|
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Vol.1
Written by: Edersheim, Alfred Posted on: 03/13/2003
Category: Biographies
Source: CCN
Etext of Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim
1883
Volume 1
INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH
WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST, THE
JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE EAST.
CHAPTER I
Among the outward means by which the religion of Israel was
preserved, one of the most important was the centralisationand
localisation of its worship in Jerusalem. If to some theordinances
of the Old Testament may in this respect seemnarrow and
exclusive, it is at least doubtful, whetherwithout such a provision
Monothsiem itself could havecontinued as a creed or a worship. In
view of the state ofthe ancient world, and of the tendencies of
Israel during theearlier stages of their history, the strictest isolation
wasnecessary in order to preserve the religion of the OldTestament
from that mixture with foreign elements which wouldspeedily
have proved fatal to its existence. And if onesource of that danger
had ceased after the seventy years'exile in babylonia, the
dispersion of the greater part of thenation among those manners
and civilisation would necessarilyinfluence them, rendered the
continuance of this separationof as great importance as before. In
this respect, eventraditionalism had its mission and use, as a hedge
around theLaw to render its infringement or modification
impossible.
Wherever a Roman, a Greek, or an Asiatic might wander, hecould
take his gods with him, or find rites kindred to hisown. It was far
otherwise with the Jew. He had only oneTemple, that in
Jerusalem; only one God, Him Who had oncethroned there
between the Cherubim, and Who was still Kingover Zion. That
Temple was the only place where aGod-appointed, pure priesthood
could offer acceptablesacrifices, whether for forgiveness of sin, or
for fellowshipwith God. Here, in the impenetrable gloom of the
innermostsanctuary, which the High-Priest alone might enter once
ayear for most solemn expiation, had stood the Ark, the leaderof
the people into the Land of Promise, and the footstool onwhich the
Schechinah had rested. From that golden altar rosethe cloud in
incense, symbol of Israel's accepted prayers;that seven-branched
candlestick shed its perpetual light,indicative of the brightness of
God's Covenant Presence; onthat table, as it were before the face
of Jehovah, was laid,week by week, 'the Bread of the Face,' [1
Such is the literalmeaning of what is translated by 'shewbread.'] a
constantsacrificial meal which Israel offered unto God, and
wherewithGod in turn fed His chosen priesthood. On the
greatblood-sprinkled altar of sacrifice smoked the daily andfestive
burnt-offerings, brought by all Israel, and for allIsrael, wherever
scattered; while the vast courts of theTemple were thronged not
only by native Palestinians, butliterally by 'Jews out of every
nation under heaven.' Aroundthis Temple gathered the sacred
memories of the past; to itclung the yet brighter hopes of the
future. The history ofIsrael and all their prospects were intertwined
with theirreligion; so that it may be said that without their
religionthey had no history, and without their history no
religion.Thus, history, patriotism, religion, and hope alike
pointedto Jerusalem and the Temple as the centre of Israel's unity.
Nor could the depressed state of the nation alter theirviews or
shake their confidence. What mattered it, that theIdumaean,
Herod, had unsurped the throne of David, expect sofar as his own
guilt and their present subjection wereconcerned? Israel had
passed through deeper waters, and stoodtriumphant on the other
shore. For centuries seeminglyhopeless bondsmen in Egypt, they
had not only been delivered,but had raised the God-inspired
morning-song of jubilee, asthey looked back upon the sea cleft for
them, and which hadburied their oppressors in their might and
pride. Again, forweary years had their captives hung Zion's harps
by therivers of that city and empire whose colossal
grandeur,wherever they turned, must have carried to the
scatteredstrangers the desolate feeling of utter hopelessness. And
yetthat empire had crumbled into dust, while Israel had againtaken
root and sprung up. And now little more than a centuryand a half
had passed, since a danger greater even than anyof these had
threatened the faith and the very existence ofIsrael. In his daring
madness, the Syrian king, Antiochus IV.(Epiphanes) had forbidden
their religion, sought to destroytheir sacred books, with unsparing
ferocity forced on themconformity to heathen rites, desecrated the
Temple bydedicating it to Zeus Olympios, what is translated
by'shewbread.' a constant sacrificial and even reared a heathenaltar
upon that of burnt-offering. [2 Macc. i. 54, 59; Jos.Ant. xii. 5. 4.]
Worst of all, his wicked schemes had beenaided by two apostate
High-Priests, who had outvied eachother in buying and then
prostituting the sacred office ofGod's anointed. [1 After the
deposition of Onias III. throughthe bribery of his own brother
Jason, the latter and Menelausoutvied each other in bribery for,
and prostitution of, theholy office.] Yet far away in the mountains
of Ephraim [2Modin, the birthplace of the Maccabees, has been
identifiedwith the modern El-Medyeh, about sixteen miles
northwest ofJerusalem, in the ancient territory of Ephraim.
Comp.Conder's Handbook of the Bible, p. 291; and for a
fullreference to the whole literature of the subject, see
Schurer(Neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 78, note 1).] God had raised for
themmost unlooked-for and unlikely help. Only three years
later,and, after a series of brilliant victories by undisciplinedmen
over the flower of the Syrian army, Judas the Maccabee,truly God's
Hammer [3 On the meaning of the name Maccabee,comp. Grimm's
Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. z. d. Apokr. Lief.iii., pp. ix. x. We adopt
the derivation from Maqqabha, ahammer, like Charles Martel.]
had purified the Temple, andrestored its altar on the very same day
[4 1 Macc. 1. 54.] onwhich the 'abomination of desolation' [5 1
Macc. iv. 52-54:]Megill. Taan. 23. had been set up in its place. In
all theirhistory the darkest hour of their night had ever preceded
thedawn of a morning brighter than any that had yet broken. Itwas
thus that with one voice all their prophets had biddenthem wait
and hope. Their sayings had been more thanfulfilled as regarded
the past. Would they not equally becometrue in reference to that
far more glorious future for Zionand for Israel, which was to be
ushered in by the coming ofthe Messiah?
Nor were such the feelings of the Palestinian Jews only.These
indeed were now a minority. The majority of the nationconstituted
what was known as the dispersion; a term which,however, no
longer expressed its original meaning ofbanishment by the
judgment of God, [6 Alike the verb inHebrew, and in Greek, with
their derivatives, are used in theOld Testament, and in the
rendering of the LXX., withreference to punitive banishment. See,
for example, Judg.xviii. 30; 1 Sam. iv. 21; and in the LXX. Deut.
xxx. 4; Ps.cxlvii. 2; Is. xlix. 6, and other passages.] since
absencefrom Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But all the
morethat it referred not to outward suffering, [7 There is
sometruth, although greatly exaggerated, in the bitter remarks
ofHausrath (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93), as to thesensitiveness of
the Jews in the, and the loud outcry of allits members at any
interference with them, however trivial.But events unfortunately
too often proved how real and nearwas their danger, and how
necessary the caution 'Obstaprincipiis.'] did its continued use
indicate a deep feelingof religious sorrow, of social isolation, and
of politicalstrangership [8 St. Peter seems to have used it in
thatsense, 1 Pet. i. 1.] in the midst of a heathen world. Foralthough,
as Josephus reminded his countrymen, [Jew. W ii.16. 4.] there was
'no nation inthe world which had not amongthem part of the
Jewish people,' since it was 'widelydispersed over all the world
among its inhabitants,' [b vii.3.3.] yet they had nowhere found a
real home. A century and ahalf before our era comes to us from
Egypt [1 Comp. theremarks of Schneckenburger (Vorles u.
Neutest. Zeitg. p.95).] ,where the Jews possessed exceptional
privileges,professedly from the heathen, but really fdrom the
Jewish [2Comp. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag. xxii. 39.] Sibyl,
thislament of Israel:, Crowding with thy numbers every ocean
andcountry, Yet an offense to all around thy presence andcustoms!
[3 Orac Sibyll. iii. 271,272, apud Friedlieb, p.62.] Sixty years later
the Greek geographer and historianStrabo bears the like witness to
their presence in everyland, but in language that shows how true
had been thecomplaint of the Sibyl. [4 Strabo apud Jos. Ant. xiv.
7.2:'It is not easy to find a place in the world that has notadmitted
this race, and is not mastered by it.'] The reasonsfor this state of
feeling will by-and-by appear. Suffice itfor the present that, all
unconsciously, Philo tells itsdeepest ground, and that of Israel's
loneliness in theheathen world, when speaking, like the others, of
hiscountrymen as in 'all the cities of Europe, in the provincesof
Asia and in the islands,' he describes them as, whereversojourning,
having but one metropolis, not Alexandria,Antioch, or Rome, but
'the Holy City with its Temple,dedicateda to the Most High God.'
[5 Philo in Flaccum (ed.Francf.), p. 971.] A nation, the vast
majority of which wasdispersed over the whole inhabited earth,
had ceased to be aspecial, and become a world-nation. [6 Comp.
Jos. Ant. xii.3; xiii. 10. 4; 13. 1; xiv. 6. 2; 8. 1; 10. 8; Sueton.
Caes.85.] Yet its heart beat in Jerasulem, and thence thelife-blood
passed to its most distant members. And this,indeed, if we rightly
understand it, was the grand object ofthe 'Jewish dispersion'
throughout the world.
What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, tothe
Western, rather than to the Eastern 'dispersion.' Theconnection of
the latter with Palestine was so close asalmost to seem one of
continuity. In the account of the trulyrepresentative gathering in
Jerusalem on that ever-memorableFeast of Weeks, [a Acts ii. 9-11]
the division of the'dispersion' into two grand sections, the Eastern
orTrans-Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist, seems
clearlymarked. [7 Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 113) quotes two
passagesfrom Philo, in one of which he contradistinguishes 'us,'
theHellenist Jews, from 'the Hebrews,' and speaks of the Greekas
'our language.'] In this arrangement the former wouldinclude 'the
Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers inMesopotamia,' Judaea
standing, so to speak, in the middle,while 'the Bretes and Arabians'
would typically represent thefarthest outrunners respectively of the
Western and theEastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from
the NewTestament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of
the'dispersion of the Greeks," [a St. John vii. 35.] and of'Hellenists'
or 'Grecians." [b Acts vi. 1;ix. 29; xi. 20.] Onthe other hand, the
Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabitedBabylon and many of the
other satrapies,'[c Philo ad Cajum,p. 1023; Jos. Ant. xv. 3.1.] were
included with thePalestinians and the Syrians under the term
'Hebrews,' fromthe common language which they spoke.
But the difference between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews'was far
deeper than merely of language, and extended to thewhole
direction of thought. There were mental influences atwork in the
Greek world from which, in the nature of things,it was impossible
even for Jews to withdraw themselves, andwhich, indeed, were as
necessary for the fulfillment of theirmission as their isolation from
heathenism, and theirconnection with Jerusalem. At the same time
it was onlynatural that the Hellenists, placed as they were in the
midstof 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 thepossession of
traditional lore, with all that it involved,made no secret of its
contempt for the Hellenists, and openlydeclared the Grecian far
inferior to the Babylonian'dispersion.' [1 Similarly we have (in
Men. 110a) thiscurious explanation of Is. xliii. 6: 'My sons from
afar',these are the exiles in Babylon, whose minds were settled,like
men, 'and my daughters from the ends of the earth',these are the
exiles in other lands, whose minds were notsettled, like women.]
That such feelings, and the suspicionswhich they engendered, had
struck deep into the popular mind,appears from the fact, that even
in the Apostolic Church, andthat in her earliest days, disputes
could break out betweenthe Hellenists and the Hebrews, arising
from suspicion ofunkind and unfair dealings grounded on these
sectionalprejudices. [d Acts vi. 1.]
Far other was the estimate in which the Babylonians wereheld by
the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one viewof it,
Babylonia, as well as 'Syria' as far north as Antioch,was regarded
as forming part of the land of Israel. [Ber. R.17.] Every other
country was considered outside 'the land,'as Palestine was called,
witht the exception of Babylonia,which was reckoned as part of it.
[e Erub. 21 a Gritt. 6 a.]For Syria and Mesopotamia, eastwards to
the banks of theTigris, were supposed to have been in the territory
whichKing David had conquered, and this made them ideally for
everlike the land of Israel. But it was just between theEuphrates
and the Tigris that the largest and wealthiestsettlements of the
Jews were, to such extent that a laterwriter actually designated
them 'the land of Israel.' HereNehardaa, on the Nahar Malka, or
royal canal, which passedfrom the Euphrates to the Tigris, was the
oldest Jewishsettlement. It boasted of a Synagogue, said to have
beenbuilt by King Jechoniah with stones that had been
broughtfrom the Temple. [1 Comp. Furst, Kult. u. Literaturgesch
d.Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. 8.] In this fortified city the
vastcontributions intended for the Temple were deposited by
theEastern Jews, and thence conveyed to their destination
underescort of thousands of armed men. Another of these
Jewishtreasure-cities was Nisibis, in northern Mesopotamia.
Eventhe fact that wealth, which must have sorely tempted
thecupidity of the heathen, could be safely stored in thesecities and
transported to Palestine, shows how large theJewish population
must have been, and how great their generalinfluence.
In general, it is of the greatest importance to remember inregard to
this Eastern dispersion, that only a minority ofthe Jews, consisting
in all of about 50,000, originallyreturned from Babylon, first under
Zerubbabel and afterwardsunder Ezra. [a 537 B.C., and 459-'8
B.C.] Nor was theirinferiority confined to numbers. The wealthiest
and mostinfluential of the Jews remained behind. According
toJosephus, [b Ant. xi. 5. 2; xv. 2. 2; xviii. 9.] with whomPhilo
substantially agrees, vast numbers, estimated atmillions, inhabited
the Trans-Euphratic provinces. To judgeeven by the number of
those slain in popular risings (50,000in Seleucia alone [2 Jos. Ant.
xviii. 9. 9.] ),these figuresdo not seem greatly exaggerated. A later
tradition had it,that so dense was the Jewish population in the
PersianEmpire, that Cyrus forbade the further return of the
exiles,lest the country should be depopulated. [3 Midrash on
Cant.v. 5, ed. Warsh. p. 26 a.] So large and compact a body
soonbecame a political power. Kindly treated under the
Persianmonarchy, they were, after the fall of that empire, [c 330
B.C.] favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn
theMacedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire, [d
63B.C.] the Jews formed, from their national opposition toRome,
an important element in the East. Such was theirinfluence that, as
late as the year 40 A.D., the Roman legateshrank from provoking
their hostility. [4 Philo ad Caj.] Atthesame time it must not be
thought that, even in thesefavoured regions, they were wholly
without persecution. Herealso history records more than one tale
of bloody strife onthe part of those among whom they dwelt. [5
The following arethe chief passages in Josephus relating to that
part ofJewish 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.]
To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and ofSyria, to
which they had wandered under the fostering rule ofthe
Macedono-Syrian monarchs (the Seleucidae), were
indeedpre-eminently the Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them
theSanhedrin in Jerusalem intimated by fire-signals
frommountain-top to mountain-top the commencement of each
monthfor the regulation of the festive calendar, [1 Rosh. haSh.ii. 4;
comp. the Jer. Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud 23b.] even as
they afterwards despatched messengers into Syriafor the same
purpose. [2 Rosh. haSh. i. 4.] In some respectsthe Eastern
dispersion was placed on the same footing; inothers, on even a
higher level than the mothercountry. Tithesand Terumoth, or
first-fruits in a prepared condition, [3Shev. vi. passim; Gitt. 8 a.]
were due from them, while theBikkurim, or first-fruits in a fresh
state, were to bebrought from Syria to Jerusalem. Unlike the
heathencountries, whose very dust defiled, the soil of Syria
wasdeclared clean, like that of Palestine itself. [a Ohol.xxiii. 7.] So
far as purity of descent was concerned, theBabylonians, indeed,
considered themselves superior to theirPalestinian brethren. They
had it, that when Ezra took withhim those who went to Palestine,
he had left the land behindhim as pure as fine flour. [b Kidd. 69.]
To express it intheir own fashion: In regard to the genealogical
purity oftheir Jewish inhabitants, all other countries were,
comparedto Palestine, like dough mixed with leaven; but
Palestineitself was such by the side of Babylonia. [4 Cheth. 111
a.]It was evemaintained, that the exact boundaries could betraced
in a district, within which the Jewish population hadpreserved
itself unmixed. Great merit was in this respectalso ascribed to
Ezra. In the usual mode of exaggeration, itwas asserted, that, if all
the genealogical studies andresearches [5 As comments upon the
genealogies from 'Azel' in1 Chr. viii. 37 to 'Azel' in ix. 44. Pes. 62
b.] had been puttogether, they would have amounted to many
hundredcamel-loads. There was for it, however, at least
thisfoundation in truth, that great care and labour were bestowedon
preserving full and accurate records so as to establishpurity of
descent. What importance attached to it, we knowfrom the action
on Ezra [c Chs. ix. x.] in that respect, andfrom the stress which
Josephus layson this point. [d Life i.;Ag Apion i. 7.] Official
records of descent as regarded thepriesthood were kept in the
Temple. Besides, the Jewishauthorities seem to have possessed a
general officialregister, which Herod afterwards ordered to be
burnt, fromreasons which it is not difficult to infer. But from
thatday, laments a Rabbi, the glory of the Jews decreased! [6Pes.
