brought Jesus back to Bethabara must remain in the indefiniteness in which Scripture has left them. So far as we know, there was no personal interview between Jesus and the Baptist. Jesus had then and there nothing further to say to the Baptist ; and yet on the day following that on which John had, in such manner, pointed Him out to the bystanders He was still there, only return ing to Galilee the next day. Here, at least, a definite object becomes apparent. This was not merely the calling of His first disciples, but the necessary Sabbath rest ; for, in this instance, the narrative supplies the means of ascertaining the days of the week on which each event took place. We have only to assume, that the marriage in Cana of Galilee was that of a maiden, not a widow. The great festivities which accompanied it were unlikely, according to Jewish ideas, in the case of a widow ; in fact, the whole mise en scene of the marriage renders this most improbable. Besides, if it had been the marriage of a widow, this (as will immediately appear) would imply that Jesus had returned 1 This meets the objection of Keim (i. But, surely, it is a most strange idea of 2, p. 552), which proceeds on the assump- Godet, that at His Baptism Jesus, like all tion that the words of the Baptist imply others, made confession of sins; that, as that he knew not merely that, but how, He had none of His own, He set before Jesus would take away the sin of the world. the Baptist the picture of the sin of Israel But his words certainly do not oblige us and of the world ; and that tbis had led to think, that he had the Cross in view. to the designation : ' The Lamb of God, 43 » St. John THE FIRST WEEK OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 345 from the wilderness on a Saturday, which, as being the Jewish Sabbath, CHAP. could not have been the case. For uniform custom fixed the marriage HI of a maiden on Wednesdays, that of a widow on Thursdays.1 Count- ' ' ing backwards from the day of the marriage in Cana, we arrive at the following results. The interview between John and the Sanhedrin- deputation took place on a Thursday. ' The next day,' Friday, Jesus returned from the wilderness of the Temptation, and John bore his first testimony to ' the Lamb of God.' The following day, when Jesus appeared a second time in view, and when the first two disciples joined Him, was the Saturday, or Jewish Sabbath. It was, therefore, only the following day, or Sunday* that Jesus returned to Galilee,2 calling others by the way. ' And the third day ' after it b — that is, on the Wednesday — was the marriage in Cana.3 ii- 1 If we group around these days the recorded events of each, they almost seem to intensify in significance. The Friday of John's first pointing to Jesus as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, recalls that other Friday, when the full import of that testimony appeared. The Sabbath of John's last personal view and testimony to Christ is symbolic in its retrospect upon the old economy. It seems to close the ministry of John, and to open that of Jesus ; it is the leave-taking of the nearest disciples of John from the old, their search after the new. And then on that first Sunday — the beginning of Christ's active ministry, the call of the first disciples, the first preaching of Jesus. As we picture it to ourselves : in the early morning of that Sabbath John stood, with the two of his disciples who most shared his thoughts and feelings. One of them we know to have been Andrew (v. 40) ; the other, unnamed one, could have been no other than John himself, the beloved disciple.4 They had heard what their teacher had, on the previous day, said of Jesus. But then He seemed to them but as a passing Figure. To hear more of Him, as well as in deepest sympathy, these two had gathered to their Teacher on that Sabbath morning, while the other disciples of John were probably engaged with that, and with those, which formed the surroundings of an ordinary Jewish Sabbath.5 And now that Figure once more appeared in view. None Which taketh away the sin of the world.' s Yet Renan speaks of the first chapters 1 For the reasons of this, comp. of St. John's Gospel as scattered notices, ' Sketches o£ Jewish Social Life,' p. 151. without chronological order I 2 This may be regarded as another of 4 This reticence seems another un- the undesigned evidences of the Hebraic designed evidence of Johannine author- origin of the fourth Gospel. Indeed, it ship. might also be almost called an evidence 5 The Greek has it : ' John was stand- of the truth of the whole narrative. ing, and from among his disciples two.' 346 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK with the Baptist but these two. He is not teaching now, but learning, HI as the intensity and penetration of his gaze • calls from him the now worshipful repetition of what, on the previous day, he had explained and enforced. There was no leave-taking on the part of these two — perhaps they meant not to leave John. Only an irresistible impulse, a heavenly instinct, bade them follow His steps. It needed no direc tion of John, no call from Jesus. But as they went in modest silence, in the dawn of their rising faith, scarce conscious of the what and the why, He turned Him. It was not because He discerned it not, but just because He knew the real goal of their yet unconscious search, and would bring them to know what they sought, that He put to them the question, ' What seek ye ? ' which elicited a reply so simple, so real, as to carry its own evidence. He is still to them the Babbi — the most honoured title they can find — yet marking still the strictly- Jewish view, as well as their own standpoint of ' What seek ye ? ' They wish, yet scarcely dare, to say what was their object, and only put it in a form most modest, suggestive rather than expressive. There is strict correspondence to their view in the words of Jesus. Their very Hebraism of ' Babbi ' is met by the equally Hebraic ' Come and see ; ' 2 their unspoken, but half-conscious longing by what the invi tation implied (according to the most probable reading, ' Come and ye shall see ' 3). It was but early morning — -ten o'clock.4 What passed on that long Sabbath-day we know not, save from what happened in its 1 The word implies earnest, penetrating by which Rabban Gamaliel is designated gaze. in Shabb. 115 a.. It literally means ' be- 2 The precise date of the origin of this longing to the house of a Rabbi,' — as we designation is not quite clear. We find would say, a Rabbi of Rabbis. On the it in threefold development : Rab, Rabbi, other hand, the expression ' Come and and Rabban — 'amplitudo,' 'amplitudo see ' is among the most common Rabbinic mea,' 'amplitudo nostra,' which mark formulas, although generally connected successive stages. As the last of these with the acquisition of special and im- titles was borne by the grandson of Hillel portant information. (A.D. 30-50), it is only reasonable to 3 Comp. Canon Westcott's note. suppose that the two preceding ones were ' The common supposition is, that the current a generation and more before time must be computed according to the that. Again, we have to distinguish the Jewish method, in which case the tenth original and earlier use of the title when hour would represent i P.M. But re- it only applied to teachers, and the later membering that the Jewish day ended usage when, like the word ' Doctor,' it with sunset, it could, in that case, have was given indiscriminately to men of been scarcely marked, that ' they abode supposed learning. When Jesus is so ad- with Him that day.' The correct inter- dressed it is in the sense of ' my Teacher.' pretation would therefore point in this, Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, as in other passages of St. John, to the that thus it was generally current in and Roman numeration of hours, correspond- before the time noted in the Gospels. A ing to our own. Canon Westeott has stiU higher title than any of these three taken it in this sense. seems to have been Beribbi, or Berabbi, THE FIRST FOUR DISCIPLES. 347 course. From it issued the two, not learners now but teachers, bear- CHAP. ing what they had found to those nearest and dearest. The form of HI the narrative and its very words convey, that the two had gone, each ' to search for his brother — Andrew for Simon Peter, and John for James, though here already, at the outset of this history, the haste of energy characteristic of the sons of Zebedee outdistanced the more quiet intenseness of John : a ' He (Andrew) first findeth his own . T. 41 brother.' l But Andrew and John equally brought the same announce ment, still markedly Hebraic in its form, yet filled with the new wine, not only of conviction but of joyous apprehension : ' We have found the Messias.'2 This, then, was the outcome to them of that day — He was the Messiah ; and this the goal which their longing had reached, 'We have found Him.' Quite beyond what they had heard from the Baptist ; nay, what only personal contact with Jesus can carry to any heart. And still this day of first marvellous discovery had not closed. It almost seems, as if this ' Come and see ' call of Jesus were emblematic, not merely of all that followed in His own ministry, but of the manner in which to all time the ' What seek ye ? ' of the soul is answered. It could scarcely have been but that Andrew had told Jesus of his brother, and even asked leave to bring him. The search ing, penetrating glance 3 of the Saviour now read in Peter's inmost character his future call and work : ' Thou art Simon, the son of John4 — thou shalt be called5 Cephas, which is interpreted (Grecian- ised) Peter.' 6 It must not, of course, be supposed that this represents all that had passed between Jesus and Peter, any more than that the recorded expression was all that Andrew and John had said of Jesus to their brothers. Of the interview between John and James his brother, the writer, with his usual self-reticence, forbears to speak. But we know its result ; and, knowing it, can form some conception of what passed on that holy evening between the new-found Messiah and His first four disciples : of teaching manifestation on His part, and of satisfied heart-peace on theirs. As yet they were only 1 This appears from the word ' first,' The same word as that used in regard used as an adjective here, v. 41 (although to the Baptist looking upon Jesus. the reading is doubtful), and from the 4 So according to the best text, and implied reference to some one else later on. not Jona. 2 On the rendering of the Aramaic 5 ' Hereafter thou shalt win the name.' Meshicha by Messias, see Delitzsch in the — W, estcott. Luther. Zeitschr. for 1876, p. 603. Of 6 So in the Greek, of which the English course, both Messias and Christ mean interpretation is 'a stone' — Keyph, or ' the Anointed.' Kcypha, ' a rock.' 348 from JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION BOOK followers, learners, not yet called to be Apostles, with all of entire III renunciation of home, family, and other calling which this implied. " ' This, in the course of proper development, remained for quite another period. Alike their knowledge and their faith for the pre sent needed, and could only bear, the call to personal attachment.1 It was Sunday morning, the first of Christ's Mission-work, the first of His Preaching. He was purposing to return to Galilee. It was fitting He should do so : for the sake of His new disciples ; for what He was to do in Galilee ; for His own sake. The first Jerusalem- visit must be prepared for by them all ; and He would not go there till the right time — for the Paschal Feast. It was probably a distance of about twenty miles from Bethabara to Cana. By the way, two other disciples were to be gained — this time not brought, but called, where, and in what precise circumstances, we know not. But the notice that Philip was a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter, seems to imply some instrumentality on their part. Similarly, we gather that, afterwards, Philip was somewhat in advance of the rest, when he found his acquaintance Nathanael, and engaged in conver sation with him just as Jesus and the others came up. But here also we mark, as another characteristic trait of John, that he, and his brother with him, seem to have clung close to the Person of Christ, just as did Mary afterwards in the house of her brother. It was this intense exclusiveness of fellowship with Jesus which traced on his mind that fullest picture of the God-Man, which his narrative reflects. The call to Philip from the lips of the Saviour met, we know not under what circumstances, immediate responsive obedience. Yet, though no special obstacles had to be overcome, and hence no special narrative was called for, it must have implied much of learn ing, to judge from what he did, and from what he said to Nathanael. There is something special about Nathanael's conquest by Christ — rather implied, perhaps, than expressed — and of which the Lord's words give significant hints. They seem to point to what had passed in his mind just before Philip found him. Alike the expression ' an »v. 47 Israelite in truth, in whom is no guile ' a — looking back on what changed the name of Jacob into Israel — and the evident reference to 1 The evidence for the great historic Canon Westeott. To these and other difference between this call to personal commentators the reader must be re attachment, and that to the Apostolate, is ferred on this and many points, which it shown — I should think beyond the power would be out of place to discuss at length of cavil — by Godet, and especially by in this book. ' V. 51 THE CALL OF PHILIP AND NATHANAEL. 349 the full realisation of Jacob's vision in Bethel,3 may be an indication CHAP, that this very vision had engaged his thoughts. As the Synagogue III understood the narrative, its application to the then state of Israel and the Messianic hope would most readily suggest itself. Putting aside all extravagances, the Synagogue thought, in connection with it, of the rising power of the Gentiles, but concluded with the pre cious comfort of the assurance, in Jer. xxx. 11, of Israel's final restoration.1" Nathanael (Theodore, ' the gift of God,') had, as we * Tanchuma often read of Babbis,1 rested for prayer, meditation, or study, in sage, ed.*3" the shadow of that wide-spreading tree so common in Palestine, the p. 3b a, b fig-tree.2 The approaching Passover-season, perhaps mingling with thoughts of John's announcement by the banks of Jordan, would naturally suggest the great deliverance of Israel in 'the age to come ; ' c all the more, perhaps, from the painful contrast in the « so in present. Such a verse as that with which, in a well-known Babbinic W0Tk,d the meditation for the New Moon of Nisan, the Passover- a Pesiqta month, closes : ' Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help,' e would recur, and so lead back the mind to the suggestive « ps. 0__iv_. symbol of Jacob's vision, and its realisation in ' the age to come.' f U. IS!^ These are, of course, only suppositions ; but it might well be that p' 62 a _ f Tanchuma, Philip had found him while still busy with such thoughts. Possibly u- 6- their outcome, and that quite in accordance with Jewish belief at the time, may have been, that all that was needed to bring that happy ' age to come ' was, that Jacob should become Israel in truth. In such case he would himself have been ripening for ' the King dom ' that was at hand. It must have seemed a startling answer to his thoughts, this announcement, made with the freshness of new and joyous conviction : ' We have found Him of .Whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write.' But this addition about the Man of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph,3 would appear a terrible anti-climax. It was so different from anything that he had associated either with the great hope of Israel, or with the Nazareth of his own neigh bourhood, that his exclamation, without implying any special impu tation on the little town which he knew So well, seems not only natural, but, psychologically, deeply true. There was but one 1 Corroborative and illustrative pas- to me, without historical ground. sages are here too numerous, perhaps 3 This, as it would seem, needless also not sufficiently important, to be addition (if the narrative were fictitious) quoted in detail. is of the highest evidential value. In 2 Ewald imagines that this ' fig-tree ' an Ephesian Gospel of the end of had been in the garden of Nathanael's the second century it would have been house at Cana, and Archdeacon Watkins well-nigh impossible. seems to adopt this view, but, as it seems 350 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III "V. 50, comp. the words to Peter in St. John xiii. 36-38; and to the disci ples, St. John xvi. 31, 32 "v. 51 answer to this — that which Philip made, which Jesus had made to Andrew and John, and which has ever since been the best answer to all Christian inquiry : ' Come and see.' And, despite the disappoint ment, there must have been such moving power in the answer which Philip's sudden announcement had given to his unspoken thoughts, that he went with him. And now, as ever, when 'in such spirit we come, evidences irrefragable multiplied at every step. As he neared Jesus, he heard Him speak to the disciples words concerning him; which recalled, truly and actually, what had passed in his soul- But could it really be so, that Jesus knew it all ? The question, intended to elicit it, brought such proof that he could not but burst into the immediate and full acknowledgment : ' Thou art the Son of God,' Who hast read my inmost being ; ' Thou art the King of Israel,' Who dost meet its longing and hope. And is it not ever so, that the faith of the heart springs to the lips, as did the water from the riven rock at the touch of the God-gifted rod ? It needs not long course of argumentation, nor intricate chain of evidences, welded link to link, when the secret thoughts of the heart are laid bare, and its inmost longings met. Then, as in a moment, it is day, and joyous voice of song greets its birth. And yet that painful path of slower learning to enduring con viction must still be trodden, whether in the sufferings of the heart, or the struggle of the mind. This it is which seems implied in the half-sad question of the Master," yet with full view of the final triumph (' thou shalt see greater things than these '), and of the true realisation in it of that glorious symbol of Jacob's vision.1" And so Nathanael, ' the God-given ' — or, as we know him in after- history, Bartholomew, ' the son of Telamyon ' 1 — was added to the dis ciples. Such was on that first Sunday the small beginning of the great Church Catholic ; these the tiny springs that swelled into the mighty river which, in its course, has enriched and fertilised the barrenness of the far-off lands of the Gentiles. 1 So, at least, most probably. Comp. St. John xxi. 2, and the various commentaries. CHRIST AS 'THE SON OF MAN.' 351 CHAPTEE IV. THE MARRIAGE-FEAST IN CANA OF GALILEE — THE MIRACLE THAT IS ' A SIGN.' (St. John ii. 1-12.) At the close of His Discourse to Nathanael — His first sermon — CHAP. Jesus had made use of an expression which received its symbolic ful-. IV filment in His first deed. His first testimony about Himself had ' been to call Himself the ' Son of Man.' a l We cannot but feel that *st. Johni. this bore reference to the confession of Nathanael : ' Thou art the Son of God ; Thou art the King of Israel.' It is, as if He would have turned the disciples from thoughts of His being the Son of God and King of Israel to the voluntary humiliation of His Humanity, as being the necessary basis of His work , without knowledge of which that of His Divinity would have been a barren, speculative abstraction, and that of His Kingship a Jewish fleshly dream. But it was not only knowledge of His humiliation in His Humanity. For, as in the history of the Christ humiliation and glory are always connected, the one enwrapped in the other as the flower in the bud, so here also His humiliation as the Son of Man is the exaltation of humanity, the realisation of its ideal destiny as created in the likeness of God. It should never be forgotten, that such teaching of His exaltation and Kingship through humiliation and representation of humanity was needful. It was the teaching which was the outcome of the Tempta tion and of its victory, the very teaching of the whole Evangelic history. Any other real learning of Christ would, as we see it, have been impossible to the disciples — alike mentally, as regards founda tion and progression, and spiritually. A Christ : God, King, and not primarily 'the Son of Man,' would not have been the Christ of Prophecy, nor the Christ of Humanity, nor the Christ of salvation, 1 For a full discussion of that most ascertain the Old Testament import of important and significant appellation the title, and then to view it as present ' Son of Man,' comp. Liicke, u. s. pp. to later Jewish thinking in the Pseud- 459-466; Godet (German transl.), pp. epigraphic writings (Book of Enoch). 104-108; and especially Westeott, pp. Finally, its full realisation must be 33-35. The main point is here first to studied in the Gospel-history. 352 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK nor yet the Christ of sympathy, help, and example. A Christ, God HI and King, Who had suddenly risen like the fierce Eastern sun in midday brightness, would have blinded by his dazzling rays (as it did Saul on the way to Damascus), not risen ' with kindly light ' to chase away darkness and mists, and with genial growing warmth to woo life and beauty into our barren world. And so, as ' it became Him,' for the carrying out of the work, ' to make the Captain of Salvation • Hebr. ii. 10 perfect through sufferings,' a so it was needful for them that He should veil, even from their view who followed Him, the glory of His Divinity and the power of His Kingship, till they had learned all that the designation ' Son of Man ' implied, as placed below ' Son of God' and 'King of Israel.' This idea of the ' Son of Man,' although in its full and prophetic meaning, seems to furnish the explanation of the miracle at the marriage of Cana. We are now entering on the Ministry of ' The Son of Man,' first and chiefly in its contrast to the preparatory call of the Baptist, with the asceticism symbolic of it. We behold Him now as freely mingling with humanity, sharing its joys and engage ments, entering into its family life, sanctioning and hallowing all by His Presence and blessing ; then as transforming the ' water of legal purification ' into the wine of the new dispensation, and, more than this, the water of our felt want into the wine of His giving ; and, lastly, as having absolute power as the ' Son of Man,' being also ' the Son of God ' and ' the King of Israel.' Not that it is intended to convey, that it was the primary purpose of the miracle of Cana to ex hibit the contrast between His own Ministry and the asceticism of the Baptist, although greater could scarcely be imagined than between the wilderness and the supply of wine at the marriage-feast. Bather, since this essential difference really existed, it naturally appeared at the very commencement of Christ's Ministry.1 And so in regard to the other meanings also, which this history carries to our minds. At the same time it must be borne in mind, that marriage con veyed to the Jews much higher thoughts than merely those of festivity and merriment. The pious fasted before it, confessing their sins. It was regarded almost as a Sacrament. Entrance into the married state 1 We may, however, here again notice writer of the fourth Gospel does not seem that, if this narrative had been fictitious, conscious of any incongruity, and this it would seem most clumsily put to- because he has no ideal story nor'characters gether. To introduce the Forerunner to introduce. In this sense it may be with fasting, and as an ascetic, and Him said, that the introduction of the story to Whom he pointed with a marriage-feast, of the marriage-feast of Cana is in itself is an incongruity which no writer of u the best proof of its truthfulness, and of legend would have perpetrated. But the the miracle which it records. JEWISH MARRIAGE-FESTIVITIES. 353 was thought to carry the forgiveness of sins.a ' It almost seems as if CHAP. the relationship of Husband and Bride between Jehovah and His IV people, so frequently insisted upon, not only in the Bible, but in „Talkut Babbinic writings, had always been standing out in the background, i Sam. xiii. Thus the bridal pair on the marriage-day symbolised the union of God 16 d with Israel.2 Hence, though it may in part have been national pride, which considered the birth of every Israelite as almost outweighing the rest of the world, it scarcely wholly accounts for the ardent insist ance on marriage, from the first prayer at the circumcision of a child, onwards through the many and varied admonitions to the same effect. Similarly, it may have been the deep feeling of brotherhood in Israel, leading to sympathy with all that most touched the heart, which invested with such sacredness participation in the gladness of marriage,3 or the sadness of burial. To use the bold allegory of the times, God Himself had spoken the words of blessing over the cup at the union of pur first parents, when Michael and Gabriel acted as groomsmen,b and the Angelic choir sang the wedding hymn.c So also * Ber. e. 8 He had shown the example of visiting the sick (in the case of ^£ c?e B- Abraham), comforting the mourners (in that of Isaac), and burying the dead (in that of Moses).3 Every man who met it, was bound to «sot. ua, rise and join the marriage procession, or the funeral march. It was specially related of King Agrippa that he had done this, and a curious Haggadah sets forth that, when Jezebel wac eaten of dogs, her hands and feet were spared,e because, amidst all her wickedness, she had been wont to greet every marriage-procession by clapping of hands, 35 and to accompany the mourners a certain distance on their way to the burying.f And so we also read it, that, in the burying of the widow's ' Ta'kut on son of Nain, ' much people of the city was with her.' g 35, TOi. a. P. In such circumstances, we would naturally expect that all connected t st Luke with marriage was planned with care, so as to bear the impress of sanctity, and also to wear the aspect of gladness.4 A special formality, 1 TheBiblicalproofsadducedforattach- married. ing this benefit to a sage, a bridegroom, 2 In Yalkut on Is. bd. 10 (vol. ii. p. 57 d) and a prince on entering on their new Israel is said to have been ten times state, are certainly peculiar. In the case called in Scripture ' bride ' (six times in of a bridegroom it is based on the name Canticles, three times in Isaiah, and once of Esau's bride, Machalath (Gen. xxviii. in Jeremiah). Attention is also called 9), a name which is derived from the Bab- to the 'ten garments' with which suc- binic ' Machal,' to forgive. In Jer. cessively the Holy One arrayed Himself ; Biccur. iii. p. 65 d, where this is also to the symbolic priestly dignity of the related, it is pointed out that the original bridegroom, &c. name of Esau's wife had been Basemath 3 Everything, even a funeral, had to (Gen. xxxvi. 3), the name Machalath, give way to a marriage-procession. therefore, having been given when Esau * For details I must refer to the Ency- VOL. I. A A vii. 12 354 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK HI » Tobit vii. 13 •> Comp. Tob. vii. 14 that of ' betrothal ' (Erusin, Qiddushin), preceded the actual marriage by a period varying in length, but not exceeding a twelvemonth in the case of a maiden.1 At the betrothal, the bridegroom, personally or by deputy, handed to the bride a piece of money or a letter, it being expressly stated in each case that the man thereby espoused the woman. From the moment of betrothal both parties were regarded, and treated in law (as to inheritance, adultery, need of formal divorce), as if they had been actually married, except as regarded their living together. A legal document (the Shitre Erusin) fixed the dowry which each brought, the mutual obligations, and all other legal points.2 Generally a festive meal closed the ceremony of betrothal — but not in Galilee, where, habits being more simple and pure, that which some times ended in sin was avoided. On the evening of the actual marriage (Nissuin, Chaihnuth), the bride was led from her paternal home to that of her husband. First came the merry sounds of music ; then they who distributed among the people wine and oil, and nuts among the children; next the bride, covered with the bridal veil, her long hair flowing, surrounded by her companions, and led by ' the friends of the bridegroom,' and ' the children of the bride-chamber.' All around were in festive array; some carried torches, or lamps on poles; those nearest had myrtle-branches and chaplets of flowers. Every one rose to salute the procession, or join it ; and it was deemed almost a religious duty to break into praise of the beauty, the modesty, or the virtues of the bride. Arrived at her new home, she was led to her husband. Some such formula as ' Take her according to the Law of Moses and of Israel,' a would be spoken, and bride and bridegroom crowned with garlands.3 Then a formal legal instrument, called the Kethubah, was signed,b which set forth that the bridegroom undertook to work for her, to honour, keep, and care for her,4 as is the manner of the men of Israel ; that he promised to give his maiden-wife at least two hundred Zuz 5 (or more as might be),6 and to increase her own dowry clopsedias, to the article in Cassell's ' Bible the bridal veil, were for a time pro hibited after the destruction of Jerusalem, in token of national mourning (Sot. ix! 14). On these crowns comp. Wagenseil. Sota, pp. 965-967. 4 I quote the very words of the formula, which, it will be noticed, closely agree with those in our own Marriage Service. 5 If the Zuz be reckoned at Id., about 51. 16s. 8d. Educator,' and to the corresponding chap ters in ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life.' 1 Pesiq. K. 15 applies the first clause of Prov. xiii. 1 2 to a long engagement, the second to a short one. 2 The reader who is curious to see these and other legal documents in ex- tenso, is referred to Dr. Sammter's ed. o? the tractate Baba Metsia (notes at the end, fol. pp. 141-148). 3 Some of these joyous demonstrations, such as the wearing of crowns, and even " This, of course, represents only the mi nimum. In the case of a priest's daughter the ordinary legal minimum was doubled. CANA OF GALILEE. 355 (which, in the case of a poor orphan, the authorities supplied) by at chap. least one half, and that he also undertook to lay it out for her to the IV best advantage, all his own possessions being guarantee for it.1 Then, ' ' after the prescribed washing of hands and benediction, the marriage- supper began — the cup being filled, and the solemn prayer of bridal benediction spoken over it. And so the feast lasted — it might be more than one day — while each sought to contribute, sometimes coarsely,2 sometimes wisely, to the general enjoyment,* till at last ' the * oomp. Bor. friends of the bridegroom ' led the bridal pair to the Gheder and the Chuppah, or the bridal chamber and bed. Here it ought to be specially noticed, as a striking evidence that the writer of the fourth Gospel was not only a Hebrew, but intimately acquainted with the varying customs prevailing in Galilee and in Judasa, that at the marriage of Cana no ' friend of the bridegroom,' or ' groomsman ' (Shoshebheyna), is mentioned, while he is referred to in St. John iii. 29, where the words are spoken outside the boundaries of Galilee. For among the simpler and purer Galileans the practice of having ' friends of the bridegroom,' which must so often have led to gross impropriety,b b Com»- did not obtain,3 though all the invited guests bore the general name 12a= Jer.- of 'children of the bridechamber * (bene Chuppah)." p- 25 u It was the marriage in Cana of Galilee. All connected with the jtSifii account of it is strictly Jewish — the feast, the guests, the invitation of the stranger Babbi, and its acceptance by Jesus. Any Jewish Babbi would have gone, but how differently from Him would he have spoken and acted ! Let us first think of the scenic details of the narrative. Strangely, we are not able to fix with certainty the site of the little town of Cana.4 But if we adopt the most probable identifi cation of it with the modern pleasant village of Kefr Kenna,b a few miles north-east of Nazareth, on the road to the Lake of Galilee, we picture it to ourselves as on the slope of a hill, its houses rising terrace 1 The Talmud (Tos. Kethub.) here distinguished the customs of Galilee from puts the not inapt question, ' How if those of the rest of Palestine, are enume- the bridegroom has no goods and chat- ated in Jer. Kethub. i. 1, p. 25 a, about tels 1 ' but ultimately comforts itself the middle. with the thought that every man has * Two such sites have been proposed — some property, if it were only the six feet that by Dr. Robinson being very unlikely of ground in which he is to be buried. to represent the ancient ' Cana of Galilee.' 2 Not a few such instances of riotous 5 Comp. the memoir on the subject by merriment, and even dubious jokes, on Zeller in the Quarterly Eeport of the the part of the greatest Rabbis are men- Palestine Explor. Fund (for 1869, No. hi., tioned, to check which some were wont and for April 1878, by Mr. Hepmorth to adopt the curious device of breaking Dixon); and Lieut. Conder, Tent-Work valuable vases, Sec. in Palestine, vol. i. pp. 150-155. Zeller 3 This, and the other great differences makes it five miles from Nazareth, Conder in favour of morality and decency which only three and three-quarters. A A 2 356 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. B OOK upon terrace, looking north and west over a large plain (that of Battauf), HI and south upon a valley, beyond which the hills rise that separate it from Mount Tabor and the plain of Jezreel. As we approach the little town through that smiling valley, we come upon a fountain of excellent water, around which the village gardens and orchards clustered, that produced in great abundance the best pomegranates in Palestine. Here was the home of Nathanael-Bartholomew, and it seems not unlikely, that with him Jesus had passed the time intervening between His arrival and ' the marriage,' to which His Mother had come — the omission of all mention of J oseph leading to the supposi tion, that he had died before that time. The inquiry, what had brought Jesus to Cana, seems almost worse than idle, remembering what had passed between Him and Nathanael, and what was to happen in the first ' sign,' which was to manifest His glory. It is needless to specu late, whether He had known beforehand of ' the marriage.' But we can understand the longing of the ' Israelite indeed ' to have Him under his roof, though we can only imagine what the Heavenly Guest would now teach him, and those others who accompanied Him. Nor is there any difficulty in understanding, that on His arrival He would hear of this ' marriage,' of the presence of His Mother in what seems to have been the house of a friend, if not a relative ; that Jesus and His disciples would be bidden to the feast ; and that He resolved not only to comply with the request, but to use it as a leave-taking from home and friends — similar, though also far other, than that of Elisha, when he entered on his mission. Yet it seems deeply sig nificant, that the ' true Israelite ' should have been honoured to be the first host of ' Israel's King.' And truly a leave-taking it was for Christ from former friends and home — a leave-taking also from His past life. If one part of the narrative— that of His dealing with His Mother — has any special meaning, it is that of leave-taking, or rather of leaving home and family, just as with this first ' sign ' He took leave of all the past. When he had returned from His first Temple-visit, it had been in the self-exinanition of voluntary humility : to ' be subject to His Parents.' That period was now ended, and a new one had begun that of active consecration ofthe whole life to His 'Father's business.' And what passed at the marriage-feast marks the beginning of this period. We stand on the threshold, over which we pass from the old to the new — to use a New Testament figure : to the marriage-supper of the Lamb. Viewed in this light, what passed at the marriage in Cana seems MEANING OF THE MIRACLE AT OANA. 357 like taking up the thread, where it had been dropped at the first CHAP. manifestation of His Messianic consciousness. In the Temple at IV Jerusalem He had said in answer to the misapprehensive question of ' His Mother : ' Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's busi ness ? ' and now when about to take in hand that ' business,' He tells her so again, and decisively, in reply to her misapprehensive sugges tion. It is a truth which we must ever learn, and yet are ever slow to learn in our questionings and suggestings, alike as concerns His dealings with ourselves and His rule of His Church, that the highest and only true point of view is ' the Father's business,' not our personal relationship to Christ. This thread, then, is taken up again at Cana in the circle of friends, as immediately afterwards in His public manifestation, in the purifying of the Temple. What He had first uttered as a Child, on His first visit to the Temple, that He manifested forth when a Man, entering on His active work — negatively, in His reply to His Mother ; positively, in the ' sign ' He wrought. It all meant : ' Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business ? J And, positively and negatively, His first appearance in Jerusalem" * st. John u. meant just the same. For, there is ever deepest unity and harmony vv. i8-_s in that truest Life, the Life of Life. As we pass through the court of that house in Cana, and reach the covered gallery which opens on the various rooms — in this instance, particularly, on the great reception room — all is festively adorned. In the gallery the servants move about, and there the ' water-pots ' are ranged, ' after the manner of the Jews,' for purification — for the wash ing not only of hands before and after eating, but also of the vessels used.b How detailed Babbinic ordinances were in these respects, will *'',Co,mp- s*- x ' Marl: vii. be shown in another connection. ' Purification ' was one of the 1_4 main points in Babbinic sanctity. By far the largest and most elaborate 1 of the six books into which the Mishnah is divided, is ex clusively devoted to this subject (the ' Seder Tohoroth,' purifications). Not to speak of references in other parts of the Talmud, we have two special tractates to instruct us about the purification of ' Hands ' (Yadayim) and of ' Vessels ' (Kelim). The latter is the most elaborate in all the Mishnah, and consists of not less than thirty chapters. Their perusal proves, alike the strict accuracy of the Evangelic nar- 1 The whole Mishnah is divided into Neziqin — contains 689 Mishnayoth). The six Sedarim (Orders), of which the last first tractate in this ' Order of Purifi- is the Seder Tohoroth, treating of ' puri- cations ' treats of the purification of fications.' It consists of twelve tractates vessels ( Kelim), and contains no fewer (Massikhtoth), 126 chapters (Feraqim), than thirty chapters; ' Yadayim' ('hands') and contains no fewer than 1001 separate is the eleventh tractate, and contains Mishnayoth (the next largest Seder — four chapters. 