62 b; Sachs,Beitr. vol. ii. p. 157.]
Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Easterndispersion
could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everythingto Ezra, the
Babylonian, [1 According to tradition hereturned to Babylon, and
died there. Josephus says that hedied in Jerusalem (Anti. xi. 5. 5).]
a man so distinguishedthat, according to tradition, the Law would
have been givenby him, if Moses had not previously obtained that
honor.Putting aside the various traditional ordinances which
theTalmud ascribes to him, [2 Herzfeld has given a very
clearhistorical arrangement of the order in which, and the
personsby whom, the various legal determinations were supposed
tohave been given. See Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. iii. pp. 240 &c.]we
know from the Scriptures what his activity for good hadbeen.
Altered circumstances had brought many changes to thenew
Jewish State. Even the language, spoken and written, wasother
than formerly. Instead of the characters ancientlyemployed, the
exiles brought with them, on their return,those now common, the
so-called square Hebrew letters, whichgradually came into general
use. [a Sanh. 21 b.] [3 Althoughthus introduced under Ezra, the
ancient Hebrew characters,which resemble the Samaritan, only
very gradually gave way.They are found on monuments and coins.]
The language spokenby the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but
Aramaean, both inPalestine and in Babylonia; [4 Herzfeld (u. s.
vol. iii. p.46) happily designates the Palestinian as
theHebraeo-Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The Hebrew,
aswell as the Aramaean, belongs to the Semitic group oflanguages,
which has thus been arranged: 1. North
Semitic:Punico-Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic (Western and
Easterndialects). 2. South Semitic: Arabic, Himyaritic,
andEthipian. 3. East Semitic: The Assyro-Baylonian
cuneiform.When we speak of the dialect used in Palestine, we do
not, ofcourse, forget the great influence of Syria, exerted
longbefore and after the Exile. Of these three branches theAramaic
is the most closely connected with the Hebrew. Hebrewoccupies
an intermediate position between the Aramaic and theArabic, and
may be said to be the oldest, certainly from aliterary point of view.
Together with the introduction of thenew dialect into Palestine, we
mark that of the new, orsquare, characters of writing. The Mishnah
and all thekindred literature up to the fourth century are in
Hebrew, orrather in a modern development and adaptation of
thatlanguage; the Talmud is in Aramaean. Comp. on this
subject:DeWette-Schrader, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Eink. (8 ed.)
pp.71-88; Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol. i. 466, 468; v. 614 &c.,710;
Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Jud. pp. 7-9; Herzfeld, u.s.pp. 44 &c.,
58&c.] in the former the Western, in the latterthe Eastern dialect.
In fact, the common people were ignorantof pure Hebrew, which
henceforth became the language ofstudents and of the Synagogue.
Even there a Methurgeman, orinterpreter, had to be employed to
translate into thevernacular the portions of Scripture read in the
publicservices, [5 Could St. Paul have had this in mind when,
inreferring to the miraculous gift of speaking in otherlanguages, he
directs that one shall always interpret (1 Cor.xiv. 27)? At any rate,
the word targum in Ezra iv. 7 isrendered in the LXX. by The
following from the Talmud (Ber. 8a and b) affords a curious
illustration of 1 Cor. xiv. 27:'Let a man always finish his Parashah
(the daily lesson fromthe Law) with the congregation (at the same
time), twice thetext, and once targum.']. and the address delivered
by theRabbis. This was the origin of the so-called Targumim,
orparaphrases of Scripture. In earliest times, indeed, it
wasforbidden to the Methurgeman to read his translation or towrite
down a Targum, lest the paraphrase should be regardedas of equal
authority with the original. It was said that,when Jonathan brought
out his Targum on the Prophets, a voicefrom heaven was heard to
utter: 'Who is this that hasrevealed My secrets to men?' [a Megill.
3.] Still, suchTargumim seem to have existed from a very early
period, and,amid the varying and often incorrect renderings,
theirnecessity must have made itself increasingly felt.Accordingly,
their use was authoritatively sanctioned beforethe end of the
second century after Christ. This is theorigin of our two oldest
extant Targumim: that of Onkelos (asit 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 oldestTargumim, which may more correctly be
regarded as later andauthoritative recensions of what, in some
form, had existedbefore. But although these works had their origin
inPalestine, it is noteworthy that, in the form in which atpresent we
possess them, they are the outcome of the schoolsof Babylon.
But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt toBabylonia.
The new circumstances in which the Jews wereplaced on their
return seemed to render necessary anadaptation of the Mosaic
Law, if not new legislation.Besides, piety and zeal now attached
themselves to theoutward observance and study of the letter of the
Law. Thisis the origin of the Mishnah, or Second Law, which
wasintended to explain and supplement the first. Thisconstituted
the only Jewish dogmatics, in the real sense, inthe study of which
the sage, Rabbi , scholar, scribe, andCarshan, [1 From darash, to
search out, literally, to treadout. The preacher was afterwards
called the Darshan.] wereengaged. The result of it was the
Midrash, or investigation,a term which afterwards was popularly
applied to commentariesont he Scriptures and preaching. From the
outset, Jewishtheology divided into two branches: the Halakhah
and theHaggadah. The former (from halakh, to go) was, so to
speak,the Rule of the Spiritual Road, and, when fixed, had
evengreater authority than the Scriptures of the Old
Testament,since it explained and applied them. On the other hand,
thesince it explained and applied them. On the other hand,
theHaggadah [2 The Halakhah might be described as the
apocryphalPentateuch, the personal saying of the teacher, more or
lessvaluable according to his learning and popularity, or
theauthorities which he could quote in his support. Unlike
theHalakhah, the Haggadah had no absolute authority, either asto
doctrine practice, or exegesis. But all the greater wouldbe its
popular influence, [1 We may here remind ourselves of1 Tim. v.
17. St. Paul, as always, writes with the familiarJewish phrases ever
recurring to his mind. The expressionseems to be equivalent to
Halakhic teaching. Comp. Grimm,Clavis N. T. pp. 98, 99.] and all
the more dangerous thedoctrinal license which it allowed. In fact,
strange as itmay sound, almost all the doctrinal teaching of the
Synagogueis to be derived from the Haggadah and this also
ischaracteristic of Jewish traditionalism. But, alike inHalakhah and
Haggadah, Palestine was under the deepestobligation to Babylonia.
For the father of Halakhic study wasHillel, the Babylonian, and
among the popular Haggadiststhere is not a name better known
than that of Eleazar theMede, who flourished in the first century of
our era.
After this, it seems almost idle to inquire whether, duringthe first
period after the return of the exiles from Babylon,there were
regular theological academies in Babylon. Althoughit is, of course,
impossible to furnish historical proof, wecan scarely doubt that a
community so large and so intenselyHebrew would not have been
indifferent to that study, whichconstituted the main thought and
engagement of their brethrenin Palestine. We can understand that,
since the greatSanhedrin in Palestine exercised supreme spiritual
authority,and in that capacity ultimately settled all
religiousquestions, at least for a time, the study and discussion
ofthese subjects should also have been chiefly carried on inthe
schools of Palestine; and that even the great Hillelhimself, when
still a poor and unknown student, should havewandered thither to
acquire the learning and authority, whichat that period he could
not have found in his own country.But even this circumstance
implies, that such studies were atleast carried on and encouraged
in Babylonia. How rapidlysoon afterwards the authority of the
Babylonian schoolsincreased, till they not only overshadowed
those ofPalestine, but finally inherited their prerogatives, is
wellknown. However, therefore, the Palestinians in their pride
orjealousy might sneer, [2 In Moed Q. 25 a. sojourn in Babylonis
mentioned as a reason why the Shekhinah could not restupon a
certain Rabbi.] that the Babylonians were stupid,proud, and poor
('they ate bread upon bread'), [3 Pes. 34 b;Men. 52 a; Sanh. 24 a;
Bets. 16 a, apud Neubauer, Geog. duTalmud, p. 323. In Keth. 75 a,
they are styled the 'sillyBabylonians.' See also Jer. Pes. 32 a.] even
they had toacknowledge that, 'when the Law had fallen into
oblivion, itwas restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was a second
timeforgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it;
andwhen yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija
camefrom Babylon and gave it back once more.' [4 Sukk. 20 a.
R.Chija, one of the teachers of the second century, is amongthe
most.celebrated Rabbinical authorities, around whosememory
legend has thrown a special halo.] Such then was thatHebrew
dispersion which, from the first, constituted Suchthen was that
Hebrew dispersion which, from the first,constituted really the chief
part and the strength of theJewish nation, and with which its
religious future was alsoto lie. For it is one of those strangely
significant, almostsymbolical, facts in history, that after the
destruction ofJerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine
passed toBabylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress
ofpolitical adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to theseats of
Israel's ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by itsown act what the
judgment of God had formerly executed. Butlong before that time
the Babylonian 'dispersion' had alreadystretched out its hands in
every direction. Northwards, ithad spread through Armenia, the
Caucasus, and to the shoresof the Black Sea, and through Media to
those of the Caspian.Southwards, it had extended to the Persian
Gulf and throughthe vast extent of Arabia, although Arabia Felix
and the landof the Homerites may have received their first
Jewishcolonies from the opposite shores of Ethiopia. Eastwards
ithad passed as far as India. [1 In this, as in so manyrespects, Dr.
Neubauer has collated very interestinginformation, to which we
refer. See his Geogr. du Talm. pp.369-399.] Everywhere we have
distinct notices of thesewanderers, and everywhere they appear as
in closestconnection with the Rabbinical hierarchy of Palestine.
Thusthe Mishnah, in an extremely curious section, [2 The
wholesection gives a most curious glimpse of the dress
andornaments worn by the jews at that time. The readerinterested
in the subject will find special information inthe three little
volumes of Hartmann (Die Hebraerin amPutztische), in N. G.
Schroder's some-what heavy work: DeVestitu Mulier. Hebr., and
especially in that interestingtractate, Trachten d. Juden, by Dr. A.
Brull, of which,unfortunately, only one part has appeared.] tells us
how onSabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia might wear their long
veils,and those of India the kerchief round the head, customary
inthose countries, without incurring the guilt of desecratingthe
holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of thelaw, would
be a burden; [a Shabb. vi. 6.] while in the rubricfor the Day of
Atonement we haveit noted that the dress whichthe High-Priest
wore 'between the evenings' of the greatfast, that is, as afternoon
darkened into evening, was ofmost costly 'Indian' stuff. [b Yoma
iii. 7.]
That among such a vast community there should have
beenpoverty, and that at one time, as the Palestinians
sneered,learning may have been left to pine in want, we can
readilybelieve. For, as one of the Rabbis had it in explanation
ofDeut. xxx. 13: 'Wisdom is not "beyond the sea", that is, itwill not
be found among traders or merchants,' [c Er. 55 a.]whose mind
must be engrossed by gain. And it was trade andcommerce which
procured to the Babylonians their wealth andinfluence, although
agriculture was not neglected. Theircaravans, of whose camel
drivers, by the way, no veryflattering account is given [a Kidd. iv.],
carried the richcarpets and woven stuffs of the East, as well as its
preciousspices, to the West: generally through Palestine to
thePhoenician harbours, where a fleet of merchantmen
belongingto Jewish bankers and shippers lay ready to convey them
toevery quarter of the world. These merchant princes werekeenly
alive to all that passed, not only in the financial,but in the political
world. We know that they were inpossession of State secrets, and
entrusted with theintricacies of diplomacy. Yet, whatever its
condition, thisEastern Jewish community was intensely Hebrew.
Only eightdays' journey, though, according to Philo's western ideas
ofit, by a difficult road [1 Philo ad Cajum, ed. Frcf. p.1023.],
separated them from Palestine; and every pulsationthere vibrated
in Babylonia. It was in the most outlying partof that colony, in the
wide plains of Arabia, that Saul ofTarsus spent those three years of
silent thought and unknownlabour, which preceded his
re-appearance in Jerusalem, whenfrom 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'smission. [b Gal. i. 17;] And it was among the
same communitythat Peter wrote and laboured, [c 1 Pet. v. 13.]
amidstdiscouragements of which we can form some conception
from thesad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the
thirdcentury it had not numbered among its members any convert
toChristianity. [2 Pes. 56 a, apud Neubauer, u. s., p. 351.] Inwhat
has been said, no notice has been taken of thosewanderers of the
ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seemas mysterious as their
after-fate. The Talmudists name fourcountries as their seats. But,
even if we were to attachhistoric credence to their vague
statements, at least two ofthese localities cannot with any certainty
be identified. [3Comp. Neubauer, pp. 315, 372; Hamburger,
Real-Encykl. p.135.] Only thus far all agree as to point us
northwards,through India, Armenia, the Kurdish mountains, and
theCaucasus. And with this tallies a curious reference in whatis
known as IV. Esdras, which locates them in a land calledArzareth,
a term which has, with some probability, beenidentified with the
land of Ararat. [4 Comp. Volkmar, Handb.d. Einl. in d. Apokr. iite
Abth., pp. 193, 194, notes. Forthe reasons there stated, I prefer this
to the ingeniousinterpretation proposed by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy
(Journ. ofPhilol. for 1870, pp. 113, 114), who regards it as
acontraction of Erez achereth, 'another land,' referred to inDeut.
xxix. 27 (28).] Josephus [a Ant. xi. 5.2.] describesthem as an
innumerable multitude, and vaguely locates thembeyond the
Euphrates. The Mishnah is silent as to theirseats, but discusses
their future restoration; Rabbi Akibadenying and Rabbi Eliezer
anticipating it. [b Sanh. x. 3.] [1R. Eliezer seems to connect their
return with the dawn of thenew Messianic day.] Another Jewish
tradition [c Ber. R. 73.]locates them by the fabled river Sabbatyon,
which wassupposed to cease its flow on the weekly Sabbath. This,
ofcourse, is an implied admission of ignorance of their
seats.Similarly, the Talmud [d Jer. Sanb 29 c.]speaks of
threelocalities whither they had been banished : the districtaround
the river Sabbatyon; Daphne, near Antioch; while thethird was
overshadowed and hidden by a cloud.
Later Jewish notices connect the final discovery and thereturn of
the 'lost tribes' with their conversion under thatsecond Messiah
who, in contradistinction to 'the Son ofDavid' is styled 'the Son of
Joseph,' to whom Jewishtradition ascribes what it cannot reconcile
with the royaldignity of 'the Son of David,' and which, if applied to
Him,would almost inevitably lead up to the most wide
concessionsin the Christian argument. [2 This is not the place
todiscuss the later Jewish fiction of a second or 'suffering'Messiah,
'the son of Joseph,' whose special mission it wouldbe to bring back
the ten tribes, and to subject them toMessiah, 'the son of David,'
but who would perish in the waragainst Gog and Magog.] As
regards the ten tribes there isthis truth underlying the strange
hypothesis, that, as theirpersistent apostacy from the God of Israel
and His worshiphad cut them off from his people, so the fulfilment
of theDivine promises to them in the latter days would imply, as
itwere, a second birth to make them once more Israel. Beyondthis
we are travelling chiefly into the region of conjecture.Modern
investigations have pointed to the Nestorians, [3Comp. the work of
Dr. Asahel Grant on the Nestorians. Hisarguments have been well
summarised and expanded in aninteresting note in Mr. Nutths
Sketch of Samaritan History,pp. 2-4.] and latterly with almost
convincing evidence (sofar as such is possible) to the Afghans, as
descended fromthe lost tribes. [4 I would here call special
attention to amost interesting paper on the subject ('A New
AfghanQuestion'), by Mr. H. W. Bellew, in the 'Journal of
theUnited Service Institution of India,' for 1881, pp. 49-97.]Such
mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalitiesseems to have
been before the minds of those Rabbis whoordered that, if at
present a non-Jew weds a Jewess, such aunion was to be respected,
since the stranger might be adescendant of the ten tribes. [e Yebam
16 b.] Besides, thereis reason to believe that part of them, at least,
hadcoalesced with their brethren of the later exile; [5 Kidd. 69b.]
while we know that individuals who had settled inPalestine and,
presumably, elsewhere, were able to tracedescent from them.[1 So
Anna from the tribe of Aser, St. Lukeii. 36. Lutterbeck (Neutest.