35,8 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. B.0OK ratives, and the justice of Christ's denunciations of the unreality and JJI gross hypocrisy of this elaborateness of ordinances.1 This the more ' ' so, when we recall that it was actually vaunted as a special qualifi cation for a seat in the Sanhedrin, to be so acute and learned as to know how to prove clean creeping things (which were declared unclean • sanh. 17 a by the Law).a And the mass ofthe people would have regarded neglect of the ordinances of purification as betokening either gross ignorance, or daring impiety. At any rate, such would not be exhibited on an occasion like the present ; and outside the reception-room, as St. John with graphic minuteness of details relates, six of those stone pots, which we know from Babbinic writings,2 were ranged. Here it may be well to add, as against objectors, that it is impossible to state with certainty the exact measure represented by the ' two or three firkins apiece.' For, although we know that the term metretes (A.V. ' firkin ') was intended b-s'J~at' as an equivalent for the Hebrew ' bath,'h yet three different kinds of ' bath ' were at the time used in Palestine : the common Palestinian or ' wilderness ' bath, that of Jerusalem, and that of Sepphoris.3 The common Palestinian ' bath ' was equal to the Boman amphora, con taining about 5£ gallons, while the Sepphoris ' bath ' corresponded to the Attic metretes, and would contain about 85 gallons. In the former case, therefore, each of these pots might have held from 10^ to 15| gallons; in the latter, from 17 to 25^-. Beasoning on the general ground that the so-called Sepphoris measurement was common in Galilee, the larger quantity seems the more likely, though by no means certain. It is almost like trifling on the threshold of such a history, and yet so many cavils have been raised, that we must here remind ourselves, that neither the size, nor the number of these vessels has anything extraordinary about it. For such an occasion the family would produce or borrow the largest and handsomest stone-vessels that could be procured ; nor is it necessary to suppose that they were filled to the brim ; nor should we forget that, from a Talmudic «shabt>. 77 _¦ notice,0 it seems to have been the practice to set apart some of these vessels exclusively for the use of the bride and of the more dis tinguished guests, while the rest were used by the general company. Entering the spacious, lofty dining-room,4 which would be bril- 1 Comp. St. Mark vii. 2-5 ; St. Matt. hands. xxiii. 25, 26 ; St. Luke xi. 38, 39. s For further details we refer to the 2 These ' stone-vessels' (KeleyAbhanim) excursus on Palestinian money, weights, are often spoken of (for example, Chel. and measures, in Herzf eld's Handelsgesch. x. 1). In Taday. i. 2 they are expressly d. Juden, pp. 171-185. mentioned for the purification of the * The Teraqlin, from which the other THE REQUEST OF MARY AND THE REPLY OF JESUS. 359 Iiantly lighted with lamps and candlesticks, the guests are disposed CHAP. round tables on couches, soft with cushions or covered with tapestry, IV or seated on chairs. The bridal blessing has been spoken, and the bridal cup emptied. The feast is proceeding — not the common meal, which was generally taken about even, according to the Babbinic saying,8- that he who postponed it beyond that hour was as if he "Pes-12 swallowed a stone — but a festive evening meal. If there had been disposition to those exhibitions of, or incitement to, indecorous and light merriment,1 such as even the more earnest Babbis deprecated, surely the Presence of Jesus would have restrained it. And now there must have been a painful pause, or something like it, when the Mother of Jesus whispered to Him that ' the wine failed.' 2 There could, perhaps, be the less cause for reticence on this point towards her Son, not merely because this failure may have arisen from the accession of guests in the persons of Jesus and His disciples, for whom no provision had been originally made, but because the gift of wine or oil on such occasions was regarded as a meritorious work of charity .* . -Baba _.._*. But all this still leaves the main incidents in the narrative untouched. How are we to understand the implied request of the Mother of Jesus ? how His reply ? and what was the meaning of the miracle ? It seems scarcely possible to imagine that, remembering the miraculous circumstances connected with His Birth, and informed of what had passed at Jordan, she now anticipated, and by her sug gestion wished to prompt, this as His Boyal Messianic manifestation.3 With reverence be it said, such a beginning of Boyalty and triumph would have been paltry : rather that of the Jewish miracle-monger than of the Christ of the Gospels. Not so, if it was only ' a sign,' pointing to something beyond itself. Again, such anticipations on the part of Mary seem psychologically untrue — that is, untrue to her history. She could not, indeed, have ever forgotten the circum- side-rooms opened (Jer. Rosh haSh. moment she had entere'd the Teraqlin, 59 b ; Yoma 15 b). From Baba B. vi. 4 before she had actually gone to the we learn, that such an apartment was at Chuppah. least 15 feet square and 15 feet high. • Thus it was customary, and deemed Height of ceiling was characteristic of meritorious, to sing and perform » kind Palestinian houses. It was always half of play with myrtle branches (Jer. Peah the breadth and length put together. 15 d) ; although one Rabbi was visited Thus, in a small house consisting of one with sudden death for excess in this room: length, 12 feet* breadth, 9 feet, the respect. height would be 10£ feet. In a large 2 St. John ii. 3, A.V. : ' when they house: length, 15 feet, breadth, 12 feet, wanted wine.' the height would be 13£ feet. From Jer. * 3 This is the view of many commenta- Kethub. p. 28 d we learn, that the bride tors, ancient and modern. was considered as actually married the 360 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK stances which had surrounded His Birth; but the deeper she 'kept III all these things in her heart,' the more mysterious would they seem, 1 ' as time passed in the shall round of the most simple and uneventful country-life, and in the discharge of every-day duties, without even the faintest appearance of anything beyond it. Only twelve years had passed since His Birth, and yet they had not understood His saying in the Temple ! How much more difficult would it be after thirty years, when the Child had grown into Youth and Manhood, with still the same silence of Divine Voices around ? It is difficult to believe in fierce sunshine on the afternoon of a long, grey day. Although we have no absolute certainty of it, we have the strongest internal reasons for believing, that Jesus had done no miracles these thirty years in the home at Nazareth,1 but lived the life of quiet sub mission and obedient waiting. That was the then part of His Work. It may, indeed, have been that Mary knew of what had passed at Jordan; and that, when she saw Him returning with His first disciples, who, assuredly, would make no secret of their convictions — whatever these may have conveyed to outsiders — she felt that a new period in His Life had opened. But what was there in all this to suggest such a miracle ? and if it had been suggested, why not ask for it in express terms, if it was to be the commencement, certainly in strangely incongruous circumstances, of a Boyal mani festation ? On the other hand, there was one thing which she had learned, and one thing which she was to unlearn, after those thirty years of the Nazareth-Life. What she had learned — what she must have learned — was absolute confidence in Jesus. What she had to unlearn, was the natural, yet entirely mistaken, impression which His meekness, stillness, and long home-submission had wrought on her as to His relationship to the family. It was, as we find from her after-history, a very hard, very slow, and very painful thing to learn it ; 2 yet very needful, not .only for her own sake, but because it was a lesson of absolute truth. And so when she told Him of the want that had arisen, it was simply m absolute confidence in her Son, probably without any conscious expectancy of a miracle on His part.3 Yet 1 Tholuck and Liicke, however, hold 3 This meets the .objection of Strauss the opposite view. and others, that Mary could not have 2 Luthardt rightly calls it the com- expected a miracle. It is scarcely con- mencement of a very painful education, ceivable.how Cah-in could have imagined of which the next stage is marked in that Mary had intended Jesus to deli ver an St. Luke viii. 19, and the last in St. John address with the view of turning away xix. 26. thought from the want of wine ; or THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE IN WHAT MARY SPAKE. 361 not without a touch of maternal self-consciousness, almost pride, that CHAP. He, Whom she could trust to do anything that was needed, was her IV Son, Whom she could solicit in the friendly family whose guests they ' " were — and if not for her sake, yet at her request. It was a true earth-view to take of their relationship ; only, an earth- view which must now for ever cease : the outcome of His misunderstood meekness and weakness, and which yet, strangely enough, the Bomish Church puts in the forefront as the most powerful plea for Jesus' acting. But the fundamental mistake in what she attempted is just this, that she spake as His Mother, and placed that maternal relationship in connection with His Work. And therefore it was that as, on the first misunderstanding in the Temple, He had said : ' Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business ? ' so now : ' Woman, what have I to do with thee ? ' With that ' business ' earthly relationship, how ever tender, had no connection. With everything else it had, down to the utter self-forgetfulness of that tenderest commendation of her to John, in the bitterest agonies of the Cross ; but not with this. No, not now, nor ever henceforth, with this. As in His first manifestation in the Temple, so in this the first manifestation of His glory, the finger that pointed to ' His hour ' was not, and could not be, that of an earthly parent, but of His Father in Heaven.1 There was, in truth, a twofold relationship in that Life, of which none other but the Christ could have preserved the harmony. This is one main point — we had almost called it the negative one ; the other, and positive one, was the miracle itself. All else is but accidental and circumstantial. No one who either knows the use of the language,2 or remembers that, when commending her to John on the Cross, He used the same mode of expression,11 will imagine, that » st. John there was anything derogatory to her, or harsh on His part, in addressing her as ' woman ' rather than ' mother.' But the language is to us significant of the teaching intended to be conveyed, and as the beginning of this further teaching : ' Who is My mother ? and My brethren ? And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren ! ' b b st. Matt And Mary did not, and yet she did, understand Him, when she turned to the servants with the direction, implicitly to follow His behests. What happened is well known : how, in the excess of their zeal, they filled the water-pots to the brim — an accidental circum- Bengel, that she intended to give a hint forth is : My Father and I.' that the company should break up. 2 Comp. the passages from the classics 1 Godet aptly says, ' His motto hence- quoted by Wetstein in his Commentary. xix. xii. 46-50 362 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III * Ecclus. xxxii. 1, 2 stance, yet useful, as much that seems accidental, to show that there could be neither delusion nor collusion ; how, probably in the drawing of it, the water became best wine — ' the conscious water saw its God, and blushed ; ' then the coarse proverbial joke of what was probably the master of ceremonies and purveyor of the feast," intended, of course, not literally to apply to the present company, and yet in its accidentalness an evidence of the reality of the miracle ; after which the narrative abruptly closes with a retrospective remark on the part of him who relates it. What the bridegroom said; whether what had been done became known to the guests, and, if so, what impression it wrought ; how long Jesus remained ; what His Mother felt — of this and much more that might be asked, Scripture, with that reverent reticence which we so often mark, in contrast to our shallow talkativeness, takes no further notice. And best that it should be so. St. John meant to tell us, what the Synoptists, who begin their account "with the later Galilean ministry, have not recorded,1 of the first of His miracles as a ' sign,' 2 pointing to the deeper and higher that was to be revealed, and of the first forth-manifesting of ' His glory.' 3 That is all ; and that object was attained. Witness the calm, grateful retrospect upon that first day of miracles, summed up in these simple but intensely conscious words : ' And His disciples believed on Him.' A sign it was, from whatever point we view its meaning, as previously indicated. For, like the diamond that shines with many colours, it has many meanings ; none of them designed, in the coarse sense of the term, but all real, because the outcome of a real Divine Life and history. And a real miracle also, not only historically, but as viewed in its many meanings ; the beginning of all others, which in a sense are but the unfolding of this first. A miracle it is, which cannot be explained, but is only enhanced by the almost incredible platitudes to which negative criticism has sunk in its commentation,4 1 On the omission of certain parts of St. John's narrative by the Synoptists, and vice versa, and on the supposed dif ferences, I can do no better than refer the reader to the admirable remarks of Canon Westeott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 280 &c. 2 According to the best reading, and literally, 'This did — beginning of signs — Jesus in Cana.' Upon a careful review the Rabbinic expression Simana (taken from the Greek word here used) would seem to me more fully to render the idea than the Hebrew Oth. But the signifi cant use of the word sign should be well marked. See Canon Westeott on the passage. 3 In this, the first of His miracles, it was all the more necessary that He should manifest His glory. 4 Thus Schenkel regards Christ's answer to Mary as a proof that He was not on good terms with His family; Paulus suggests, that Jesus had brought the wine, and that it was afterwards -mixed with the water in the stone-vessels ; Gfrorer, that Mary had brought it as a present, and at the feast given Jesus the appropriate hint when to have it set on. The gloss of Renan seems to me even more untenable and repulsive. THE MIRAOLE 'A SIGN.' 363 for which there assuredly exists no legendary basis, either in Old Testament history, or in contemporary Jewish expectation ; 1 which cannot be sublimated into nineteenth-century idealism ; 2 least of all can be conceived as an after-thought of His disciples, invented by an Ephesian writer of the second century.3 But even the allegorical illustration of St. Augustine, who reminds us that in the grape the water of rain is ever changed into wine, is scarcely true, save as a bare illustration, and only lowers our view of the miracle. For miracle it is,4 and will ever remain ; not, indeed, magic,5 nor arbitrary power, but power with a moral purpose, and that the highest.6 And we believe it, because this ' sign ' is the first of all those miracles in which the Miracle of Miracles gave ' a sign,' and manifested forth His glory — the glory of His Person, the glory of His Purpose, and the glory of His Work. CHAP. IV 1 Against this view of Liicke, u. s. p. 477. 2 So Lange, in his ' Life of Christ,' imagining that converse with Jesus had put all in that higher ecstasy in which He gave them to drink from the fulness of Himself. Similar spiritualisation — thoagh by each in his own manner — has been attempted by Baur, Keim, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, and others. But it seems more rational, with Schweizer and Weisse, to deny the historical accuracy of the whole, than to resort to such expedients. 3 Hilgenfeld, however, sees in this miracle an evidence that the Christ of the fourth Gospel proclaimed another and a higher than the God of the Old Testa ment — in short, evidence of the Gnostic taint of the fourth Gospel. 4 Meyer well reminds us that ' physical incomprehensibility is not identical with absolute impossibility.' a Godet has scarcely rightly marked the difference. 6 If I rightly understand the meaning of Dr. Abbott's remarks on the miracles in the fourth Gospel (Encycl. Britan. vol. x. p. 825 b), they imply that the change of the water into wine was an emblematic reference to the Eucharistic wine, this view being supported by a reference to 1 John v. 8. But could this be considered sufficient ground for the inference, that no historic reality attaches to the whole his tory ? In that case it would have to be seriously maintained, that an Ephesian writer at the end of the second century had invented the fiction of the miraculous change of water into wine, for the purpose of certain Eucharistic teaching I 364 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB V. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE — 'THE SIGN,' WHICH IS NOT A SIGN. (St. John ii. 13-25.) BOOK It has heen said that Mary understood, and yet did not understand III Jesus. And of this there seems fresh evidence in the circumstance that, " ' immediately after the marriage of Cana, she and the ' brethren of Jesus ' went with Him, or followed Him, to Capernaum, which hence- •st.Matt.iv. forth became ' His own city,' a during His stay by the Lake of Galilee. st.'Markii.i The question, whether He had first returned to Nazareth, seems almost trifling. It may have been so, and it may be that His brothers had joined Him there, while His ' sisters,' being married, remained at 1 st. Mark Nazareth.b For the departure of the family from Nazareth many reasons will, in the peculiar circumstances, suggest themselves. And yet one feels, that their following Jesus and His disciples to their new home had something to do with their understanding, and yet not understanding, of Him, which had been characteristic of Mary's silent withdrawal after the reply she had received at the feast of Cana, and her significant direction to the servants, implicitly to do what He bade them. Equally in character is the willingness of Jesus to allow His family to join Him — not ashamed of their humbleness, as a Jewish Messiah might have been, nor impatient of their ignorance : tenderly near to them, in all that concerned the humanness of His feelings ; sublimely far from them, in all connected with His Work and Mission. It is almost a relief to turn from the long discussion (to which reference has already been made) : whether those who bore that designation were His ' brothers ' and ' sisters ' in the real sense, or the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or else His cousins — and to leave it in the indefiniteness which rests upon it.1 But the observant 1 In support of the natural interpre- Lord have been, through Joseph, the heir tation of these terms (which I frankly to David's throne (according to the genea- own to be my view) not only St. Matt. i. logies), if Joseph had elder sons ? And 25 and St. Luke ii. 7 may be urged, but again, What became of the six young these two questions may be put, suggested motherless children when Joseph and the by Archdeacon Norris (who himself holds Virgin went first to Bethlehem, and then them to have been the children of Joseph into Egypt, and why are the elder sons by a former marriage): How could our not mentioned on the occasion of the CAPERNAUM. 365 reader will probably mark, in connection with this controversy, that CHAP. it is, to say the least, strange that ' brothers ' of Jesus should, with- V out further explanation, have been introduced in the fourth Gospel, if it was an Ephesian production, if not a fiction of spiritualistic tendency ; strange also, that the fourth Gospel alone should have recorded the removal to Capernaum of the ' mother and brothers ' of Jesus, in company with Him. But this by the way, and in reference to recent controversies about the authorship of the fourth Gospel. If we could only feel quite sure — and not merely deem it most probable — that the Tell Hum of modern exploration marks the site of the ancient Capernaum, Kephar Nachum, or Tanchumin (the latter, perhaps, ' village of consolation ' ), with what solemn interest would we wander over its ruins.1 We know it from New Testament history, and from the writing's of Josephus. a A rancorous notice and certain "Jewish .... ? War iii. 10. vile insinuations2 of the Babbis," connecting it with 'heresy/ pre- 8; Life 72 sumably that of Christianity, seem also to point to Kephar Nachum Eccl. i. ™ as the home of Jesus, where so many of His miracles were done. S. wi-sh.' At the time it could have been of only recent origin, since its Syna- a^siadi-r'a. gogue had but lately been reared, through the friendly liberality of that true and faithful Centurion,0 But already its importance was ° st.Matt. such, that it had become the station of a garrison, and of one of the principal custom-houses. Its soft, sweet air, by the glorious Lake of Galilee, with snow-capped Hermon full in view in the North — from a distance, like Mont Blanc over the Lake of Geneva ;3 the fertility of the country — notably of the plain of Gennesaret close by ; and the merry babble, and fertilising proximity of a spring which, from its teeming with fish like that of the Nile, was popularly regarded as springing from the river of Egypt — this and more must have made Capernaum one of the most delightful places in these ' Gardens of Princes,' as the Babbis interpreted the word ' Gennesaret,' by the ' cither-shaped lake ' of that name.4 The town lay quite up on its north-western shore, only two miles from where the Jordan falls into the lake. As we wander over that field of ruins, about half a mile in visit to the Temple ? (Commentary on the The second of the two notices evi- New Testament, vol. i. p. 117.) dently refers to the first. The 'heretic ' 1 Robinson, Sepp, and, if I under- Jacob spoken of, is the bete noire of the stand him aright, Lieut. Conder, regard Babbis. The implied charges against Khan Minyeh (Tent-Work in Palest, vol. the Christians remind one of the descrip- ii. pp. 182 &c.) as the site of Capernaum ; tion, Bev. ii. 20-24. but most modern writers are agreed in 8 The comparison is Canon Tristram's fixing it at Tell Hiirn. (Land of Israel, p. 427). 2 The stories are too foolish, and the * This is another Babbinic interpreta- insinuations too vile, to be here repeated, tion of the term Gennesaret. 366 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK length by a quarter in breadth, which in all probability mark the site III of ancient Capernaum, we can scarcely realise it, that the desolate- "— ' ^ ness all around has taken the place of the life and beauty of eighteen centuries ago. Yet the scene is the same, though the breath of judg ment has long swept the freshness from its face. Here lies in unruffled stillness, or wildly surges, lashed by sudden storms, the deep blue lake, 600 or 700 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. We can look up and down its extent, about twelve miles, or across it, about six miles. Bight over on the other side from where we stand — somewhere there, is the place where Jesus miraculously fed the five thousand. "Over here came the little ship, its timbers still trembling, and its sides and deck wet with the spray of that awful night of storm, when He came to the weary rowers, and brought with Him calm. Up that beach they drew the boat. Here, close by the shore, stood the Synagogue, built of white limestone on dark basalt founda tion. North of it, up the gentle slopes, stretched the town. East and south is the lake, in almost continuous succession of lovely small bays, of which more than seventeen may be counted within six miles, and in one of which nestled Capernaum. All its houses are gone, scarce one stone left on the other : .the good Centurion's house, that » st. Mark ii. of Matthew the publican,a that of Simon Peter,b the temporary home iii.' 20, 31 ' which first sheltered the Master and His loved ones. All are unre cognisable — a confused mass of ruins— save only that white Syna gogue in which He taught. From its ruins we can still measure its dimensions, and trace its fallen pillars ; nay, we discover over the lintel of its entrance the device of a pot of manna, which may have » st. John lent its form to His teaching there °— -a device different from that of vi 49 59 the seven-branched candlestick, or that other most significant one of the Paschal Lamb, which seem to have been so frequent over the Synagogues in Galilee.1 And this, then, is Capernaum — the first and the chief home of Jesus, when He had entered on His active work. But, on this occasion, He 'continued there not many days.' For, already, 'the Jews' Passover was at hand,' and He must needs keep that feast in Jerusalem. If our former computations are right — and, in the nature of things, it is impossible to be absolutely certain about exact dates — and John began his preaching in the autumn of the year 779 from the building of Bome, or in 26 of our present reckon- « a.d. 27 ing, while Jesus was baptized in the early winter following, d 2 then 1 Comp. especially Warren's Recovery 2 Wieseler and most modern writers of Jerusalem, pp. 337-351. place the Baptism of Jesus in the summer » St. Matt. viii. 14 PREPARING FOR THE FIRST PASSOVER. 367 this Passover must have taken place in the spring (about April) of CHAP. the same year.0- The preparations for it had, indeed, commenced a V month before. Not to speak of the needful domestic arrangements ."^7u7" for the journey of pilgrims to Jerusalem, tlie whole land seemed in or 27 a.d. a state of preparation. A month before the feast (on the 15th Adar) bridges and roads were put in repair, and sepulchres whitened, to prevent accidental pollution to the pilgrims. Then, some would select this out of the three great annual feasts for the tithing of their flocks and herds, which, in such case, had to be done two weeks before the Passover ; while others would fix on it as the time for going up to Jerusalem before the feast 'to purify themselves 'b — »st. Johnxi. that is, to undergo the prescribed purification in any case of Levitical defilement. But what must have appealed to every one in the land was the appearance of the ' money-changers ' (Shidchanim), who opened their stalls in every country-town on the 15th of Adar (just a month before the feast). They were, no doubt, regularly accredited and duly authorised. For, all Jews and proselytes — women, slaves, and minors excepted — had to pay the annual Temple-tribute of half a shekel, according to the ' sacred ' standard, equal to a common Galilean shekel (two denars), or about Is. 2d. of our money. From this tax many of the priests — to the chagrin of the Babbis — claimed exemption, on the ingenious plea that in Lev. vi. 23 (A.V.) every offering of a priest was ordered to be burnt, and not eaten ; while from the Temple-tribute such offerings were paid for as the two wave loaves and the shewbread, which were afterwards eaten by priests. Hence, it was argued, their payment of Temple-tribute would have been incompatible with Lev. vi. 23 ! But to return. This Temple-tribute had to be paid in exact half-shekels of the Sanctuary, or ordinary Galilean shekels. When it is remembered that, besides strictly Palestinian silver and especially copper coin,1 Persian, Tyrian, Syrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Boman of 27 A.D., and, accordingly, the first little more than a penny, and also half Passover in spring, 28 A.D. But it seems and quarter shekels (about a half-penny, to me highly improbable, that so long an and a farthing). His successors coined interval as nine or ten months should even smaller copper money. During the have elapsed between John's first preach- whole period from the death of Simon ing and the Baptism of Jesus. Besides, to the last Jewish war no Jewish silver in that case, how are we to account for coins issued from the Palestinian mint, the eight or nine months between the but only copper coins. Herzfeld (Han- Baptism and the Passover? So far as I delsgesch. pp. 178, 179) suggests that know, the only reason for this strange there was sufficient foreign silver coin- hypothesis is St. John ii. 20, which will age circulating in the country, while be explained in its proper place. naturally only a very small amount of 1 Simon Maccabee had copper money foreign copper coins would be brought to coined : the so-called copper shekel, a Palestine. 368 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK money circulated in the country, it will be understood what work HI these ' money-changers ' must have had. From the 15th to the 25th Adar they had stalls in every country-town. On the latter date, which must therefore be considered as marking the first arrivals of festive pilgrims in the city, the stalls in the country were closed, and the money-changers henceforth sat within the precincts of the Temple. All who refused to pay the Temple-tribute (except priests) were liable to distraint of their goods. The 'money-changers' made a statutory fixed charge of a Maah, or from l\d. to 2d} (or, according to others, of half a maah) on every half-shekel. This was called qolbon. But if a person tendered a Sela (a four-denar piece, in value two half-shekels of the Sanctuary, or two Galilean shekels), he had to pay double qolbon ; one for his half-shekel of tribute-money, the other for his change. Although not only priests, but all other non-obligatory offerers, and those who paid for their poorer brethren, were exempted from the charge of qolbon, it must have brought in an immense revenue, since not only many native Palestinians might come without the statutory coin, but a vast number of foreign Jews presented themselves on such occasions in the Temple, Indeed, if we compute the annual Temple-tribute at about 75,000Z., the bankers' profits may have amounted to from 8,000£. to 9,000.., an immense sum in the circumstances of the country.2 But even this does not represent all the facts of the case. We have already seen, that the ' money-changers ' in the Temple gave change, when larger amounts than were equivalent to the Temple- tribute were proffered. It is a reasonable, nay, an almost necessary inference, that many of the foreign Jews arriving in Jerusalem would take the opportunity of changing at these tables their foreign money, and for this, of course, fresh charges would be made. For, there was a great deal to be bought within the Temple-area, needful for the feast (in the way of sacrifices and their adjuncts), or for purification, and it would be better to get the right money from the authorised changers, than have disputes with the dealers. We can picture to ourselves the scene around the table of an Eastern money-changer— the weighing of the coins, deductions for loss of weight, arguing, dis puting, bargaining— and we can realise the terrible truthfulness of 1 It is extremely difficult to fix the within bounds. All the regulations about exact equivalent. Cassel computes it at the Tribute and Qolbon are enumerated one-fifth, Herzfeld at one-sixth, Zunz at in Sheqai. i. I have not given references one-third, and Winer at one-fourth of a, for each of the statements advanced, not de?^' -,,.- . t, , w _. t. t,. because they are not to hand in regard to 2 Comp. Winers Eeal- Worterb. I have almost every detail, but to avoid needless taken a low estimate, so as to be well quotations. THE OFFERERS IN THE TEMPLE. 369 our Lord's charge that they had made the Father's House a mart and CHAP. place of traffic. But even so, the business of the Temple money- V changers would not be exhausted. Through their hands would pass ' the immense votive offerings of foreign Jews, or of proselytes, to the Temple ; indeed, they probably transacted all business matters con nected with the Sanctuary. It is difficult to realise the vast accumu lation of wealth in the Temple-treasury. But some idea of it may be formed from the circumstance that, despite many previous spolia tions, the value of the gold and silver which Crassus a carried from " 64~63 B-°- the Temple-treasury amounted to the enormous sum of about two and a half millions sterling. Whether or not these Temple money changers may have transacted other banking business, given drafts, or cashed those from correspondents, received and lent money at interest — all which was common at the time — must remain unde termined. Beaders of the New Testament know, that the noisy and incon?- gruous business of an Eastern money-lender was not the only one carried on within the sacred Temple-enclosure. It was a great accommodation, that a person bringing a sacrifice might not only learn, but actually obtain, in the Temple from its officials what was required for the meat- and drink-offering. The prices were fixed by tariff every month, and on payment of the stated amount the offerer received one of four counterfoils, which respectively indicated, and, on handing it to the proper official, procured the prescribed comple ment of his sacrifice.1 The Priests and Levites in charge of this made up their accounts every evening, and these (though necessary) trans actions must have left a considerable margin of profit to the treasury. This would soon lead to another kind of traffic. Offerers might, of course, bring their sacrificial animals with them, and we know that on the Mount of Olives there were four shops, specially for the sale of pigeons and other things requisite for sacrificial purposes.* 2 But » Jer. Taan. then, when an animal was brought, it had to be examined as to its Levitical fitness by persons regularly qualified and appointed. Disputes might here arise, due to the ignorance of the purchaser, or the greed of the examiner. A regularly qualified examiner was called mumcheh (one approved), and how much labour was given to the acquisition of 1 Comp. ' The Temple and its Services, him that these were the Chanuyoth, or &c.,' pp. 118, 119. shops, of the family of Annas, to which 2 M. Derenbourg (Histoire de Palest., the Sanhedrin migrated forty years be- p. 467) holds that these shops were kept fore the destruction of Jerusalem. See by priests, or at any rate that the profits farther on. went to them. But I cannot agree with VOL. I. BR 370 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK HI • Sanh. 5 6 * Bekhor. iv. 5 « Ker. i. 7 A Jerus. Chag. 78 a the requisite knowledge appears from the circumstance, that a certain teacher is said to have spent eighteen months with a farmer, to learn what faults in an animal were temporary, and which permanent.*1 Now, as we are informed that a certain mumcheh of firstlings had been authorised to charge for his inspection from four to six Isar (l^d. to about 2d.), according to the animal inspected,* it is but reasonable to suppose, that a similar fee may have been exacted for examining the ordinary sacrificial animals. But all trouble and difficulty would be avoided by a regular market within the Temple- enclosure, where sacrificial animals could be purchased, having presumably been duly inspected, and all fees paid before being- offered for sale.1 It needs no comment to show how utterly the Temple would be profaned by such traffic, and to what scenes it might lead. From Jewish writings we know, that most improper transactions were carried on, to the taking undue advantage of the poor people who came to offer their sacrifices. Thus we read,0 that on one occasion the price of a couple of pigeons was run up to the enormous figure of a gold denar (a Boman gold denar, about 15s. 3cZ.), when, through the intervention of Simeon, the grandson of the great Hillel, it was brought down before night to a quarter of a silver denar, or about 2d. each. Since Simeon is represented as intro ducing his resolve to this effect with the adjuration, ' by the Temple,' it is not unfair to infer that these prices had ruled within the sacred enclosure. It was probably not merely controversial zeal for the peculiar teaching of his master Shammai, but a motive similar to that of Simeon, which on another occasion induced Baba ben Buta (well known as giving Herod the advice of rebuilding the Temple), when he found the Temple-court empty of sacrificial animals, through the greed of those who had ' thus desolated the House of God,' to bring in no less than three thousand sheep, so that the people might offer sacrifices. d 2 This leads up to another question, most important in this con nection. 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 ; it was also liable to gross there for a market, and it formed the principal access into the Sanctuary. The Temple-market was undoubtedly some where in the ' Court of the Gentiles.' 2 It is, however, quite certain that Baba ben Buta had not ' been the first to intro duce ' (Dr. Farrar) this traffic. A perusal of Jer. Chag. 78 a shows this sufficiently. 1 It is certain that this Temple-market could not have been ' on both sides of the Eastern Gate — the gate Shushan — as far as Solomon's Porch ' (Dr. Farrar). If it had been on both sides of this gate, it must have been in Solomon's Porch. But this supposition is out of the ques tion. There would have been no room THE TEMPLE-MARKET. 371 abuses. But was there about the time of Christ anything to make it CHAP. specially obnoxious and unpopular? The priesthood must always V have derived considerable profit from it — of course, not the ordinary ' priests, who came up in their ' orders ' to minister in the Temple, but the permanent priestly officials, the resident leaders of the priest hood, and especially the High-Priestly family. This opens up a most interesting inquiry, closely connected, as we shall show, with Christ's visit to the Temple at this Passover. But the materials here at .our command are so disjointed, that, in attempting to put them together, we can only suggest what seems most probable, not state what is absolutely certain. What became, of the profits of the money-changers, and who were the real owners of the Temple-market ? To the first of these questions the Jerusalem Talmud a gives no • jer. sheq. less than five different answers, showing that there was no fixed rule linesfp. <6 b as to the employment of these profits, or, at least, that it was no longer known at that time. Although four of these answers point to their use for the public service, yet that which seems most likely assigns the whole profits to the money-changers themselves. But in that case it can scarcely be doubted, that they had to pay a considerable rental or percentage to the leading Temple-officials. The profits from the sale of meat- and drink-offerings went to the Temple- treasury. But it can hardly be believed, that such was the case in regard to the Temple-market. On the other hand, there can be little doubt, that this market was what in Babbinic writings is styled ' the Bazaars of the sons of Annas ' (Chanuyoth beney Chanan), the sons of that High-Priest Annas, who is so infamous in New Testa ment history. When we read that the Sanhedrin, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, transferred its meeting-place from ' the Hall of Hewn Stones ' (on the south side of the Court of the Priests, and therefore partly within the Sanctuary itself) to ' the Bazaars,' and then afterwards to the City,b the inference is plain, that these Bazaars were those of the sons of Annas the High-Priest, and that they occupied part of the Temple-court ; in short, that the Temple-market and the Bazaars of the sons of Annas are identical. If this inference, which is in accordance with received Jewish opinion, be admitted, we gain much light as regards the purifi cation of the Temple by Jesus, and the words which He spake on that occasion. For, our next position is that, from the unrighteousness of the traffic carried on in these Bazaars, and the greed of their owners, the ' Temple-market ' was at the time most unpopular. This appears, not only from the conduct and words of the patriarch Simeon and of _B_ > Rosh haSh. 31 372 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. Baba ben Buta (as above quoted), but from the fact that popular in dignation, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, swept away the Bazaars of the family of Annas,3, and this, as expressly stated, on account of the sinful greed which characterised their dealings. And if any doubt should still linger in the mind, it would surely be removed by our Lord's open denunciation of the Temple-market as ' a den of robbers.' b Of the avarice and corruption of this infamous High- Priestly family, alike Josephus and the Babbis give a most terrible picture. Josephus describes Annas (or Ananus), the son of the Annas of the New Testament, as ' a great hoarder up of money,' very rich, and as despoiling by open violence the common priests of ^Ant.xx. 9. their official revenues.0 The Talmud also records the curse which a distinguished Babbi of Jerusalem (Abba Shaul) pronounced upon the High-Priestly families (including that of Annas), who were ' themselves High-Priests, their sons treasurers (Gizbarin), their sons-in-law assistant-treasurers (Ammarkalin), while their servants a Pes. 57 a beat the people with sticks.' d What a comment this passage offers on the bearing of Jesus, as He made a scourge to drive out the very servants who ' beat the people with sticks,' and upset their unholy traffic ! It were easy to add from Babbinic sources repulsive details of their luxuriousness, wastefulness, gluttony, and general dissoluteness. No wonder that, in the figurative language of the Talmud, the Temple is represented as crying out against them : ' Go hence, ye sons of »Pcs.u.s. Eli, ye defile the Temple of Jehovah! 'e These painful notices of the state of matters at that time help us better to understand what Christ did, and who they were that opposed His doing. These Temple-Bazaars, the property, and one of the principal sources of income, of the family of Annas, were the scene of the purification of the Temple by Jesus ; and in the private locale attached to these very Bazaars, where the Sanhedrin held its meetings at the time, the final condemnation of Jesus may have been planned, if not actually pronounced. All this has its deep significance. But we can now also understand why the Temple officials, to whom these Bazaars belonged, only challenged the authority of Christ in thus purging the Temple. The unpopularity of the whole traffic, if not their consciences, prevented their proceeding to actual violence. Lastly, we can also better perceive the significance, alike of Christ's action, and of His reply to their challenge, spoken as it was close to the spot where He was so soon to be condemned by them. Nor do we any longer wonder that no resistance was offered by the people to the action of Jesus, and that even the remonstrances THE PURGATION OF THE TEMPLE. 373 of the priests were not direct, but in the form of a perplexing question. For it is in the direction just indicated, and in no other, that objections have been raised to the narrative of Christ's first public act in Jerusalem : the purgation of the Temple. Commentators have sufficiently pointed out the differences between this and the purga tion of the Temple at the close of His Ministry.8, ' Indeed, on com- ^|t. ^at*. parison, these are so obvious, that every reader can mark them. Nor st. Mark xi. does it seem difficult to understand, rather does it seem not only ^oxir- fitting, but almost logically necessary, that, if any such event had occurred, it should have taken place both at the beginning and at the close of His public ministry in the Temple. Nor yet is there any thing either ' abrupt ' or ' tactless ' in such a commencement of His Ministry. It is not only profane, but unhistorical, to look for calcula tion and policy in the Life of Jesus. Had there been such, He would not have died on the Cross. And ' abrupt ' it certainly was not. Jesus took up the thread where He had dropped it on His first re corded appearance in the Temple, when he had spoken His wonder, that those who knew Him should have been ignorant, that He must be about His Father's business. He was now about His Father's business, and, as we may so say, in the most elementary manner. To put an end to this desecration of His Father's House, which, by a nefarious traffic, had been made a place of mart, nay, ' a den of robbers,' was, what all who knew His Mission must have felt, a most suitable and almost necessary beginning of His Messianic Work. And many of those present must have known Jesus. The zeal of His early disciples, who, on their first recognition of Him, pro claimed the new-found Messiah, could not have given place to absolute silence. The many Galilean pilgrims in the Temple- could not but have spread the tidings, and the report must soon have passed from one to the other in the Temple-courts, as He first entered their sacred enclosure. They would follow Him, and watch what He did. Nor were they disappointed. He inaugurated His Mission by fulfilling the prediction concerning Him Who was to be Israel's refiner and purifier (Mai. iii. 1-3). Scarce had He entered the Temple-porch, and trod the Court of the Gentiles, than He drove thence what profanely defiled it.2 There was not a hand lifted, not a word spoken 1 It must, however, be admitted, that Komment. (on St. John) p. 142, notes. even Luther had grave doubts whether 2 And so He ever does, beginning His the narrative of the Synoptists and that Ministry by purifying, whether as regards of the fourth Gospel did not refer to the individual or the Church. one and the same event. Comp. Meyer, 374 from JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK to arrest Him, as He made the scourge of small cords (even this not III without significance), and with it drove out of the Temple both the " ' — " sheep and the oxen ; not a word said, nor a hand raised, as He poured into their receptacles the changers' money, and overthrew their tables.1 His Presence awed them, His words awakened even their consciences ; they knew, only too well, how true His denunciations were. And behind Him was gathered the wondering multitude, that could not but sympathise with such bold, right royal, and Messianic vindication of Temple sanctity from the nefarious traffic of a hated, corrupt, and avaricious Priesthood. It was a scene worth witnessing by any true Israelite, a protest and an act which, even among a less emotional people, would have gained Him respect, approbation, and admiration, and which, at any rate, secured His safety.2 For when ' the Jews,' by which here, as in so many other places, we are to understand the rulers of the people — in this instance, the Temple officials — -did gather courage to come forward, they ventured not to lay hands on Him. It was not yet the time for it. In pre sence of that multitude they would not then have dared it, even if policy had not dictated quietness within the Temple-enclosure, when the Boman garrison so close by, in Fort Antonia, kept jealous watch "Acts xxi. f0r the first appearance of a tumult." Still more strangely, they did not even reprove Him for what He had done, as if it had been wrong or improper. With infinite cunning, as appealing to the multitude, they only asked for ' a sign ' which would warrant such assumption of authority. But this question of challenge marked two things : the essential opposition between the Jewish authorities and Jesus, and the manner in which they would carry on the contest, which was henceforth to be waged between Him and the rulers of the people. That first action of Jesus determined their mutual positions ; and with and in that first conflict its end was already involved. The action of Jesus as against the rulers must develop into a life-opposition ; their first step against Him must lead on to the last in His condemna tion to the Cross. And Jesus then and there knew it all, foresaw, or rather saw it all. His answer told it. It was — as all His teaching to those who seeing do not see, and hearing do not hear, whose understanding is 1 Canon Westeott calls attention to the against which the Hand of Christ is use of two different terms for money- specially directed. changers in w. 14, 15. Inthe latter only 2 Yet Renan ventures to characterise it is KoWvPurris, of which the Aramaic this as a sudden, ill-ad> ver. ia following that teaching of Jesus backward, he sees how true it has proved concerning the world, that ' that which is of the flesh is flesh ; ' how true, also, concerning the Spirit-born, and what need there is to us of ' this birth from above.' But to all time, through the gusty night of our world's early spring, flashes, as the lamp in that Aliyah through the darkened streets of silent Jerusalem, that light ; sounds through its stillness, like the Voice of the Teacher come from God, this eternal Gospel- message to us and to all men : ' God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' 390 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB VII. IN JUDiEA AND THROUGH SAMARIA — A SKETCH OF SAMARITAN HISTORY ' AND THEOLOGY — JEWS AND SAMARITANS. (St. John iv. 1-4.) BOOK We have no means of determining how long Jesus may have HI tarried in Jerusalem after the events recorded in the previous two ~ ¦ ' chapters. The Evangelic narrative a only marks an indefinite period iu. 22 of time, which, as we judge from internal probability, cannot have been protracted. From the city He retired with His disciples to ' the country,' which formed the province of Judsea. There He taught, ;> st. John and His disciples baptized.* 1 From what had been so lately wit nessed in Jerusalem, as well as from what must have been known as to the previous testimony of the Baptist concerning Him, the number of those who professed adhesion to the expected new Kingdom, and were consequently baptized, was as large, in that locality, as had submitted to the preaching and Baptism of John — perhaps even larger. An exaggerated report was carried to the Pharisaic authori- • st. Johniv. ties:2 'Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than John.'0 From which, at least, we infer, that the opposition of the leaders of the party to the Baptist was now settled, and that it extended to Jesus ; and also, what careful watch they kept over the new move ment. But what seems at first sight strange is the twofold circumstance, that Jesus should for a time have established Himself in such appa rently close proximity to the Baptist, and that on this occasion, and on this only, He should have allowed His disciples to administer the rite of Baptism. That the latter must not be confounded with Christian Baptism, which was only introduced after the Death of <"Rom.iv. 3 Christ,4 or, to speak more accurately, after the outpouring ofthe Holy Ghost, needs no special explanation. But our difficulties only 1 The Baptism of preparation for the 2 The Evangelist reports the message Kingdom could not have been adminis- which was brought to the Pharisees in tered by Him Who opened the Kingdom the very words in which it was delivered. of Heaven. THE ZEAL OF JOHN'S DISCIPLES FOR THEIR MASTER. 391 increase, as we remember the essential difference between them, CHAP. grounded on that between the Mission of John and the Teaching of VII Jesus. In the former, the Baptism of repentant preparation for the ' "" coming Kingdom had its deepest meaning; not so in presence of that Kingdom itself, and in the teaching of its King. But, even were it otherwise, the administration of the same rite by John and by the disciples of Jesus in apparently close proximity, seems not only unnecessary, but it might give rise to misconception on the part of enemies, and misunderstanding or jealousy on the part of weak disciples. Such was actually the case when, on one occasion, a discussion arose ' on the part of John's disciples with a Jew,' ' on the subject of purification.3. We know not the special point in dispute, nor «st. John iii. does it seem of much importance, since such ' questions ' would naturally suggest themselves to a caviller or opponent 2 who en countered those who were administering Baptism. What really interests us is, that somehow this Jewish objector must have con nected what he said with a reference to the Baptism of Jesus' disciples. For, immediately afterwards, the disciples of John, in their sore zeal for the "honour of their master, brought him tidings, in the language of doubt, if not of complaint, of what to them seemed interference with the work of the Baptist, and almost presumption on the part of Jesus. While fully alive to their grievous error, perhaps in proportion as we are so, we cannot but honour and sympathize with this loving care for their master. The toilsome mission of the great Ascetic was drawing to its close, and that without any tangible success, so far as he was concerned. Yet, to souls susceptible of the higher, to see him would be to be arrested ; to hear him, to be convinced ; to know, would be to love and venerate him. Never before had such deep earnestness and reality been witnessed, such devoted- ness, such humility and self-abnegation, and all in that great cause which set every Jewish heart on fire. And then, in the high-day of his power, when all men had gathered around him and hung on his lips ; when all wondered whether he would announce himself as the Christ, or, at least, as His Forerunner, or as one of the great Prophets ; when a word from him would have kindled that multitude into a 1 This, and not ' the Jews,' is the better in the other too high. In either case the reading. subject in dispute would not be baptisms, 2 Probably the discussion originated but the general subject of purifications — with John's disciples — the objector being a subject of such wide range in Jewish a Jew or a professing disciple of Christ, theology, that one of the six sections into who deprecated their views. In the one which the Mishnah or traditional Law is case they would in his opinion be too low ; divided, is specially devoted to'-it. 392 from JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK frenzy of enthusiasm — he had disclaimed everything for himself, and HI pointed to Another ! But this ' Coming One,' to Whom he had borne witness, had hitherto been quite other than their Master. And, as if this had not been enough, the multitudes, which had formerly come to John, now flocked around Jesus ; nay, He had even usurped the one distinctive function still left to their master, humble as it was. It was evident that, hated and watched by the Pharisees ; watched, also, by the ruthless jealousy of a Herod ; overlooked, if not supplanted, by Jesus, the mission of their master was nearing its close. It had been a life and work of suffering and self-denial ; it was about to end in loneliness and sorrow. They said nothing expressly to complain of Him to Whom John had borne witness, but they told of what He did, and how all men came to Him. The answer which the Baptist made, may be said to mark the high point of his life and witness. Never before was he so tender, almost sad ; never before more humble and self-denying, more earnest and faithful. The setting of his own life-sun was to be the rising of One infinitely more bright ; the end of his mission the begin ning of another far higher. In the silence, which was now gathering around him, he heard but One Voice, that of the Bridegroom, and he rejoiced in it, though he must listen to it in stillness and loneliness. For it he had waited and worked. Not his own, but this had he sought. And now that it had come, he was content ; more than con tent : his ' joy was now fulfilled.' ' He must increase, but I must decrease.' It was the right and good order. With these as his last words publicly spoken,1 this Aaron of the New Testament unrobed himself ere he lay down to die. Surely among those born of women there was not one greater than John. That these were his last words, publicly spoken and recorded, may, however, explain to us why on this exceptional occasion Jesus sanctioned the administration by His disciples of the Baptism of John. It was not a retrogression from the position He had taken in Jerusalem, nor caused by the refusal of His Messianic claims in the Temple.2 There is no retrogression, only progression, in the Life of Jesus. And yet it was only on this occasion, that the rite was administered under His sanction. But the circumstances were ex ceptional. It was John's last testimony to Jesus, and it was preceded by this testimony of Jesus to John. Far divergent, almost opposite, as from the first their paths had been, this practical sanction on the 1 The next event was John's imprison- 2 This strange suggestion is made by ment by Herod Godet. CHRIST'S TESTIMONY TO THE BAPTIST. 393 part of Jesus of John's Baptism, when the Baptist was about to CHAP. be forsaken, betrayed, and murdered, was Christ's highest testimony VU to him. Jesus adopted his Baptism, ere its waters for ever ceased to ' ' flow, and thus He blessed and consecrated them. He took up the work of His Forerunner, and continued it. The baptismal rite of John administered with the sanction of Jesus, was the highest witness that could be borne to it. There is no necessity for supposing that John and the disciples of Jesus baptized at, or quite close to, the same place. On the contrary, such immediate juxtaposition seems, for obvious reasons, unlikely. Jesus was within the boundaries of the province of Judasa, while John baptized at -_3__non (the springs), near to Salim. The latter site has not been identified. But the oldest tradition, which places it a few miles to the south of Bethshean (Scythopolis), on the border of Samaria and Galilee, has this in its favour, that it locates the scene of John's last public work close to the seat of Herod Antipas, into whose power the Baptist was so soon to be delivered.1 But already there were causes at work to remove both Jesus and His Forerunner from their present spheres of activity. As regards Christ, we have the express statement,1* that the machinations of the Pharisaic party in »st.john_v. Jerusalem led Him to withdraw into Galilee. And, as we gather from the notice of St. John, the Baptist was now involved in this hostility, as being so closely connected with Jesus. Indeed, we venture the suggestion that the imprisonment of the Baptist, although occasioned by his outspoken rebuke of Herod, was in great part due to the intrigues of the Pharisees. Of such a connection between them and Herod Antipas, we have direct evidence in a similar attempt to bring about the removal of Jesus from his territory.1* It would not have •> st. Luke been difficult to rouse the suspicions of a nature so mean and jealous xm' ' as that of Antipas, and this may explain the account of Josephus,0 » Ant. xviii. who attributes the imprisonment and death of the Baptist simply to * 2 1 No fewer than four localities have i. pp. 91-93) finds it in the Wady Fdr'ah, been identified with __Enon and Salim. which leads from Samaria to the Jordan. Ewald, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, and Here he describes most pictorially 'the Godet, seek it on the southern border of springs ' ' in the open valley surrounded Judasa (En-rimmon, Neh. xi. 29, comp. by desolate and shapeless hills,' with the Josh. xv. 1, 32). This seems so improbable village of Salim three miles south of the as scarcely to require discussion. Dr. valley, and the village of 'Aindn four Barclay (City of the Great King, pp. miles north of the stream. Against this 558-571) finds it a few miles from Jeru- there are, however, two objections. First, salem in the Wady Fdr'ah, but admits both __Enon and Salim would have been (p. 565) that there are doubts about in Samaria. Secondly, so far from being the Arab pronunciation of this Salim. close to each other, __Enon would have Lieut. Conder (Tent-Work in Palest., vol. been seven miles from Salim. 394 ^FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK Herod's suspicious fear of John's unbounded influence with the 111 people.1 Leaving for the present the Baptist, we follow the footsteps of the Master. They are only traced by the disciple who best understood their direction, and who alone has left us a record of the beginning of Christ's ministry. For St. Matthew and St. Mark expressly indicate *4*stIMk ± *^e imPrlS0nment °f tne Baptist as their starting-point, a and, though iv.'i2 St. Luke does not say this in so many words, he characteristically com mences with Christ's public Evangelic teaching in the Synagogues of _,?ee sp-»eroi;,. Galilee. Yet the narrative of St. Matthew b reads rather like a brief ally St. Matt. iv. 13 to end summary ; 2 that of St. Mark seems like a succession of rapid sketches ; and even that of St. Luke, though with deeper historic purpose than the others, outlines, rather than tells, the history. St. John alone does not profess to give a narrative at all in the ordinary sense ; but he selects incidents which are characteristic as unfolding the meaning xx'solsj1- °f ^na* Life, and records discourses which open its inmost teaching ; c xxi. 25 an(j kg aione teiig 0f that early Judaean ministry and the journey through Samaria, which preceded the Galilean work. « jos. Me, The shorter road from Judaea to Galilee led through Samaria ; d « Aut. xx. and this, if we may credit Josephus, e was generally taken by the Galileans on their way to the capital. On the other hand, the Judseans seem chiefly to have made a detour through Peraea, in order to avoid hostile and impure Samaria. It lay not within the scope of our Lord to extend His personal Ministry, especially at its com- ' st. Matt. x. mencement, beyond the boundaries of Israel/ and the expression, ' He est.joiuiiv. niust needs go through Samaria,'8 can only refer to the advisability 1 Ant. xviii. 5. 2 : ' But to some of the bellion, for they seemed ready to do any- Jews it appeared, that the destruction of thing by his counsel, deemed it best, before Herod's army came from God, and, in- anything new should happen through deed, as a righteous punishment on him, to put him to death, rather than account of what had been done to John, that, when a change should arise in who was surnamed the Baptist. For affairs, he might have to repent.' Comp. Herod ordered him to be killed, a good also Krebs. Observationes in Nov. Test. man, and who commanded the Jews to e Fl. Jos. pp. 35, 36. exercise virtue, both as to righteousness to- 2 I am so strongly impressed, with this, wards one another, and piety towards God, that I do not feel sure about Godet 's and so to come to baptism. For that the theory, that the calling of the four baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if Apostles recorded by the Synoptists (St. they made use of it, not for the putting Matt. iv. 18-22; St. Mark i. 16-20; St. away (remission) of some sins, but for Luke v. 1-11), had really taken place the purification of the body, after that during our Lord's first stay in Caper- the soul had been previously cleansed by naum (St. John ii. 12). On the whole, righteousness. And when others had however, the circumstances recorded by come in crowds, for they were exceed- the Synoptists seem to indicate a period ingly moved by hearing these words, in the Lord's Ministry beyond that early Herod, fearing lest such influence of his stay in Capernaum. over the people might lead to some re- 5 » 2 Chron. xxx. 1-26 ; xxxiv. 6 SAMARIA AND THE SAMARITANS. 395 in the circumstances of taking the most direct road,1 or else to the CHAP. wish of avoiding Peraea as the seat of Herod's government.2 Such VII prejudices in regard to Samaria, as those which affected the ordinary ' ' ' Judsean devotee, would, of course, not influence the conduct of Jesus. But great as these undoubtedly were, they have been unduly exagge rated by modern writers, misled by one-sided quotations from Babbinic works.3 The Biblical history of that part of Palestine which bore the name of Samaria need not here be repeated.3- Before the final deportation »Comp.i of Israel by Shalmaneser, or rather Sargon,4 the ' Samaria ' to which 32 ; xvi. 24 his operations extended must have considerably shrunk in dimensions, latu-piieser, not only owing to previous conquests, but from the circumstance that xv. 29 ; shai- the authority of the kings of Judah seems to have extended over a xvii. 3-5'; considerable portion of what once constituted the kingdom of Israel.b sargon, xvii. Probably the Samaria of that time included little more than the city of that name, together with some adjoining towns and villages. It is of considerable interest to remember that the places, to which the inhabitants of Samaria were transported,0 have been identified with c 2 Kings such clearness as to leave no reasonable doubt, that at least some of the descendants of the ten tribes, whether mixed or unmixed with Gentiles, must be sought among what are now known as the Nestorian Christians.5 On the other hand, it is of no practical importance for our present purpose to ascertain the exact localities, whence the new ' Samaritans ' were brought to take the place of the Israelitish exiles. d d 2 Kings . xvii. 24-26 ; Suffice it, that one of them, perhaps that which contributed the comp. Bzr. principal settlers, Cuthah, furnished the name Cuthim, by which the Jews afterwards persistently designated the Samaritans. It was in tended as a term of reproach,e to mark that they were of foreign « st. John race/ 6 and to repudiate all connection between them and the Jews. ™' t8 , ..... St. Luke Yet it is impossible to believe that, at least in later times, they did xtU- 16 not contain a considerable admixture of Israelitish elements. It is difficult to suppose, that the original deportation was so complete as to leave behind no traces of the original Israelitish inhabitants.8 *comp.a ° Chron. xxxiv. 6, 9; 1 I cannot agree with Archdeacon Pentat. p. 1118) cannot be verified — pro- ^er- xlL V Watkins, that the 'needs go' was in bably owing to printer's mistakes. order ' to teach in Samaria, as in Judsea, 4 Comp. Smith's Bible Diet., Art. Sar- the principles of true religion and wor- gon; and Schrader, Keil-Inschr. u. d. Alte ship.' Test. p. 158 &c. 2 So Bengel and Luthardt. s Of course, not all the ten tribes. s Much as has been written about Comp. previous remarks on their migra- Samaria, the subject has not been quite tions. satisfactorily treated. Some of the 6 The expression cannot, however, be passages referred to by Deutsch (Smith's pressed as implying that the Samaritans Diet, of the Bible, vol. iii,, Art. Samaritan were of entirely Gentile blood. * Jos. Ant. xvii. 30, 31 396 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK Their number would probably be swelled by fugitives from Assyria, HI and by Jewish settlers in the troublous times that followed. After wards, as we know, they were largely increased by apostates and • 2> 6> r rebels against the order of things established by Ezra and Nehemiah.a Similarly, during the period of internal political and religious troubles, which marked the period to the accession of the Maccabees, the separation between Jews and Samaritans could scarcely have been generally observed, the more so that Alexander the Great placed them in close juxtaposition.1 The first foreign colonists of Samaria brought their peculiar forms * 2 Kings of idolatry* with them.b But the Providential judgments, by which they were visited, led to the introduction of a spurious Judaism, consisting of a mixture of their former superstitions with Jewish doctrines and • w. 28-41 rites. c Although this state of matters resembled that which had obtained in the original kingdom of Israel, perhaps just because of this, Ezra and Nehemiah, when reconstructing the Jewish common wealth, insisted on a strict separation between those who had returned from Babylon and the Samaritans, resisting equally their offers of co-operation and their attempts at hindrance. This embittered the national feeling of jealousy already existing, and' led to that constant hostility between Jews and Samaritans which has continued to this day. The religious separation became final when (at a date which cannot be precisely, fixed 2) the Samaritans built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, and Manasseh,3 the brother of Jaddua, the Jewish High-Priest, having refused to annul his marriage with the daughter of Sanballat, was forced to flee, and became the High-Priest of the new Sanctuary. Henceforth, by impudent assertion and falsifica tion of the text of the Pentateuch,4 Gerizim was declared the right ful centre of worship, and the doctrines and rites of the Samaritans exhibited a curious imitation and adaptation of those prevalent in Judaea. We cannot here follow in detail the history of the Samaritans, nor explain the dogmas and practices peculiar to them. The latter would be the more difficult, because so many of their views were simply corruptions of those of the Jews, and because, from the want of an authenticated ancient literature,5 the origin and meaning of many of 1 Comp. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes miah, is fully discussed by Petermann Isr. ii. p. 120. (Herzog's Real-Enc. vol. xiii. p. 366). 2 Jost thinks it existed even before the 4 For a very full criticism of that time of Alexander. Comp. Nutt, Samar. Pentateuch, see Mr. Deutsch's Art. in Hist. p. 16, note 2. Smith's Bible-Diet. 3 The difficult question, whether this * Comp. the sketch of it in NuU's is the Sanballat of the Book of Nehe- Samar. Hist., and Petermann's Art. HISTORY OF SAMARIA. 