Lehrbegr. pp. 102, 103) arguesthat the ten tribes had become
wholly undistinguishable fromthe other two. But his arguments are
not convincing, and hisopinion was certainly not that of those who
lived in the timeof Christ, or who reflected their ideas.] Still the
greatmass of the ten tribes was in the days of Christ, as in ourown,
lost to the Hebrew nation.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST, THE HELLENISTS,
ORIGIN OFHELLENIST LITERATURE IN THE GREEK
TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE,CHARACTER OF THE
SEPTUAGINT.
CHAPTER II.
When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East tothat in the
West, we seem to breathe quite a differentatmosphere. Despite
their intense nationalism, allunconsciously to themselves, their
mental characteristics andtendencies were in the opposite direction
from those of theirbrethren. With those of the East rested the
future ofJudaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of
theworld. The one represented old Israel, stretching forth itshands
to where the dawn of a new day was about to break.These Jews of
the West are known by the term Hellenists, from, to conform to the
language and manners of the Greeks.[1Indeed, the word Alnisti (or
Alunistin), 'Greek', actuallyoccurs, as in Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 14 from
bottom. Bohl(Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p. 7) quotes Philo (Leg. ad
Caj. p.1023) in proof that he regarded the Eastern dispersion as
abranch separate from the Palestinians. But the passage doesnot
convey to me the inference which he draws from it. Dr.Guillemard
(Hebraisms in the Greek Test.) on Acts vi. 1,agreeing with Dr.
Roberts, argues that the term 'Hellenist'indicated only principles,
and not birthplace, and that therewere Hebrews and Hellenists in
and out of Palestine. But thisview is untenable.]
Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, inthe nature
of thing, impossible that the Jewish communitiesin the West
should remains unaffected by Grecian culture andmodes of
though; just as, on the other hand, the Greek world,despite popular
hatred and the contempt of the higherclasses, could not wholly
withdraw itself from Jewishinfluences. Witness here the many
converts to Judaism amongthe Gentiles; [2 An account of this
propaganda of Judaism andof its results will be given in another
connection.] witnessalso the evident preparedness of the lands of
this'dispersion' for the new doctrine which was to come fromJudea.
Many causes contributed to render the Jews of the Westaccessible
to Greek influences. They had not a long localhistory 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 time
here or there, unitsmight combine into communities, but could not
form onepeople. Then their position was not favourable to the
sway oftraditionalism. Their occupations, the very reasons for
theirbeing in a 'strange land,' were purely secular. That
loftyabsorption of thought and life in the study of the Law,writtem
and oral, which characterised the East, was to the,something in the
dim distance, sacred, like the soil and theinstitutions of Palestine,
but unattainable. In Palestine orBabylonia numberless influences
from his earliest years, allthat he saw and heard, the very force of
circumstances, wouldtend to make an earnest Jew a disciple of the
Rabbis; in theWest it would lead him to 'hellenise.' It was, so to
speak,'in the air'; and he could no more shut his mind againstGreek
thought than he could withdraw his body fromatmospheric
influences. That restless, searching, subtleGreek intellect would
penetrate everywhere, and flash itslight into the innermost recesses
of his home and Synagogue.
To be sure, they were intensely Jewish, these communities
ofstrangers. Like our scattered colonists in distant lands,they
would cling with double affection to the customs oftheir home,
and invest with the halo of tende memories thesacred traditions of
thir faith. The Grecian Jew might welllook with contempt, not
unmingled with pity, on theidolatrous rites practised around, from
which long ago thepitiless irony of Isaiah had torn the veil of
beauty, to showthe hideousness and unreality beneath. The
dissoluteness ofpublic and private life, the frivolity and
aimlessness oftheir pursuits, political aspirations, popular
assemblies,amusements, in short, the utter decay of society, in all
itsphases, would lie open to his gaze. It is in terms of loftyscorn,
not unmingled with idignation, which only occasionallygives way
to the softer mood of warning, or even invitation,that Jewish
Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocryphaor in its
Apocalyptic utterances, address heathenism.
From that spectacle the Grecian Jew would turn with
infinitesatisfaction, not to say, pride, to his own community,
tothink of its spiritual enlightenment, and to pass in reviewits
exclusive privileges. [1 St, Paul fully describes thesefeelings in the
Epistle to the Romans.] It was with nouncertain steps that he
would go past those splendid templesto his own humbler
Synagogue, pleased to find himself theresurrounded by those who
shared his descent, his faith, hishopes; and gratified to see their
number swelled by many who,heathens by birth, had learned the
error of their ways, andnow, so to speak, humbly stood as
suppliant 'strangers of thegate,' to seek admission into his
sanctuary. [1 The 'GereyhaShaar,' proselytes of the gate, a
designation which somehave derived from the circumstance that
Gentiles were notallowed to advance beyond the Temple Court,
but more likelyto be traced to such passages as Ex. xx. 10; Deut.
xiv. 21;xxiv. 14.] How different were the rites which he
practised,hallowed in their Divine origin, rational in themselves,
andat the same time deeply significant, from the
absurdsuperstitions around. Who could have compared with
thevoiceless, meaningless, blasphemous heathen worship, if
itdeserved the name, that of the Synagogue, with its
pathetichymns, its sublime liturgy, its Divine Scriptures, and
those'stated sermons' which 'instructed in virtue and piety,' ofwhich
not only Philo, [a De Vita Mosis, p. 685; Leg ad Caj.p.
1014.]Agrippa, [b Leg. ad Caj. p. 1035.] and Josephus, [cAg.
Apion ii. 17.] speak as a regular institution, but whoseantiquity and
general prevalence is attested in Jewishwritings, [2 Comp. here
Targ. Jon. on Judg. v. 2, 9. I feelmore hesitation in appealing to
such passages as Ber. 19 a,where we read of a Rabbi in Rome,
Thodos (Theudos?), whoflourished several generations before
Hillel, for reasonswhich the passage itself will suggest to the
student. At thetime of Philo, however, such instructions in the
Synagoguesat Rome were a long, established institution (Ad Caj.
p.1014).] and nowhere more strongly than in the book of theActs
of the Apostles?
And in these Synagogues, how would 'brotherly love' becalled out,
since, if one member suffered, all might soon beaffected, and the
danger which threatened one communitywould, unless averted, ere
long overwhelm the rest. There waslittle need for the admonition
not to 'forget the love ofstrangers.' [3 Hebr. xiii. 2.] To entertain
them was notmerely a virtue; in the Hellenist dispersion it was
areligious necessity. And by such means not a few whom
theywould regard as 'heavenly messengers' might be welcomed.
Fromthe Acts of the Apostles we knew with what eagerness
theywould receive, and with what readiness they would invite,
thepassing Rabbi or teacher, who came from the home of
theirfaith, to speak, if there were in them a word of
comfortingexhortation for the people. [d Acts xiii. 15.] We
canscarcely doubt, considering the state of things, that thisoften
bore on 'the consolation of Israel.' But, indeed, allthat came from
Jerusalem, all that helped them to realisetheir living connection
with it, or bound it more closely,was precious. 'Letters out of
Judaea,' the tidings which someone might bring on his return from
festive pilgrimage orbusiness journey, especially about anything
connected withthat grand expectation, the star which was to rise on
theEastern sky, would soon spread, till the Jewish pedlar in
hiswanderings had carried the news to the most distant andisolated
Jewish home, where he might find a Sabbath, welcomeand
Sabbath-rest.
Such undoubtedly was the case. And yet, when the Jew steppedout
of the narrow circle which he had drawn around him, hewas
confronted on every side by Grecianism. It was in theforum, in the
market, in the counting, house, in the street;in all that he saw, and
in all to whom he spoke. It wasrefined; it was elegant; it was
profound; it was supremelyattractive. He might resist, but he could
not push it aside.Even in resisting, he had already yielded to it.
For, onceopen the door to the questions which it brought, if it
wereonly to expel, or repel them, he must give up that principleof
simple authority on which traditionalism as a systemrested.
Hellenic criticism could not so be silenced, nor itssearching light
be extinguished by the breath of a Rabbi. Ifhe attempted this, the
truth would not only be worsted beforeits enemies, but suffer
detriment in his own eyes. He mustmeet argument with argument,
and that not only for those whowere without, but in order to be
himself quite sure of whathe believed. He must be able to hold it,
not only incontroversy with others, where pride might bid him
standfast, but in that much more serious contest within, where
aman meets the old adversary alone in the secret arena of hisown
mind, and has to sustain that terrible hand-to-handfight, in which
he is uncheered by outward help. But whyshould he shrink from
the contest, when he was sure that hiswas Divine truth, and that
therefore victory must be on hisside? As in our modern conflicts
against the onesidedinferences from physical investigations we are
wont to saythat the truths of nature cannot contradict those
ofrevelation, both being of God, and as we are apt to regard
astruths of nature what sometimes are only deductions
frompartially ascertained facts, and as truths of revelationwhat,
after all, may be only our own inferences, sometimesfrom
imperfectly apprehended premises, so the Hellenist wouldseek to
conciliate the truths of Divine revelation with thoseothers which,
he thought, he recognized in Hellenism. Butwhat were the truths of
Divine revelation? Was it only thesubstance of Scripture, or also
its form, the truth itselfwhich was conveyed, or the manner in
which it was presentedto the Jews; or, if both, then did the two
stand on exactlythe same footing? On the answer to these
questions woulddepend how little or how much he would
'hellenise.
One thing at any rate was quite certain. The Old
Testament,leastwise, the Law of Moses, was directly and wholly
fromGod; and if so, then its form also, its letter, must beauthentic
and authoritative. Thus much on the surface, andfor all. But the
student must search deeper into it, hissenses, as it were, quickened
by Greek criticism; he must'meditate' and penetrate into the Divine
mysteries. ThePalestinian also searched into them, and the result
was theMidrash. But, whichever of his methods he had applied,
thePeshat, or simple criticism of the words, the Derush, orsearch
into the possible applications of the text, what mightbe 'trodden
out' of it; or the Sod, the hidden, mystical,supranatural bearing of
the words, it was still only theletter of the text that had been
studied. There was, indeed,yet another understanding of the
Scriptures, to which St.Paul directed his disciples: the spiritual
bearing of itsspiritual truths. But that needed another qualification,
andtended in another direction from those of which the
Jewishstudent knew. On the other hand, there was the
intellectualview of the Scriptures, their philosophical
understanding,the application to them of the results of Grecian
thought andcriticism. It was this which was peculiarly
Hellenistic.Apply that method, and the deeper the explorer
proceeded inhis search, the more would he feel himself alone, far
fromthe outside crowd; but the brighter also would that light
ofcriticism, which he carried, shine in the growing darkness,or, as
he held it up, would the precious ore, which he laidbare, glitter and
sparkle with a thousand varying hues ofbrilliancy. What was
Jewish, Palestinian, individual,concrete in the Scriptures, was only
the outside, true initself, but not the truth. There were depths
beneath. Stripthese stories of their nationalism; idealise the
individualof the persons introduced, and you came upon abstract
ideasand realities, true to all time and to all nations. But thisdeep
symbolism was Pythagorean; this pre-existence of ideaswhich
were the types of all outward actuality, was Platonism!Broken rays
in them, but the focus of truth in theScriptures. Yet these were
rays, and could only have comefrom the Sun. All truth was of God;
hence theirs must havebeen of that origin. Then were the sages of
the heathen alsoin a sense God, taught, and God, teaching, or
inspiration,was rather a question of degree than of kind!
One step only remained; and that, as we imagine, if not theeasiest,
yet, as we reflect upon it, that which in practicewould be most
readily taken. It was simply to advance towardsGrecianism;
frankly to recognise truth in the results ofGreek thought. There is
that within us, name it mentalconsciousness, or as you will, which,
all unbidden, rises toanswer to the voice of intellectual truth, come
whence itmay, just as conscience answers to the cause of moral
truthor duty. But in this case there was more. There was themighty
spell which Greek philosophy exercised on all kindredminds, and
the special adaptation of the Jewish intellect tosuch subtle, if not
deep, thinking. And, in general, and morepowerful than the rest,
because penetrating everywhere, wasthe charm of Greek literature,
with its brilliancy; of Greekcivilisation and culture, with their
polish andattractiveness; and of what, in one word, we may call
the'time-spirit,' that tyrannos, who rules all in theirthinking,
speaking, doing, whether they list or not.
Why, his sway extended even to Palestine itself, and wasfelt in the
innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism.We are not here
referring to the fact that the very languagespoken in Palestine
came to be very largely charged withGreek, and even Latin, words
Hebraised, since this is easilyaccounted for by the new
circumstances, and the necessitiesof intercourse with the dominant
or resident foreigners. Noris it requisite to point out how
impossible it would havebeen, in presence of so many from the
Greek and Roman world,and after the long and persistent struggle
of their rulers toGrecianise Palestine, nay, even in view of so
manymagnificent heathen temples on the very soil of Palestine,
toexclude all knowledge of, or contact with Grecianism. But notto
be able to exclude was to have in sight the dazzle of thatunknown,
which as such, and in itself, must have had peculiarattractions to
the Jewish mind. It needed stern principle torepress the curiosity
thus awakened. When a young Rabbi, BenDama, asked his uncle
whether he might not study Greekphilosophy, since he had
mastered the 'Law' in every aspectof it, the older Rabbi replied by a
reference to Josh. i. 8:'Go and search what is the hour which is
neither of the daynor of the night, and in it thou mayest study
Greekphilosophy.' [a Men. 99 b, towards the end.] Yet
eventheJewish patriarch, Gamaliel II., who may have sat with Saul
ofTarsus at the feet of his grandfather, was said to havebusied
himself with Greek, as he certainly held liberal viewson many
points connected with Grecianism. To be sure,tradition justified
him on the ground that his positionbrought him into contact with
the ruling powers, and,perhaps, to further vindicate him, ascribed
similar pursuitsto the elder Gamaliel, although groundlessly, to
judge fromthe circumstance that he was so impressed even with
the wrongof possessing a Targum on Job in Aramaean, that he had
itburied deep in the ground.
But all these are indications of a tendency existing. Howwide it
must have spread, appears from the fact that the banhad to be
pronounced on all who studied 'Greek wisdom.' Oneof the greatest
Rabbis, Elisha ben Abujah, seems to have beenactually led to
apostacy by such studies. True, he appears asthe 'Acher', the 'other',
in Talmudic writings, whom it wasnot proper even to name. But he
was not yet an apostate fromthe Synagogue when those 'Greek
songs' ever flowed from hislips; and it was in the very
Beth-ha-Midrash, or theologicalacademy, that a multitude of
Siphrey Minim (heretical books)flew from his breast, where they
had lain concealed. [a Jer.Chag. ii. 1; comp. Chag. 15.] It may be
so, that theexpression 'Siphrey Homeros' (Homeric writings),
which occurnot only in the Talmud [b Jer. Sanh. x. 28 a.] but even
inthe Mishnah [c Yad. iv. 6.] referred pre-eminently, if
notexclusively, to the religious or semi-religious JewishHellenistic
literature, outside even the Apocrypha. [1Through this literature,
which as being Jewish might havepassed unsuspected, a dangerous
acquaintance might have beenintroduced with Greek writings, the
more readily, that forexample Aristobulus described Homer and
Hesiod as having'drawn from our books' (ap. Euseb. Praepar.
Evang. xiii. 12).According to Hamburger (Real-Encykl. fur Bibel
u. Talmud,vol. ii. pp. 68, 69), the expression Siphrey Homeros
appliesexclusively to the Judaeo-Alexandrian heretical
writings;according to First (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simply
toHomeric literature. But see the discussion in Levy, Neuhebr.u.
Chald. Worterb., vol. i. p. 476 a and b.] But itsoccurrence proves,
at any rate, that the Hellenists werecredited with the study of
Greek literature, and that throughthem, if not more directly, the
Palestinians had becomeacquainted with it.
This sketch will prepare us for a rapid survey of thatHellenistic
literature which Judaea so much dreaded. Itsimportance, not only
to the Hellenists but to the world atlarge, can scarcely be
over-estimated. First and foremost, wehave here the Greek
translation of the Old Testament,venerable not only as the oldest,
but as that which at thetime of Jesus held the place of our
'Authorized Version,' andas such is so often, although freely,
quoted, in the NewTestament. Nor need we wonder that it should
have been thepeople's Bible, not merely among the Hellenists, but
inGalilee, and even in Judaea. It was not only, as alreadyexplained,
that Hebrew was no longer the 'vulgar tongue' inPalestine, and that
written Targumim were prohibited. butmost, if not all, at least in
towns, would understand theGreek version; it might be quoted in
intercourse withHellenist breathren or with the Gentiles; and, what
wasperhaps equally, if not more important, it was the mostreadily
procurable. From the extreme labour and care bestowedon them,
Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were enormouslydear, as we
infer from a curious Talmudical notice, [d Gitt.35 last line and b.]
where a common wollen wrap, which ofcourse was very cheap, a
copy of the Psalms, of Job, and tornpieces from Proverbs, are
together valued at five maneh, say,about 19l. Although this notice
dates from the third orfourth century, it is not likely that the cost of
HebrewBiblical MSS. was much lower at the time of Jesus.