397 them have been forgotten.1 Sufficient, however, must be said to CHAP. explain the mutual relations at the time when the Lord, sitting on VII Jacob's well, first spake to the Samaritans of the better worship ' in spirit and truth,' and opened that well of living water which has never since ceased to flow. The political history of the people can be told in a few sentences. Their Temple,2 to which reference has been made, was built, not in Samaria but at Shechem — probably on account of the position held by that city in the former history of Israel — and on Mount Gerizim, which in the Samaritan Pentateuch' was substituted for Mount Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4. It was Shechem also, with its sacred associations of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, which became the real capital of the Samaritans. The fate of the city of Samaria under the reign of Alexander is uncertain — one account speaking of the rebellion of the city, the murder of the Macedonian governor, the consequent destruc tion of Samaria, and the slaughter of part, and transportation of the rest, of its inhabitants to Shechem,3 while Josephus is silent on these events. When, after the death of Alexander, Palestine became the field of battle between the rulers of Egypt and Syria, Samaria suffered even more than other parts of the country. In 320 B.C. it passed from the rule of Syria to that of Egypt (Ptolemy Lagi). Six years later a it again became Syrian (Antigonus). Only three years after- • in 314 wards,b Ptolemy reconquered and held it for a very short time. On b in 311 his retreat, he destroyed the walls of Samaria and of other towns. In 301 it passed again by treaty into the hands of Ptolemy, but in 298 it was once more ravaged by the son of Antigonus. After that it enjoyed a season of quiet under Egyptian rule, till the reign of Antiochus (III.) the Great, when it again passed temporarily, and under his successor, Seleucus IV. (Philopator),0 permanently under = w-175 Syrian dominion. In the troublous times of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes,"1 -> 175-164 the Samaritans escaped the fate of the Jews by repudiating all con- 1 As instances we may mention the Reland (de Monte Garis. hi., apud TJgo- names of the Angels and devils. One lini, Thes. vol. vii. pp. 717, 718), who ex- of the latter is called Yatsara (IPS'1). plains the name as TeAeSov va6s, sterco- which Petermann derives from Deut. reum delubrum, corresponding to the i. 21, and Nutt from Ex. xxiii. 28. I Samaritan designation of the Temple at have little doubt, it is only a corruption Jerusalem as Nr,C,pU n,3 „,des sterco- of Yetser haRa. Indeed thelatter and rea_ Frankel hir^[t (Palast, Ex Satan are expressly identified m Baba B. 24g) deriveg the expression from vKdTams 15 a. Many of the Samaritan views seem ^ reference to Gen. xxxv. 4. Eut thia only corruptions and adaptations of those seems ite untenable. May not the current in Palestine, which, indeed, m the ^ , circumstances, might have been expected. term be a compound of £72, to spit out, 2 The Jews termed it DUcta (Ber. E. an3 ™* Herzfeld, a. s. ii. p. 120. 81). Frankel ridicules the derivation of r J r 898 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III a According to Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 5, ...Ajji'io. ; according to 2 Mace. vi. 2, fen is b Between 113 and 105 c Ant. xiv. 5.3 * Ant. xx. 8. 5 ; Jewish War i. 21. 2 e Ant. xviii. 4. 2 f See speci ally War iii. 3.4, 5 e For ex. Baba B. iii. h For ex. Jer. Chag. iii. 4 1 Gitt. vii. 8 * War iii. 3. 4,5 nection with Israel, and dedicating their temple to Jupiter." In the contest between Syria and the Maccabees which followed, the Samaritans, as might be expected, took the part of the former. In 130 B.C. John Hyrcanus destroyed the Temple on Mount Gerizim,1 which' was never rebuilt. The city of Samaria was taken several years afterwards b 2 by the sons of Hyrcanus (Antigonus and Aristo bulus), after a year's siege, and the successive defeat of Syrian and Egyptian armies of relief. Although the city was now not only destroyed, but actually laid under water to complete its ruin, it was rebuilt by Gabinius shortly before our era,c and greatly enlarged and beautified by Herod, who called it Sebaste in honour of Augustus, to whom he reared a magnificent temple.d Under Boman rule the city enjoyed great privileges — had even a Senate of its own.e By one of those striking coincidences which mark the Bule of God in history, it was the accusation brought against him by that Samaritan Senate which led to the deposition of Pilate. By the side of Samaria, or Sebaste, we have already marked as perhaps more important, and as the religious capital, the ancient Shechem, which, in honour of the Imperial family of Bome, ultimately obtained the name of Flavia Neapolis, which has survived in the modern Nablus. It is interesting to notice that the Samaritans also had colonies, although not to the same extent as the Jews. Among them we may name those of Alexandria, Damascus, in Babylonia, and even some by the shores of the Bed Sea.3 Although not only in the New Testament, but in 1 Mace. x. 30, and in the writings of Josephus,f Western Palestine is divided into the provinces of Judsea, Samaria, and Galilee, the Babbis, whose ideas were shaped by the observances of Judaism, ignore this division. For them Palestine consisted only of Judsea, Peraea, and Galilee.8 Samaria appears merely as a strip intervening between Judaea and Galilee, being ' the land of the Cuthaeans.' h Nevertheless, it was not regarded like heathen lands, but pronounced clean. Both the Mishnah l and Josephus k mark Anuath ('s^n 15? ISd) as the southern boundary of Samaria (towards Judsea). Northward it extended to 1 It is very probable that the date 25 Marcheshvan (Nov.) in the Megiii. Taan. refers to the capture of Samaria. Both the Talmud (Jer. Sot. ix. 14 ; Sot. 33 a) and Josephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 7) refer to a Bath Qol announcing this victory to Hyrcanus while he ministered in the Sanctuaiy at Jerusalem. 2 Not a few of the events of Herod's life were connected with Samaria. There he married the beautiful and ill-fated Mariamme (Ant. xiv, 12. 1); and there, thirty years later, her two sons were strangled by order of the jealous tyrant (Ant. xvi. 11. 2-7), 3 Comp. Nutt, Samar. Hist. p. 26, note, and the authorities there quoted. JEWS AND SAMARITANS. 399 Ginsea (the ancient En-Gannim) on the south side of the plain of CHAP. Jezreel ; on the east it was bounded by the Jordan ; and on the west VI1 by the plain of Sharon, which was reckoned as belonging to Judsea. Thus it occupied the ancient territories of Manasseh and Ephraim, and extended about forty-eight miles (north and south) by forty (east and west). In aspect and climate it resembled Judsea, only that the scenery was more beautiful and the soil more fertile. The political enmity and religious separation between the Jews and Samaritans account for their mutual jealousy. On all public occasions the Samaritans took the part hostile to the Jews, while they seized every opportunity of injuring and insulting them. Thus, in the time of Antiochus III. they sold many Jews into slavery." Afterwards they ¦ Ant. xii. sought to mislead the Jews at a distance, to whom the beginning of every month (so important in the Jewish festive arrangements) was intimated by beacon-fires, by kindling spurious signals.15 We also "Kosh read that they tried to desecrate the Temple on the eve of the Passover ; u and that they waylaid and killed pilgrims on their road ° A)nt- XTiii- to Jerusalem.* The Jews retaliated by treating the Samaritans with d Ant. xx. every mark of contempt ; by accusing them of falsehood, folly, and 6" ' irreligion ; and, what they felt most keenly, by disowning them as of the same race or religion, and this in the most offensive terms of assumed superiority and self-righteous fanaticism. In view of these relations, we almost wonder at the candour and moderation occasionally displayed towards the Samaritans in Jewish writings. These statements are of practical importance in this history, since elaborate attempts have been made to show what articles of food the disciples of Jesus might have bought in Samaria, in ignorance that almost all would have been lawful. Our inquiry here is, how ever, somewhat complicated by the circumstance that in Babbinic writings, as at present existing, the term Samaritans (Cuthim1) has, to avoid the censorship of the press, been often purposely substituted for 'Sadducees,' or 'heretics,' i.e. Christians. Thus, when" the «ninSanh. Samaritans are charged with denying in their books that the Besur rection can be proved from the Pentateuch, the real reference is supposed to have been to Sadducean or Christian heretical writings. Indeed, the terms Samaritans, Sadducees, and heretics are used so interchangeably, that a careful inquiry is necessary, to show in each case which of them is really meant.2 Still more frequent is the use 1 The more exact translation would, of reasons, it is impossible always to adopt course, be Kuthim, but I have written a uniform or exact system of translitera- Cuthim on account of the reference to tion. 2 Kings xxvii. 24. Indeed, for various 2 Thus in Ber. 57 b Cuthaean is evi- 90 6 400 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III ¦Ecclus. 1. 25,26 "> Test. Levi. vii. « Ber. viii. 8 d Sheq. i. 5 8 Jer. Abhod, Z. v. 4, p. 44 d ' Sanh. 85 b ; Chull. 3 b ; Kidd. 75 6 e Jer. Sheq. 46 6 »> Jer. Demai iii. 4 ' Comp. also Jer. Dem. vi. 11 ; Jer. Ber. vii. 1 ; and Jer. Keth. 27 a of the term ' Samaritan' (»m_.) for ' stranger' (n__:), the latter, and not strictly Samaritan descent, being meant.1 The popular inter change of these terms casts light on the designation of the Samaritan as ' a stranger ' by our Lord in St. Luke xvii. 18. In general it may be said that, while on certain points Jewish opinion remained always the same, the judgment passed on the Samaritans, and especially as to intercourse with them, varied, accord ing as they showed more or less active hostility towards the Jews. Thus the Son of Sirach would correctly express the feeling of con tempt and dislike, when he characterised the Samaritans as 'the foolish people ' which his ' heart abhorred.' a The same sentiment appears in early Christian Pseudepigraphic and in Babbinic writings. In the so-called ' Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs' (which probably dates from the beginning of the second century), ' Sichem ' is the City of Fools, derided by all men.b It was only natural, that Jews should be forbidden to respond by an Amen to the benediction of Samaritans, at any rate till they were sure it had been correctly spoken,0 since they were neither in practice nor in theory regarded as co-religionists. d2 Yet they were not treated as heathens, and their land, their springs, baths, houses, and roads were declared clean.e The question was discussed, whether or not they were to be con sidered ' lion-proselytes ' (from fear of the lions), or as genuine converts ; f and, again, whether or not they were to be regarded as heathens. g This, and the circumstance that different teachers at different times gave directly opposite replies to these questions, proves that there was no settled principle on the subject, but that opinions varied according to the national bearing of the Samaritans. Thus, we are expressly told,h that at one time both their testimony and their religious orthodoxy were more credited than at others, and they are not treated as Gentiles, but placed on the same level as an ignorant Jew. A marked difference of opinion here prevails. The older tradition, as represented by Simon the son of Gamaliel, regards them as in every respect like Israelites;1 whilst later authority (Babbi dently used for ' idolater.' An instance of the Jewish use of the term Cuthfean for Christian occurs in Ber, B. 64, where the Imperial permission to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem is said to have been frustrated by Cuthfean intrigue, the text here evidently referring by that expression not to Samaritans, but to Christians, however silly the charge against them, See Joel, Blicke in d. Belig. Gesch. p. 17. Comp. also Frankel u. s. p. 244 ; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 49, note 2. 1 Frankel quotes as a notable instance of it, Ber. viii. 8, and refers in proof to the Jerus. Talmud on this Mishnah. But,' for reasons soon to be explained, I am not pre pared in this instance to adopt his view. 2 As in the case of heathens, neither Temple-tribute, nor any other than free will and votive offerings were received from them. ' THE JEWS HAVE NO DEALINGS "WITH THE SAMARITANS.' 401 Jehuda the Holy) would have them considered and treated as heathens. CHAP. Again, it is expressly stated in the Babylon Talmud,* that the Samari- Vll tans observed the letter ofthe Pentateuch, while one authority adds, that B"T "" in that which they observed they were more strict than the Jews themselves.1" Of this, indeed, there is evidence as regards several bComp. ordinances. On the other hand, later authorities again reproach them " 4 " with falsification of the Pentateuch, charge them with worshipping a dove,0 and even when, on further inquiry, they absolve them from this ochuii. a a, accusation, ascribe their excessive veneration for Mount Gerizim to the circumstance that they worshipped the idols which Jacob had buried under the oak at Shechem. To the same hatred, caused by national persecution, we must impute such expressions as d that he, dsanh. who hospitably receives a Samaritan, has himself to blame if his children have to go into captivity. The expression, ' the Jews have no dealings with the Sama ritans,' e finds its exact counterpart f in this : ' May I never set eyes • st. John on a Samaritan ;' or else, ' May I never be thrown into company with , ¦^egm <> him ! ' A Babbi in Csesarea explains, as the cause of these changes of opinion, that formerly the Samaritans had been observant of the Law, which they no longer were ; a statement repeated in another form to the effect, that their observance of it lasted as long as they were in their own cities.8 Matters proceeded so far, that they were « Jer.Abhoa, entirely excluded from fellowship.11 The extreme limit of this direc- „ Jj.un 6 a tion,1 if, indeed, the statement applies to the Samaritans,1 is marked ' shebhyith by the declaration, that to partake of their bread was like eating swine's flesh. This is further improved upon in a later Bab binic work,k which gives a detailed story of how the Samaritans * Yalkut a. had conspired against Ezra and Nehemiah, and the ban been laid upon them, so that now not only was all intercourse with them forbidden, but their bread declared like swine's flesh ; proselytes were not to be received from them ; nor would they have part in the Besurrection of the dead.2 But there is a great differ ence between all this extravagance and the opinions prevailing at the time of Jesus. Even in the Babbinic tractate on the Sama ritans111 it is admitted, that in most of their usages they resembled mMasse- IsraeliteSj and many rights and privileges are conceded to them, from KutVim. in which a heathen would have been excluded. They are to be ' ere- sepu™""' Liljri I'f.rvi 1 The expression literally applies to bitants of Palestine, far from enjoying pp.' 31-ao idolaters. the blessings of that period, would be 2 In Jer. Kil. ix. 4, p. 32 c (middle) the made intosections (or,inade like cloth [?]), question of the Besurrection is discussed, and then burnt up. when it is said that the Samaritan inha- VOL. I. D D p. 36 d 402 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. Chull. 3 b 31 ; 90 6 BOOK dited ' on many points ; their meat is declared clean, if an Israelite HI had witnessed its killing, or a Samaritan ate of it ; a their bread ¦ and, under certain conditions, even their wine, are allowed ; and the final prospect is held out of their reception into the Synagogue, when they shall have given up their faith in Mount Gerizim, and acknow ledged Jerusalem and the Besurrection of the dead. But Jewish toleration went even further. At the time of Christ all their food was ^Jer. Abhod. declared lawful.b There could, therefore, be no difficulty as regarded the purchase of victuals on the part of the disciples of Jesus. It has already been stated, that most of the peculiar doctrines of the Samaritans were derived from Jewish sources. As might be expected, their tendency was Sadducean rather than Pharisaic.2 ma&'izb'' Nevertheless, Samaritan 'sages' are referred to.0 But it is diffi cult to form any decided opinion about the doctrinal views of the sect, partly from the comparative lateness of their literature, and partly because the Babbinist charges against them cannot be abso lutely trusted. It seems at least doubtful, whether they really denied ' siphns on the Besurrection, as asserted by the Babbis,d from whom the Fathers Numb. xv. 7 J 7 have copied the charge.3 Certainly, they hold that doctrine at pre sent. They strongly believed in the Unity of God ; they held the doctrine of Angels and devils ; 4 they received the Pentateuch as of sole Divine authority ; 5 they regarded Mount Gerizim as the place chosen of God, maintaining that it alone had not been covered by the Flood, as the Jews asserted of Mount Moriah ; they were most strict and zealous in what of Biblical or traditional Law they 1 In Jer. Orlah ii. 12 the question is the position of the Fathers, but holds that discussed, how long after the Passover it the Samaritans did not even believe in the is not lawful to use bread baked by immortality of the soul, and maintained Samaritans, showing that ordinarily it that the world was eternal. The ' Sa- was lawful. maritan Chronicle ' datet from the thir- 2 The doctrinal views, the festive ob- teenth century, but Grimm maintains servances, and the literature of the that it embodies the earlier views of that Samaritans of a later period, cannot be people (u. s. p. 107). discussed in this place. For further in- * This seems inconsistent with their formation we refer to the following: — disbelief of the Besurrection, and also The Articles in Smith's Dictionary of the casts doubt on the patristic testimony Bible, in Winer's Bibl. Beal- Worterb., and about them, since Leontius falsely accuses especially in Herzog's Eeal-Encykl. (by them of rejecting the doctrine of Angels. Petermann) ; to Juynboll, Comment, in Epiphanius, on the other hand, attributes Hist. Gentis Samarit. ; Jost, Gesch. des to them belief in Angels. Roland main- Judenth. ; Herzfeld, Gesch. des jiidisch. tains, that they regarded the Angels as Volkes, passim ; Frankel, Einfluss der merely ' powers '—a sort of impersonal Palast. Exeg. pp. 237-254 ; Nutt, Sketch abstractions ; Grimm thinks there were of Samaritan History, &c. two sects of Samaritans— one believing, 3 Epiphanius, Hseres. ix., xiv. ; Leontius, the other disbelieving, in Angels. De Sectis viii. ; Gregory the Great, s For their horrible distortion of later Moral, i. xv. Grimm (Die Samariter &c, Jewish Biblical history, see Grimm (u. s.), pp. 91 &c), not only strongly defends p. 107. CHRIST AND THE SAMARITANS. 403 received ; and lastly, and most important of all, they looked for the CHAP. coming of a Messiah, in Whom the promise would be fulfilled, that VII the Lord God would raise up a Prophet from the midst of them, like ' ' unto Moses, in Whom his words were to be, and unto Whom they should hearken.8,1 Thus, while, in some respects, access to them » Deut. xviii. would be more difficult than to His own countrymen, yet in others Jesus would find there a soil better prepared for the Divine Seed, or, at least, less encumbered by the thistles and tares of traditionalism and Pharisaic bigotry. 1 They expected that this Messiah that the idea of a Messiah the Son of would finally convert all nations to Sama- Joseph, which holds so large a place in ritanism ( Grimm, p. 99). But there is later Babbinic theology, was of Samaritan no historic ground for the view of Mr. origin. Nutt (Sketch of Samar. Hist. pp. 40, 69) bb2 404 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB VIII. JESUS AT THE WELL OP SYCHAR. (St. John iv. 1-42.) BOOK Theee is not a district in ' the Land of Promise ' which presents a 111 scene more fair or rich than the plain of Samaria (the modern El Mukhna). As we stand on the summit of the ridge, on the way from Shiloh, the eye travels over the wide sweep, extending more than seven miles northward, till it rests on the twin heights of Gerizim and Ebal, which enclose the valley of Shechem. Following the straight olive-shaded road from the south, to where a spur of Gerizim, jutting south-east, forms the Vale of Shechem, we stand by that ' Well of Jacob ' to which so many sacred memories attach. Here, in ' the parcel of ground ' afterwards given to Joseph,1 which Jacob had bought from the people of the land, the patriarch had, at great labour and cost, sunk a well through the limestone rock. At present it is partially filled with rubbish and stones, but originally it must have gone down about 150 feet.2 As the whole district abounds in springs, the object of the patriarch must have been to avoid occasion of strife with the Amorite herdsmen around. That well marks the boundary of the Great Plain, or rather its extensions bear other names. To the left (westwards), between Gerizim (on the south) and Ebal (on the north), winds the valley of olive-clad Shechem, the modern Nablus, though that town is not in view from the Well of Sychar. Still higher up the same valley, the mud hovels of 1 The reference here is to Gen. xlviii. hand, this may be regarded as another 22. Wiinsche, indeed, objects that this undesigned proof of the Johannine author- application of the passage is inaccurate, ship of the Fourth Gospel. and contrary to universal Babbinic tra- 2 The present depth of the well is about dition. But in this, as in other instances, seventy-five feet. Most travellers have it is not the Gospel, but rather Dr. given more or less pictorial accounts of Wiinsche, who is inaccurate. If the Jacob's Well. We refer here especially reader will refer to Geiger's Urschr. p. 80, to Mr. King's Report (Quarterly Stat, of he will find proof that the Evangelist's the Pal. Explor. Fund, Ap. 1879), although rendering of Gen xlviii. 22 was in ac- it contains tbe strange mistake tliat cordance with ancient Babbinic tradition, Jesus had that day come from Jerusalem, which was only afterwards altered for and reached Jacob's Well by midday. anti-Samaritan purposes. On the other 18,19 AT 'THE WELL OF JACOB.' 405 Sebastiyeh mark the site of ancient Samaria, the magnificent Sebaste CHAP of Herod. North of the entrance to the Vale of Shechem rises VIII Mount Ebal, which also forms, so to speak, the western wall of the "~ ' ~ northern extension of the Plain of Samaria. Here it bears the name of El 'Askar, from Askar, the ancient Sychar, which nestles at the foot of Ebal, at a distance of about two miles from Shechem. Similarly, the eastern extension of the plain bears the name of the Valley of Shalem, from the hamlet of that name, which probably occupies the site of the ancient city before which Jacob pitched his tent on his return to Canaan.* "Gen.xxxiii. At ' the Well of Jacob,' which, for our present purpose, may be regarded as the centre of the scene, several ancient Boman roads meet and part. That southward, to which reference has already been made, leads close by Shiloh to Jerusalem ; that westward traverses the vale of Shechem ; that northward brings us to the ancient Sychar, only about half a mile from ' the Well.' Eastward there are two ancient Boman roads : one winds south-east, till it merges in the main road ; the other strikes first due east, and then descends in a south-easterly direction through Wady Fardh, which debouches into the Jordan. We can trace it as it crosses the waters of that Wady, and we infer, that its immediate neighbourhood must have been the scene where Jesus had taught, and His disciples baptized. It is still in Judsea, and yet sufficiently removed from Jerusalem ; and the Wady is so full of springs that one spot near it actually bears the name of 'Ainun, ' springs,' like the ancient Mnon. But, from the spot which we have indicated, it is about twenty miles, across a somewhat difficult country, to Jacob's Well. It would be a long and toilsome day's journey thither on a summer day, and we can understand how, at its end, Jesus would rest weary on the low parapet which enclosed the Well, while His disciples went to buy the necessary provisions in the neighbouring Sychar. And it was, as we judge, the evening of a day in early summer,1 when Jesus, accompanied by the small band which formed His disciples,2 emerged into the rich Plain of Samaria. Far as the eye could sweep, ' the fields ' were ' already white unto the harvest.' 1 For ' the location of Sychar,' and the and the general designation of the dis- vindication of the view that the event ciples without naming them, Caspari took place at the beginning of the wheat concludes that only John, and perhaps harvest, or about the middle of May, see Nathanael, but none of the other apostles, Appendix XV. The question is of con- had accompanied Jesus on this journey siderable importance. (Chronol. Geogr. Einl. p. 104). 2 From the silence of the Synoptists, 406 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK They had reached ' the Well of Jacob.' There Jesus waited, while III the others went to Sychar on their work of ministry. Probably John ~" ' " remained with the Master. They would scarcely have left Him alone, especially in that place; and the whole narrative reads like that of one who had been present at what passed.1 More than any other, perhaps, in the Fourth Gospel, it bears the mark, not only of Judasan, but of contemporary authorship. It seems utterly incompatible with the modern theory of its Ephesian origin at the end of the second century. The location of the scene, not in Sebaste or Shechem, but at Sychar,2 which in the fourth century at least had so entirely ceased to be Samaritan, that it had become the home of some celebrated Babbis ; 3 the intimate knowledge of Samaritan and Jewish relations, which at the time of Christ allowed the purchase of food, but would certainly not have conceded it two centuries later ; even the intro duction of such a statement as ' Salvation is of the Jews,' wholly inconsistent with the supposed scope of an Ephesian Gospel — these are only some of the facts which will occur to the student of that period, as bearing unsolicited testimony to the date and nationality of the writer. Indeed, there is such minuteness of detail about the narrative and with it such charm of simplicity, affectionateness, reverence, and depth of spiritual insight, as to carry not only the conviction of its truthfulness, but almost instinctively to suggest to us 'the beloved disciple ' as its witness. Already he had taken the place nearest to Jesus, and saw and spake as none other of the disciples. Jesus weary, and resting while the disciples go to buy food, is not an Ephesian, but a truly Evangelic presentation of the Christ in His human weakness and want. All around would awaken in the Divinely-attuned soul of the Divine Bedeemer the thoughts which so soon afterwards found appropriate words and deeds. He is sitting by Jacob's Well — the very well which the ancestor of Israel had digged, and left as a memorial of his first and symbolic possession of the land. Yet this was also the scene of Israel's first rebellion against God's order, against the Davidic line and the Temple. And now Christ is here, among those who are not of Israel, and who persecute it. Surely this, of all others, would be 1 Caspari (u. s. p. 103) thinks that mentioned by the Babbis, argues that John only related that of which he him- the use of the name Sychar for Shechem self was an eyewitness, except, perhaps, affords evidence that the Fourth Gospel in ch. xviii. 33, &c. is of Gentile- Christian origin. 2 It is very characteristic when Schenkel, » See Appendix XV. in ignorance of the fact that Sychar is THE WIDER BEARING OF THIS HISTORY. 407 the place where the Son of David, cast out of Jerusalem and the CHAP. Temple, would think of the breach, and of what alone could heal it. VIII He is hungry, and those fields are white to the harvest ; yet far more ' ' hungering for that spiritual harvest which is the food of His soul. Over against Him, sheer up 800 feet, rises Mount Gerizim, with the ruins of the Samaritan rival Temple on it ; just as far behind Him, already overhung by the dark cloud of judgment, are that Temple and City which knew not the day of their visitation. The one inquiring woman, and she a Samaritan, and the few only partially comprehend ing and much misunderstanding disciples ; their inward thinking that for the spiritual harvest it was but seed-time, and the reaping yet ' four months distant,' while in reality, as even their eyes might see if they but lifted them, the fields were white unto the harvest : all this, and much more, forms a unique background to the picture of this narrative. To take another view of the varying lights on that picture : Jesus weary and thirsty by Jacob's Well, and the water of life which was to spring from, and by that Well, with its unfailing supply and its un ending refreshment ! The spiritual in all this bears deepest symbolic analogy to the outward — yet with such contrasts also, as the woman giving to Christ the one, He to her the other ; she unconsciously be ginning to learn, He unintendingly (for He had not even entered Sychar) beginning to teach, and that, what He could not yet teach in Judaea, scarcely even to His own disciples ; then the complete change in the woman, and the misapprehension a and non-reception b of the * st. John disciples — and over it all the weary form of the Man Jesus, opening as the Divine Christ the well of everlasting life, the God-Man satisfied with the meat of doing the Will, and finishing the Work, of Him that sent Him : such are some of the thoughts suggested by the scene. And still others rise, as we think of the connection in the narra tive of St. John of this with what preceded and with what follows. It almost seems as if that Gospel were constructed in cycles, each beginning, or at least connected, with Jerusalem, and leading up to a grand climax. Thus, the first cycle b might be called that of purifi- » a. 13-iv. cation : first, that of the Temple ; then, inward purification by the Baptism from above ; next, the symbolic Baptism of water ; lastly, the real water of life given by Jesus ; and the climax — Jesus the Bestorer of life to them that believe. Similarly, the second cycle,0 beginning with the idea of water in its symbolic application to real worship and life from Jesus, would carry us a stage further ; and so onward through- ! v.-vi. 3 408 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK out the Gospel. Along with this we may note, as another peculiarity 111 of the Fourth Gospel, that it seems arranged according to this definite ' ' " plan of grouping together in each instance the work of Christ, as followed by the illustrative word of Christ. Thus the fourth would, both externally and internally, be the pre-eminently Judaian Gospel, characterised by cyclical order, illustrative conjunction of work and word, and progressively leading up to the grand climax of Christ's last discourses, and finally of His Death and Besurrection, with the teaching that flows from the one and the other. It was about six o'clock in the evening,1 when the travel-stained pilgrims reached that ' parcel of ground ' which, according to ancient Jewish tradition, Jacob had given to his son Joseph.2 Here (as already stated) by the ' Well of Jacob ' where the three roads — south, to Shechem, and to Sychar (Askar) — meet and part, Jesus sat down, while the disciples (probably with the exception of John) went on to the closely adjoining little town of Sychar to buy food. Even this latter circumstance marks that it was evening, since noon was not the time either for the sale of provisions, nor for their purchase by travellers. Once more it is when the true Humanity of Jesus is set before us, in the weakness of His hunger and weariness,3 that the glory of His Divine Personality suddenly shines through it. This time it was a poor, ignorant Samaritan woman,4 who came, not for any religious purpose — indeed, to whom religious thought, except within her own very narrow circle, was almost unintelligible — who became the occasion , of it. She had come — like so many of us, who find the pearl in the field which we occupy in the business of everyday-life — on humble, ordinary duty and work. Men call it common ; but there is nothing common and unclean that God has sanctified by making use of it, or which His Presence and teaching may transform into a vision from heaven. 1 We have already expressed our belief, to Jesus ' to tarry ' with them (v. 40), that in the Fourth Gospel time is reckoned are in favour of our view. Indeed, St. not according to the Jewish mode, but John xix. 14 renders it impossible to according to the Eoman civil day, from adopt the Jewish mode of reckoning. midnight to midnight. For a full dis- 2 See a previous note on p. 404. cussion and proof of this, with notice of 3 Godet rightly asks what, in view of objections, see McLellan's New Test. vol. this, becomes of the supposed Docetism i. pp. 737-743. It must surely be a lapsus which, according to the Tubingen school, when at p. 288 (note o), the same author is one of the characteristics of the Fourth seems to assume the contrary. Meyer Gospel 1 objects, that, if it had been 6 p.m., 4 By which we are to understand a there would not have been time for woman from the country, not the town of the after-events recorded. But they Samaria, a Samaritaness. The suggestion, could easily find a place in the delicious that she resorted to Jacob's Well on ac- cool of a summer's evening, and both the count of its sanctity, scarcely requires coming up of the Samaritans (most un- refutation. likely at noon-time), and their invitation 'GIVE ME TO DRINK.' 409 There was another well (the 'Ain 'Askar), on the east side of the CHAP. little town, and much nearer to Sychar than ' Jacob's Well ; ' and Vin to it probably the women of Sychar generally resorted. It should also be borne in mind, that in those days such work no longer de volved, as in early times, on the matrons and maidens of fair degree, but on women in much humbler station. This Samaritaness may have chosen ' Jacob's Well,' perhaps, because she had been at work in the fields close by ; or else, because her abode was nearer in that direction — for the ancient Sychar may have extended southward ; perhaps, because, if her character was what seems implied in verse 18, the concourse of the more common women at the village-well of an evening might scarcely be a pleasant place of resort to one with her history. In any case, we may here mark those Providential leadings in our everyday life, to which we are so often almost as much spiritually indebted, as to grace itself ; which, indeed, form part of the dispensation of grace. Perhaps we should also note how, all unconsciously to her (as so often to us), poverty and sin sometimes bring to the well by which Jesus sits weary, when on His return from self-righteous Judaea. But these are only symbols ; the barest facts of the narrative are themselves sufficiently full of spiritual interest. Both to Jesus and to the woman, the meeting was unsought, Providential in the truest sense — God-brought. Beverently, so far as the Christ is concerned, we add, that both acted truly — according to what was in them. The request : ' Give Me to drink,' was natural on the part of the thirsty traveller, when the woman had come to draw water, and they who usually ministered to Him were away.a Even if He had not spoken, the Samaritaness would have recognised the Jew by His appearance l and dress, if, as seems likely, He wore the fringes on the border of His garment.2 His speech would, by its pronunciation, place His nationality beyond doubt.3 Any kindly address, conveying a request not absolutely necessary, would naturally surprise the woman ; for, as 1 According to the testimony of travel- s Tliere were, undoubtedly, marked lers, the Samaritans, with the exception differences of pronunciation between of the High-Priestly family, have -not the the Jews and the Samaritans. Without common, well-known type of Jewish face entering into details, it may be said, that and feature. they chiefly concern the vowel-sounds; 2 The 'fringes' on the Tallith of the and among consonants the gutturals Samaritans are blue, while those worn by (which are generally not pronounced), the Jews, whether on the Arba Kanplioth the aspirates, and tlie letter £>, which is or the Tallith, are white. The Samaritans not, as in Hebrew, either g> (pro- do not seem to have worn phylacteries nounced s), or B> (pronounced sh), but is (Menach. 