Thiswould, of course, put their possession well nigh out
ofcommon reach. On the other hand, we are able to form an ideaof
the cheapness of Greek manuscripts from what we know ofthe
price of books in Rome at the beginning of our era.Hundreds of
slaves were there engaged copying what onedictated. The result
was not only the publication of as largeeditions as in our days, but
their production at only aboutdouble the cost of what are now
known as 'cheap' or 'people'seditions.' Probably it would be safe to
compute, that as muchmatter as would cover sixteen pages of
small print might, insuch cases, be sold at the rate of about
sixpence, and inthat ratio. [1 Comp. Friedlander, Sitteng. Roms,
vol. iii. p.315.] Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek or Latin,
althoughoften incorrect, must have been easily attainable, and
thiswould have considerable influence on making the Greek
versionof the Old Testament the 'people's Bible.' [2 To these
causesthere should perhaps be added the attempt to
introduceGrecianism by force into Palestine, the consequences
which itmay have left, and the existence of a Grecian party in
theland.]
The Greek version, like the Targum of the Palestinians,originated,
no doubt, in the first place, in a felt nationalwant on the part of the
Hellenists, who as a body wereignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find
notices of very early Greekversions of at least parts of the
Pentateuch. [3 Aristobulusin Euseb. Praepar. Evang. ix. 6; xiii. 12.
The doubts raisedby Hody against this testimony have been
generally repudiatedby critics since the treatise by Valkenaer
(Diatr. deAristob. Jud. appended to Gaisford's ed. of the
Praepar.Evang.).] But this, of course, could not suffice. On
theother hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a naturalcuriosity
on the part of students, especially in Alexandria,which had so large
a Jewish population, to know the sacredbooks on which the
religion and history of Israel werefounded. Even more than this,
we must take into account theliterary tastes of the first three
Ptolemies (successors inEgypt of Alexander the Great), and the
exceptional favourwhich the Jews for a time enjoyed. Ptolemy I.
(Lagi) was agreat patron of learning. He projected the Museum
inAlexandria, which was a home for literature and study,
andfounded the great library. In these undertakings
DemetriusPhalereus was his chief adviser. The tastes of the
firstPtolemy were inherited by his son, Ptolemy II.(Philadelphus),
who had for two years been co-regent. [a286-284 B.C.] In fact,
ultimately that monarch becameliterally book-mad, and the sums
spent on rare MSS., whichtoo often proved spurious, almost pass
belief. The same maybe said of the third of these monarchs,
Ptolemy III.(Euergetes). It would have been strange, indeed, if
thesemonarchs had not sought to enrich their library with
anauthentic rendering of the Jewish sacred books, or
notencouraged such a translation.
These circumstances will account for the different elementswhich
we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament,and
explain the historical, or rather legendary, noticeswhich we have
of its composition. To begin with the latter.Josephus has preserved
what, no doubt in its present form, isa spurious letter from one
Aristeas to his brotherPhilocrates, [1 Comp. Josephi Opera, ed.
Havercamp, vol. ii.App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical
edition of thisletter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' Archiv. i. pp.
252-310.The story is found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii.
4;Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. section 5-7. The extracts aremost
fully given in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. Some of theFathers give the
story, with additional embellishments. Itwas first critically called
in question by Hody (ContraHistoriam Aristeae de L. X. interpret.
dissert. Oxon. 1685),and has since been generally regarded as
legendary. But itsfoundation in fact has of late been recognized by
well nighall critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, andfull
of fabulous details.] in which we are told how, by theadvice of his
librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II.had sent by him
(Aristeas) and another officer, a letter,with rich presents, to
Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem;who in turn had selected
seventy-two translators (six out ofeach tribe), and furnished them
with a most valuablemanuscript of the Old Testament. The letter
then givesfurther details of their splendid reception at the
Egyptiancourt, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos,
wherethey accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when
theyreturned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, theirtranslation
having received the formal approval of the JewishSanhedrin at
Alexandria. From this account we may at leastderive as historical
these facts: that the Pentateuch, for toit only the testimony refers,
was translated into Greek, atthe suggestion of Demetrius
Phalareus, in the reign and underthe patronage, if not by direction,
of Ptolemy II.(Philadelphus). [2 This is also otherwise attested. See
Keil,Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T., p. 551, note 5.] Withthis the
Jewish accounts agree, which describe thetranslation of the
Pentateuch under Ptolemy, the JerusalemTalmud [a Meg. i.] in a
simpler narrative, the Babylonian [bMeg. 9 a.] with additions
apparently derived from theAlexandrian legends; the former
expressly noting thirteen,the latter marking fifteen, variations from
the originaltext. [3 It is scarcely worth while to refute the view
ofTychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that theJewish
writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew wordsin Greek
letters. But the word cannot possibly bear thatmeaning in this
connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien,p. 31.]
The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or morelikely by
several persons,. [4 According to Sopher. i. 8, byfive persons, but
that seems a round number to correspond tothe five books of
Moses. Frankel (Ueber d. Einfl. d. palast.Exeg.) labours, however,
to show in detail the differencesbetween the different translators.
But his criticism is oftenstrained, and the solution of the question
is apparentlyimpossible.] the other books of the Old Testament
wouldnaturally soon receive the same treatment. They
wereevidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed
verydifferent qualifications for their work, the translation ofthe
Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in itsplace another
by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. Theversion, as a whole,
bears the name of the LXX., as some havesupposed from the
number of its translators according toAristeas' account, only that in
that case it should have beenseventy-two; or from the approval of
the AlexandrianSannedrin [1 Bohl would have it, 'the Jerusalem
Sanhedrin!']although in that case it should have been seventy-one;
orperhaps because, in the popular idea, the number of theGentile
nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded astypical, was
seventy. We have, however, one fixed date bywhich to compute
the completion of this translation. From theprologue to the
Apocryphal 'Wisdom of Jesus the son ofSirach,' we learn that in
his days the Canon of Scripture wasclosed; and that on his arrival,
in his thirty-eighth year,[2 But the expression has also been
referred to thethirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes.] In
Egypt,which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found
theso-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to
asimilar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather.But in
the 50th chapter of that work we have a description ofthe
High-Priest Simon, which is evidently written by aneye-witness.
We have therefore as one term the pontificate ofSimon, during
which the earlier Jesus lived; and as theother, the reign of
Euergetes, in which the grandson was atAlexandria. Now,
although there were two High-Priests whobore the name Simon,
and two Egyptian kings with the surnameEuergetes, yet on purely
historical grounds, and apart fromcritical prejudices, we conclude
that the Simon of Ecclus. L.was Simon I., the Just, one of the
greatest names in Jewishtraditional history; and similarly, that the
Euergetes of theyounger Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy
III., whoreigned from 247 to 221 B.C. [3 To my mind, at least,
thehistorical evidence, apart from critical considerations,seems
very strong. Modern writers on the other side haveconfessedly
been influenced by the consideration that theearlier date of the
Book of Sirach would also involve a muchearlier date for the close
of the O. T. Canon than they aredisposed to admit. More especially
would it bear on thequestion of the so-called 'Maccabean Psalms,'
and theauthorship and date of the Book of Daniel. But
historicalquestions should be treated independently of
criticalprejudices. Winex (Bibl. Realworterb. i. p. 555), and
othersafter him admit that the Simon of Ecclus. ch. L. was
indeedSimon the Just (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of
thePrologue was the second of that name, Ptolemy VII.,
popularlynicknamed Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks of Fritzsche
on thisview in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. z. d. Apokr. 5te Lief.
p.xvii.] In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX.version as,
at least substantially, completed.
From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of theOld
Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. [1Comp. here,
besides the passages quoted in the previous note,Baba B. 13 b and
14 b; for the cessation of revelation in theMaccabean period, 1
Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41; and, ingeneral, for the Jewish view on
the subject at the time ofChrist, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8.] That Canon was
accepted by theAlexandrian translators, although the more loose
views of theHellenists on 'inspiration,' and the absence of that
closewatchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led
toadditions and alterations, and ultimately even to theadmission of
the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible. Unlike theHebrew
arrangement of the tex into the Law, the Prophets, [2Anterior:
Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam. 1 and 2 Kings.Posterior: Major: Is., Jer.,
and Ezek.; and the MinorProphets.] and the (sacred) Writings, or
Hagiographa, theLXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical,
and poeticbooks, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew
alphabet,instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps
boththese may have been later arrangements, since Philo
evidentlyknew the Jewish order of the books. [a De Vita
Contempl.section 3.] What text the translators may have used we
canonly conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instancesfrom
our own, though the more important deviations arecomparatively
few. [3 They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, thebooks of Esther, Job,
Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In thePentateuch we find them
only in four passages in the Book ofExodus.] In the great majority
of the lesser variations ourHebrew must be regarded as the correct
text. [4 There is alsoa curious correspondence between the
Samaritan version of thePentateuch and that of the LXX., which in
no less than about2,000 passages agree as against our Hebrew,
although in otherinstances the Greek text either agrees with the
Hebrewagainst the Samaritan, or else is independent of both. On
theconnection between Samaritan literature and Hellenism
thereare some very interesting notices in Freudenthal, Hell.
Stud.pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c.] Putting aside clerical
mistakes and misreadings, and makingallowance for errors of
translation, ignorance, and haste, wenote certain outstanding facts
as characteristic of the Greekversion. It bears evident marks of its
origin in Egypt in itsuse of Egyptian words and references, and
equally evidenttraces of its Jewish composition. By the side of
slavish andfalse literalism there is great liberty, if not licence,
inhandling the original; gross mistakes occur along with
happyrenderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid
ofsome able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are
undeniablythere, which can only be explained by reference to
Jewishtradition, although they are much fewer than some
criticshave supposed. [5 The extravagant computations in
thisrespect of Frankel (both in his work, Ueber d. Einfl. d.Palast.
Exeg., and also in the Vorstud. z. Sept. pp. 189-191)have been
rectified by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Vol. Isr. vol.iii.), who, perhaps,
goes to the other extreme. Herzfeld (pp.548-550) admits, and even
this with hesitation, of only sixdistinct references to Halakhoth in
the following passages inthe LXX.: Gen. ix. 4; xxxii. 32; Lev. xix.
19; xxiv. 7; Deut.xxv. 5; xxvi. 12. As instances of Haggadah we
may mention therenderings in Gen. v. 24 and Ex. x. 23.] This we
can easilyunderstand, since only those traditions would find a
placewhich at that early time were not only received, but ingeneral
circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements,however, are at
present of chief interest to us. They consistof allusions to Greek
mythological terms, and adaptations ofGreek philosophical ideas.
However few, [1 Dahne and Gfrorerhave in this respect gone to the
same extreme as Frankel onthe Jewish side. But even Siegfried
(Philo v. Alex. p. 8) isobliged to admit that the LXX. rendering,
Gen. i. 2), bearsundeniable mark of Grecian philosophic views.
And certainlythis is not the sole instance of the kind.] even
onewell-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others,and
in general give to the version the character of JewishHellenising.
In the same class we reckon what constitutes theprominent
characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for wantof better terms,
we would designate as rationalistic andapologetic. Difficulties, or
what seemed such, are removed bythe most bold methods, and by
free handling of the text; itneed scarcely be said, often very
unsatisfactorily. Moreespecially a strenuous effort is made to
banish allanthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of
theDeity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regardthis
as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may benoted, and indeed
is much more consistently carried out, inthe Targum of Onkelos.
Perhaps such alterations had even beenintroduced into the Hebrew
text itself. [2 As in theso-called 'Tiqquney Sopherim,' or
'emendations of thescribes.' Comp. here generally the
investigations of Geiger(Urschrift u. Ueberse z. d. Bibel). But
these, howeverlearned and ingenious, require, like so many of the
dicta ofmodern Jewish criticism, to be taken with the utmost
caution,and in each case subjected to fresh examination, since
solarge a proportion of their writings are what is bestdesignated by
the German Tendenz-Schriften, and theirinferences
Tendenz-Schlusse. But the critic and the historianshould have no
Tendenz, except towards simple fact andhistorical truth.] But there
is this vital difference betweenPalestinainism and Alexandrianism,
that, broadly speaking,the Hebrew avoidance of
anthropomorphisms depends onobjective, theological and
dogmatic, the Hellenistic onsubjective, philosophical and
apologetic, grounds. The Hebrewavoids them as he does what
seems to him inconsistent withthe dignity of Biblical heroes and of
Israel. 'Great is thepower of the prophets,' he writes, 'who liken the
Creator tothe creature;' or else [a Mechilta on Ex. xix.] 'a thing
iswritten only to break it to the ear', to adapt it to ourhuman modes
of speaking and understanding; and again, [b Ber.31 b.] the 'words
of the Torah are like the speech of thechildren of men.' But for this
very purpose the words ofScripture may be presented in another
form, if need be evenmodified, so as to obviate possible
misunderstanding, ordogmatic error. The Alexandrians arrived at
the sameconclusion, but from an opposite direction. They had
nottheological but philosophical axioms in their minds,
truthswhich the highest truth could not, and, as they held, did
notcontravene. Only dig deeper; get beyond the letter to that
towhich it pointed; divest abstract truth of its concrete,national,
Judaistic envelope, penetrate through the dim porchinto the
temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light,of which, as
its portals had been thrown open, single rayshad fallen into the
night of heathendom. And so the truthwould appear glorious, more
than vindicated in their ownsight, triumphant in that of others!
In such manner the LXX. version became really the people'sBible
to that large Jewish world through which Christianitywas
afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part ofthe case, that
this translation should be regarded by theHellenists as inspired like
the original. Otherwise it wouldhave been impossible to make
final appeal to the very wordsof the Greek; still less, to find in
them a mystical andallegorical meaning. Only that we must not
regard their viewsof inspiration, except as applying to Moses, and
even thereonly partially, as identical with ours. To their
mindsinspiration differed quantitatively, not qualitatively,
fromwhat the rapt soul might at any time experience, so that
evenheathen philosophers might ultimately be regarded as at
timesinspired. So far as the version of the Bible wa concerned(and
probably on like grounds), similar views obtained at alater period
even in Hebrew circles, where it was laid downthat the Chaldee
Targum on the Pentateuch had been originallyspoken to Moses on
Sinai, [a Ned. 37 b; Kidd. 49 a.] thoughafterwards forgotten, till
restored and re-introduced. [bMeg. 3 a.]
Whether or not the LXX. was read in the HellenistSynagogues, and
the worship conducted, wholly or partly, inGreek, must be matter
of conjecture. We find, however, asignificant notice [c Jer. Meg.
iv. 3,ed. Krot. p. 75a.] tothe effect that among those who spoke a
barbarous language(not Hebrew, the term referring specially to
Greek), it wasthe custom for one person to read the whole
Parashah (orlesson for the day), while among the Hebrew-speaking
Jewsthis was done by seven persons, successively called up.
Thisseems to imply that either the Greek text alone was read,
orthat it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Targum of
theEasterns. More probably, however, the former would be
thecase, since both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified
toread them, would be difficult to procure. At any rate, weknow
that the Greek Scriptures were authoritativelyacknowledged in
Palestine, [1 Meg. i. It is, however, fair toconfess strong doubt, on
my part, whether this passage maynot refer to the Greek translation
of Akylas. At the sametime it simply speaks of a translation into
Greek. And beforethe version of Aquila the LXX. alone held that
place. It isone of the most daring modern Jewish perversions of
historyto identify this Akylas, who flourished about 130
afterChrist, with the Aquila of the Book of Acts. It wants eventhe
excuse of a colourable perversion of the confused storyabout
Akylas, which Epiphanius who is so generallyinaccurate, gives in
De Pond. et Mensur. c. xiv. and that theordinary daily prayers
might be said in Greek. [2 The 'Shema'(Jewish creed), with its
collects, the eighteen'benedictions,' and 'the grace at meat.' A later
Rabbivindicated the use of the 'Shema' in Greek by the
argumentthat the word Shema meant not only 'Hear,' but
also'understand' (Jer. Sotah vii. 1.) Comp. sotah vii. 1, 2. InBer. 40
b, it is said that the Parashah connected with thewoman suspected
of adultery, the prayer and confession at thebringing of the tithes,
and the various benedictions overfood, may be said not only in
Hebrew, but in any otherlanguages.] The LXX. deserved this
distinction from itsgeneral faithfulness, at least, in regard to the
Pentateuch,and from its preservation of ancient doctrine. Thus,
withoutfurther referring to its full acknowledgment of the
doctrineof Angels (comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 2), we
speciallymark that is preserved the Messianic interpretation of
Gen.xlix. 10, and Numb. xxiv. 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence
ofwhat had been the generally received view two and a
halfcenturies before the birth of Jesus. It must have been on
theground of the use made of the LXX. in argument, that
latervoices in the Synagogue declared this version to have been
asgreat calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, [aMass.