42 5). But neither did many always pronounced as 'sh.' In connection of the Jews of old — nor, I feel persuaded, with this we may notice one of those our Lord (comp. Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. instances, how a strange mistake comes vol. i. p. 60). 'by tradition' to be commonly received. It ¦ ver. 8 410 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK the Evangelist explanatively adds : ' Jews have no dealings with 111 Samaritans,' 1 or rather, as the expression implies, no needless, friendly, nor familiar intercourse with them — a statement true at all times. Besides, we must remember that this was an ignorant Samaritaness of the lower order. In the mind of such an one, two points would mainly stand out : that the Jews in their wicked pride would have no intercourse with them ; and that Gerizim, not Jerusalem, as the Jews falsely asserted, was the place of rightful worship. It was, therefore, genuine surprise which expressed itself in the question : ' How is it. Thou, being a Jew, of me askest to drink ? ' It was the first lesson she learned, even before He taught her. Here was a Jew, not like ordinary Jews, not like what she had hitherto thought them : what was the cause of this difference ? Before we mark how the answer of Jesus met this very question, and so as to direct it to spiritual profit, another and more general re flection presses on our minds. Although Jesus may not have come to Sychar with the conscious purpose of that which ensued, yet, given the meeting with the Samaritan woman, what followed seems almost matter of necessity. For it is certain that the Christ, such as the Gospels describe Him, could not have been brought into contact with spiritual ignorance and want, any more than with physical distress, without offering it relief. It was, so to speak, a necessity, alike of His Mission and of His Nature (as the God-Man). In the language of another Gospel, ' power went out from Him ; ' and this, whether consciously sought, or unconsciously felt after in the stretching forth of the hands of the sightless or in the upward look of the speechless. The Incarnate Son of God could not but bring health and life amidst disease and death ; the Saviour had come to seek and to save that which was lost. And so it was, that the ' How is it ? ' of the Samaritan woman so soon, and so fully, found its answer. ' How is it ? ' In this that He, Who had spoken to her, was not like what she thought and knew has been asserted that, if Jesus had said first to have been made though very to the woman : Teni li lishtoth ('Give me doubtfully — by Stier (Reden Jesu, iv. p. to drink'), a Samaritan would have pro- 134). Stier, however, at least rendered the nounced it listoth, since the Samaritans words of Jesus : Teni li lishtoth. Godet pronounced the sh as s. But the reverse (ad loc.) accepts Stier's suggestions, but of this is the fact. The Samaritans pro- renders the words : Teni li lishcAoth. nounced the s ('sin') as sh ('shin') — Later writers have repeated this, only and not the sh as s. The mistake arose altering lishchoth into lishAoth. from confounding the old Ephraimite ' The article is wanting in the ori- (Judg. xii. 5, 6) with the Samaritan mode ginal. of pronouncing. The suggestion seems THE LIVING WATER UNTO ETERNAL LIFE. 411 of the Jews. He was what Israel was intended to have become to CHAP. mankind ; what it was the final object of Israel to have been. In VIII Him was God's gift to mankind. Had she but known it, the present ' ' relation between them would have been reversed ; the Well of Jacob would have been a symbol, yet but a symbol, of the living water, which she would have asked and He given. As always, the seen is to Christ the emblem of the unseen and spiritual ; Nature, that in and through which, in manifold and divers colouring, He ever sees the supernatural, even as the light lies in varying hues on the moun tain, or glows in changeful colouring on the edge of the horizon. A view this of all things existent, which Hellenism, even in its sublimest poetic conception of creation as the impress of heavenly archetypes, has only materialised and reversed. But to Jesus it all pointed up ward, because the God of Nature was the God of Grace, the One Living and True God in Whom all matter and spirit lives, Whose world is one in design, workmanship, and purpose. And so nature was but the echo of God's heard Voice, which ever, to all and in all, speaks the same, if there be but listening ears. And so He would have it speak to men in parables, that, to them who see, it might be the Jacob's ladder leading from earth to heaven, while they, whose sight and hearing are bound in the sleep of heart-hardening, would see but not perceive, and hear but not understand. It was with the ignorant woman of Sychar, as it had been with the learned ' Master in Israel.' As Nicodemus had seen, and yet not seen, so this Samaritaness. In the birth of which Jesus spoke, he had failed to apprehend the ' from above ' and ' of the Spirit ; ' she now the thought suggested by the contrast between the cistern in the lime- rock and the well of living water. The ' How can these things be ? ' of Nicodemus finds its parallel in the bewilderment of the woman. Jesus had nothing wherewith to draw from the deep well. Whence, then, the ' living water ' ? To outward appearance there was a physi cal impossibility. This was one aspect of it. And yet, as Nicodemus' question not only similarly pointed to a physical impossibility, but also indicated dim searching after higher meaning and spiritual reality, so that of the woman : ' No ! art Thou greater than our father Jacob ? ' who, at such labour, had dug this well, finding no other means than this of supplying his own wants and those of his descend ants. Nor did the answer of Jesus now differ in spirit from that which He had given to the Babbi of Jerusalem, though it lacked the rebuke, designed to show how thoroughly the religious system, of 412 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK which Nicodemus was a teacher, failed in its highest object. But to HI this woman His answer must be much simpler and plainer than to the ' Babbi. And yet, if it be Divine teaching, it cannot be quite plain, but must contain that which will point upward, and lead to further inquiry. And so the Divine Teacher explained, not only the differ ence between ordinary water and that of which He had spoken, but in a manner to bring her to the threshold of still higher truth. It was not water like that of Jacob's Well which He would give, but 'living water.' In the Old Testament a perennial spring had, in 0 Gen. xxvi. figurative language, been thus designated,8, in significant contrast to xiv. 5 ' water accumulated in a cistern.b But there was more than this : it * Jer. u. 13 was water which for ever quenched the thirst, by meeting all the in ward wants of the soul ; water also, which, in him who had drunk of it, became a well, not merely quenching the thirst on this side time, but ' springing up into everlasting life.' It was not only the meeting of wants felt, but a new life, and that not essentially different, but the same as that of the future, and merging in it. The question has sometimes been asked, to what Jesus referred by that well of living water springing up into everlasting life. Of the various strange answers given, that, surely, is almost the worst, which would apply it to the doctrine of Jesus, supporting such explanation by a reference to Babbinic sayings in which doctrine is compared to ' water.' This is one of those not unfrequent instances in which Bab binic references mislead rather than lead, being insufficiently known, imperfectly understood, or misapplied. It is quite true, that in many passages the teaching of the Babbis is compared to water? but never to a ' well of water springing up.' The difference is very great. For it is the boast of Eabbinism, that its disciples drink of the waters of their teachers ; chief merit lies in receptiveness, not spontaneity, and higher praise cannot be given, than that of being ' a well-plastered > Ab. ii. 8 cistern, which lets not out a drop of water,' c and in that sense is ' a spring whose waters continually increase.' But this is quite the opposite of what our Lord teaches. For, it is only true of what man can give when we read this (in Ecclus. xxiv. 21) : ' They that drink me shall yet be thirsty.' 2 More closely related to the words of Christ 1 Those who wish to see the well-worn sions as that of St. Bernard of Clairvaux Babbinic references will find them in (followed by so many modern hymno- Lightfoot and Schottgen ad loc. logists) : * There is much spurious religious sen- ' Qui Te gustant esuriunt, timent which, in contravention to our Qui bibunt adhuc sitiunt.' Lord's saying, delights in such expreS- (Ap. Daniel, Thes. i. p. 223.) THE NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE IN THE SAMARITANESS. 413 is it, when we read a of a ' fountain of wisdom ; ' while, in the Targum on Cant. iv. 14, ' the words of the Law ' are likened ' unto a well of living waters.' The same idea was carried perhaps even further, when, at the Feast of Tabernacles, amidst universal rejoicing, water from Siloam was poured from a golden pitcher on the altar, as emblem of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost.1 But the saying of our Lord to the Samaritaness referred neither to His teaching, nor to the Holy Ghost, nor yet to faith, but to the gift of that new spiritual life in of Him, which faith is but the outcome. If the humble, ignorant Samaritaness had formerly not seen, though she had imperfectly guessed, that there was a higher meaning in the words of Him Who spake to her, a like mixture of ill-appre hension and rising faith seems to underlie her request for this water, that she might thirst no more, neither again come thither to draw.2 She now believes in the incredible ; believes it, because of Him and in Him ; believes, also, in a satisfaction through Him of outward wants, reaching up beyond this to the everlasting life. But all these elements are yet in strange confusion. Those who know how difficult it is to lodge any new idea in the mind of uneducated rustics in our own land, after all our advantages of civilising contact and education, will understand, how utterly at a loss this Samaritan countrywoman must have been to grasp the meaning of Jesus. But He taught, not as we teach. And thus He reached her heart in that dimly conscious longing which she expressed, though her intellect was incapable of distinguishing the new truth. Surely, it is a strange mistake to find in her words b ' a touch b ver. is of irony,' while, on the other hand, it seems an exaggeration to regard them simply as the cry of realised spiritual need. Though reluctantly, a somewhat similar conclusion is forced upon us with reference to the question ot Jesus about the woman's husband, her reply, and the Saviour's rejoinder. It is difficult to suppose, that Christ asked the woman to call her husband with the primary object of awakening in her a sense of sin. This might follow, but the text gives no hint of it. Nor does anything in the bearing of the woman The theology of this is not only sickly, commentators, any extraordinary mark of but untrue and misleading. rising reverence in the use by her of the 1 See 'The Temple and its Ministry,' word 'Sir ' in w. 11 and 15. It seems only pp. 241-243. natural in the circumstances. 2 I cannot bring myself to see, as some 414 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK in * ver. 19 11 ver. 29 • St. John i. 48,49 a Comp. St. John vi. 6 indicate any such effect ; indeed, her reply * and her after-reference to it b rather imply the contrary. We do not even know for certain, whether the five previous husbands had died or divorced her, and, if the latter, with whom the blame lay, although not only the peculiar mode in which our Lord refers to it, but the present condition of the woman, seem to point to a sinful life in the past. In Judasa a course like hers would have been almost impossible ; but we know too little of the social and moral condition of Samaria to judge of what might there be tolerated. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence that, when the Saviour so unexpectedly laid open to her a past, which He could only supernaturally have known, the conviction at once arose in her that He was a Prophet, just as in similar circumstances it had been forced upon Nathanael.0 But to be a Prophet meant to a Samaritan that He was the Messiah, since they acknowledged none other after Moses. Whether or not the Messiah was known by the present Samaritan designation of Him as ' the Converter ' and ' the Beturner ' (Bestorer ?), is of comparatively small importance, though, if we felt certain of this, the influence of the new conviction on the mind of the woman would appear even more clearly. In any case it was an immense, almost immeasurable, advance, when this Samaritan recognised in the stranger Jew, Who had first awakened within her higher thoughts, and pointed her to spiritual and eternal realities, the Messiah, and this on the strength of evidence the most powerfully convincing to a mind like hers : that of telling her, suddenly and startlingly, what He could not have known, except through higher than human means of information. It is another, and much more difficult question, why Jesus should have asked for the presence of her husband. The objection, that to do so, knowing the while that she had no husband, seems un worthy of our Lord, may, indeed, be answered by the consideration, that such ' proving ' of those who were in His training was in accord ance with His mode of teaching, leading upwards by a series of moral questions.4 But perhaps a more simple explanation may offer even a better reply. It seems, as if the answer of verse 15 marked the utmost' limit of the woman's comprehension. We can scarcely form an ade quate notion of the narrowness of such a mental horizon as hers. This also explains, at least from one aspect, the reason of His speaking to her about His own Messiahship, and the worship of the future, in words far more plain than He used to His own disciples. None but the plainest statements could she grasp ; and it is not unnatural to suppose that, having reached the utmost limits of which she was THE PROPHET WHO WAS THE MESSIAH. 415 capable, the Saviour now asked for her husband, in order that, through CHAP. the introduction of another so near to her, the horizon might be VIII enlarged. This is also substantially the view of some of the Fathers.1 But, if Christ was in earnest in asking for the presence of her husband, it surely cannot be irreverent to add, that at that moment the peculiar relationship between the man and the woman did not stand out before His mind. Nor is there anything strange in this. The man was, and was not, her husband. Nor can we be sure that, although un married, the relationship involved anything absolutely contrary to the law ; and to all intents the man might be known as her husband . The woman's answer at once drew the attention of the Christ to this aspect of her history, which immediately stood out fully before His Divine knowledge. At the same time her words seemed like a confession — perhaps we should say, a concession to the demands of her own conscience, rather than a confession. Here, then, was the required opportunity, both for carrying further truth to her mind, by proving to her that He Who spake to her was a Prophet, and at the same time for reaching her heart. But whether or not this view of the history be taken, it is difficult to understand, how any sober interpreter could see in the five husbands of the woman either a symbolical, or a mythical, reference to the five deities whom the ancestors of the Samaritans worshipped,11 * 2 En&» the spurious service of Jehovah representing the husband, yet no husband, of the woman. It is not worth while discussing this strange suggestion from any other than the mythical standpoint. Those who regard the incidents of the Gospel-narratives as myths, having their origin in Jewish ideas, are put to even greater straits by the whole of this narrative than they who regard this Gospel as of Ephesian authorship. We may put aside the general objections raised by Strauss, since none of his successors has ventured seriously to urge them. It is more important to notice, how signally the author of the mythical theory has failed in suggesting any historical basis for this ' myth.' To speak of meetings at the well, such as those with Bebekah or Zipporah, is as much beside the question as an appeal to Jewish expectancy of an omniscient Messiah. Out of these two elements almost any story might be constructed. Again, to say that this story of Jesus' success among the Samaritans was invented, in order to vindicate the later activity of the Apostles among that people, is simply to beg the whole question. In these straits so 1 Comp. Liicke, Evang. Joh. vol. i. p. 588. 416 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK distinguished a writer as Keim l has hazarded the statement : ' The 111 meeting with the Samaritaness has, for every one who has eyes, only a symbolical meaning, by the side of which no historical fact exists.' An assertion this, which is perhaps best refuted by being simply quoted.2 On the other hand, of all the myths likely to enter into Jewish imagination, the most unlikely would be one representing the Christ in familiar converse with a woman, and she a Samaritan, offer- ing to her a well of water springing into everlasting life, and setting before her a spiritual worship of which Jerusalem was not the centre. Where both the Ephesian and the mythical theory so signally fail, shall we not fall back upon the natural explanation, borne out by the simplicity and naturalness of the narrative — that the story here related is real and true? And, if so, shall we not all the more thankfully gather its lessons ? The conviction, sudden but firm, that He Who had laid open the past to her was really a Prophet, was already faith in Him ; and so the goal had been attained — not, perhaps, faith in His Messiahship, about which she might have only very vague notions, but in Him. And faith in the Christ, not in anything about Him, but in Himself, has eternal life. Such faith also leads to further inquiry and know ledge. As it has been the traditional practice to detect irony in this or that saying of the woman, or else to impute to her spiritual feelings far in advance of her possible experience, so, on the other hand, has her inquiry about the place of proper worship, Jerusalem or Gerizim, been unduly depreciated. It is indeed too true that those, whose consciences are touched by a presentation of their sin, often seek to turn the conversation into another and quasi-religious channel. But of neither the one nor the other is there evidence in the present case. Similarly, it is also only too true, that their one point of difference is, to narrow-minded sectarians, their all-in-all of religion. But in this instance we feel that the woman has no after-thought, no covert purpose in what she asks. All her life long she had heard that Gerizim was the mount of worship, the holy hill which the waters of the Flood had never covered,3 and that the Jews were in deadly error. 1 The references here are to Strauss, shutting itself up against faith. But in vol. i. pp. 510-519, and to Keim i. 1, p. that case why make the principal person 116. a Samaritan, and not a heathen, and 2 Meyer, Komment. vol. ii. p. 208, why attribute to her belief in a Messiah, rightly remarks on the theory of Baur, which was entirely foreign to heathen- Hilgenfeld, &c. According to them, the ism ? whole of this history is only a type of 3 Curiously enough, several instances heathenism as receptive to faith, in con- are related in Babbinic writings in trast to Nicodemus, the type of Judaism which Samaritans enter into dispute with THE WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. 417 But here was an undoubted Prophet, and He a Jew. Were they then CHAP. in error about the right place of worship, and what was she to think, VIII and to do ? To apply with such a question to Jesus was already to ' find the right solution, even although the question itself might indicate a lower mental and religious standpoint. It reminds us of the inquiry which the healed Naaman put to Elisha about the Temple of Bimmon, and of his request for a mule's burden of earth from the land of the True God, and for true worship. Once more the Lord answers her question by leading her far beyond it — beyond all controversy : even on to the goal of all His teaching. So marvellously does He speak to the simple in heart. It is best here to sit at the feet of Jesus, and, realising the scene, to follow as His Finger points onwards and upwards. ' There cometh an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, ye shall worship the Father.' Words of sad warning, these ; words of pro phecy also, that already pointed to the higher solution in the worship of a common Father, which would be the worship neither of Jews nor of Samaritans, but of children. And yet there was truth in their present differences. ' Ye worship ye know not what : we worship what we know, since salvation is from out the Jews.' l The Samaritan was aimless worship, because it wanted the goal of all the Old Testament institutions, that Messiah ' Who was to be of the seed of David ' a — for, of the Jews, ' as concerning the flesh,' was Christ to * Bom- *• 3 come.b But only of present interest could such distinctions be ; for i> Bom. ix. 5 an hour would come, nay, already was, when the true worshippers would ' worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father also seeketh such for His worshippers. Spirit is God ' 2 — and only worship in spirit and in truth could be acceptable to such a God. Higher or more Christlike teaching than this could not be uttered. And she who heard, thus far understood it, that in the Babbis who pass by Mount Gerizim on under the heavens were covered, and so their way to Jerusalem, to convince them silenced the Samaritan. (Deb. B. 3 ; that Gerizim was the proper place of comp. Ber. B. 32.) On the other hand, it worship. One instance may here be ought to be added, that in Ber. B. 33 the mentioned, when a Samaritan maintained Mount of Olives is said not to have been that Gerizim was the mount of blessing, covered by the Flood, and that Ezek. because it was not covered by the Flood, xxii. 24 is applied to this. quoting in proof Ezek. xxii. 24. The ' He had formerly taught her the Eabbi replied, that if such had been the ' where,' and now teaches her the ' what,' case, God would have told Noah to flee of true worship. there, instead of making an ark. The 2 It is remarkable, that most of the Samaritan retorted, that this was done to alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch try him. The Babbi was silenced, but are with the view of removing anthropo- his muleteer appealed to Gen. vii. 19, morphisms. according to which all the high hills VOL. I. E E 418 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK glorious picture, which was set before her, she saw the coming of HI the Kingdom of the Messiah. ' I know that Messiah cometh.1 When He cometh, He will tell us all things.' It was then that, according to the need of that untutored woman, He told her plainly what in Judasa, and even by His disciples, would have been carnally misinterpreted and misapplied : that He was the Messiah. So true is it, that ' babes ' can receive what often must remain long hidden ' from the wise and prudent.' It was the crowning lesson of that day. Nothing more could be said ; nothing more need be said. The disciples had returned from Sychar. That Jesus should converse with a woman, was so contrary to all Judsean notions of a Babbi,2 that they wondered. Yet, in their reverence for Him, they dared not ask any questions. Meanwhile the woman, forgetful of her errand, and only conscious of that new well- spring of life which had risen within her, had left the unfilled water- pot by the Well, and hurried into 'the City.' They were strange tidings which she brought ; the very mode of her announcement affording evidence of their truth : ' Come, see a man who told me all that I have done. No — is this the Christ ? ' We are led to infer, that these strange tidings soon gathered many around her; that they questioned, and, as they ascertained from her the indisputable fact of His superhuman knowledge, believed on Him, so far as the «w. 39, ia woman could set Him before them as object of faith. a Under this impression ' they went out of the City, and came on their way towards b ver. 30 Him.' b 3 Meantime the disciples had urged the Master to eat of the food which they had brought. But His Soul was otherwise engaged. Thoughts were present of the glorious future, of a universal worship of the Father by those whom He had taught, and of which He had just seen such unexpected earnest. These mingled with feelings of pain at the spiritual dulness of those by whom He was surrounded, who could see in that conversation with a Samaritan woman nothing but a strange innovation on Babbinic custom and dignity, and now 1 The words ' which is called Christ ' bidden ; comp. the story in Bemid. B. 9. should be within brackets, and are the a Following the suggestion of Professor explanation of the writer. Westeott, I would thus give the real 2 In the original, ver. 31 has it: 'Babbi meaning of the original. It may save (not Master), eat.' Surely such an needless notes if I add, that where address to Christ is sufficiently anti- the rendering differs from the A.V. the Ephesian ' Readers know how thoroughly change has been intentional, to bring opposed to Jewish notions was any need- out the meaning of the Greek ; and that less converse with a woman (comp. Ab. i. where words in the A.V. are omitted, it 5 ; Ber. 43 * ; Kidd. 70 a ; also Erub. 53 b). is because they are either spurious, or To instruct a woman in the La:w was for- doubtful. » St. Matt. xvi. 6, 7 'FOUR MONTHS AND THE HARVEST COMETH.' 419 thought of nothing beyond the immediate errand on which they CHAP. had gone to Sychar. Even His words of rebuke only made them VIII wonder whether, unknown to them, some one had brought Him food. It was not the only, nor the last, instance of their dulness to spiritual realities.* Yet with Divine patience He bore with them : ' My meat is, that I may do the Will of Him that sent Me, and that I may accomplish (bring to a perfect end) His work.' To the disciples that -work appeared still in the far future. To them it seemed as yet little more than seed-time ; the green blade was only sprouting; the harvest of such a Messianic Kingdom as they expected was still months distant. To correct their mistake, the Divine Teacher, as so often, and as best adapted to His hearers, chose His illustration from what was visible around. To show their meaning more clearly, we venture to reverse the order of the sentences which Jesus spoke : ' Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes and look [observantly] at the fields, that they are white to the harvest. [But] do ye not say (viz. in your hearts ¦) that there are yet four months, and the harvest cometh ? ' The words will appear the more striking, if (with Professor Westeott) we bear in mind that, perhaps at that very moment, the Samaritans, coming to Him from Sychar, were appearing in sight. But we also regard it as marking the time, when this conversar- tion took place. Generally the words, ' yet four months, and then cometh the harvest,' are regarded either as a proverbial expression, or as indicating, that the Lord spake at the Well of Jacob four months before the harvest-time — that is, about the month of January, if the barley-harvest, or in February, if the wheat-harvest, was meant. The suggestion that it was a proverb may be dismissed, first, because there is not a trace of such a proverb, and then because, to give it even the scantiest meaning, it is necessary to supply : ' Between seed-time and harvest there are four months,' which is not true, since in Palestine about six months intervene between them. On the other hand, for reasons explained in another place,2 we conclude, that it could not have been January or February when Jesus was in Sychar. But why not reverse the common theory, and see in the second clause, introduced by the words, ' Behold ! lift up your eyes and observe,' a mark of the time and circumstances ; while the expression, ' Do ye not say, There are yet four months, and then > This is a Hebraism, s See them in Appendix XV. e e 2 420 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK cometh harvest,' would be understood as parabolically spoken ? Admit- HI tedly, one of the two clauses is a literal mark of time, and the other is spoken parabolically. But there is no reason why the second clause may not mark the time, while on independent grounds we must conclude,1 that Christ returned from Judasa to Galilee in the early summer. Passing from this point, we notice how the Lord further unfolded His own lesson of present harvesting, and' their inversion of what was sowing, and what reaping, time. ' Already ' 2 he that reaped received wages, and gathered fruit unto eternal life (which is the real reward of the Great Beaper, the seeing of the travail of His soul), so that in this instance the sower rejoiced equally 3 as the reaper. And, in this respect, the otherwise cynical proverb, that one was the sower, another the reaper of his sowing, found a true appli cation. It was indeed so, that the servants of Christ were sent to reap what others had sown, and to enter into their labour. One had sowed, another would reap. And yet, as in this instance of the Samaritans, the sower would rejoice as well as the reaper ; nay, both would rejoice together, in the gathered fruit unto eternal life. And so the sowing in tears is on the spiritual field often mingled with the harvest of gladness, and to the spiritual view both are really one. 'Four months' do not intervene between them; so that, although one may sow and another reap, yet the sower seeth that harvest for which the harvester gets wages, and rejoices with him in the fruit which is gathered into the eternal storehouse. It was as Christ had said. The Samaritans, who believed ' because of the word ' (speech) ' of the woman [what she said] as she testified ' of the Christ, ' when they came ' to that well, ' asked Him to abide with them. And He abode there two days. And many more believed because of His own word (speech, discourse), and said unto the woman : No longer because of thy speaking 4 do we believe. 1 Comp. Appendix XV. the reaper.' But the translation in the * We follow Canon Westeott, who, for text seems to agree better with what reasons explained by him, joins the word follows. The whole passage is perhaps •already ' to ver. 36, omitting the particle one of the most difficult, from the curt- ' and-' ness and rapid transition of the sentences. 3 It will be noticed that, in ver. 36, 'iva The only apology which I can offer for has been translated ' so that,' the nai proposing a new rendering and a new in- omitted, and bfiov rendered ' equally as.' terpretation is, that those with which I Linguistically, no apology is required for am acquainted have not conveyed any these renderings. I, however, hesitate be- distinct or connected meaning to my tween this and the rendering : ' in order own mind. that the sower may rejoice along with * \a\ia, speech, talking. TWO DAYS IN SAMARIA. 421 For we ourselves have heard, and know, that this is truly the Saviour chap, of the world.' 1 VIII We know not what passed these two days. Apparently no miracles " ' were wrought, but those of His Word only. It was the deepest and purest truth they learned, these simple men of simple faith, who had not learned of man, but listened to His Word only. The sower as well as the reaper rejoiced, and rejoiced together. Seed-time and harvest mingled, when for themselves they knew and confessed, that this was truly the Saviour of the world. 1 We have omitted the words ' the as faithfuUy as possible, so as to bring Christ,' in ver. 42, as apparently spurious. out the real meaning. In general, the text has been rendered 422 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB IX. THE SECOND VISIT TO CANA — CUBE OP THE ' NOBLEMAN'S ' SON AT CAPEENAUM. (St. Matt. iv. 12 ; St. Mark i. 14 ; St. Luke iv. 14, 15 ; St. John iv. 43-54.) BOOK III a St. John iv. 45 » St. Matt. « St. Mark i. 14 " St. Luke iv. 14 "-St. Matt. iv. 17 'St. Mark i 15 The brief harvest in Samaria was, as Jesus had indicated to His disciples, in another sense also the beginning of sowing-time, or at least that when the green blade first appeared above ground. It formed the introduction to that Galilean ministry, when ' the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the Feast.' a Nay, in some respects, it was the real beginning of His Work also, which, viewed as separate and distinct, commenced when the Baptist was cast into prison.1 Accordingly, this circum stance is specially marked by St. Matthew,b and by St. Mark,0 while St. Luke, as if to give greater emphasis to it, abruptly connects this beginning of Christ's sole and separate Work with the history of the Temptation.4 All that intervened seems to him but introductory, that ' beginning ' which might be summed up by the words, ' in the power of the Spirit,' with which he describes His return to Galilee. In accordance with this view, Christ is presented as taking up the message of His Forerunner,"5 only with wider sweep, since, instead of adding to His announcement of the Kingdom of Heaven and call to repentance that to a Baptism of preparation, He called those who heard Him to ' believe the Gospel ' which He brought them.f But here also, — as Eusebius had already noted 2 — the Fourth Gospel, in its more comprehensive presentation of the Christ, as add ing, not merely in the external succession of events, but in their in ternal connection, feature to feature in the portraiture of the Divine Bedeemer, supplies the gap in the Synoptic narratives, which so often read only like brief historical summaries, with here and there special 1 The history of the Baptist's imprison ment will be given in the sequel. 