Sopher i. Hal. 7, at the close of vol. ix. of theBab.Talmud.] and
that is completion had been followed by theterrible omen of an
eclipse, that lasted three days. [bHilch. Ged. Taan.] For the Rabbis
declared that uponinvestigation it had been found that the Torah
could beadequately translated only into Greek, and they are
mostextravagant in their praise of the Greek version of Akylas,or
Aquila, the proselyte, which was made to counteract theinfluence
of the LXX. [c Jer. Meg. i. 11, ed. Krot. p. 71 band c.] But in Egypt
the anniversary of the completion of theLXX. was celebrated by a
feast in the island of Pharos, inwhich ultimately even heathens
seem to have taken part. [dPhilo, Vita Mos. ii. ed. Francf. p. 660.]
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
THE OLD FAITH PREPARING FOR THE NEW,
DEVELOPMENT OFHELLENIST THEOLOGY: THE
APOCRYPHA, ARISTEAS, ARISTOBULUS, ANDTHE
PSEUD-EPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.
CHAPTER III.
The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may beregarded
as the starting-point of Hellenism. It renderedpossible the hope
that what in its original form had beenconfined to the few, might
become accessible to the world atlarge. [a Philo, de Vita Mos. ed.
Mangey, ii. p. 140.] Butmuch yet remained to be done. If the
religion of the OldTestament had been brought near to the Grecian
world ofthought, the latter had still to be brought near to
Judaism.Some intermediate stage must be found; some common
ground onwhich the two might meet; some original kindredness of
spiritto which their later divergences might be carried back,
andwhere they might finally be reconciled. As the first attemptin
this direction, first in order, if not always in time, wemark the
so-called Apocryphal literature, most of which waseither written in
Greek, or is the product of HellenisingJews. [1 All the Apocrypha
were originally written in Greek,except 1 Macc., Judith, part of
Baruch, probably Tobit, and,of course, the 'Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of Sirach.'] Itsgeneral object was twofold. First, of course, it
wasapologetic, intended to fill gaps in Jewish history orthought,
but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind againstattacks from
without, and generally to extol the dignity ofIsrael. Thus, more
withering sarcasm could scarcely be pouredon heathenism than in
the apocryphal story of 'Bel and theDragon,' or in the so-called
'Epistle of Jeremy,' with whichthe Book of 'Baruch' closes. The
same strain, only in morelofty tones, resounds through the Book of
the 'Wisdom ofSolomon,' [b Comp. x. xx.] along with the
constantly impliedcontrast between the righteous, or Israel, and
sinners, orthe heathen. But the next object was to show that the
deeperand purer thinking of heathenism in its highest
philosophysupported, nay, in some respects, was identical with,
thefundamental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course,was
apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared theway for a
reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We noticethis especially in
the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, solong erroneously
attributed to Josephus, [1 It is printed inHavercamp's edition of
Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. Thebest edition is in Fritzsche, Libri
Apocryphi Vet. Test.(Lips. 1871).] and in the 'Wisdom of
Solomon.' The firstpostulate here would be the acknowledgment of
truth among theGentiles, which was the outcome of Wisdom, and
Wisdom was therevelation of God. This seems already implied in
sothoroughly Jewish a book as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.[a
Comp. for ex. Ecclus. xxiv. 6.] Of coursethere could be noalliance
with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole ofthe Old
Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculationswould charm,
while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicismwould prove almost
equally attractive. The one would show whythey believed, the
other why they lived, as they did. Thusthe theology of the Old
Testament would find a rational basisin the ontology of Plato, and
its ethics in the moralphilosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the
very line ofargument which Josephus follows in the conclusion of
histreatise against Apion. [b ii. 39, 40.] This, then, was
anunassailable position to take:contempt poured on heathenismas
such, [c Comp. also Jos. Ag. Ap. ii. 34.] and arationalphilosophical
basis for Judaism. They were not deep, onlyacute thinkers, these
Alexandrians, and the result of theirspeculations was a curious
Eclecticism, in which Platonismand Stoicism are found, often
heterogeneously, side by side.Thus, without further details, it may
be said that the FourthBook of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical
treatise on the Stoicaltheme of 'the supremacy of reason', the
proposition, statedat the outset, that 'pious reason bears absolute
sway overthe passions,' being illustrated by the story of
themartyrdom of Eleazar, and of the mother and her seven sons.[d
Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 18-vii. 41.] On the other hand, thatsublime
work, the 'Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic andStoic
elements [2 Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. pp.626-632) has
given a glowing sketch of it. Ewald rightly saysthat its Grecian
elements have been exaggerated; but Bucher(Lehre vom Logos,
pp. 59-62) utterly fails in denying theirpresence altogether.],
chiefly perhaps the latter, the twooccurring side by side. Thus [e
Ch. vii. 22-27.] 'Wisdom,'which is so concretely presented as to be
almosthypostatised, [3 Compare especially ix. 1; xviii.
14-16,where the idea of passes into that of the. Of course theabove
remarks are not intended to depreciate the great valueof this book,
alike in itself, and in its practical teaching,in its clear enunciation
of a retribution as awaiting man,and in its important bearing on the
New Testament revelationof the.] is first described in the language
of Stoicism, [fVv. 22-24.] and afterwards set forth, in that of
Platonism,[g Vv. 25-29.] as 'the breath of thepower of God;' as 'a
pureinfluence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;'
'thebrightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror ofthe
power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Similarly,we have
[a In ch. viii. 7.] a Stoical enumeration of the fourcardinal virtues,
temperance, prudence, justice, andfortitude, and close by it the
Platonic idea of the soul'spre-existence, [b In vv. 19, 20.] and of
earth and matterpressing it down. [c ix. 15.] How such views
would point inthe direction of the need of a perfect revelation from
onhigh, as in the Bible, and of its rational possibility, needscarcely
be shown.
But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards thisApocryphal
literature? We find it described by a term whichseems to
correspond to our 'Apocrypha,' as Sepharim Genuzim,'hidden
books,' i.e., either such whose origin was hidden,or, more likely,
books withdrawn from common orcongregational use. Although
they were, of course, carefullydistinguished from the canonical
Scriptures, as not beingsacred, their use was not only allowed, but
many of them arequoted in Talmudical writings. [1 Some
Apocryphal books whichhave not been preserved to us are
mentioned in Talmudicalwritings, among them one, 'The roll of
the building of theTemple,' alas, lost to us! Comp. Hamburger, vol.
ii. pp.66-70.] In this respect they are placed on a very
differentfooting from the so-called Sepharim Chitsonim, or
'outsidebooks,' which probably included both the products of
acertain class of Jewish Hellenistic literature, and theSiphrey
Minim, or writings of the heretics. Against theseRabbinism can
scarcely find terms of sufficient violence,even debarring from
share in the world to come those who readthem. [d Sanh 100.]
This, not only because they were usedincontroversy, but because
their secret influence on orthodoxJudaism was dreaded. For
similar reasons, later Judaismforbade the use of the Apocrypha in
the same manner as thatof the Sepharim Chitsonim. But their
influence had alreadymade itself felt. The Apocrypha, the more
greedily perused,not only for their glorification of Judaism, but
that theywere, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded
aglimpse into that forbidden Greek world, opened the way forother
Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged butfrequent traces
occur in Talmudical writings. [2 Comp.Siegfried, Philo von Alex.
pp. 275-299, who, however, perhapsoverstates the matter.]
To those who thus sought to weld Grecian thought with
Hebrewrevelation, two objects would naturally present
themselves.They must try to connect their Greek philosophers with
theBible, and they must find beneath the letter of Scripture adeeper
meaning, which would accord with philosophic truth. Sofar as the
text of Scripture was concerned, they had a methodready to hand.
The Stoic philosophers had busied themselvesin finding a deeper
allegorical meaning, especially in thewritings of Homer. By
applying it to mythical stories, or tothe popular beliefs, and by
tracing the supposed symbolicalmeaning of names, numbers, &c.,
it became easy to provealmost anything, or to extract from these
philosophicaltruths ethical principles, and even the later results
ofnatural science. [1 Comp. Siegfried, pp. 9-16; Hartmann,
EngeVerb. d. A. Test. mit d. N., pp. 568-572.] Such a process
waspeculiarly pleasing to the imagination, and the results
alikeastounding and satisfactory, since as they could not beproved,
so neither could they be disproved. This allegoricalmethod [2 This
is to be carefully distinguished from thetypical interpretation and
from the mystical, the type beingprophetic, the mystery spiritually
understood.] was thewelcome key by which the Hellenists might
unlock the hiddentreasury of Scripture. In point of fact, we find it
appliedso early as in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' [3 Not to speak
ofsuch sounder interpretations as that of the brazen serpent(Wisd.
xvi. 6, 7), and of the Fall (ii. 24), or of the viewpresented of the
early history of the chosen race in ch. x.,we may mention as
instances of allegorical interpretationthat of the manna (xvi.
26-28), and of the high-priestlydress (xviii. 24), to which, no
doubt, others might be added.But I cannot find sufficient evidence
of this allegoricalmethod in the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of
Sirach. Thereasoning of Hartmann (u. s., pp. 542-547) seems to
megreatly strained. Of the existence of allegoricalinterpretations in
the Synoptic Gospels, or of any connectionwith Hellenism, such as
Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loesner(Obs. ad. N.T. e Phil. Alex) put
into them, I cannot, onexamination, discover any evidence.
Similarity ofexpressions, or even of thought, afford no evidence of
inwardconnection. Of the Gospel by St. John we shall speak in
thesequel. In the Paul ne Epistles we find, as might beexpected,
some allegorical interpretations, chiefly in thoseto the Corinthians,
perhaps owing to the connection of thatchurch with Apollos.
Comp here 1 Cor. ix. 9; x. 4 (Philo,Quod deter. potiori insid. 31); 2
Cor. iii. 16; Gal. iv. 21.Of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Apocalypse we cannothere speak.]
But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of
soberinterpretation. it is otherwise in the letter of
thePseudo-Aristeas, to which reference has already been made.
[4See p. 25.] Here the wildest symbolismis put into the mouthof
the High-Priest Eleazar, to convince Aristeas and
hisfellow-ambassador that the Mosaic ordinances concerning
foodhad not only a political reason, to keep Israel separate
fromimpious nations, and a sanitary one, but chiefly a
mysticalmeaning. The birds allowed for food were all tame and
pure,and they fed on corn or vegetable products, the oppositebeing
the case with those forbidden. The first lesson whichthis was
intended to teach was, that Israel must be just, andnot seek to
obtain aught from others by violence; but, so tospeak, imitate the
habits of those birds which were allowedthem. The next lesson
would be, that each must learn togovern his passions and
inclinations. Similarly, thedirection about cloven hoofs pointed to
the need of makingseparation, that is, between good and evil; and
that aboutchewing the cud to the need of remembering, viz. God
and Hiswill. [1 A similar principle applied to the prohibition
ofsuch species as the mouse or the weasel, not only becausethey
destroyed everthing, but because they latter, from itsmode of
conceiving and bearing, symbolized listening to eviltales, and
exaggerated, lying, or malicious speech.] In suchmanner,
according to Aristeas, did the High Priest go throughthe catalogue
of things forbidden, and of animals to besacrificed, showing from
their 'hidden meaning' the majestyand sanctity of the Law. [2 Of
course this method isconstantly adopted by Josephus. Comp. for
example, Ant. iii.1. 6; 7. 7.]
This was an important line to take, and it differed inprinciple from
the allegorical method adopted by the EasternJews. Not only the
Dorshey Reshumoth, [3 Or DorsheyChamuroth, searchers of
difficult passages. Zunz. Gottesd.Vortr. p. 323. note b.] or searches
out of the subleties ofScripture, of their indications, but even the
ordinryHaggadist employed, indeeds, allegoric
interpretations.Thereby Akiba vindicated for the 'Song of Songs' its
place inthe Canon. Did not Scripture say: 'One thing spake
God,twofold is what I heard,' [a Ps. lxii. 11; Sanh. 34 a.] anddid
not this imply a twofold meaning; nay, could not theTorah be
explained by many different methods? [4 The seventylanguages in
which the Law was supposed to have been writtenbelow Mount
Ebal (Sotah vii. 5). I cannot help feeling thismay in part also refer
to the various modes of interpretingHoly Scripture, and that there
is an allusion to this Shabb.88 b, where Ps. lxviii. 12. and Jer.
xxiii. 29, are quoted,the latter to show that the word of God is like
a hammer thatbreaks the rock in a thousand pieces. Comp. Rashi
on Gen.xxxiii. 20.] What, for example, was the water which
Israelsought in the wilderness, or the bread and raiment
whichJacob asked in Bethel, but the Torah and the dignity which
itconferred? But in all these, and innumerable similarinstances, the
allegorical interpretation was only anapplication of Scripture for
homiletical purposes, not asearching into a rationale beneath, such
as that of theHellenists. The latter the Rabbis would have
utterlyrepudiated, on their express principle that 'Scripture goesnot
beyond its plain meaning.' [5 Perhaps we ought here topoint out
one of the most important principles of Rabbinism,which has been
almost entirely overlooked in modern criticismof the Talmud. It is
this: that any ordinance, not only ofthe Divine law, but of the
Rabbis, even though only given fora particular time or occasion, or
for a special reason,remains in full force for all time unless it be
expresslyrecalled (Betsah 5 b). Thus Maimonides (Sepher ha
Mitsv.)declares the law to extirpate the Canaanites as continuing
inits obligations. The inferences as to the perpetualobligation, not
only of the ceremonial law, but ofsacrifices, will be obvious, and
their bearing on the Jewishcontroversy need not be explained.
Comp. Chief RabbiHoldheim. d. Ceremonial Gesetz in
Messasreich, 1845.] Theysternly insisted, that we ought not to
search into theulterior object and rationale of a law, but simply
obey it.But it was this very rationale of the Law which
theAlexandrians sought to find under its letter. It was in thissense
that Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, [bAbout 160 B.C.]
sought to explain Scripture. Only a fragmentof hwork, which
seems to have been a Commentary on thePentateuch, dedicated to
King Ptolemy (Philometor), has beenpreserved to us (by Clement
of Alexandria, and by Eusebius [aPraepar. Evang. vii. 14. 1 ; vii.
10. 1-17; xiii. 12.]).According to Clement of Alexandria, his aim
was, 'to bringthe Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses,
and outof the other prophets.' Thus, when we read that God stood,
itmeant the stable order of the world; that He created theworld in
six days, the orderly succession of time; the restof the Sabbath, the
preservation of what was created. And insuch manner could the
whole system of Aristole be found inthe Bible. But how was this to
be accounted for? Of course,the Bible had not learned from
Aristole, but he and all theother philosphers had learned from the
Bible. Thus, accordingto Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the
other sageshad really learned from Moses, and the broken rays
found intheir writings were united in all their glory in the Torah.
It was a tempting path on which to enter, and one on whichthere
was no standing still. It only remained to givefixedness to the
allegorical method by reducing it to certainprinciples, or canons of
criticism, and to form theheterogeneous mass of Grecian
philosophemes and Jewishtheologumena into a compact, if not
homogeneous system. Thiswas the work of Philo of Alexandria,
born about 20 B.C. Itconcerns us not here to inquire what were the
intermediatelinks between Aristobulus and Philo. Another and
moreimportant point claims our attention. If ancient
Greekphilosophy knew the teaching of Moses, where was the
historicevidence for it? If such did not exist, it must somehow
beinvented. Orpheus was a name which had always lent itself
toliterary frand, [b As Val. Kenaer puts it, Daitr. de Aristob.Jud. p.
73.] and so Aristobulus boldl;y produces (whether ofhis own or of
others' making) a number of spurious citationsfrom Hesiod,
Homer, Linus, but especially from Orpheus, allBiblical and Jewish
in their cast. Aristobulus was neitherthe first nor the last to commit
such fraud. The Jewish Sibylboldly, and, as we shall see,
successfully personated theheathen oracles. And this opens,
generally, quite a vista ofJewish-Grecia literature. In the second,
and even in thethird century before Christ, there were Hellenist
historians,such as Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, and Aristeas;
tragicand epic poets, such as Ezekiel, Pseudo-Philo, and
Theodotus,who, after the manner of the ancient classical writers,
butfor their own purposes, described certain periods of
Jewishhistory, or sang of such themes as the Exodus, Jerusalem,
orthe rape of Dinah.
The mention of these spurious quotations naturally leads usto
another class of spurious literature, which, although notHellenistic,
has many elements in common with it, and, evenwhen originating
with Palestinian Jews is not Palestinian,nor yet has been preserved
in its language. We allude to whatare known as the
Pseudepigraphic, or Pseudonymic Writings, socalled because, with
one exception, they bear false names ofauthorship. It is difficult to
arrange them otherwise thanchronological, and even here the
greatest difference ofopinions prevails. Their general character
(with oneexception) may be described as anti-heathen,
perhapsmissionary, but chiefly as Apocalyptic. They are attempts
attaking up the key-note struck in the prophecies of Daniel;rather,
we should say, to lift the veil only partially raisedby him, and to
point, alike as concerned Israel, and thekingdoms of the world, to
the past, the present, and thefuture, in the light of the Kingship of
the Messiah. Here, ifanywhere, we might expect to find traces of
New Testamentteaching; and yet, side by side with frequent
similarity ofform, the greatest difference, we had almost said
contrast,in spirit, prevails.
Many of these works must have perished. In one of the latestof
them [a 4 Esdras xiv. 44, 46.] they are put down atseventy,
probably a roundnumber, having reference to thesupposed number
of the nations of the earth, or to everypossible mode of interpreting
Scripture. They are describedas intended for 'the wise among the
people,' probably thosewhom St. Paul, in the Christian sense,
designates as 'knowingthe time' [b Rom. xiii. 11.] [1 The of St.
Paul seems hereused in exactly the same sense as in later Hebrew.
The LXX.render it so in five passages (Ezr. v. 3; Dan. iv. 33; vi.10;
vii. 22, 25).] of the Advent of the Messiah. Viewed inthis light,
they embody the ardent aspirataions and theinmost hopes [2 Of
course, it suits Jewish, writers, like Dr.Jost, to deprecate the value
of the Pseudepigrapha. Theirardour of expectancy ill agrees with
the modern theories,which would eliminate, if possible, the
Messianic hope fromancient Judaism.] of those who longed for the
'consolation ofIsrael,' as they understood it. Nor should we judge
theirpersonations of authorship according to our Western ideas.
[3Comp. Dillmann in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol. xii. p.
301.]Pseudonymic writings were common in that age, and a Jew
mightperhaps plead that, even in the Old Testament, books had
beenheaded by names which confessedly were not those of
theirauthors (such as Samuel, Ruth, Esther). If those inspiredpoets
who sang in the spirit, and echoed the strains, ofAsaph, adopted
that designation, and the sons of Korahpreferred to be known by
that title, might not they, whocould no longer claim the authority
of inspiration seekattention for their utterances by adopting the
names of thosein whose spirit they professed to write?
The most interesting as well as the oldest of these booksare those
known as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles,the Paler of
Solomon, and the Book of Jubilees, or LittleGenesis. Only the
briefest notice of them can here find aplace. [1 For a brief review
of the 'PseudepigraphicWritings,' see Appendix I.]
The Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date a centuryand a
half before Christ, comes to us from Palestine. Itprofesses to be a
vision vouchsafed to that Patriacrch, andatells of the fall of the
Angels and its consequences, and ofwhat he saw and heard in his
rapt journeys through heaven andearth. Of deepest, though often
sad, interest, is what itsays of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the
advent of Messiah andHis Kingdom, and of the last things.
On the other hand, the Sibylline Oracles, of which theoldest
portions date from about 160 B.C., come to us fromEgypt. It is to
the latter only that we here refer. Theirmost interesting parts are
also the most characteristics. Inthem the ancient heathen myths of
the first ages of man arewelded together with Old Testament
notices, while the heathenTheogony is recast in a Jewish mould.
Thus Noah becomesUranos, Shem Saturn, Ham Titan, and Japheth
Japetus.Similarly, we have fragments of ancient heathen oracles,
soto speak, recast in a Jewish edition. The strangestcircumstance
is, that the utterances of this Judaising andJewish Sibyl seem to
have passed as the oracles of theancient Erythraean, which had
predicted the fall of Troy, andas those of the Sibyl of Cumae,
which, in the infancy ofRome, Tarquinius Superbus had deposited
in the Capitol.
The collection of eighteen hymns known as the Psalter ofSolomon
dates from more than half a century before our ear.No doubt the e
original was Hebrew, though they breathe asomewhat Hellenistic
spirit. They express ardent Messianicaspirations, and a firm faith
in the Resurrection, and ineternal rewards and punishments.
Different in character from the preceding works is The Bookof
Jubilees, so called from its chronological arrangementinto
'Jubilee-periods', or 'Little Genesis.' It is chiefly akind of legendary
supplement to the Book of Genesis, intendedto explain some of its
historic difficulties, and to fill upits historic lacunae. It was
probably written about the timeof Christ, and this gives it a special
interest, by aPalestinian, and in Hebrew, or rather Aramaean. But,
like therest of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature
whichcomes from Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew,
weposses it no longer in that language, but only intranslation.
If from this brief review of Hellenist and Pseudepigraphicliterature
we turn to take a retrospect, we can scarcely failto perceive, on the
one hand, the development of the old, andon the other the
preparation for the new, in other words, thegrand expectancy
awakened, and the grand preparation made.One step only
remained to complete what Hellenism had alreadybegun. That
completion came through one who, although himselfuntouched by
the Gospel, perhaps more than any other preparedalike his
co-religionists the Jews, and his countrymen theGreeks, for the
new teaching, which, indeed, was presented bymany of its early
advocates in the forms which they hadlearned from him. That man
was Philo the Jew, of Alexandria.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, THE RABBIS, AND THE GOSPELS,
THE FINALDEVELOPMENT OF HELLENISM IN ITS
RELATION TO RABBINISM AND THEGOSPEL ACCORDING
TO ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER IV.
It is strange how little we know of the personal history ofthe
greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old, though heoccupied so
prominent a position in his time. [1 Hausrath(N.T. Zeitg. vol. ii. p.
222 &c.) has given a highlyimaginative picture of Philo, as,
indeed, of many otherpersons and things.] Philo was born in
Alexandria, about theyear 20 before Christ. He was a descendant
of Aaron, andbelonged to one of the wealthiest and most
influentialfamilies among the Jewish merchant-princes of Egypt.
Hisbrother was the political head of that community inAlexandria,
and he himself on one occasion represented hisco-religionists,
though unsuccessfully, at Rome, [a 39 or 40A.D.] as the head of an
embassy to entreat the EmperiorCaligula for protection from the
persecutions consequent onthe Jewish resistance to placing statues
of the Emperor intheir Synagogues. But it is not with Philo, the
wealthyaristocratic Jew of Alexandria, but with the great writer
andthinker who, so to speak, completed Jewish Hellenism, that
wehave here to do. Let us see what was his relation alike toheathen
philosophy and to the Jewish faith, of both of whichhe was the
ardent advocate, and how in his system he combinedthe teaching
of the two.
To begin with, Philo united in rare measure Greek learningwith
Jewish enthusiasm. In his writings he very frequentlyuses classical
modes of expression; [2 Siegfried has, withimmense labor,
collected a vast number of parallelexpressions, chiefly from Plato
and Plutarch (pp. 39-47).] henames not fewer than sixty-four
Greek writers; [3 Comp.Grossmann, Quaest. Phil. i. p. 5 &c.] and
he either alludesto, 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 attheir feet, and learned to weave a system from
Pythagoras,Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of
thesephilosophers were 'holy,' and Plato was 'the great.' Butholier
than all was the gathering of the true Israel; andincomparably
greater than any, Moses. From him had all sageslearned, and with
him alone was all truth to be found, not,indeed, in the letter, but
under the letter, of HolyScripture. 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 notimply, on the one hand, the revelation of absolute truth
byGod, and, on the other, accommodation to those who were
weak?Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation
ofthe Word of God, the literal and the allegorical. The letterof the
text must be held fast; and Biblical personages andhistories were
real. But only narrow-minded slaves of theletter would stop here;
the more so, as sometimes the literalmeaning alone would be
tame, even absurd; while theallegorical interpretation gave the true
sense, even thoughit might occassionally run counter to the letter.
Thus, thepatriarchs represented states of the soul; and, whatever
theletter might bear, Joseph represented one given to thefleshly,
whom his brothers rightly hated; Simeon the soulaiming after the
higher; the killing of the Egyptian byMoses, the subjugation of
passion, and so on. But thisallegorical interpretation, by the side of
the literal (thePeshat of the Palestinians), though only for the few,
was notarbitrary. It had its 'laws,' and 'canons', some of
whichexcluded the literal interpretation, while others admitted itby
the side of the higher meaning. [1 In this sketch of thesystem of
Philo I have largely availed myself of the carefulanalysis of
Siegfried.]
To begin with the former: the literal sense must be whollyset aside,
when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity,anything
unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason.Manifestly, this
canon, if strictly applied, would do awaynot only with all
anthropomorphisms, but cut the knotwherever difficulties seemed
insuperable. Again, Philo wouldfind an allegorical, along with the
literal, interpretationindicated in the reduplication of a word, and
in seeminglysuperfluous words, particles, or expressions. [2 It
should benoted that these are also Talmudical canons, not indeed
forallegorical interpretation, but as pointing to some
specialmeaning, since there was not a word or particle in
Scripturewithout a definite meaning and object.] These could,
ofcourse, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of
theactual inspiration of the LXX. version. Similarly, in
exactaccordance with a Talmudical canon, [a Baba K 64 a.]
anyrepetition of what had been already stated would point
tosomething new. These were comparatively sober rules
ofexegesis. Not so the licence which he claimed of freelyaltering
the punctuation [3 To illustrate what use might bemade of such
alterations, the Midrash (Ber. R. 65) would haveus punctuate Gen.
xxvii. 19, as follows: 'And Jacob said untohis father, I (viz. am he
who will receive the tencommandments), (but) Esau (is) thy
firstborn.' In Yalkutthere is the still more curious explanation that
in heaventhe soul of Jacob was the firstborn!] of sentences, and
hisnotion that, if one from among several synonymous words
waschosen in a passage, this pointed to some special
meaningattaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea, that
aword which occurred in the LXX. might be interpretedaccording
to every shade of meaning which it bore in theGreek, and that even
another meaning might be given it byslightly altering the letters.
However, like other of Philo'sallegorical 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 tothe text, we need not wonder at interpretations
based on aplay upon words, or even upon parts of a word. Of
course, allseemingly strange or peculiar modes of expression, or
ofdesignation, occurring in Scripture, must have their
specialmeaning, 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
anunexpected singular for a plural, or vice versa, the use of atense,
even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, anallegorical
interpretation might be again employed as thebasis of another. [1
Each of these positions is capable ofample proof from Philo's
writings, as shown by Siegfried. Butonly a bare statement of these
canons was here possible.]
We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo areessentially the
same as those of Jewish traditionalism in theHaggadah, [2 Comp.
our above outline with the 'XXV. theses demodis et formulis
quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretarietc. soliti fuerunt,' in
Surenhusius, Biblos, pp. 57-88.]only the latter were not
rationalising, and far morebrilliant in their application. [3 For a
comparison betweenPhilo and Rabbinic theology, see Appendix
II.: 'Philo andRabbinic Theology.' Freudenthal (Hellen. Studien,
pp. 67 &c.)aptly designates this mixture of the two as
'HellenisticMidrash,' it being difficult sometimes to distinguish
whetherit originated in Palestine or in Egypt, or else in
bothindependently. Freudenthal gives a number of
curiousinstances in which Hellenism and Rabbinism agree in
theirinterpretations. For other interesting comparisons
betweenHaggadic interpretations and those of Philo, see Joel,
Blickin d. Religionsgesch. i. p. 38 &c.] In another respect alsothe
Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrianexegesis.
Reverently and cautiously it indicated what mightbe omitted in
public reading, and why; what expressions ofthe original might be
modified by the Meturgeman, and how; soas to avoid alike one
danger by giving a passage in itsliterality, and another by adding to
the sacred text, orconveying a wrong impression of the Divine
Being, or elsegiving occasion to the unlearned and unwary of
becomingentangled in dangerous speculations. Jewish tradition
herelays down some principles which would be of great
practicaluse. Thus we are told, [a Ber. 31 b.] that Scripture uses
themodes ofexpression common among men. This would, of
course,include all anthropomorphisms. Again, sometimes
withconsiderable ingenuity, a suggestion is taken from a word,such
as that Moses knew the Serpent was to be made of brassfrom the
similarity of the two words (nachash, a serpent, andnechosheth,
brass. [b Ber. R. 31.] Similarly, it is notedthat Scripture uses
euphemistic language, so as to preservethe greatest delicacy. [c
Ber. R. 70.] These instances mightbe multiplied, but the above will
suffice.
In his symbolical interpretations Philo only partially tookthe same
road as the Rabbis. The symbolism of numbers and, sofar as the
Sanctuary was concerned, that of colours, and evenmaterials, may,
indeed, be said to have its foundation in theOld Testament itself.
The same remark applies partially tothat of names. The Rabbis
certainly so interpreted them. [1Thus, to give only a few out of
many examples, Ruth isderived from ravah, to satiate to give to
drink, becauseDavid, her descendant, satiated God with his Psalms
of praise(Ber. 7 b). Here the principle of the significance
ofBiblenames is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in the Hebrew):'Come,
behold the works of the Lord, who hath made names onearth,' the
word 'desolations,' SHAMOTH, being altered toSHEMOTH,
'names.' In general, that section, from Ber. 3 b, tothe end of 8 a, is
full of Haggadic Scriptureinterpretations. On fol. 4 a there is the
curious symbolicalderivation of Mephibosheth, who is supposed to
have set Davidright on halakhic questions, as Mippi bosheth: 'from
my mouthshaming,' 'because he put to shame the face of David in
theHalakhah.' Similarly in Siphre (Par. Behaalothekha,
ed.Friedmann, p. 20 a) we have very beautiful and
ingeniousinterpretations of the names Reuel, Hobab and Jethro.]
Butthe application which Philo made of this symbolism was
verydifferent. Everything became symbolical in his hands, if
itsuited his purpose: numbers (in a very arbitrary manner),beasts,
birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones,elements, substances,
conditions, even sex, and so a term oran expression might even
have several and contradictorymeanings, from which the
interpreter was at liberty tochoose.
From the consideration of the method by which Philo derivedfrom
Scriptures his theological views, we turn to a briefanalysis of these
views. [2 It would be impossible here togive the references, which
would occupy too much space.]
1. Theology. In reference to God, we find, side by side,
theapparently contradictory views of the Platonic and the
Stoicschools. Following the former, the sharpest distinction
wasdrawn between God and the world. God existed neither
inspace, nor in time; He had neither human qualities norafections;
in fact, He was without any qualities ( ), andeven without any
name ( ) ; hence, wholly uncognisable by man( ). 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 hidhimself from Him. In the
above sense, also, Ex. iii. 14, andvi. 3, were explained, and the two
names Elohim and Jehovahbelonged really to the two supreme
Divine 'Potencies,' whilethe fact of God's being uncognisable
appeared from Ex. xx.21.
But side by side with this we have, to save the Jewish, orrather Old
Testament, idea of creation and providence, theStoic notion of
God as immanent in the world, in fact, asthat alone which is real in
it, as always working: in short,to use his own Pantheistic
expression, as 'Himself one andthe all' ( ). Chief in His Being is
His goodness, theforthgoing of which was the ground of creation.
Only the goodcomes from Him. With matter He can have nothing
to do, hencethe plural number in the account of creation. God
onlycreated the soul, and that only of the good. In the sense
ofbeing 'immanent,' God is everywhere, nay, all things arereally
only in Him, or rather He is the real in all. Butchiefly 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 sepration
between God and matter,it was impossible always to account for
miracles orinterpositions. Accordingly, these are sometimes
allegorised,sometimes rationalistically explained. Further, the God
ofPhilo, whatever he might say to the contrary, was not the Godof
that Israel which was His chosen people.2. Intermediary Beings.