2 The origin, authorship, and occasion of the Synoptic Gospels and of that by St. John, as well as their interrelation, is discussed in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 24, the discussion being the more important that Eusebius throughout appeals for his statements to 'the testimony of the ancients.' THE SECOND VISIT TO CANA. 423 episodes or reports of teaching inserted. For St. John not only tells us chap. of that early Ministry, which the Synoptists designedly pass over, IX but while, like them, referring to the captivity of John as the occasion of Christ's withdrawal from the machinations of the Pharisaic party in Judsea, he joins this departure from Judaea with the return to Galilee by supplying, as connecting link, the brief stay in Samaria with its eventful results. St. John, also, alone supplies the first- recorded event of this Galilean ministry." We therefore follow his *4f'54JohniT guidance, simply noting that the various stages of this Galilean resi dence should be grouped as follows : Cana,b Nazareth,0 and Capernaum, ^jf01™17' with general itineration from that centre."1 The period occupied, by cst.Lukeiv. what is thus briefly indicated in the Gospels, was from early summer, _ st. Matt. say, the beginning of June, to the unnamed ' feast of the Jews.' e If Marki. u, ' it is objected, that the events seem too few for a period of about three ".'31*33 u e months, the obvious answer is, that, during most of this time, Jesus e st. John v. was in great measure unattended, since the call of the Apostles f , gt Matt, only took place after the ' unnamed feast ; ' that, indeed, they had pro- 1V' 18~22 *°' bably returned to their homes and ordinary occupations when Jesus went to Nazareth,8 and that therefore, not having themselves been ? st. Luke eye-witnesses of what had passed, they confined themselves to a general summary. At the same time, St. Luke expressly marks that Jesus taught in various Synagogues of Galilee,h and also that He h st. Luke made a longer stay in Capernaum.1 1 gt. Luke When Jesus returned to Galilee, it was in circumstances entirely iv. 31 ; comp. different from those under which He had left it. As He Himself said,k flljjp'**' 1T' there had, perhaps naturally, been prejudices connected with the *st.joi____v. humbleness of His upbringing, and the familiarity engendered by knowledge l of His home-surroundings. These were overcome, when the Galileans had witnessed at the feast in Jerusalem, what He had done. Accordingly, they were now prepared to receive Him with the reverent attention which His Word claimed. We may conjecture, that it was partially for reasons such as these that He first bent His steps to Cana. The miracle, which had there been wrought,111 would »st.John__. still further prepare the people for His preaching. Besides, this was the home of Nathanael, who had probably followed Him to Jerusalem, and in whose house a gladsome homage of welcome would now await Him. It was here that the second recorded miracle of His Galilean ministry was wrought, with what effect upon the whole district, may ' I cannot believe that the expression tSws ('his own'). Comp. St. Matt. ix. 1 ; . ' His own country ,' ref ers to Judsea. Such also St. John vii. 40-42. Strauss's argu- an explanation is not only unnatural, but ments (Leben Jesu, i. p. 65W) seem here contrary to the usage of the expression conclusive. ' St. Lnke 424 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK be judged from the expectancies which the fame of it excited even in HI Nazareth, the city of His early upbringing." It appears, that the son of one of Herod Antipas's officers, either civil or military,1 was sick, and at the point of death. When tidings reached the father that the Prophet, or more than Prophet, Whose fame had preceded Him to Galilee, had come to Cana, he resolved, in his despair of other means, to apply to Him for the cure of his child. Nothing can be gained for the spiritual interest of this or any other Biblical narrative, by exaggeration ; but much is lost, when the historical demands of the case are overlooked. It is not from any dis belief in the supernatural agency at work, that we insist on the natural and rational sequence of events. And having done so, we can all the more clearly mark, by the side of the natural, the distinc tively higher elements at work. Accordingly, we do not assume that this ' court-officer ' was actuated by spiritual belief in the Son of God, when applying to Him for help. Bather would we go to almost the opposite extreme, and regard him as simply actuated by what, in the circumstances, might be the views of a devout Jew. Instances are recorded in the Talmud, which may here serve as our guide. Various cases are related in which those seriously ill, and even at the point of death, were restored by the prayers of celebrated Babbis. One h Ber. 346; instance is specially illustrative.1" We read that, when the son of adioe. Eabban Gamaliel was dangerously ill, he sent two of his disciples to one Chanina ben Dosa to entreat his prayers for the restoration of his son. On this, Chanina is said to have gone up to the AUy ah (upper chamber) to pray. On his return, he assured the messengers that the young man was restored, grounding his confidence, not on the possession of any prophetic gift, but on the circumstance that he knew his request was answered, from the freedom he had in prayer. The messengers noted down the hour, and on their arrival at the house of Gamaliel found, that at that very hour ' the fever left him, and he asked for water.' Thus far the Babbinic story. Even supposing that it was either invented or coloured in imitation of the New Testament it shows, at least, what a devout Jew might deem lawful to expect from a celebrated Babbi, who was regarded as having power in praver Having indicated the illustrative part of this story, we may now mark the contrast between it and the event in the Gospels. There restoration is not merely asked, but expected, and that, not in answer > /ScuriMmfe, used by Josephus in the in N. Test, e Fl. Josepho vv 144 145 general sense of officers in the service who notes that the expression occurs of Herod Antipas. Comp. Krebs, Obs. 600 times in the writings of Josephus THE PRAYER OF THE COURT-OFFICIAL. 425 to prayer, but by Christ's Personal Presence. But the great and CHAP. vital contrast lies, alike in what was thought of Him Who was instru- IX mental in the cure — performed it — and in the moral effects which it " wrought. The history just quoted from the Talmud is immediately followed by another of similar import, when a celebrated Babbi accounts on this wise for his inability to do that in which Chanina had succeeded, that Chanina was like ' a servant of the King,' who went in and out familiarly, and so might beg favours ; while he (the failing Babbi) was ' like a lord before the King,' who would not be accorded mere favours, but discussed matters on a footing of equality. This profane representation of the relation between God and His servants, the utterly unspiritual view of prayer which it displays, and the daring self-exaltation of the Babbi, surely mark sufficiently an absolute contrast in spirit between the Jewish view and that which underlies the Evangelic narrative. Enough has been said to show, that the application to Jesus on the part of the ' royal officer ' did not, in the peculiar circumstances, lie absolutely beyond the range of Jewish ideas. What the ' court- officer ' exactly expected to be done, is a question secondary to that of his state of receptiveness, as it may be called, which was the moral condition alike of the outward help, and of the inward blessing which he received. One thing, however, it is of importance to notice. We must not suppose, that when, to the request that Jesus would come down to Capernaum to perform the cure, the Master replied, that unless they saw x signs and wonders they would not believe, He meant thereby to convey that His Jewish hearers, in opposition to the Samaritans, required ' signs and wonders ' in order to believe. For the application of ' the officer ' was itself an expression of faith, although imperfect. Besides, the cure, which was the object of the application, could not have been performed without a miracle. What the Saviour reproved, was not the request for a miracle, which was necessary, but the urgent plea that He should come down to Caper naum for that purpose, which the father afterwards so earnestly repeated." That request argued ignorance of the real character of • ver. 49 the Christ, as if He were either merely a Babbi endowed with special power, or else a miracle-monger. What He intended to teach this man was, that He, Who had life in Himself, could restore life at a distance as easily as by His Presence ; by the word of His Power as readily as by personal application. A lesson this of the deepest im- 1 The emphasis must lie on the word tions to this (Ev. Joh. i. p. 622) are not ' see,' yet not exclusively. Liicke's objec- well founded. 1 &c. 426 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK portance, as regarded the Person of Christ ; a lesson, also, of the HI widest application to us and for all circumstances, temporal and ' ' ' spiritual. When the ' court-officer ' had learned this lesson, he be- * ver- 50 came ' obedient unto the faith,' and ' went his way,' a presently to » ver. 53 find his faith both crowned and perfected.1" And when both ' he and his house' had learned that lesson, they would never afterwards think of the Christ either as the Jews did, who simply witnessed His miracles, or unspiritually. It was the completion of that teaching * st. John i. which had first come to Nathanael, the first believer of Cana.0 So, also, is it, when we have learned that lesson, that we come to know alike the meaning and the blessedness of believing in Jesus. Indeed, so far as its moral import is concerned, the whole history turns upon this point. It also marks the fundamental difference between this and the somewhat similar history of the healing of the * st. Matt. Centurion's servant in Capernaum.3 Critics have noticed marked st. Luke vu. divergences in almost every detail of the two narratives,1 which some— both orthodox and negative interpreters — have so strangely represented as only different presentations of one and the same event.2 But, besides these marked differences of detail, there is also fundamental difference in the substance of the narratives, and in the spirit of the two applicants, which made the Saviour in the one instance reprove as the requirement of sight, which by itself could only produce a transitory faith, that which in the other He marvelled at as greatness of faith, for which He had in vain looked in Israel. The great point in the history of the ' court-officer ' is Israel's mis taken view of the Person and Work of the Christ. That in the narrative of the Centurion is the preparedness of a simple faith, unencumbered by Jewish realism, although the outcome of Jewish teaching. The carnal realism of the one, which looks for signs and wonders, is contrasted with the simplicity and straightforwardness of the other. Lastly, the point in the history of the Syro-Phoenician woman, which is sometimes confounded with it,3 is the intensity of 1 These will readily occur on com- Matthew, as the original account. And parison of the two narratives. Arch- yet Keim ventures to assert : ' Ohne alien deacon Watkins (ad loc.) has grouped Zweif el (!) ist das die selbe Geschichte.' these under eight distinct particulars. » Alike Strauss and Keim discuss this Comp. Liicltc (Ev. Joh.) i. p. 626. at some length from the point of view of 2 So partially and hesitatingly Origen, seeming contradiction between the re- Chrysostom, and more decidedly Theo/ihi- ception of the heathen Centurion and the Ins, Euthymius, Irenwus, and Eusebius. first refusal of the Syro-Phcenician woman. All modern negative critics hold this Keim's treatment of the whole subject view ; but Gfrorer regards the narrative seems to me inconsistent with itself. of St. John, Strauss and Weiss that of St. THE MIRACULOUS CURE. 427 the same faith which, despite discouragements, nay, seeming im- CHAP. probabilities, holds fast by the conviction which her spiritual instinct IX had grasped — that such an One as Jesus must be not only the "~ ' ~ Messiah of the Jews, but the Saviour of the world. We may as well here complete our critical notices, at least as concerns those views which have of late been propounded. The extreme school of negative critics seems here involved in hopeless self-contradiction. For, if this narrative of a Jewish courtier is really only another recension of that of the heathen centurion, how comes it that the ' Jewish ' Gospel of St. Matthew makes a Gentile, while the so-called ' anti-Jewish,' ' Ephesian ' Gospel of St. John makes a Jew, the hero of the story ? As signally does the ' mythical ' theory break down. For, admittedly, there is no Babbinic basis for the invention of such a story ; and by far the ablest representative of the negative school 1 has conclusively shown, that it could not have origi nated in an imitation of the Old Testament account of Naaman's cure by Elisha the prophet.2 But, if Christ had really spoken those words to the courtier, as this critic seems to admit, there remains only, as he puts it, this ' trilemma : ' either He could really work the miracle in question; or, He spoke as a mere fanatic; or else, He was simply a deceiver. It is a relief to find that the two last hypotheses are discarded. But, as negative criticism — may we not say, from the same spirit which Jesus reproved in the courtier — is unwilling to admit that Jesus really wrought this miracle, it is suggested iu explanation of the cure, that the sick child, to whom the father had communicated his intended application to Jesus, had been in a state of expectancy which, when the courtier returned with the joyous assurance that the request was granted, issued in actual recovery.3 To this there is the obvious answer, that the explanation wants the first requirement — that of an historical basis. There is not a tittle of evidence that the child expected a cure ; while, on the other hand, the narrative expressly states that he was cured before his father's return. And, if the narrative may be altered at will to suit the necessities of a groundless hypothesis, it is difficult to see which, or whether any, part of it should be retained. It is not so that the origin of a faith, which has transformed the world, can be explained- 1 Keim, Jesu v. Nazara, II. i. pp. 179- he means that the faith of the child alone 185. I regret to say, that the language brought about the cure, in which case of Keim at p 181 is among the most there was no need for the father's journey. painful in his book. Keim naively asks, what objections there 2 So Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. ii. pp. can be to this view, unless for the ' word- 121, 122 (lsted.). ing of St. John'? But the whole nar- 8 At least I so understand Keim, unless rative is derived from that ' wording.' 428 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK But we have here another evidence of the fact, that objections which, HI when regarded as part of a connected system, seem so formidable to some, utterly break down, when each narrative is carefully exa mined in detail. There are other circumstances in this history, which require at least passing consideration. Of these the principal are the time when the servants of the court-officer met him, on his return journey, with the joyful tidings that his son lived ; and, connected with it, the »ver. 52 time when ' he began to do nicely ; ' a : and, lastly, that when the ' court-official ' applied to Jesus. The two latter events were evi- ¦> ver. 53 dently contemporaneous.1" The exact time indicated by the servants as the commencement of the improvement is, ' Yesterday, at the seventh hour.' Now, however the Jewish servants may originally have expressed themselves, it seems impossible to assume, that St. John intended any other than the Boman notation of the civil day, or that he meant any other hour than 7 p.m. The opposite view, that it marks Jewish notation of time, or 1 p.m., is beset by almost unsurmountable difficulties.2 For it must be borne in mind, that, as the distance between Capernaum and Cana is about twenty-five miles, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the courtier, leaving his home that morning, not only to have reached Cana, but to have had the interview with Jesus by 1 p.m. The diffi culty is only increased, when we are asked to believe, that after such a journey the courtier had immediately set out on his return. But this is absolutely necessary for the theory, since a Jew would not have set out on such a journey after dusk. But farther, on the above sup position, the servants of the court-official must have taken the road immediately, or very soon after, the improvement commenced. This is itself unlikely, and, indeed, counter-indicated by the terms of the conversation between the courtier and the servants, which imply that they had waited till they -were sure that it was recovery, and not merely ' ver. 52 a temporary improvement.0 Again, on the theory combated, the servants, meeting the ' courtier,' as we must suppose, midway, if not near to Capernaum, would have said, ' Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him,' meaning thereby, that, as they spoke in the evening, when another Jewish day had begun, the fever had left him on the afternoon of the same day, although, according to Jewish 1 So literally ; the A.V. has : ' began to Galilee such might not have been the amend.' usual practice. However this be, we con 's The Jewish servants may have ex- tend that St. John's notation of time was pressed the time according to Jewish according to the Roman civil day, or notation, though in such a house in rather according to that of Asia Minor. HIGHER TEACHING OF THE MIRACLE. 429 reckoning, ' yesterday,' since 1 P.M. would be reckoned as the previous CHAP. day. But it may be safely affirmed, that no Jew would have so IX expressed himself. If, on the evening of a day, they had referred to w what had taken place five or six hours previously, at 1 P.M., they would have said : ' At the seventh hour the fever left him ; ' and not ' Yesterday at the seventh hour.' It is needless to follow the matter further. We can understand how, leaving Capernaum in the morning, the interview with Jesus and the simultaneous cure of the child would have taken place about seven o'clock of the evening. Its result was, not only the restora tion of the child, but that, no longer requiring to see signs and wonders, ' the man believed the word which Jesus had spoken unto him.' In this joyous assurance, which needed no more ocular demonstration, he ' went his way,' either to the hospitable home of a friend, or to some near lodging-place on the way, to be next day met by the gladsome tidings, that it had been to him according to his- faith. As already noted, the whole morale of the history lies in this very matter, and it marks the spiritual receptiveness of the courtier, which, in turn, was the moral condition of his desire being granted. Again, we learn how, by the very granting of his desire, the spiritual object of Christ in the teaching of the courtier was accomplished : how, under certain spiritual conditions in him and upon him, the temporal benefit accomplished its spiritual object. And in this also, as in other points which will occur to the devout reader, there are lessons of deepest teaching to us, and for all times and circumstances. Whether this ' royal officer ' was Chuza, Herod's steward, whose wife, under the abiding impression of this miracle to her child, after wards humbly, gratefully ministered to Jesus,a must remain undeter- «st. Luke mined on this side time. Suffice it, to mark the progress in the 'royal officer' from belief in the power of Jesus to faith in His word,b and thence to absolute faith in Him,0 with its blessed expan- b ver. so sive effect on that whole household. And so are we ever led faithfully ° ver- 53 and effectually, yet gently, by His benefits, upwards from the lower stage of belief by what we see Him do, to that higher faith which is absolute and unseeing trust, springing from experimental knowledge of what He is. 430 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTEB X. THE SYNAGOGUE AT NAZARETH — SYNAGOGUE-WORSHIP AND ARRANGEMENTS. (St. Luke iv. 16.) BOOK The stay in Cana, though we have no means of determining its III length, was probably of only short duration. Perhaps the Sabbath ' ' ' of the same week already found Jesus in the Synagogue of Nazareth. We will not seek irreverently to lift the veil of sacred silence, which here, as elsewhere, the Gospel-narratives have laid over the Sanctuary of His inner Life. That silence is itself theopneustic, of Divine breathing and inspiration ; it is more eloquent than any eloquence, a guarantee of the truthfulness of what is said. And against this silence, as the dark background, stands out as the Figure of Light the Person of the Christ. Yet, as we follow Jesus to the city of His Childhood and home of His humility, we can scarcely repress thoughts of what must have stirred His soul, as He once more entered the well-known valley, and beheld the scenes to each of which some early memory must have attached. Only a few months since He had left Nazareth, but how much that was all-decisive to Him, to Israel, and to the world had passed ! As the lengthening shadows of Friday's sun closed around the quiet' valley, He would hear the well-remembered double blast of the trumpet from the roof of the Synagogue-minister's house, proclaim- » shabb. 356 ing the advent of the holy day.a Once more it sounded through the lyS.'pAe'a' stl-U summer-air, to tell all, that work must be laid aside.b Yet a third time it was heard, ere the 'minister' put it aside close by where he stood, not to profane the Sabbath by carrying it ; for now the Sabbath had really commenced, and the festive Sabbath-lamp was lit. Sabbath morn dawned, and early He repaired to that Synagogue where, as a Child, a Youth, a Man, He had so often worshipped in the humble retirement of His rank, sitting, not up there among the elders and the honoured, but far back. The old well-known faces were around Him, the old well-remembered words and services fell INSTITUTION OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 431 on His ear. How different they had always been to Him than to them, with whom He had thus mingled in common worship ! And now He was again among them, truly a stranger among His own countrymen ; this time, to be looked at, listened to, tested, tried, used or cast aside, as the case might be. It was the first time,1 so far as we know, that He taught in a Synagogue, and this Synagogue that of His own Nazareth. It was, surely, a wondrously linked chain of circumstances, which bound the Synagogue to the Church. Such a result could never have been foreseen, as that, what really was the consequence of Israel's dispersion, and, therefore, indirectly the punishment of their sin, should become the means of fulfilling Israel's world-mission. Another instance this, of how Divine judgment always bears in its bosom larger mercy ; another illustration, how the dying of Israel is ever life to the world; another manifestation of that supernatural Bule of God, in which all is rule, that is, law and order, and all super natural, bringing to pass, in the orderly succession of events, what at the outset would have seemed, and really is, miraculous. For, the Synagogue became the cradle of the Church. Without it, as indeed without Israel's dispersion, the Church Universal would, humanly speaking, have been impossible, and the conversion of the Gentiles have required a succession of millennial miracles. That Synagogues originated during, or in consequence of, the Babylonish captivity, is admitted by all. The Old Testament con tains no allusion to their existence,2 and the Babbinic attempts to trace them even to Patriarchal times3 deserve, of course, no serious 1 The remark in the ' Speaker's Com- ^K-'"35/itt-^31 ri3B>, ' Let us suppress mentary '(St. Luke iv. 16), that Jesus had altogether— the Sabbath and all the been m the habit of expounding the festive seasons in the land.' Comp. Ehrt, Scriptures m Nazareth, is not only ground- Abfass. Zeit u. Abschl. d. Psalt. pp. 17-19. less, but inconsistent with the narrative. s The introduction of morning, mid- See ver. 22. Still more strange is the day> and afternoon prayers is respec- supposition, that Jesus 'offered to read tively asoribed to Abraham, Isaac, and and to expound, and signified this m- jacob. The Targum of Onkelos and the tention by standing up. This might be Targum Ps.-Jon. on Gen. xxv. 27 imply done by any member of the congregation.' their existence in the time of Jacob. In Most assuredly, such would not be the B Kama g2 a> an& Jer. Megiii. 75 a, its case- . services are traced to the time of Moses. 2 This seems at first sight inconsistent According to Sanh. 94 b, Synagogues with Ps. lxxiv. 8. But the term rendered existed in the time of Hezekiah. It is ' Synagogues 'm the A.V. has never been neeaiess to follow the subject further. used m that sense. The solution of the We takethe present opportunity of add- difficulty here comes to us through the ingi that> ^ the Rabbinic quotations in LXX. Their rendering, KaTairavaa^v tbis obapter would be so numerous, only (let us make to cease), shows that in their thoge ^j be ^ven wMch ref er to points Hebrew MSS. they read iratJ'. If so, bitberto unnoticed, or of special import- then the l probably belonged to the anc6t next word, and the text would read: 432 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK consideration. We can readily understand how, during the long years III of exile in Babylon, places and opportunities for common worship on Sabbaths and feast-days must have been felt almost a necessity. This would furnish, at least, the basis for the institution of the Synagogue. After the return to Palestine, and still more by 'the dispersed abroad,' such ' meeting-houses ' (Battey Khenesiyoth, domus congregationum, Synagogues) would become absolutely requisite. Here those who were ignorant even of the language of the Old Testament would have the Scriptures read and ' targumed ' to them.1 It was but natural that prayers, and, lastly, addresses, should in course of time be added. Thus the regular Synagogue- services would gradually arise ; first, on Sabbaths and on feast- or fast-days, then on ordinary days, at the same hours as, and with a sort of internal correspondence to, the worship of the Temple. The services on Mondays and Thursdays were special, these being the ordinary market-days, when the country-people came into the towns, and would avail themselves of the opportunity for bringing any case that might require legal decision before the local Sanhedrin, which met in the Synagogue, and consisted of its authorities. Naturally, these two days would be utilised to afford the country-people, who » Baba k. lived far from the Synagogues, opportunities for worship ; " and the services on those days were of a somewhat more elaborate character. Accordingly, Monday and Thursday were called ' the days of congre gation' or ' Synagogue' (Yom ha-Kenisah). In another place 2 it has been shown, how rapidly and generally the institution of Synagogues spread among the Jews of the Disper sion in all lands, and what important purposes they served. In Palestine they were scattered over the whole country, though it is only reasonable to suppose, that their number greatly increased after the destruction of the Temple, and this without crediting the Jewish legend as to their extraordinary number in certain cities, such as 480, or 460, in Jerusalem.3 In the capital, and probably in some other large cities, there were not only several Synagogues, but these arranged according to nationalities, and even crafts.4 At the same time it deserves notice, that even in so important a place as Capernaum 1 The expressions ' Targum ' and ' tar- have been symbolical. The number 480 gummg ' have been previously explained. is, by Gimatreya, deduced from the word The first indication of such paraphrasing ' She that was full of ' (meleathi) in Is i in the vernacular is found in Neh. viii. 21. Comp. Yalkut, vol. ii. p 40 /towards 7.8- the end, or else 480 = 4x10x12.' ' See Book I. pp. 19, 77. « Comp. Megiii. 26. 4 These numbers, however, seem to 82 SYNAGOGUES IN PALESTINE. 433 there seems either not to have been a Synagogue, or that it was CHAP. utterly insignificant, till the want was supplied by the pious Gentile X centurion.* This would seem to dispose of the question whether, as .^T^",!- is generally assumed, a Jewish community in a place, if numbering Yii- 5 ten heads of families, was obliged to build a Synagogue, and could enforce local taxation for the purpose. Such was undoubtedly the later Babbinic ordinance,6 but there is no evidence that it obtained in b Maimo- . . . nides, Hilc. Palestine, or m early times. TepMii. xi. 1 ; comp. Generally, of course, a community would build its own Synagogue, Tos. Baba or else depend on the charitable assistance of neighbours, or on pri vate munificence. If this failed, they might meet for worship in a private dwelling, a sort of ' Synagogue in the house.'0 For, in early c c?mP- times the institution would be much more simple than at a later period. In this, as in other respects, we must remember that later Jewish arrangements afford no evidence of those which prevailed while the Temple stood, nor yet the ordinances of the chiefs of Babylonian Academies of the customs existing in Palestine, and, lastly, that the Babbinic directions mark rather an ideal than the actual state of things. Thus — to mention an instance of some importance, because the error has been so often repeated as to be generally believed, and to have misled recent explorers in Palestine — there is no evidence that in Palestine Synagogues always required to be built in the highest situation in a town, or, at least, so as to overtop the other houses. To judge from a doubtful l passage in the Talmud,d this seems to have a stabb. 11 been the case in Persia, while a later notice e appeals in support of it e Tos-... to Prov. viii. 2. But even where the Jews were most powerful and influential, the rule could not have been universally enforced, although later Eabbis lay it down as a principle/ Hence, the inference, that 'J™"£ilc the Galilean Synagogues lately excavated cannot date from an early Tephiii, xi.s period, because they are not in prominent positions, is erroneous.2 But there were two rules observed, which seem to have been en forced from early times. One of these enjoined, that a Synagogue should not be erected in a place, unless it contained ten Batlanim,3 or men of leisure, who could devote their time to the Synagogue- 1 See the notes in Maimonides, Hilc. Alexander Severus, is all the more un- Tephill. xi. 2; p. 75 b. grounded, that at that time, if ever, the 2 Comp. Lieut. Kitchener's article on Jewish authorities would strictly adhere the Synagogues of Galilee (P.E.F. Be- to Talmudic directions as to the struc- port, July 1878, pp. 126 Sec). The infer- ture of Synagogues. ence, that they date from the beginning 3 From ' battel,' which here seems to of the third century, when the Jews have the same meaning as the Latin were in high favour with the Emperor vacare rei, to have leisure for a thing. VOL. I. F F 25 a and b 434 prom JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK worship and administration.1 This was proved by the consideration, HI that common worship implied a congregation; which, according to "" ~" Jewish Law, must consist of at least ten men.2 Another, and perhaps more important rule was as to the direction in which Synagogues were to be built, and which worshippers should occupy during prayer. Here two points must be kept in view: 1st. Prayer towards the east was condemned, on the ground of the false worship towards the » Comp. Jer. east mentioned in Ezek. viii. 16.a 2ndly. The prevailing direction BataB. 25 a in Palestine was towards the west, as in the Temple. Thus, we readb Meeiii iii 9 ^hat *ne entiance into the Synagogue was by the east, as the entrance through the Beautiful Gate into the Sanctuary. This, however, may refer, not to the door, but to the passage (aisle) into the interior of °BabaB. the building. In other places,0 the advice is simply given to turn towards Jerusalem, to the south or south-west.d In general, however, it was said that, as the Shekhinah was everywhere in Palestine, direction was not of paramount importance. If we combine these notices, and keep in view the general desire to conform to the Temple arrangements, the ruined Synagogues lately excavated in the north of Galilee seem, in a remarkable manner, to meet the Talmudic requirements. With the exception of one (at Trbid, which has its door to the east), they all have their entrances on the south. We conjecture that the worshippers, imitating in this the practice in the Temple, made a circuit, either completely to the north, or else entered at the middle of the eastern aisle, where, in the ground-plan of the Synagogue at Capernaum, which seems the most fully preserved ruin, two pillars in the colonnade are wanting.3 The so-called ' Ark ' would be at the south end ; the seats for the elders and honourable in front of it, facing the people, and with their back •Tos. to the Ark.e Here two pillars are wanting in the Synagogue at Capernaum. The lectern of the reader would be in the centre, close to where the entrance was into the double colonnade which formed the Synagogue, where, at present, a single pillar is marked in the plan of the Capernaum Synagogue ; while the women's gallery was at the north end, where two columns and pillars of peculiar shape, 1 This is expressly stated in Jer. number ten might be made up by a male Megiii. i. 6, p. 70 b, towards the end. child under age (Ber. B. 91, pp. 160 a 2 Comp. Megiii. iv. 3 ; Sanh. i. 6. That and *). ten constituted a congregation was de- 3 On the next page we give a plan of rived from Numb. xiv. 27. Similarly, it the Synagogue excavated at Tell Hum was thought to be imphed in the fact, (Capernaum). It is adapted from Capt. that if ten righteous men had been in Wilson's plan in the P.E.F. Quarterly Sodom, the city would not have been Statement, No. 2. destroyed. But in case of necessity the Meg. iii. 9 PLAN AND STRUCTURE OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 435 which may have supported the gallery, are traceable. For it is a mistake to suppose that the men and women sat in opposite aisles, separated by a low wall. Philo notices, indeed, this arrangement in connection with the Therapeutee ; * but there is no indication that the practice prevailed in the Synagogues, or in Palestine. CHAP. X « De Vit. Contempl. 3 aud 9, ed. We can now, with the help given by recent excavations, form a 476,482' conception of these ancient Synagogues. The Synagogue is built of the stone of the country. On the lintels over the doors there are W WM ¦ H :-. .-• N E PLAN OF SYSAGOGU-S AT 'TELL H<>M.' various ornamentations — a seven-branched candlestick, an open flower between two Paschal lambs, or vine-leaves with bunches of grapes, or, as at Capernaum, a pot of manna between representations of Aaron's rod. Only glancing at the internal decorations of mould ings or cornice, we notice that the inside plan is generally that of two double colonnades, which seem to have formed the body of the Synagogue, the aisles east and west being probably used as passages. The intercolumnar distance is very small, never greater than 9^ feet.1 1 Comp. Palestine Exploration Fund Report, Quarterly Statement, ii. p. 42 &c. If2 436 FK0M JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK The ' two cornel- columns at the northern end invariably have their 111 two exterior faces square like pillars, and the two interior ones formed by half-engaged pillars.' Here we suppose the women's gallery to have risen. The flooring is formed of slabs of white limestone ; ' the walls are solid (from 2 even to 7 feet in thickness), and well built of stones, rough in the exterior, but plastered in the interior. The Synagogue is furnished with sufficient windows to admit light. The roof is flat, the columns being sometimes connected by blocks of stone, on which massive rafters rest. Entering by the door at the southern end, and making the circuit to the north, we take our position in front of the women's gallery. Those colonnades form the body of the Synagogue.2 At the south end, facing north, is a movable ' Ark,' containing the sacred rolls of the Law and the Prophets. It is called the Holy Chest or Ark, Aran »shabb. 32« haqqodesh (to call it simply ' aron' was sinful)," but chiefly the Tebliah, Ark.3 It was made movable, so that it might be carried out, as on 'Megiii. public fasts.b Steps generally led up to it (the Barga or Saphsel). isa' In front hangs (this probably from an early period) the Vilon or curtain. But the Holy Lamp is never wanting, in imitation of the Exod. Undying light in the Temple.0 Bight before the Ark, and facing the people, are the seats of honour, for the rulers of the Synagogue and ist. Matt, the honourable.3 The place for him who leads the devotion of the Tos.' people is also in front of the Ark, either elevated, or else, to mark humility, lowered.4 In the middle of the Synagogue (so generally) «Megiii. 320 is the Bima,5 or elevation, on which there is the Imach, or desk,e from which the Law is read. This is also called the Kurseya, chair, or » Megm. 26 b throne,f or Kisse, and Pergulah. Those who are to read the Law will stand, while he who is to preach or deliver an address will sit. Beside them will be the Methurgeman, either to interpret, or to repeat aloud, what is said. As yet the Synagogue is empty, and we may therefore call to mind what we ought to think, and how to bear ourselves. To neglect attendance on its services would not only involve personal 1 Comp. Warren's ' Recovery of Jeru- vated in Galilee were Academies. Salem,' p. 343 &c. 3 It was also called Argas, and Qomtar 2 There is a curious passage in Ber. (Megiii. 26 b), but more generally Chest. 