Potencies ( ). If, in what haspreceded, we have once and again
noticed a remarkablesimilarity between Philo and the Rabbis,
there is a stillmore curious analogy between his teaching and that
of JewishMysticism, as ultimately fully developed in the
'Kabbalah.'The very term Kabbalah (from qibbel, to hand down)
seems topoint out not only its descent by oral tradition, but alsoits
ascent to ancient sources. [1 For want of handiermaterial I must
take leave to refer to my brief sketch of theKabbalah in the
'History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 434-446.]Its existence is
presupposed, and its leading ideas aresketched in the Mishnah. [a
Chag. ii. 1.]The Targums alsobear at least one remarkable trace of
it. May it not be, thatas Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition,
so bothEastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from
one andthe same source, we will not venture to suggest, how high
up,while each made such use of it as suited their
distinctivetendencies? At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening
Scriptureto a person, compares those who study merely the letter,
tothem who attend only to the dress; those who consider themnoral
of a fact, to them who attend to the body; while theinitiated alone,
who regard the hidden meaning, are those whoattend to the soul.
Again, as Philo, so the oldest part ofthe Mishnah [a Ab. v. 4.]
designates God as Maqom, 'theplace', the, the all-comprehending,
what the Kabbalistscalled the EnSoph, 'the boundless,' that God,
without anyquality, Who becomes cognisable only by His
manifestations.[1 In short, the of the Stoics.]
The manifestations of God! But neither Eastern mysticalJudaism,
nor the philosophy of Philo, could admit of anydirect contact
between God and creation. The Kabbalah solvedthe difficulty by
their Sephiroth, [2 Supposed to mean eithernumerationes, or
splendour. But why not derive the word from? The ten are: Crown,
Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Judgment,Beauty, Triumph, Praise,
Foundation, Kingdom.] or emanationsfrom God, through which
this contact was ultimately broughtabout, and of which the
EnSoph, or crown, was the spring:'the source from which the
infinite light issued.' If Philofound greater difficulties, he had also
more ready help fromthe philosophical systems to hand. His
Sephiroth were'Potencies' ( ), 'Words' ( ), intermediate
powers.'Potencies,' as we imagine, when viewed Godwards;
'Words,' asviewed creationwards. They were not emanations,
but,according to Plato, 'archetypal ideas,' on the model of whichall
that exists was formed; and also, according to the Stoicidea, the
cause of all, pervading all, forming all, andsustaining all. Thus
these 'Potencies' were wholly in God,and yet wholly out of God. If
we divest all this of itsphilosophical colouring, did not Eastern
Judaism also teachthat there was a distinction between the
Unapproachable God,and God manifest? [3 For the teaching of
Eastern Judaism inthis respect, see Appendix II.: 'Philo and
RabbinicTheology.']
Another remark will show the parallelism between Philo
andRabbinism. [4 A very interesting question arises: how farPhilo
was acquainted with, and influenced by, the Jewishtraditional law
or the Halakhah. This has been treated by Dr.B. Ritter in an able
tractate (Philo u. die Halach.),although he attributes more to Philo
than the evidence seemsto admit.] As the latter speaks of the two
qualities(Middoth) of Mercy and Judgment in the Divine Being, [b
Jer.Ber. ix. 7.] and distinguishes between Elohim as the God
ofJustice, and Jehovah as the God of Mercy and Grace, so
Philoplaces next to the Divine Word ( ), Goodness ( ), as
theCreative Potency ( ), and Power ( ), as the Ruling Potency (),
proving this by a curious etymological derivation of thewords for
'God' and 'Lord' ( ), apparently unconscious thatthe LXX., in direct
contradiction, translated Jehovah by Lord( ), and Elohim by God (
)! These two potencies of goodnessand power, Philo sees in the
two Cherubim, and in the two'Angels' which accompanied God
(the Divine Word), when on hisway to destroy the cities of the
plain. But there were morethan these two Potencies. In one place
Philo enumerates six,according to the number of the cities of
refuge. ThePotencies issued from God as the beams from the light,
as thewaters from the spring, as the breath from a person; theywere
immanent in God, and yet independent beings. They werethe ideal
world, which in its impulse outwards, meetingmatter, produced
this material world of ours. They were alsothe angels of God, His
messengers to man, the media throughwhom He reveled Himself.
[1 At the same time there is aremarkable difference here between
Philo and Rabbinism. Philoholds that the creation of the world was
brought about by thePotencies, but the Law was given directly
through Moses, andnot by the mediation of angels. But this latter
was certainlythe view generally entertained in Palestine as
expressed inthe LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 2, in the Targumim
on thatpassage, and more fully still in Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, in
theMidrashim and in the Talmud, where we are told (Macc. 24
a)that only the opening words, 'I am the Lord thy God, thoushalt
have no other gods but Me,' were spoken by God Himself.Comp.
also Acts vii. 38, 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2.] 3. The Logos. Viewed
in its bearing on New Testamentteaching, this part of Philo's
system raises the mostinteresting questions. But it is just here that
ourdifficulties are greatest. We can understand the
Platonicconception of the Logos as the 'archetypal idea,' and that
ofthe Stoics as the 'world-reason' pervading matter. Similarly,we
can perceive, how the Apocrypha, especially the Book ofWisdom,
following up the Old Testament typical truthconcerning "Wisdom'
(as specially set forth in the Book ofProverbs) almost arrived so far
as to present 'Wisdom' as aspecial 'Subsistence' (hypostatising it).
More than this, inTalmudical writings, we find mention not only of
the Shem, or'Name,' [2 Hammejuchad, 'appropriatum;'
hammephorash,'expositum,' 'separatum,' the 'tetragrammaton,'
orfour-lettered name, There was also a Shem with 'twelve,' andone
with 'forty-two' letters (Kidd. 71 a).] but also of theShekhinah,'
God as manifest and present, which is sometimesalso presented as
the Ruach ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit. [a OrRuach ham Maqom,
Ab. iii. 10, and frequently in the Talmud.]But in the Targumim we
eet yet another expression, which,strange to say, never occurs in
the Talmud. [1 Levy (Neuhebr.Worterb. i. p. 374 a.) seems to
imply that in the Midrash theterm dibbur occupies the same place
and meaning. But with alldeference I cannot agree with this
opinion, nor do thepassages quoted bear it out.] It is that of the
Memra, Logos,or 'Word.' Not that the term is exclusively applied
to theDivine Logos. [2 The 'word,' as spoken, is distinguished
fromthe 'Word' as speaking, or revealing Himself. The former
isgenerally designated by the term 'pithgama.' Thus in Gen. XV.1,
'After these words (things) came the "pithgama" of Jehovahto
Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not, Abram, My "Memra"shall be
thy strength, and thy very great reward.' Still, theterm Memra, as
applied not only to man, but also in referenceto God, is not always
the equivalent of 'the Logos.'] But itstands out as perhaps the most
remarkable fact in thisliterature, that God, not as in His permanent
manifestation,or manifest Presence, but as revealing Himself, is
designatedMemra. Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs
in theTargum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem
Targum99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times.
Acritical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in71
instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances inthe
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not
onlydistinguished from God, but evidently refers to God
asrevealing Himself. [3 The various passages in the Targum
ofOnkelos, the Jerusalem, and the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum on
thePentateuch will be found enumerated and classified, as thosein
which it is a doubtful, a fair, or an unquestionableinference, that
the word Memra is intended for God revealingHimself, in
Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'] Butwhat does this
imply? The distinction between God and theMemra of Jehovah is
marked in many passages. [4 As, forexample, Gen. xxviii. 21, 'the
Memra of Jehovah shall be myGod.'] Similarly, the Memra of
Jehovah is distinguished fromthe Shekhinah. [5 As, for example,
Num. xxiii. 21, 'the Memraof Jehovah their God is their helper,
and the Shekhinah oftheir King is in the midst of them.'] Nor is the
term usedinstead of the sacred word Jehovah; [6 That term is
oftenused by Onkelos. Besides, the expression itself is 'the
Memraof Jehovah.'] nor for the well-known Old Testament
expression'the Angel of the Lord; [7 Onkelos only once (in Ex. iv.
24)paraphrases Jehovah by 'Malakha.'] nor yet for the Metatronof
the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Talmud. [8
Metatron,either = , or In the Talmud it is applied to the Angel
ofJehovah (Ex. xxiii. 20), 'the Prince of the World,' 'thePrince of
the Face' or 'of the Presence,' as they call him;he who sits in the
innermost chamber before God, while theother angels only hear
His commands from behind the veil(Chag. 15 a; 16 a; Toseft. ad
Chull. 60 a; Jeb. 16 b). ThisMetatron of the Talmud and the
Kabbalah is also the AdamQadmon, or archetypal man.] Does it
then represent an oldertradition underlying all these? [9 Of deep
interest isOnkelos' rendering of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where, instead
of'underneath are the everlasting arms,' Onkelos has, 'and byHis
Memra was the world created,' exactly as in St John i.10. Now this
divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text seemsunaccountable.
Winer, whose inaugural dissertation, 'DeOnkeloso ejusque paraph.
Chald.' Lips. 1820, most modernwriters have followed (with
amplifications, chiefly fromLuzzato's Philoxenus), makes no
reference to this passage,nor do his successors, so far as I know. It
is curious that, as our present Hebrew text of this verseconsists of
three words, so does the rendering of Onkelos,and that both end
with the same word. Is the rendering ofOnkelos then a paraphrase,
or does it represent anotherreading? Another interesting passage is
Deut. viii. 3. Itsquotation by Christ in St. Matt. iv. 4 is deeply
interesting,as read in the light of the rendering of Onkelos, 'Not
bybread alone is man sustained, but by every forthcoming
Memrafrom before Jehovah shall man live.' Yet another rendering
ofOnkelos is significantly illustrative of 1 Cor. x. 1-4. Herenders
Deut. xxxiii. 3 'with power He brought them out ofEgypt; they
were led under thy cloud; they journeyedaccording to (by) thy
Memra.' Does this represent adifference in Hebrew from the
admittedly difficult text inour present Bible? Winer refers to it as
an instance in whichOnkelos 'suopte ingenio et copiose admodum
eloquitur vatumdivinorum mentem,' adding, 'ita ut de his, quas
singulisvocibus inesse crediderit, significationibus non possit
rectejudicari;' and Winer's successors say much the same. But
thisis to state, not to explain, the difficulty. In general, wemay here
be allowed to say that the question of the Targumimhas scarcely
received as yet sufficient treatment. Mr.Deutsch's Article in
Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible' (sincereprinted in his 'Remains')
is, though brilliantly written,unsatisfactory. Dr. Davidson (in
Kitto's Cyclop., vol. iii.pp. 948-966) is, as always, careful,
laborious, and learned.Dr. Volck's article (in Herzog's
Real-Encykl., vol. xv. pp.672-683) is without much intrinsic value,
though painstaking.We mention these articles, besides the
treatment of thesubject in the Introduction to the Old Testament
(Keil, DeWette-Schrader, Bleek-kamphausen, Reuss), and the
works ofZunz, Geiger, Noldeke, and others, to whom partial
referencehas already been made. Frankel's interesting and learned
book(Zu dem Targum der Propheten) deals almost exclusively
withthe Targum Jonathan, on which it was impossible to
enterwithin our limits. As modern brochures of interest
thefollowing three may be mentioned: Maybaum,
Anthropomorphienbei Onkelos; Gronemann, Die Jonath. Pentat.
Uebers. imVerhaltn. z. Halacha; and Singer, Onkelos im Verhaltn.
z.Halacha.] Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved tous
the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. Andyet, if
words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis,though the
distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence isnot marked. Nor
yet, to complete this subject, is the Memraidentified with the
Messiah. In the Targum Onkelos distinctmention is twice made of
Him, [a Gen. xlix. 10, 11; Num.xxiv. 17.] while in the other
Targumim no fewer thanseventy-one Biblical passages are
rendered with explicitreference to Him.
If we now turn to the views expressed by Philo about theLogos we
find that they are hesitating, and evencontradictory. One thing,
however, is plain: the Logos ofPhilo is not the Memra of the
Targumim. For, the expressionMemra ultimately rests on
theological, that of Logos onphilosophical grounds. Again, the
Logos of Philo approximatesmore closely to the Metatron of the
Talmud and Kabbalah. Asthey speak of him as the 'Prince of the
Face,' who bore thename of his Lord, so Philo represents the Logos
as 'theeldest Angel,' 'the many-named Archangel,' in accordance
withthe Jewish view that the name JeHoVaH unfolded its meaning
inseventy names for the Godhead. [1 See the enumeration ofthese
70 Names in the Baal-ha-Turim on Numb. xi. 16.] As theyspeak of
the 'Adam Qadmon,' so Philo of the Logos as thehuman reflection
of the eternal God. And in both theserespects, it is worthy of notice
that he appeals to ancientteaching. [2 Comp. Siegfried, u. s., pp.
221-223.]
What, then, is the Logos of Philo? Not a concretepersonality, and
yet, from another point of view, notstrictly impersonal, nor merely
a property of the Deity, butthe shadow, as it were, which the light
of God casts--and ifHimself light, only the manifested reflection of
God, Hisspiritual, even as the world is His material,
habitation.Moreover, the Logos is 'the image of God' ( ) upon
which manwas made, [a Gen. i. 27.] or, to use the platonic term,
'thearchetypal idea.' As regards the relation between the Logosand
the two fundamental Potencies (from which all othersissue), the
latter are variously represented, on the onehand, as proceeding
from the Logos; and on the other, asthemselves constituting the
Logos. As regards the world, theLogos is its real being. He is also
its archetype; moreoverthe instrument ( ) through Whom God
created all things. Ifthe Logos separates between God and the
world, it is ratheras intermediary; He separates, but He also unites.
Butchiefly does this hold true as regards the relation betweenGod
and man. The Logos announces and interprets to man thewill and
mind of God ( ) He acts as mediator; He is the realHigh-Priest, and
as such by His purity takes away the sins ofman, and by His
intercession procures for us the mercy ofGod, Hence Philo
designates Him not only as the High-Priest,but as the 'Paraclete.'
He is also the sun whose raysenlighten man, the medium of Divine
revelation to the soul;the Manna, or support of spiritual life; He
Who dwells in thesoul. And so the Logos is, in the fullest sense,
Melchisedek,the priest of the most high God, the king of
righteousness ,and the king of Salem Who brings righteousness
and peace tothe soul. [b De Leg. Alleg. iii 25,26.] But the Logos
'doesnot come into any soul that is dead in sin.' That there isclose
similarity of form between these Alexandrian views andmuch in
the argumentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, mustbe evident to
all, no less than that there is the widestpossible divergence in
substance and spirit. [1 For a fulldiscussion of this similarity of
form and divergence ofspirit, between Philo, or, rather, between
Alexandrianism,and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the reader is
referred to themasterly treatise by Riehm (Der Lehrbegriff d.
Hebraerbr. ed.1867, especially pp. 247-268, 411-424, 658-670, and
855-860).The author's general view on the subject is well
andconvincingly formulated on p. 249. We must, however, add,
inopposition to Riehm, that, by his own showing the writer ofthe
Epistle to the Hebrews displays few traces of aPalestinian
training.] The Logos of Philo is shadowy, unreal,not a Person; [2
On the subject of Philo's Logos generallythe brochure of Harnoch
(Konigsberg, 1879) deserves perusal,although it does not furnish
much that is new. In general,the student of Philo ought especially
to study the sketch byZeller in his Philosophie der Gr. vol. iii. pt.
ii. 3rd ed.pp. 338-418.] there is no need of an atonement;
theHigh-Priest intercedes, but has no sacrifice to offer as thebasis
of His intercession, least of all that of Himself; theold Testament
types are only typical ideas, not typicalfacts; they point to a
Prototypal Idea in the eternal past,not to an Antitypal Person and
Fact in history; there is nocleansing of the soul by blood, no
sprinkling of the MercySeat, no access for all through the rent veil
into theimmediate Presence of God; nor yet a quickening of the
soulfrom dead works to serve the living God. If the
argumentationof the Epistle to the Hebrews is Alexandrian, it is
anAlexandrianism which is overcome and past, which
onlyfurnishes the form, not the substance, the vessel, not
itscontents. The closer therefore the outward similarity, thegreater
is the contrast in substance.
The vast difference between Alexandrianism and the
NewTestament will appear still more clearly in the views ofPhilo
on Cosmology and Anthropology. In regard to the former,his
results in some respects run parallel to those of thestudents of
mysticism in the Talmud, and of the Kabbalists.Together with the
Stoic view, which represented God as 'theactive cause' of this
world, and matter as 'the passive,'Philo holds the Platonic idea, that
matter was somethingexistent, and that is resisted God. [1 With
singular andcharacteristic inconsistency, Philo, however, ascribes
alsoto God the creation of matter (de Somn. i. 13).]
Suchspeculations must have been current among the Jews
longbefore, to judge by certain warning given by the Son ofSirach.