8 a, which states that although there * Hence the expression ' yored liphney were thirteen Synagogues in Tiberias, it hattebhah,' and ' obhed liphney hatte- was the practice of the Rabbis only to bhah.' pray ' between the columns where they s Seems also to have been called studied.' This seems to imply that the 'Kathedrah,' just as by our Lord (St. Academy consisted also of colonnades. Matt, xxiii. 2). Comp. Buxtorf 's Lexicon, For it would be difficult to believe p. 2164. that all the supposed Synagogues exca- XXVll. SANCTITY OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 437 guilt, but bring punishment upon the whole district. Indeed, to be CHAP. effectual, prayer must be offered in the Synagogue.8 At the same X time, the more strict ordinances in regard to the Temple, such as, " ' ' ° r ' ' »Comp. Ber. that we must not enter it carrying a staff, nor with shoes, nor even elands-; dust on the feet, nor with scrip or purse, do not apply to the Synagogue, as of comparatively inferior sanctity.b However, the *> Ber. 63 a Synagogue must not be made a thoroughfare. We must not behave lightly in it.0 We may not joke, laugh, eat, talk, dress, nor resort °t°3. there for shelter from sun or rain. Only Babbis and their disciples, to whom so many things are lawful , and who, indeed, must look upon the Synagogue as if it were their own dwelling, may eat, drink, per haps even sleep there. Under certain circumstances, also, the poor and strangers may be fed there.3 But, in general, the Synagogue a Pes. ioi a must be regarded as consecrated to God. Even if a new one be built, care must be taken not to leave the old edifice till the other is finished. Money collected for the building may, in cases of neces sity, be used for other purposes, but things dedicated for it are in alienable by saie. A Synagogue may be converted into an Academy, because the latter is regarded as more sacred, but not vice versa. Village Synagogues may be disposed of, under the direction of the local Sanhedrin, provided the locale be not afterwards used for incon gruous purposes, such as public baths, a wash-house, a tannery, &c. But town Synagogues are inalienable, because strangers may have contributed to them ; and, even if otherwise, they have a right to look for some place of worship. At the same time, we must bear in mind that this rule had its exceptions ; notably that, at one time, the guild of coppersmiths in Jerusalem sold their Synagogue.e B Megiii. 27 All this, irrespective of any Babbinic legends, shows with what reverence these ' houses of congregation ' were regarded. And now the weekly Sabbath, the pledge between Israel and God, had once more come. To meet it as a bride or queen, each house was adorned on the Friday evening. The Sabbath lamp was lighted ; the festive garments put on ; the table provided with the best which the family could afford ; and the Qiddush, or benediction, spoken over the cup of wine, which, as always, was mixed with water.1 And as Sabbath morning broke, they hastened with quick steps to the Synagogue ; for such was the Babbinic rule in going, while it was prescribed to return with slow and lingering steps. Jewish punctiliousness defined every 1 This, not for symbolical reasons, but rules how the cup is to be held, or even probably on account of the strength of the liturgical formula of the Qiddush. the wine. It is needless here to give the Comp. Jer. Ber. i. 8 ; vii. 6. 438 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III bComp. Schurer, Gemeind. Verfass. iu Rom, pp. 27 &c. c Schurer, u. s., pp. 18- 20 a Sanh. 92 a Chag. 5 I, • Gitt. W.a movement and attitude in prayer. If those rules were ever observed in their entirety, devotion must have been crushed under their weight. But we have evidence that, in the time of our Lord, and even later, there was much personal freedom left ; J for, not only was much in the services determined by the usage of each place, but the leader of the devotions might preface the regular service by free prayer, or insert such between certain parts of the liturgy. We are now in the Nazareth Synagogue. The officials are ad assembled. The "lowest of these is the Chazzan, or minister,3 who often acts also as schoolmaster. For this reason, and -because the conduct of the services may frequently devolve upon him, great care is taken in his selection. He must be not only irreproachable, but, if possible, his family also. Humility, modesty, knowledge of the Scriptures, distinctness and correctness in pronunciation, simplicity and neatness in dress, and an absence of self-assertion, are qualities sought for, and which, in some measure, remind us of the higher qualifications insisted on by St. Paul in the choice of ecclesiastical officers. Then there are the elders (Zeqenim), or rulers (dp-^ovrss), whose chief is the Archisynagogoi . or Rosh ha-Keneseth. These are the rulers (Parnasim), or shepherds (7roip,svss). There can be no question (from the inscriptions on the Jewish tombstones in Bome),b that the Archisynagogos ° was chief among the rulers, and that, whether or not there was, as in the community at Bome, and probably also among the dispersed in the West, besides him, a sort of political chief of the elders, or Gerousiarch.e All the rulers of the Synagogue were duly examined as to their knowledge, and ordained to the office. They formed the local Sanhedrin or tribunal. But their election depended on the choice of the congregation ; and absence of pride, as also gentleness and humility, are mentioned as special qualifications.3 Sometimes the office was held by regular teachers.e If, as in Bome, there was an apparently unordained eldership (Gerousia), it had probably only the charge of outward affairs, and acted rather as a committee of management. Indeed, in foreign Synagogues, the rulers seem to have been chosen, sometimes for a specified period, at others for life. But, although it may be admitted 1 As to all this, and the great liberty in prayer, comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Jud. pp. 368, 369, and notes a, b and d ; and Ritus des Synag. Gottesd. pp. 2 arid 3. 2 In St. Mark v. 22, several Archi synagogoi seem to be spoken of. But the expression may only mean, as Weiss sug gests, one of the order of the Archi synagogoi. The passage in Acts xiii. 15 is more difficult. Possibly it may depend upon local circumstances — the term Archisynagogoi including others beside the Archisynagogoi. in the strictest sense, such as the Gerousiarchs of the Roman inscriptions. SYNAGOGUE-PRAYERS. ^39 that the Archisynagogos, or chief ruler of the Synagogue, was only the CHAP. first among his equals, there can be no doubt that the virtual rule of X the Synagogue devolved upon him. He would have the superintend ence of Divine service, and, as this was not conducted by regular officials, he would in eaeh case determine who were to be called up to read from the Law and the Prophets, who was to conduct the prayers, and act as Sheliach Tsibbur, or messenger of the congregation, and who, if any, was to deliver an address. He would also see to it that nothing improper took place in the Synagogue," and that the prayers » st. Lute were properly conducted. In short, the supreme care, both of the services and ofthe building, would devolve upon him. To theseregular officials we have to add those who officiated during the service, the Sheliach Tsibbur, or delegate of the congregation — who, as its mouth piece, conducted the devotions — the Interpreter or Methurgeman, and those who were called on to read in the Law and the Prophets, or else to preach. We are now in some measure prepared to follow the worship on that Sabbath in Nazareth. On His entrance into the Synagogue, or perhaps before that, the chief ruler would request Jesus to act for that Sabbath as the Sheliach Tsibbur. For, according to the Mishnah,b * Megiii. iv. 6 the person who read in the Synagogue the portion from the Prophets, was also expected to conduct the devotions, at least in greater part.1 If this rule was enforced at that time, then Jesus would ascend the Bima, and, standing at the lectern, begin the service by two prayers, .which in their most ancient form, as they probably obtained in the time of our Lord, were as follows : — I. ' Blessed be Thou, 0 Lord, King of the world, Who formest the light and createst the darkness, Who makest peace, and createst everything ; Who, in mercy, givest light to the earth, and to those who dwell upon it, and in Thy goodness, day by day, and every day, renewest the works of creation. Blessed be the Lord our God for the glory of His handiworks, and for the light-giving lights which He has made for His praise. Selah. Blessed be the Lord our God, Who has formed the lights.' II. ' With great love hast Thou loved us, 0 Lord our God, and with much overflowing pity hast Thou pitied us, our Father and our King. For the sake of our fathers who' trusted in Thee, and Thou taughtest them the statutes of life, have mercy upon us, and teach us. Enlighten our eyes in Thy Law ; cause our hearts to cleave, to Thy commandments ; unite our hearts to love and fear Thy Name, 1 Part of the She-ma, and the whole of the Eulogies. 440 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III • Deut. vi. 4-9 ; xi. 13- 21 ; Numb. XV. 37-41 » Ber. ii. 2 and we shall not be put to shame, world without end. For Thou art a God Who preparest salvation, and us hast Thou chosen fro.m among all nations and tongues, and hast in truth brought us near to Thy great Name— Selah — that we may lovingly praise Thee and Thy Unity. Blessed be the Lord, Who in love chose His people Israel.' After this followed what may be designated as the Jewish Creed, called the Shema, from the word ' shema,' or ' hear,' with which it begins. It consisted of three passages from the Pentateuch," so arranged, as the Mishnah notes,b that the worshipper took upon him self first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only after it the yoke of the commandments ; and in the latter, again, first those that applied to night and day, and then those that applied to the day only. They were probably but later determinations, conceived in a spirit of hostility to what was regarded as the heresy of Christianity, which insisted that, as the first sentence in the Shema, asserting the Unity of God, was the most important, special emphasis should be laid on certain words in it. The recitation of the Shema was followed by this prayer : — ' True it is that Thou art Jehovah, our God, and the God of our fathers, our King, and the King of our fathers, our Saviour, and the Saviour of our fathers, our Creator, the Bock of our Salvation, our Help, and our Deliverer. Thy Name is from everlasting, and there is no God beside Thee. A new song did they that were delivered sing to Thy Name by the sea-shore ; together did all praise and own Thee King, and say, Jehovah shall reign, world without end ! Blessed be the Lord Who saveth Israel.' This prayer finished, he who officiated took his place before the Ark, and there repeated what formed the prayer in the strictest sense, or certain ' Eulogies ' or Benedictions. These are eighteen, or rather nineteen, in number, and date from different periods. But as on Sabbaths only the three first and the three last of them, which are also those undoubtedly of greatest age, were repeated, and between them certain other prayers inserted, only these six, with which the series respectively began and ended, need here find a place. The first Bene diction was said with bent body. It was as follows : — I. ' Blessed be the Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; the Great, the Mighty, and the Terrible God, the Most High God, Who showeth mercy and kindness, Who createth all things, Who re- membereth the gracious promises to the fathers, and bringeth a Saviour to their children's children, for His own Name's sake, in SYNAGOGUE-PRAYERS. 441 love. 0 King, Helper, Saviour, and Shield! Blessed art Thou, 0 Jehovah, the Shield of Abraham.' II. ' Thou, 0 Lord, art mighty for ever ; Thou, Who quickenest the dead, art mighty to save. In Thy mercy Thou preservest the living, Thou quickenest the dead ; in Thine abundant pity Thou bearest up those who fall, and healest those who are diseased, and loosest those who are bound, and fulfillest Thy faithful word to those who sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Lord of strength, and who can be compared to Thee, Who killest and makest alive, and causest salvation to spring forth ? And faithful art Thou to give life to the dead. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, Who quickenest the dead!' III. ' Thou art Holy, and Thy name is Holy. Selah. Blessed art Thou Jehovah God, the Holy One.' After this, such prayers were inserted as were suited to the day. And here it may be noticed that considerable latitude was allowed. For, although * it was not lawful to insert any petition in the three *tABcor,S?g first or the three last Eulogies, but only in the intermediate Benedic tions, in practice this was certainly not observed. Thus, although, by the rubric, prayer for rain and dew was to be inserted up to the season of the Passover in the ninth Benediction, yet occasionally reference to this seems also to have been made in the second Benedic tion, as connected with the quickening of that which is dead.b Nay, " Ber. S3 a some Babbis went so far as to recommend a brief summary of the eighteen Eulogies, while yet another (B. Eliezer) repudiated all fixed forms of prayer.1 But gradually, and especially after the inser tion ofthe well-known prayer against the heretics, or rather Christian converts (Eulogy XL2), the present order of the eighteen Eulogies (Amidah) seems to have been established. Both the Jerusalem c and ' Jer- Ber. x ' , . iv. 3 to end the Babylon Talmud d contain much on this subject which is of very dBer. 33a great interest.3 Following the order of the service, we now come to the con cluding Eulogies, which were as follows : — XVII. (XVI.) ' Take gracious pleasure, 0 Jehovah our God, in 1 There is even doubt, whether the ex- David, -was joined to the previous one in act words of at least some of the Benedic- order to preserve the number eighteen. tions were fixed at an early period. See Comp. Jer. Ber. iv. 3. It is sadly character- Zumz, u. s. istic that, together with a curse upon 2 Originally the Eulogies were eighteen Christian converts, the Messianic hope of in number. The addition of that against Israel should thus have been pushed into the heretics would have made them nine- the background. teen. Accordingly, Eulogy xv., which s For the sake of brevity, I can only prayed for the coming of the Branch of here refer the reader to the passages. &c. 442 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III » Sot. vii. 6 b Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8 = Sot. 37 b, 38 a a Siphr6 on Numb. par. « Numb. vi. 23-26 Thy people Israel and in their prayers, and in love accept the burnt- offerings of Israel, and their prayers with Thy good pleasure, and may the services of Thy people be ever acceptable unto Thee. And 0 that our eyes may see it, as Thou turnest in mercy to Zion. Blessed be Thou, 0 Jehovah, Who restoreth His Shekhinah to Zion.' XVIII. (XVII.) In saying this Eulogy, which was simply one of thanks, it was ordered that all should bend down. It was as follows : — ' We give praise to Thee, because Thou art He, Jehovah, our God, and the God of our fathers, for ever and ever. The Bock of our life, the Shield of our salvation, Thou art He, from generation to genera tion. We laud Thee, and declare Thy praise. For our lives which are bound up in Thine Hand, for our souls which are committed to Thee, and for Thy wonders which are with us every day, and for Thy marvellous deeds and Thy goodnesses which are at all seasons, evening, and morning, and midday — Thou Gracious One, for Thy compassions never end, Thou Pitying One, for Thy mercies never cease, for ever do we put our trust in Thee. And for all this, blessed and exalted be> Thy Name, our King, always, world without end. And all the living bless Thee — Selah — and praise Thy Name in truth, 0 God, our Salvation and our Help. Selah. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah. The Gracious One is Thy Name, and to Thee it is pleasant to give praise.' After this the priests, if any were in the Synagogue, spoke the blessing, elevating their hands up to the shoulders a (in the Temple up to the forehead). This was called the lifting up of hands.* In the Synagogue the priestly blessing was spoken in three sections, the people each time responding by an Amen.c Lastly, in the Synagogue, the word ' Adonai ' was substituted for Jehovah.d 1 If no descend ants of Aaron were present, the leader of the devotions repeated the usual priestly benediction.e After the benediction followed the last Eulogy, which, in its abbreviated form (as presently used in the Evening Service), is as follows : — • XIX. (XVIII.) ' 0 bestow on Thy people Israel great peace for ever. For Thou art King, and Lord of all peace. And it is good in Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israel at all times and at every hour with Thy peace. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, Who blesseth His people Israel with peace ! ' It was the practice of leading Eabbis, probably dating from very early times, to add at the close of this Eulogy certain prayers of their ' Minor differences need not here be detailed, especiaUy as they are by no means certain. THE BENEDICTION. 443 own, either fixed or free, of which the Talmud gives specimens. From CHAP. very early times also, the custom seems to have obtained that the X descendants of Aaron, before pronouncing the blessing, put off their shoes. In the benediction the priests turned towards the people, while he who led the ordinary prayers stood with his back to the people, looking towards the Sanctuary. The superstition, that it was unlawful to look at the priests while they spoke the blessing," must « chag. 16 a be regarded as of later date. According to the Mishnah, they who pronounce the benediction must have no blemish on their hands, face, or feet, so as not to attract attention ; but this presumably refers to those officiating in the Temple.1 It is a curious statement, that priests from certain cities in Galilee were not allowed to speak the words of blessing, because their pronunciation of the gutturals was misleading.15 According to the Jerusalem Talmud,0 moral blemishes, » Megiii. 246 or even sin, did not disqualify a priest from pronouncing the benedic- yJ!)r' Gltt" tion, since it was really God, and not man, Who gave the blessing.2 On the other hand, striet sobriety was insisted on on such occasions. Later Judaism used the priestly benediction as a means for counter acting the effects of evil dreams. The public prayers closed with an Amen, spoken by the congregation. The liturgical part being thus completed, one of the most impor tant, indeed, what had been the primary object of the Synagogue service, began. The Ghazzan, or minister, approached the Ark, and brought out a roll of the Law. It was taken from its case (teq, teqah), and unwound from those cloths (mitpachoth) which held it. The time had now come for the reading of portions from the Law and the Prophets. On the Sabbath, at least seven persons were called upon successively to read portions from the Law, none of them consisting , of less than three verses. On the ' days of congregation ' (Monday and Thursday), three persons were called up ; on New Moon's Day, ¦ and on the intermediate days of a festive week, four ; on feast days, five ; and on the Day of Atonement, six.3 No doubt, there was even 1 It seems also to have been the rule, there is a beautiful prayer, in which Israel that they must wash their hands before declares that it only needs the blessing of pronouncing the benediction (Sot. 39 a). God, according to Deut. xxvi. 15, on which 2 The question is discussed: first, who theanswercomes.thatalthoughthepriests blessed the priests ? and, secondly, what bring the benediction, it is God Who part God had in that benediction 1 The stands and blesses His people. Accord- answer will readily be guessed (Chull. 49 ingly, the benediction of the priests is a). In Siphrs; on Numbers, par. 43, the only the symbol of God's blessing. words are quoted (Numb. vi. 27) to show s For these different numbers very . that the blessing came from God, and not curious symbolical reasons are assigned from, although through, the priests. In (Megiii. 23 a). Bemidb. R. II ed, Warsh. iv. p. 40 a 444 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. c Comp. Megiii. 31 b i Gitt. 59 b e Megiii. iv. 4 f Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 27,28 in ancient times a lectionary, though certainly not that presently in use, which occupies exactly a year.1 On the contrary, the Palestinian lectionary occupied three a or, according to some, three and a half years,b half a Sabbatic period. Accordingly, we find that the Mas- sorah divides the Pentateuch into 154 sections. In regard to the lectionary of three and a half years we read of 175 sections. It re quires, however, to be borne in mind, that preparatory to, and on certain festive days, the ordinary reading was interrupted, and por tions substituted which bore on the subject of the feast. Possibly, at different periods different cycles may have obtained — those for three and a half years, three years, and even for one year.0 2 According to the Talmud,4 a descendant of Aaron was always called up first to the reading ; 3 then followed a Levite, and afterwards five ordinary Israelites. As this practice, as well as that of priestly benediction,4 has been continued in the Synagogue from father to son, it is possible still to know who are descendants of Aaron, and who Levites. The reading of the Law was both preceded and followed by brief Bene dictions. Upon the Law followed a section from the Prophets,5 the so-called Haphtarah.6 The origin of this practice is not known, although it is one that must evidently have met a requirement on the part of the worshippers. Certain it is, that the present lectionary from the Prophets did not exist in early times ; nor does it seem unlikely that the choice of the passage was left to the reader himself. At any rate, as regarded the ordinary Sabbath days,0 we are told that a reader might omit one or more verses, provided there was no break. As the Hebrew was not generally understood, the Methurgeman, or Interpreter, stood by the side of the reader/ and translated into the Aram_ean verse by verse, and in the section from the Prophets, or Haphtarah, 1 This division seems to have originated in Babylon. Comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. pp. 3, i. 2 Comp. Dnschak, Gesch. des jiid. Cultus, pp. 251-258. 3 But some of the leading Eabbis not only resisted this practice, but declared that a Rabbi who yielded to it deserved death (Megiii. 28 a; comp. Megiii. 22 a). 4 Every descendant of Aaron in the Synagogue is bound to join in the act of benediction, on pain of forfeiture of the blessing on himself, according to Gen. xii. 3. Otherwise he transgresses three com mands, contained in Numb. vi. 27 (Sot. 38 b). The present mode of dividing the fingers when pronouncing the blessing is justified by an appeal to Cant. ii. 9 (Bemidb. R. 11), although no doubt the origin of the practice is mystical. 3 The reasons commonly assigned for it are unhistorical. Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Life,' p. 278. The term Haphtarah, or rather Aphtarah and Ap/ttarta, is de rived tiompatar, to dismiss— either, hke the Latin Missa, because it ended the general service, or else because the valedictory discourse, called Aphtarah, was connected with it. 8 In a few places in Babylon (Shabb. 116 *), lessons from the Hagiographa were read at afternoon services. Besides, on Purim the whole Book of Esther was read. •Megiii. 24 a THE SERMON. -Ill after every three verses.* But the Methurgeman was not allowed to CHAP. read his translation, lest it might popularly be regarded as authorita- X tive. This may help us in some measure to understand the popular mode of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. So long as the substance of the text was given correctly, the Methurgeman might paraphrase for better popular understanding. Again, it is but natural to suppose, that the Methurgeman would prepare himself for his work by such materials as he would find to hand, among which, of course, the translation of the LXX. would hold a prominent place. This may in part account alike for the employment of the LXX., and for its Targumic modifications, in the New Testament quotations. The reading of the section from the Prophets (the Haphtarah) was in olden times immediately followed by an address, discourse, or sermon (Derashah), that is, where a Babbi capable of giving such instruction, or a distinguished stranger, was present. Neither the leader ofthe devotions (' the delegate of the congregation ' in this -mat ter, or Sheliach Tsibbur), nor the Methurgeman, nor yet the preacher, required ordination.1 That was reserved for the rule of the congre gation, whether in legislation or administration, doctrine or discipline. The only points required in the preacher were the necessary quali fications, both mental and moral.2 When a great Babbi employed a Methurgeman to explain to the people his sermon, he would, of course, select him for the purpose. Such an interpreter was also called Amora, or speaker. Perhaps the Babbi would whisper to him his remarks, while he would repeat them aloud ; or else he would only condescend to give hints, which the Amora would amplify ; or he would speak in Hebrew, and the Amora translate it into Aramasan, Greek, Latin, or whatever the language of the people might be, for the sermon must reach the people in the vulgar tongue. The Amora would also, at the close of the sermon, answer questions or meet objections. If the preacher was a very great man, he would, perhaps, not condescend to communicate with the Amora directly, but employ one of his students as a middleman. This was also the practice when the preacher was in mourning for a very near relative — for so important was his office that it must not be interrupted, even by the sorrows or the religious obligations of ' mourning.' b „ Moed K# 21 a 1 At a later period, however, ordination ordained and did not preach (Sot. 22 a). seems to have been required for preach- 2 Thus, we have a saying of the i itt ing. By a curious Rabbinic exegesis, the century ' You preach beautifully, but first clause of Prov. vii. 26 was applied to you do not practise beautifully ' (Chrg. those who preached without ordination, 14 b). and the second clause to those who were 446 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION'. Indeed, Jewish tradition uses- the most extravagant terms to . i _, extol the institution of preaching. To say that it glorified God, and brought men back, or at least nearer to Him, or that it quenched the soul's thirst, was as nothing. The little city, weak and besieged, but *Eooi.ix.i5 delivered by the wise man in it,a served as symbol of the benefit which the preacher conferred on his hearers. The Divine Spirit rested on him, and his office conferred as much merit on him as if he had Ntt_deH" offered both the blood and the fat upon the altar of burnt-offering.b No wonder that tradition traced the institution back to Moses, who had directed that, previous to, and on the various festivals, addresses, explanatory of their rites, and enforcing them, should be delivered to « Meg. 4 a the people.0 The Targum Jonathan assumes the practice in the * Targum on time of the Judges ; d the men of the Great Synagogue are, of course, Judg. v. 2, 9 or _¦ o o . ) credited with it, and Shemayah and Abhtalyon are expressly designated ni'nTeT as ' preachers.' e How general the practice was in the time of Jesus 70 * and His Apostles, the reader of the New Testament need not be told, ^Ag. Ap.u. an(j ^.g wi£nesg is fully borne out by Josephus1 and Philo.s Both * in piaco., the Jerusalem and the Babylon Talmud assume it as so common, that ed. Prof., . J ' p. 972 ; de m several passages ' Sabbath-observance and the ' Sabbath-sermon ' Vita Mos. r ° p. 688 ; Leg. are identified. Long before Hillel we read of Babbis preaching1 — no ad Caj. pp. ° . x o 1014, 1035 doubt in Latin — in the Jewish Synagogues of Bome,h just as the pS-m*" Apostles preached in Greek in the Synagogues of the dispersed. That this practice, and the absolute liberty of teaching, subject to the authority of the ' chief ruler of the Synagogue,' formed important links in the Christianisation of the world, is another evidence of that wonder-working Bule of God, which brings about marvellous results through the orderly and natural succession of events — nay, orders these means with the view to their ultimate issue. But this is not all. We have materials for drawing an accurate picture of the preacher, the congregation, and the sermon, as in those days. We are, of course, only speaking of the public addresses in the Synagogues on Sabbaths — not of those delivered at other times or in other places. Some great Babbi, or famed preacher, or else a distinguished stranger, is known to be in the town. He would of course, be asked by the ruler of the Synagogue to deliver a dis course. But who is a great preacher ? We know that such a reputation was much coveted, and conferred on its possessor great distinction. The popular preacher was a power, and quite as much an object of popular homage and flattery as in our days. Many a learned Babbi bitterly complained on finding his ponderous expositions neglected, while the multitude pushed and crowded into the neigh- THE POPULAR PREACHER. 447 bouring Synagogue to hear the declamations of some shallow popular CHAP. Haggadist.1 And so it came, that many cultivated this branch X of theology. When a popular preacher was expected, men crowded the area ofthe Synagogue, while women filled the gallery. a On such »succ. si 6 occasions, there was the additional satisfaction of feeling that they had done something specially meritorious in running with quick steps, and crowding into the Synagogue.b Por, was it not to carry out the » Ber. 6 b spirit of Hos. vi. 3 ; xi. 10 — at least, as Babbinically understood ? Even grave Babbis joined in this ' pursuit to know the Lord,' and one of them comes to the somewhat caustic conclusion, that 'the reward of a discourse is the haste.' c However, more unworthy • Ber. 6 & motives sometimes influenced some of the audience, and a Talmudic passage d traces the cause of many fasts to the meetings of the two d Kldd- 81 a sexes on such occasions. The type of a popular preacher was not very different from what in our days would' form his chief requisites. He ought to have a good figure,e a pleasant expression, and melodious voice (his words » Taan. le a ought to be ' like those of the bride to the bridegroom ') ; fluency, speech ' sweet as honey,' ' pleasant as milk and honey ' — ' finely sifted like fine flour,' a diction richly adorned, ' like a bride on her wedding- day ; ' and sufficient confidence in his own knowledge and self- assurance never to be disconcerted. Above all he must be conciliatory, and avoid being too personal. Moses had addressed Israel as rebellious and hard-hearted, and he was not allowed to bring them into the land of promise. Elijah had upbraided them with having broken the covenant, and Elisha was immediately appointed his successor. Even Isaiah had his lips touched with burning coals, because he spoke of dwelling among a people of sinful lips.f 2 As for the mental qualifi- ' Yalkut _. cations ofthe preacher, he must know his Bible well. As a bride knows ginning"6" 1 In Sot. 40 a we have an account of him that saith to the wood, Awake ; to how a popular preacher comforted his the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach 1 ' deserted brother theologian by the follow- (Sanh. 7 b). It was probably on account ing parable : ' Two men met in a city, of such scenes, that the Nasi was not the one to sell jewels and precious things, allowed afterwards to ordain without the the other toys, tinsel, and trifles. Then consent of the Sanhedrin. all the people ran to the latter shop, be- 2 In connection with this the proverb cause they did not understand the wares quoted in the New Testament is thus of the former.' A curious instance of used by. Rabbi Tarphon : ' I wonder popular wit is the following : It was ex- whether anyone at present would accept pected that a person lately ordained reproof, if you said, Remove the mote shoulddeliveradiscoursebeforethepeople. from thine eye, he would immediately The time came, but the Methurgeman reply, First remove the beam out of thine in vain bent his ear closer and closer. It own eye ' (Arach. 16 b). May this not in- was evident that the new preacher had dicate how very widely the sayings of nothing to say. On which the Methurge- Christ had spread among the people 1 man quoted Habak. ii. 19: 'Woe unto 448 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. b As in Ber. E. 14 c Shem. E. 15 BOOK properly to make use of her twenty-four ornaments, so must the HI preacher of the twenty-four books of the Bible. He must carefully prepare his subject — he is ' to hear himself before the people hear him. But whatever else he may be or do, he must be attractive.1 In earlier times the sermon might have consisted of a simple exposition of some passages from Scripture, or the Book of Sirach, which latter was treated and quoted by some of the Babbis almost as if it had been •Comp. canonical.* But this, or the full discussion of a single text2 (mp, to Gottesd. bore), would probably not be so attractive as the adaptation of a text ioi-_o6^P35i to present circumstances, or even its modification and alteration for such purposes. There were scarcely bounds to the liberties taken by the preacher. He would divide a sentence, cut off one or two syllables from a word and join them to the next, so producing a different meaning, or giving a new interpretation to a text. Perhaps the strangest method was that of introducing Greek words and expressions into the Hebrew, and this not only to give a witty repartee,b but in illustration of Scripture.0 Nay, many instances occur, in which a Hebrew word is, from the similarity of its sound with the Greek, rendered as if it were actually Greek, and thus a new meaning is given to a passage.3 If such licence was taken, it seems a comparatively small thing that a doctrine was derived from a word, a particle, or even a letter. But, as already stated, the great point was to attract the hearers. Parables, stories, allegories, witticisms, strange and foreign words, absurd legends, in short, anything that might startle an audience, was introduced.4 Sometimes a discourse was entirely Haggadic ; at meaning, thou art the burnt-offering.' But the Greek in the former passage is also explained by rendering the ' achikha ' as an Aramaic form of Zouta, in which case it would targumically mean ' With hold not thy hand from the poor, who is like to thee.' Comp. the interesting tractate of Briill (Fremdspr. Redens. p. 21). A play upon Greek words is also supposed to occur inthe Midrash on Cant. ii. 9, where the word ' dodi,' by omitting the second d, and transposing the yod and the vav, is made into the Greek bios, divine. But I confess I do not feel quite sure about this, although it has the countenance of Levy. In the Midrash on Cant. ii. 15, a whole Greek sentence is inserted, only Aramaically written. See also Sachs, Beitr. pp. 19 &c. 4 Thus, when on one occasion the hearers of Akiba were going to sleep during his sermon, he called out : ' Why was Esther 1 Even the celebrated R. Eliezer had the misfortune that, at a, festival, his hearers one by one stole out during the sermon (Bez. 15 b). On the other hand, it is said of R. Akiba, although his success as a preacher was very varied, that his application to Israel of the sufferings of Job and of his final deliverance moved his hearers to tears (Ber. R. 33). 2 See Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 352, Note b. 3 Thus, in Tanch. on Ex. xxii. 2i (ed. Warsh. p. 105 a and b, sect. 15, towards the end), the expression in Deut. xv. 7, ' Meachikha,' from thy brother, is rendered ' ivi] achikha,' not thy brother. Similarly, in the Pesiqta, the statement in Gen. xxii. 7, 8, ' God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt-offering,' is paraphrased ' And if not a Seh (lamb) for a burnt- offering, my son, oi (thee) for a burnt- ofiering.' It is added, ' se leolah is Greek, TREATMENT OF A SUBJECT. 449 others, the Haggadah served to introduce the Halakhah. Sometimes CHAP. the object of the preacher was purely homiletical ; at others, he dealt X chiefly with the explanation of Scripture, or of the rites and meaning ' of festivals. A favourite method was that which derived its name from the stringing together of pearls (Gharaz), when a preacher, having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, from the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Or else he would divide a sentence, generally under three heads, and connect with each of the clauses a separate doctrine, and then try to support it by Scripture. It is easy to imagine to what lengths such preachers might go in their misinter pretation and misrepresentations of the plain text of Holy Scripture. And yet a collection of short expositions (the Pesiqta), which, though not dating from that period, may yet fairly be taken as giving a good idea of this method of exposition, contains not a little that is fresh, earnest, useful, and devotional. It is interesting to know that, at the close of his address, the preacher very generally referred to the great Messianic hope of Israel. The service closed with a short prayer, or what we would term an ' ascription.' We can now picture to ourselves the Synagogue, its worship, and teaching. We can see the leader of the people's devotions as (accord ing to Talmudic direction) he first refuses, with mock-modesty, the honour conferred on him by the chief ruler ; then, when urged, pre pares to go ; and when pressed a third time, goes up with slow and measured steps to the lectern, and then before the Ark. We can imagine how one after another, standing and facing the people, un rolls and holds in his hand a copy of the Law or of the Prophets, and reads from the Sacred Word, the Methurgeman interpreting. Finally, we can picture it, how the preacher would sit down and begin his dis course, none interrupting him with questions till he had finished, when a succession of objections, answers, or inquiries might await the Amora, if the preacher had employed such help. And help it cer tainly was not in many cases, to judge by the depreciatory and caustic remarks, which not unfrequently occur, as to the manners, tone, vanitv, self-conceit, and silliness of the Amora* who, as he stood •mar. on Bed. vii. . 17' Queen in Persia over 127 provinces ? replied to the question, who she was : Answer : She was- a descendant of Sarah, ' It was Jochebed, who bore Moses, who who lived 127 years' (Ber. R. 58). On is reckoned equal to all the 600,000 of a similar occasion R. Jehudah startled Israel ' (Midr. Shir haSh. R., ed. Warsh.,' the sleepers by the question : ' One p. Hi, towards the end). woman in Egypt bore 600,000 men in one l In both these passages ' the fools ' birth.' One of his hearers immediately are explained to refer to the Methurgeman VOL. I. G G 450 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK beside the Babbi, thought far more of attracting attention and 111 applause to himself, than of benefiting his hearers. Hence some » chag. 14 a RaDhis would only employ special and trusted interpreters of their own, who were above fifty years of age.a In short, so far as the sermon was concerned, the impression it produced must have been very similar to what we know the addresses of the monks in the Middle Ages to have wrought. All the better can we understand, even from the human aspect, how the teaching of Jesus, alike in its substance and form, in its manner and matter, differed from that of the scribes ; how multitudes would hang entranced on His word ; and how, everywhere and by all, its impression was felt to be over powering. But it is certainly not the human aspect alone which here claims our attention. The perplexed inquiry : ' Whence hath this man this wisdom and this knowledge ? ' must find another answer than the men of Nazareth could suggest, although to those in our days also who deny His Divine character, this must ever seem an unanswered and unanswerable question. THE VISIT TO NAZARETH. 451 CHAPTEB XI. THE FIRST OALII_EAN MINISTRY. (St. Matt. iv. 13-17 ; St. Mark i. 14, 15 ; St. Luke iv. 15-32.) The visit to Nazareth was in many respects decisive. It presented chap. by anticipation an epitome of the history of the Christ. He came to xi His own, and His own received Him not. The first time He taught ' ' in the Synagogue, as the first time He taught in the Temple, they cast Him out. On the one and the other occasion, they questioned His authority, and they asked for a ' sign.' In both instances, the power which they challenged was, indeed, claimed by Christ, but its display, in the manner which they expected, refused. The analogy seems to extend even farther — and if a misrepresentation of what Jesus had said when purifying the Temple formed the ground of the final false charge against Him,a the taunt of the Nazarenes : ' Physician, heal » st. Matt. thyself! ' found an echo in the mocking cry, as He hung on the Cross : XXT1' 60' 61 ' He saved others, Himself He cannot save.' b b gt. Matt. It is difficult to understand how, either on historical grounds, or X3ml' 4tM8 after study of the character of Christ, the idea could have arisen l that Jesus had offered, or that He had claimed, to teach on that Sabbath in the Synagogue of Nazareth. Had He attempted what, alike in spirit and form, was so contrary to all Jewish notions, the whole character of the act would have been changed. As it was, the contrast with those by whom He was surrounded is almost as striking, as the part which He bore in the scene. We take it for granted, that what had so lately taken place in Cana, at only four miles' distance, or, to speak more accurately, in Capernaum, had become known in Nazareth. It raised to the highest pitch of expectancy the interest and curiosity previously awakened by the reports, which the Galileans had brought from Jerusalem, and by the general fame which had spread about Jesus. They were now to test, whether their 1 And yet most commentators — follow- that Christ had ' stood up ' in the sense of iiig, I suppose, the lead of Meyer — hold offering or claiming to read. a g 2 452 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK countryman would be equal to the occasion, and do in His own city 111 what they had heard had been done for Capernaum. To any ordinary man the return to Nazareth in such circumstances must have been an ordeal. Not so to the Christ, Who, in utter self-forgetfulness, had only this one aim of life — to do the Will of Him that sent Him. And so His bearing that day in the Synagogue is itself evidence, that while in, He was not of, that time. Bealising the scene on such occasions, we mark the contrast. As there could be no un-Jewish forwardness on the part of Jesus, so, assuredly, would there be none of that mock-humility of reluctance to officiate, in which Eabbinism delighted. If, as in the circumstances seems likely, Jesus commenced the first part of the service, and then pronounced before the ' Ark ' those Eulogies which were regarded as, in the strictest sense, the prayer (Tephillah), we can imagine — though we can scarcely realise — the reverent solemnity, which would seem to give a new meaning to each well-remembered sentence. And in His mouth it all had a new meaning. We cannot know what, if any, petitions He inserted, though we can imagine what their spirit would have been. And now, one by one, Priest, Levite, and, in succession, five Israelites, had read from the Law. There is no reason to disturb the almost traditional idea, that Jesus Himself read the concluding1 portion from the Prophets, or the so-called Haphtarah. The whole narrative seems to imply this. Similarly, it is most likely that the Haphtarah for that day was taken from the prophecies of Isaiah,1 and » is. lxi. 1, 2 that it included the passage * quoted by the Evangelist as read by the ivSti8^e Lord Jesus.b We know that the ' rolls ' on which the Law was Baba b. written were distinct from those of the Prophets ; c and every proba bility points to it, that those of the Prophets, at least the Greater, were also written on separate scrolls. In this instance we are expressly told, that the minister ' delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias,' we doubt not, for the Haphtarah,2 and that, ' when He had unrolled the book,' He ' found ' the place from which the Evangelist makes quotation. 1 Although we cannot feel quite sure part of the Haphtarah. There are, how- - of this. ever, two objections to this view : 1. Our 2 I infer this from the fact, that the Book modern lectionary of Haphtarahs is cer- of the Prophet Isaiah was given to Him by tainly not the same as that in the time of the Minister of the Synagogue. Since the Christ. 2. Even in our modern lectionary, time of Bengel it has been a kind of tra- Is. lxi. 1, 2 forms no part of the Haph- ditional idea that, if this was the Haph- torah, either for the Day of Atonement, tarah for the day, the sermon of Christ nor for any other Sabbath or festive day. in Nazareth must have taken place on In the modern lectionary Is. Ivii. 14 to the Day of Atonement, for which in the Is. Iviii. 14 is the Haphtarah for the Day modern Jewish lectionary Is. Iviii. 6 forms of Atonement. 13 6 THE HAPHTARAH AND THE TEXT OF CHRIST'S DISCOURSE. 453 When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty- first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the whole Haphtarah. According to traditional rule,0, the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less go^xifb than twenty-one verses,1 though, if the passage was to be ' targumed,' or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists really of only one verse (Is. lxi. 1), together with a clause from Is. Iviii- 6,2 and the first clause of Is. lxi. 2. This could scarcely have formed the whole Haphtarah. There are other reasons also against this supposition. No doubt Jesus read alike the Haphtarah and the text of His discourse in Hebrew, and then ' targumed ' or translated it ; while St. Luke, as might be expected, quotes (with but two trifling alterations 3) from the rendering of the LXX. But, on investigation, it appears that one clause is omitted from Is. lxi. I,4 and that between. the close of Is. lxi. 1 and the clause of verse 2, which is added, a clause is inserted from the LXX. of Is. Iviii. 6.5 This could scarcely have been done in reading the Haphtarah. But if, as we suppose, the passages quoted formed the introductory text of Christ's dis course, such quotation and combination were not only in accordance with Jewish custom, but formed part of the favourite mode of teach ing — the Charaz — or stringing, like pearls, passage to passage, illus trative of each other.6 In the present instance, the portion of the scroll which Jesus unrolled may have exhibited in close proximity the two passages which formed the introductory text (the so-called Pethichah). But this is of comparatively small interest, since both the omission of a clause from Is. lxi. 1, and the insertion of an other adapted from Is. Iviii. 6, were evidently intentional. It might be presumptuous to attempt stating the reasons which may have influenced the Saviour in this, and yet some of them will instinctively occur to every thoughtful reader. 1 This symbolically : 7x3, since each broken-hearted,' is spurious. of the seven readers in the Law had to 4 All the best MSS. omit the words, read at least three verses. ' To heal the broken-hearted.' 2 ' To set at liberty those that are 5 See above, Note 2. bruised.' The words are taken, with but 6 See the remarks on this point in the a slight necessary alteration in the verb, previous chapter. If I rightly under- from the LXX. rendering of Is. Iviii. 6. stand the somewhat obscure language The clause from Is. lxi. 2 is: ' To preach .of Surenhusius (Biblos Katallages, pp. the acceptable year of the Lord.' 339-345), such is also the view of that 3 Preaching instead of proclaiming, in learned writer. This peculiarly Jewish Is. lxi. 2, and in the form of the verb in method of Scriptural quotation by the clause from Is. Iviii. 6. Besides, the ' stringing together ' is employed by St. insertion of the clause : ' to heal the Paul in Bom. iii. 10-18. 454 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK It was, indeed, Divine ' wisdom ' — ' the Spirit of the Lord ' upon III Him, which directed Jesus in the choice of such a text for His first ' ' Messianic Sermon. It struck the key-note to the whole of His Galilean ministry. The ancient Synagogue regarded Is. lxi. 1, 2, as » THe other one of the three passages," in which mention of the Holy Ghost was two being r ° . . . T , . , .. is. xxxii. 14, connected with the promised redemption.1 In this view, the appli- Lament. cation which the passage received in the discourse of our Lord was peculiarly suitable. For the words in which St. Luke reports what followed the Pethichah, or introductory text, seem rather a sum mary, than either the introduction or part of the discourse of Christ. ' This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.' A sum mary this, which may well serve to guide in all preaching. As regards its form, it would be : so to present the teaching of Holy Scripture, as that it can be drawn together in the focus of one sentence ; as regards its substance, that this be the one focus : all Scrip ture fulfilled by a present Christ. And this — in the Gospel which He bears to the poor, the release which He announces to the captives, the healing which He offers to those whom sin had blinded, and the freedom He brings to them who were bruised ; and all as the trumpet-blast of God's Jubilee into His world of misery, sin, and want ! A year thus begun would be glorious indeed in the blessings it gave. There was not a word in all this of what common Jewish expect ancy would have connected with, nay, chiefly accentuated in an an nouncement of the Messianic redemption ; not a word to raise carnal hopes, or flatter Jewish pride. Truly, it was the most un-Jewish discourse for a Jewish Messiah of those days, with which to open His Ministry. And yet such was the power of these ' words of grace,' that the hearers hung spell-bound upon them. Every eye was fastened on Him with hungry eagerness. For the time they forgot all else — Who it was that addressed them, even the strangeness of the message, so unspeakably in contrast to any preaching of Eabbi or Teacher that had been heard in that Synagogue. Indeed, one can scarcely conceive the impression which the Words of Christ must have produced, when promise and fulfilment, hope and reality, mingled, and wants of the heart, hitherto unrealised, were wakened, only to be more than satisfied. It was another sphere, another life. Truly, the anointing of the Holy Ghost was on the Preacher, from Whose lips dropped these ' words of grace.' And if such was the announcement of the Year of God's Jubilee, what blessings must it bear in its bosom ! • See the Appendix on the Messianic passages. THE HEARERS IN THE SYNAGOGUE. 455 The discourse had been spoken, and the breathless silence with CHAP. which, even according to Jewish custom, it had been listened to,1 gave XI place to the usual after-sermon hum of an Eastern Synagogue. On ^~ ' one point all were agreed : that they were marvellous words of grace, which had proceeded out of His mouth. And still the Preacher waited, with deep longing of soul, for some question, which would have marked the spiritual application of what He had spoken. Such deep longing of soul is kindred to, and passes into almost sternness, just because he who so longs is so intensely in earnest, in the conviction of the reality of his message. It was so with Jesus in Nazareth. They were indeed making application of the Sermon to the Preacher, but in quite different manner from that to which His discourse had pointed. It was not the fulfilment of the Scripture in Him, but the circumstance, that such an one as the Son of Joseph, their village carpenter, should have spoken such words, that attracted their atten tion. Not, as we take it, in a malevolent spirit, but altogether unspiritually, as regarded the effect of Christ's words, did one and another, here and there, express wonderment to his neighbour. They had heard, and now they would fain have seen. But already the holy indignation of Him, Whom they only knew as Joseph's son, was kindled. The turn of matters ; their very admiration and ex pectation ; their vulgar, unspiritual comments : it was all so entirely contrary to the Character, the Mission, and the Words of Jesus. No doubt they would next expect, that here in His own city, and all the more because it was such, He would do what they had heard had taken place in Capernaum. It was the world-old saying, as false, except to the ear, and as speciously popular as most such sayings : ' Charity begins at home ' — or, according to the Jewish proverb, and in application to the special circumstances : ' Physician, heal thyself.' * Whereas, if there is any meaning in truth and principle ; if there was any meaning and reality in Christ's Mission, and in the discourse He had just spoken, Charity does not begin at home ; and ' Physician, heal thyself' is not of the Gospel for the poor, nor yet the preaching of God's Jubilee, but that of the Devil, whose works Jesus had come to destroy. How could He, in His holy abhorrence and indignation, say this better than by again repeating, though now with different application, that sad experience, ' No prophet is accepted in his own country,' which He could have hoped was for ever behind Him ; " and * st. John 1 See the previous chapter. It was the afterwards. universal rule to listen to the sermon in 2 The proverb really is : ' Physician, perfect silence (Pes. 110 a ; Moed K. a). heal thine own lameness ' (Ber. R. 23, The questions and objections commenced ed. Warsh. p. 45 i) iv. 44 456 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK by pointing to those two Old Testament instances of it, whose names 111 and authority were most frequently on Jewish lips ? Not they who were ' their own,' but they who were most receptive in faith — not Israel, but Gentiles, were those most markedly favoured in the ministry of Elijah and of Elisha.1 As we read the report of Jesus' words, we perceive only dimly that aspect of them which stirred the wrath of His hearers to the utmost, and yet we do understand it. That He should have turned so fully the light upon the Gentiles, and flung its large shadows upon them ; that ' Joseph's Son ' should have taken up this position towards them ; that He would make to them spiritual application unto death of His sermon, since they would not make it unto life : it stung them to the quick. Away He must out of His city ; it could not bear His Presence any longer, not even on that holy Sabbath. Out they thrust Him from the Synagogue ; forth they pressed Him out of the city ; on they followed, and around they beset Him along the road by the brow of the hill on which the city is built — perhaps to that western angle, at present pointed out as the site.2 ' This, with the unspoken intention of crowding Him over the cliff,3 which there rises abruptly about forty feet out of the valley beneath.4 If we are correct in indicating the locality, the road here bifurcates,5 and we can conceive how Jesus, Who had hitherto, in the silence of sad ness, allowed Himself almost mechanically to be pressed onwards by the surrounding crowd, now turned, and by that look of commanding majesty, the forthbreaking of His Divine Being, which ever and again wrought on those around miracles of subjection, constrained them to halt and give way before Him, while unharmed He passed through their midst.6 So did Israel of old pass through the cleft waves of the sea, which the wonder-working rod of Moses had converted into 1 The statement that the famine in the Church. time of Elijah lasted three and a half years 5 See the plan of Nazareth in B'ddelier's is in accordance with universal Jewish (Socin's) Palsestina, p. 255. The road to tradition. Comp. Yalkut on 1 Kings xvi., the left goes westward, that through vol. ii. p 32 ft. the northern part of the town, towards 2 See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. Capernaum. Our localisation gains in 363. But surely it could not have been probability, if the ancient Synagogue the south- western corner (Conder, Tent- stood where tradition places it. At Work, i. p. 140, and all later writers). present it is in the hands of the Maron- 3 The provision, which awarded instant ites. death without formal trial in case of open e The circumstance that the Naza- blasphemy or profanation (Sanh. 81 b), renes did not avow the purpose of would not apply in this instance. Pro- casting Him over the cliff, but intended bably the purpose was, that the crowd accidentally to crowd Him over, explains around should, as it were accidentally, how, when He turned sharply 'round to push Him over the cliff. the right, and passed through the crowd, 4 The spot is just above the Maronite they did not follow Him. THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM. 457 a wall of safety. Yet, although He parted from it in judgment, CHAP. not thus could the Christ have finally and for ever left His own XI Nazareth.1 " ' ' Cast out of His own city, Jesus pursued His solitary way towards Capernaum.2 There, at least, devoted friends and believing disciples would welcome Him. There, also, a large draught of souls would fill the Gospel-net. Capernaum would be His Galilean home." Here He a st. Matt. would, on the Sabbath-days, preach in that Synagogue, of which the ix' l good centurion was the builder,b.and Jairus the chief ruler.0 These "st. mke names, and the memories connected with them, are a sufficient com- ™16„ , ' . ' c St. Mark v. ment on the effect of His preaching : that ' His word was with power.' 22 In Capernaum, also, was the now believing and devoted household of the court-officer, whose only son the Word of Christ, spoken at a distance, had restored to life. Here also, or in the immediate neigh bourhood, was the home of His earliest and closest disciples, the brothers Simon and Andrew, and of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. From the character of the narrative, and still more from the later call of these four,d it would seem that, after the return of Jesus from * st- Matt- Judasa into Galilee, His disciples had left Him, probably in Cana, and ™fl parallels returned to their homes and ordinary avocations. They were not yet called to forsake all and follow Him — not merely to discipleship, but to fellowship and Apostolate. When He went from Cana to Nazareth, they returned to Capernaum. They knew He was near them. Presently He came ; and now His Ministry was in their own Caper naum, or in its immediate neighbourhood. 1 Many, even orthodox commentators, not many. 4. In narrative A He is thrust- hold that this history is the same as that out of the city immediately after His related in St. Matt. xiii. 54-58, and St. sermon, while narrative B implies, that Mark vi. 1-6. But, for the reasons about He continued for some time in Nazareth, to be stated, I have come, although some- only wondering at their unbelief. what hesitatingly, to the conclusion, that If it be objected, that Jesus could the narrative of St. Luke and those of St. scarcely have returned to Nazareth after Matthew and St. Mark refer to different the attempt on His life, we must bear in events. 1. The narrative in St. Luke mind that this purpose had not been (which we shall call A) refers to the avowed, and that His growing fame commencement of Christ's Ministry, while during the intervening period may those' of St. Matthew and St. Mark (which have rendered such a return not only we shall call B) are placed at a later possible, but even advisable. period. Nor does it seem likely, that our The coincidences as regards our Lord's Lord would have entirely abandoned statement about the Prophet, and their Nazareth after one rejection. 2. In objection as to His being the carpenter's narrative A, Christ is without disciples ; son, are only natural in the circum- in narrative B He is accompanied by them. stances. 3. In narrative A no miracles are recorded 2 Probably resting in the immediate — in fact, His words about Elijah and neighbourhood of Nazareth, and pursu- Elisha preclude any idea of them ; while ing His journey next day, when the in narrative B there are a, few, though Sabbath was past. 458 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III » St. Matt. iv. 13-17 b Is. ix. 2 0 Tanch. on Gen. vi. 9 ; ed. Warsh. p. 116 For Capernaum was not the only place where He taught. Bather was it the centre for itinerancy through all that district, to preach in its Synagogues." Amidst such ministry of quiet 'power,' chiefly alone and unattended by His disciples, the summer passed. Truly, it was summer in the ancient land of Zebulun and Naphtali, in the Galilee of the Gentiles, when the glorious Light that had risen chased away the long winter's darkness, and those who had been the first exiles in Assyrian bondage were the first brought back to Israel's true liberty, and by Israel's Messiah-King. To the writer of the first Gospel, as, long years afterwards, he looked back on this, the happy time when he had first seen the Light, till it had sprung up even to him ' in the region and shadow of death,' it must have been a time of peculiarly bright memories. How often, as he sat at the receipt of custom, must he have seen Jesus passing by; how often must he have heard His Words, some, perhaps, spoken to himself, but all falling like good seed into the field of his heart, and preparing him at once and joyously to obey the summons when it came : Follow Me ! And not to him only, but to many more, would it be a glowing, grow ing time of heaven's own summer. There was a dim tradition in the Synagogue, that this prediction,b ' The people that walk in darkness see a great light,' referred to the new light, with which God would enlighten the eyes of those who had penetrated into the mysteries of Babbinic lore, enabling them to perceive concerning ' loosing and binding, concerning what was clean and what was unclean.' c Others ! regarded it as a promise to the early exiles, fulfilled when the great liberty came to them. To Levi- Matthew it seemed as if both interpretations had come true in those days of Christ's first Galilean ministry. Nay, he saw them combined in a higher unity when to their eyes, enlightened by the great Light, came the new knowledge of what was bound and what loosed, what unclean and clean, though quite differently from what Judaism had declared it to them ; and when, in that orient Sun, the promise of liberty to long-banished Israel was at last seen fulfilled. It was, indeed, the highest and only true fulfilment of that prediction of Isaiah,2 in a history where all was prophetic, every partial fulfilment only an unfolding and opening of the bud, and each symbolic of further unfolding till, in the fulness of time, the great Beality came, See Mikraoth Gedoloth on the 2 The words, 'That it might be ful filled which was spoken by Esaias,' do not bear the meaning, that this was their primary and literal purpose. They re present a frequent mode of citation among Jewish writers, indicating a real fulfilment of the spirit, though not always of the letter, of a prophecy. On this subr 'THE PEOPLE THAT WALK IN DARKNESS SEE A GREAT LIGHT.' 459 to which all that was prophetic in Israel's history and predictions pointed. And so as, in the evening of his days, Levi-Matthew looked back to distant Galilee, the glow of the setting sun seemed once more to rest on that lake, as it lay bathed in its sheen of gold. It lit up that city, those shores, that custom-house ; it spread far off, over those hills, and across the Jordan. Truly, and in the only true sense, had then the promise been fulfilled : a ' To them which sat in the region * st. Matt. and shadow of death, light is sprung up.' ject see also Surenhusius, u. s.,p. 218, and be fulfilled which was spoken'), u. s., pp. his admirable exposition of the Jewish 2-4. formula -|D_OB' DD D"p^ (' that it might 460 prom JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTER Xn. AT THE ' UNKNOWN ' FEAST IN JERUSALEM, AND BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. (St. John v.) BOOK The shorter days of early autumn had come,1 and the country stood III in all its luxurious wealth of beauty and fruitfulness, as Jesus passed ' . from Galilee to what, in the absence of any certain evidence, we must still be content to call ' the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. Thus much, however, seems clear that it was either the ' Feast of Wood-offering ' on the 15th of Abh (in August), when, amidst demonstrations of joy, willing givers brought from all parts of the country the wood required for the service of the Altar ; or else the ' Feast of Trumpets ' on the 1st of Tishri (about the middle of September), which marked the be ginning of the New (civil) Year.2 The journey of Christ to that Feast and its results are not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, because that Judasan ministry which, if the illustration be lawful, was the historical thread on which St. John strung his record of what the Word spake, lay, in great measure, beyond their historical standpoint. Besides, this and similar events belonged, indeed, to that grand Self-Mani festation of Christ, which the corresponding growth of opposition consequent upon it, which it was the object of the Fourth Gospel to set forth ; but it led to no permanent results, and so was outside the scope of the more popular, pragmatic record, which the other Gospels had in view. There may in this instance, however, have been other reasons also for their silence. It has already been indicated that, during the summer of Christ's first Galilean ministry, when Capernaum was His centre of action, the disciples had returned to their homes and usual avocations, while Jesus moved about chiefly alone and unattended. This explains the circumstance of a second call, even to His most intimate and closest followers. It also accords best with that gradual 1 Both Godet and Prof. Westeott (the indicate immediate succession of time. latter more fully) have pointed out the 2 For a full discussion of the question distinction between peril ravra (literally : see vol. ii. App. XV. pp. 765, 766 ; for 'after those things— as in St. John v. 1'), the 'Feast of Wood-offering,' 'The and ne™ tovto. The former does not Temple and its Services, &c.,' pp. 295, 296. CHRIST AT 'THE UNKNOWN FEAST.' 461 development in Christ's activity, which, commencing with the more CHAP. private teaching of the new Preacher of Eighteousness in the villages XII by the lake, or in the Synagogues, expanded into that publicity in ' which He at last appears, surrounded by His Apostles, attended by the loving ministry of those to whom He had brought healing of body or soul, and followed by a multitude which everywhere pressed around Him for teaching and help. This more public activity commenced with the return of Jesus from ' the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. There He had, in answer to the challenge of the Jewish authorities, for the first time set forth His Messianic claims in all their fulness. And there, also, He had for the first time encountered that active persecution unto death, of which Golgotha was the logical outcome. This Feast, then, .was the time of critical decision. Accordingly, as involving the separation from the old state and the commencement of a new condition of things, it was immediately followed by the call of His disciples to a new Apostle- ship. In this view, we can also better understand the briefness of the notices of His first Galilean ministry, and how, after Christ's return from that Feast, His teaching became more full, and the display of His miraculous power more constant and public. It seems only congruous, accordant with all the great decisive steps of Him in Whose footprints the disciples trod, only after He had marked them, as it were, with His Blood — that He should have gone up to that Feast alone and unattended. That such had been the case, has been inferred by some from this, that the narrative of the healing of the impotent man reads so Jewish, that the account of it appears to have been derived by St. John from a Jew at Jerusalem.* 1 Others 2 » wetstein have come to the same conclusion from the meagreness of details about the event. But it seems implied in the narrative itself, and the marked and exceptional absence of any reference to disciples leads to the obvious conclusion, that they had not been with their Master. But, if Jesus was alone and unattended at the Feast, the question arises, whence the report was derived of what He said in reply to the challenge of the Jews ? Here the answer naturally suggests itself, that the Master Himself may, at some later period of His life — perhaps during His last stay in Jerusalem — have communicated to His disciples, or else to him who stood nearest to Him, the details of what 1 The reader will have no difficulty in would take too much space to particu- finding not a few points in St. John v. larise them. utterly irreconcilable with the theory of 2 So Gess, Godet, and others. a second century Ephesian Gospel. It 462 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK had passed on the first occasion when the Jewish authorities had *n sought to extinguish His Messianic claims in His blood. If that communication was made when Jesus was about to be offered up, it would also account for what otherwise might seem a difficulty ; the very developed form of expression in which His relation to the Father, and His own Office and Power, are presented. We can understand how, from the very first, all this should have been laid before the teachers of Israel. But in view of the organic development of Christ's teaching, we could scarcely expect it to have been expressed in such very full terms, till near the close of His Ministry.1 But we are anticipating. The narrative transports us at once to what, at the time, seems to have been a well-known locality in Jeru salem, though all attempts to identify it, or even to explain the name Bethesda, have hitherto failed. All we know is, that it was a pool enclosed within five porches, by the sheep-market, presumably 82^exii!13'91' close to the ' Sheep-Gate.' a This, as seems most likely, opened from the busy northern suburb of markets, bazaars, and workshops, east wards upon the road which led over the Mount of Olives and Bethany to Jericho.2 In that case, most probability would attach to the identification of the Pool Bethesda with a pool somewhat north of the so-called Birket Israil. At present it is wholly filled with rubbish, but in the time of the Crusaders it seems to have borne the name of the Sheep-pond, and, it was thought, traces of the five porches could still be detected. Be this as it may, it certainly bore in the ' Hebrew ' — or rather Aramsean — ' tongue,' the name Bethesda. No doubt this name was designative, though the common explanations — Beth Chisda (so most modern writers, and Watkins) ' House of Mercy ' (?), Be& Istebha («?PW, Delitzsch), ' House of Porches,' and Beth Zeytha (West eott) ' House of the Olive ' — seem all unsatisfactory. More probability attaches to the rendering Beth Asutha (Wiinsche), or Beth Asyatha, ' House of Healing.' But as this derivation offers linguistic difficulties, we would suggest that the second part of the name (Beth-Esda) was really a Greek word Aramaised. Here two different derivations sug gest themselves. The root-word of Esda might either express to ' become well ' — Beth Lacrdai — or something akin to the Babbinic Zit 3 (w = %r)Qt). In ^h-8* caae> *he designation would agree with an > Even Strauss admits, that the dis- St. John, is a curious instance of critical course contains nothing which might not argumentation (Leben Jesu, i. p 646) have been spoken by Christ. His obj.ee- * Comp. specially Riehm's Handwor- tion to its authenticity, on the ground of terb. ad voe. the analogies to it in certain portions of 3 Said when people sneezed like the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistles of ' Prosit, 1 ' 'THE TROUBLING OF THE WATER.' 463 ancient reading of the name, Bethzatha. Or else, the name Bethesda CHAP. might combine, according to a not uncommon Babbinic practice, the XII Hebrew Beth with some Aramaised form derived from the Greek word ' ' few, ' to boil ' or ' bubble up ' (subst. £s