[a As for example Ecclus. iii. 21-24.] [2 So theTalmudists certainly
understood it, Jer. Chag. ii. 1.] AndStoic views of the origin of the
world seem implied even inthe Book of the Wisdom of Solomon
(i. 7; vii. 24; viii. 1;xii. 1). [3 Comp. Grimm, Exeg. Handb. zu d.
Apokr., Lief. vi.pp. 55, 56.] The mystics in the Talmud arrived at
similarconclusions, not through Greek, but through Persian
teaching.Their speculations [4 They were arranged into
thoseconcerning the Maasey Bereshith (Creation), and the
MaaseyMerkabbah, 'the chariot' of Ezekiel's vision (Providence
inthe widest sense, or God's manifestation in the createdworld).]
boldly entered on the dangerous ground, [5 Of thefour celebrities
who entered the 'Pardes,' or enclosedParadise of theosophic
speculation, one became an apostate,another died, a third went
wrong (Ben Soma), and only Akibaescaped unscathed, according
to the Scripture saying, 'Drawme, and we will run' (Chag. 14 b).]
forbidden to the many,scarcely allowed to the few, [6 'It is not
lawful to enterupon the Maasey Bereshith in presence of two, nor
upon theMerkabhah in presence of one, unless he be a "sage,"
andunderstands of his own knowledge. Any one who ratiocinates
onthese four things, it were better for him that he had notbeen
born: What is above and what is below; what was afore,and what
shall be hereafter.' (Chag. ii. 1).] where such deepquestions as the
origin of our world and its connection withGod were discussed. It
was, perhaps, only a beautiful poeticfigure that God had taken of
the dust under the throne of Hisglory, and cast it upon the waters,
which thus became earth.[b Shem. R. 13.] But so far did isolated
teachers becomeintoxicated [1 'Ben Soma went astray (mentally):
he shook the(Jewish) world.'] by the new wine of these
strangespeculations, that they whispered it to one another
thatwater was the original element of the world, [2 Thatcriticsm,
which one would designate as impertinent, whichwould find this
view in 2 Peter iii. 5, is, alas! notconfined to Jewish writers, but
hazarded even by De Wette.]which had successively been
hardened into snow and then intoearth. [a Jer. Chag. 77a] [3 Judah
bar Pazi, in the secondcentury. Ben Soma lived in the first century
of our era.]Other and later teachers fixed upon the air or the fire
asthe original element, arguing the pre-existence of matterfrom the
use of the word 'made' in Gen. i. 7. instead of'created.' Some
modified this view, and suggested that Godhad originally created
the three elements of water, air orspirit, and fire, from which all
else was developed. [4According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. i.
I) the firmamentwas at first soft, and only gradually became hard.
Accordingto Ber. R. 10, God created the world from a mixture of
fireand snow, other Rabbis suggesting four original
elements,according to the quarters of the globe, or else six,
addingto them that which is above and that which is below. A
verycurious idea is that of R. Joshua ben Levi, according towhich
all the works of creation were really finished on thefirst day, and
only, as it were, extended on the other days.This also represents
really a doubt of the Biblical accountof creation. Strange though it
may sound, the doctrine ofdevelopment was derived from the
words (Gen. ii. 4). 'Theseare the generations of heaven and earth
when they werecreated, in the day when Jahveh Elohim made
earth andheavens.' It was argued, that the expression implied,
theywere developed from the day in which they had been
created.Others seem to have held, that the three principal
thingsthat were created, earth, heaven, and water, remained,
eachfor three days, at the end of which they respectivelydeveloped
what is connected with them (Ber. R. 12).] Tracesalso occur of the
doctrine of the pre-existence of things, ina sense similar to that of
Plato. [b Ber. R. i.]
Like Plato and the Stoics, Philo regarded matter as devoidof all
quality, and even form. Matter in itself was dead,more than that, it
was evil. This matter, which was alreadyexisting, God formed (not
made), like an architect who useshis materials according to a
pre-existing plan, which in thiscase was the archetypal world.
This was creation, or rather formation, brought about not byGod
Himself, but by the Potencies, especially by the Logos,Who was
the connecting bond of all. As for God, His onlydirect work was
the soul, and that only of the good, not ofthe evil. Man's
immaterial part had a twofold aspect:carthwards, as Sensuousness;
and heavenwards, as Reason. Thesensuous part of the soul was
connected with the body. It hadno heavenly past, and would have
no future. But 'Reason' wasthat breath of true life which God had
breathed into manwhereby the earthy became the higher, living
spirit, with itsvarious faculties. Before time began the soul was
withoutbody, an archetype, the 'heavenly man,' pure spirit
inParadise (virtue), yet even so longing after its ultimatearchetype,
God. Some of these pure spirits descended intobodies and so lost
their purity. Or else, the union wasbrought about by God and by
powers lower than God (daemons).To the latter is due our earthly
part. God breathed on theformation, and the 'earthly Reason'
became 'intelligent'spiritual' soul Our earthly part alone is the seat
of sin.[1 For further notices on the Cosmology and Anthropology
ofPhilo, see Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.']This
leads us to the great question of Original Sin. Here theviews of
Philo are those of the Eastern Rabbis. But both areentirely
different from those on which the argument in theEpistle to the
Romans turns. It was neither at the feet ofGamaliel, nor yet from
Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsuslearned the doctrine of
original sin. The statement that asin Adam all spiritually died, so
in Messiah all should bemade alive, [2 We cannot help quoting the
beautiful Haggadicexplanation of the name Adam, according to its
three letters,A, D, M, as including these three names, Adam,
David,Messiah.] finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings.
[3Raymundus Martini, in his 'Pugio Fidei' (orig. ed. p. 675;ed.
Voisin et Carpzov, pp. 866, 867), quotes from the bookSiphre: 'Go
and learn the merit of Messiah the King, and thereward of the
righteous from the first Adam, on whom was laidonly one
commandment of a prohibitive character, and hetransgressed it.
See how many deaths were appointed on him,and on his
generations, and on the generations of hisgenerations to the end of
all generations. (Wunsche, Leidend. Mess. p. 65, makes here an
unwarrantable addition, in histranslation.) But which attribute
(measuring?) is thegreater, the attribute of goodness or the
attribute ofpunishment (retribution)? He answered, the attribute
ofgoodness is the greater, and the attribute of punishment theless.
And Messiah the King, who was chastened and sufferedfor the
transgressors, as it is said, "He was wounded for
ourtransgressions," and so on, how much more shall He
justify(make righteous, by His merit) all generations; and this
iswhat is meant when it is written, "And Jehovah made to
meetupon Him the sin of us all."' We have rendered this passageas
literally as possible, but we are bound to add that it isnot found in
any now existing copy of Siphre.] What may becalled the starting
point of Christian theology, the doctrineof hereditary guilt and sin,
through the fall of Adam, and ofthe consequent entire and
helplesss corruption of our nature,is entirely unknown to
Rabbinical Judaism. The reign ofphysical death was indeed traced
to the sin of our firstparents. [4 Death is not considered an absolute
evil. Inshort, all the various consequences which Rabbinical
writingsascribe to the sin of Adam may be designated either
asphysical, or, if mental, as amounting only to detriment,loss, or
imperfectness. These results had been partiallycounteracted by
Abraham, and would be fully removed by theMessiah. Neither
Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordinglythey did not die.
Comp. generally, Hamburger, Geist d. Agada,pp. 81-84, and in
regard to death as connected with Adam, p.85.] But the Talmud
expressly teaches, [a Ber. 61 a] that Godoriginally created man
withtwo propensities, [5 These arealso hypostatised as Angels.
Comp. Levy, Chald. Worterb. p.342 a; Neuhebr. Worterb. p. 259,
a, b.] one to good and oneto evil (Yetser tobh, and Yetser hara [6
Or with 'two reins,'the one, advising to good, being at his right, the
other,counselling evil, at his left, according to Eccles. x. 2(Ber. 61
a, towards the end of the page).] The evil impulsebegan
immediately after birth. [b Sanh. 91 b] [7 In a senseits existence
was necessary for the continuance of thisworld. The conflict
between these two impulses constitutedthe moral life of man.] But
it was within the power of man tovanquish sin, and to attain
perfect righteousness; in fact,this stage had actually been attained.
[1 The solitaryexception here is 4 Esdras, where the Christian
doctrine oforiginal sin is most strongly expressed, being
evidentlyderived from New Testament teaching. Comp. especially
4Esdras (our Apocryphal 2 Esdras) vii. 46-53, and otherpassages.
Wherein the hope of safety lay, appears in ch. ix.]
Similarly, Philo regarded the soul of the child as 'naked'(Adam and
Eve), a sort of tabula rasa, as wax which God wouldfain form and
mould. But this state ceased when 'affection'presented itself to
reason, and thus sensuous lust arose,which was the spring of all
sin. The grand task, then, was toget rid of the sensuous, and to rise
to the spiritual. Inthis, the ethical part of his system, Philo was
most underthe influence of Stoic philosophy. We might almost
say, it isno longer the Hebrew who Hellenises, but the Hellene
whoHebraises. And yet it is here also that the most ingeniousand
widereaching allegorisms of Scripture are introduced. Itis scarcely
possible to convey an idea of how brilliant thismethod becomes in
the hands of Philo, how universal itsapplication, or how
captivating it must have proved. Philodescribes man's state as, first
one of sensuousness, but alsoof unrest, misery and unsatisfied
longing. If persisted in,it would end in complete spiritual
insensibility. [2Symbolised by Lot's wife.] But from this state the
soul mustpass to one of devotion to reason. [3 Symbolised by
Ebher,Hebrew.] This change might be accomplished in one of
threeways: first, by study, of which physical was the lowest;next,
that which embraced the ordinary circle of knowledge;and lastly,
the highest, that of Divine philosophy. Thesecond method was
Askesis: discipline, or practice, when thesoul turned from the
lower to the higher. But the best of allwas the third way: the free
unfolding of that spiritual lifewhich cometh neither from study nor
discipline, but from anatural good disposition. And in that state the
soul had truerest [4 The Sabbath, Jerusalem.] and joy. [5 For
furtherdetails on these points see Appendix II.: 'Philo and
RabbinicTheology.']
Here we must for the present pause. [6 The views of Philo onthe
Messiah will be presented in another connection.] Briefas this
sketch of Hellenism has been, it must have broughtthe question
vividly before the mind, whether and how farcertain parts of the
New Testament, especially the fourthGospel, [7 This is not the
place to enter on the question ofthe composition, date, and
authorship of the four Gospels.But as regards the point on which
negative criticism has oflate spoken strongest, and on which,
indeed (as Weiss rightlyremarks) the very existence of 'the
Tubingen School' depends,that of the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel, Iwould refer to Weiss, Leben Jesu (1882: vol. i. pp.
84-139),and to Dr. Salmon's Introd. to the New Test. pp.
266-365.]are connected with the direction of thought described in
thepreceding pages. Without yielding to that school of
critics,whose perverse ingenuity discerns everywhere a
sinistermotive or tendency in the Evangelic writers, [1 No one
notacquainted with this literature can imagine the character ofthe
arguments sometimes used by a certain class of critics.To say that
they proceed on the most forced perversion of thenatural and
obvious meaning of passages, is but little. Butone cannot restrain
moral indignation on finding that toEvangelists and Apostles is
imputed, on such grounds, notonly systematic falsehood, but
falsehood with the mostsinister motives.] it is evident that each of
them had aspecial object in view in constructing his narrative of
theOne Life; and primarily addressed himself to a specialaudience.
If, without entering into elaborate discussion, wemight, according
to St. Luke i. 2, regard the narrative ofSt. Mark as the grand
representative of that authentic'narration', though not by Apostles,
[2 I do not, of course,mean that the narration of St. Mark was not
itself derivedchiefly from Apostolic preaching, especially that of
St.Peter. In general, the question of the authorship and sourceof
the various Gospels must be reserved for separatetreatment in
another place.] which was in circulation, andthe Gospel by St.
Matthew as representing the 'tradition'handed down, by the
Apostolic eye-witnesses and ministers ofthe Word, [3 Comp.
Mangold's ed.of Bleek, Einl. in d. N.T.(3te Aufl. 1875), p. 346.]
we should reach the followingresults. Our oldest Gospel-narrative
is that by St. Mark,which, addressing itself to no class in
particular, sketchesin rapid outlines the picture of Jesus as the
Messiah, alikefor all men. Next in order of time comes our present
Gospelby St. Matthew. It goes a step further back than that by
St.Mark, and gives not only the genealogy, but the history ofthe
miraculous birth of Jesus. Even if we had not theconsensus of
tradition, every one must feel that this Gospelis Hebrew in its cast,
in its citations from the OldTestament, and in its whole bearing.
Taking its key-note fromthe Book of Daniel, that grand Messianic
text-book of EasternJudaism at the time, and as re-echoed in the
Book of Enoch,which expresses the popular apprehension of
Daniel'sMessianic idea, it presents the Messiah chiefly as 'the
Sonof Man,' 'the Son of David,' 'the Son of God.' We have herethe
fulfilment of Old Testament law and prophecy; therealisation of
Old Testament life, faith, and hope. Third inpoint of time is the
Gospel by St. Luke, which, passing backanother step, gives us not
only the history of the birth ofJesus, but also that of John, 'the
preparer of the way.' Itis Pauline, and addresses itself, or rather, we
should say,presents the Person of the Messiah, it may be 'to the
Jewfirst,' but certainly 'also to the Greek.' The term which St.Luke,
alone of all Gospel writers, [4 With the sole exceptionof St. Matt.
xii. 18, where the expression is a quotationfrom the LXX. of Is.
xlii. 1.] applies to Jesus, is that ofthe or 'servant' of God, in the
sense in which Isaiah hasspoken of the Messiah as the 'Ebhed
Jehovah,' 'servant of theLord.' St. Luke's is, so to speak, the
Isaiah-Gospel,presenting the Christ in His bearing on the history of
God'sKingdom and of the world, as God's Elect Servant in Whom
Hedelighted. In the Old Testament, to adopt a beautiful figure,[1
First expressed by Delitzsch (Bibl. Comm. u. d. Proph.Jes. p. 414),
and then adopted by Oehler (Theol. d. A. Test. vol. ii. pp.
270-272).] the idea of the Servantof the Lord is set before us like a
pyramid: at its base itis all Israel, at its central section Israel after
the Spirit(the circumcised in heart), represented by David, the
manafter God's own heart; while at its apex it is the 'Elect'Servant,
the Messiah. [2 The two fundamental principles inthe history of
the Kingdom of God are selection anddevelopment. It is surely
remarkable, not strange, that theseare also the two fundamental
truths in the history of thatother Kingdom of God, Nature, if
modern science has read themcorrectly. These two substantives
would mark the facts asascertained; the adjectives, which are
added to them by acertain class of students, mark only their
inferences fromthese facts. These facts may be true, even if as
yetincomplete, although the inferences may be false.
Theologyshould not here rashly interfere. But whatever the
ultimateresult, these two are certainly the fundamental facts in
thehistory of the Kingdom of God, and, marking them as such,
thedevout philosopher may rest contented.] And these threeideas,
with their sequences, are presented in the thirdGospel as centring
in Jesus the Messiah. By the side of thispyramid is the other: the
Son of Man, the Son of David, theSon of God. The Servant of the
Lord of Isaiah and of Luke isthe Enlightener, the Consoler, the
victorious Deliverer; theMessiah or Anointed: the Prophet, the
Priest, the King.
Yet another tendency, shall we say, want?, remained, so tospeak,
unmet and unsatisfied. That large world of latest andmost
promising Jewish thought, whose task it seemed to bridgeover the
chasm between heathenism and Judaism, the WesternJewish
world, must have the Christ presented to them. For inevery
direction is He the Christ. And not only they, but thatlarger Greek
world, so far as Jewish Hellenism could bring itto the threshold of
the Church. This Hellenistic and Hellenicworld now stood in
waiting to enter it, though as it were byits northern porch, and to
be baptized at its font. All thismust have forced itself on the mind
of St. John, residing inthe midst of them at Ephesus, even as St.
Paul's Epistlescontain almost as many allusions to Hellenism as
toRabbinism. [3 The Gnostics, to whom, in the opinion of many,so
frequent references are made in the writings of St. Johnand St.
Paul, were only an offspring (rather, as the Germanswould term it,
an Abart) of Alexandrianism on the one hand,and on the other of
Eastern notions, which are so largelyembodied in the later
Kabbalah.] And so the fourth Gospelbecame, not the supplement,
but the complement, of the otherthree. [1 A complement, not a
supplement, as many critics putit (Ewald, Weizsacker, and even
Hengstenberg), least of all arectification (Godet, Evang. Joh. p.
633).] There is no otherGospel more Palestinian than this in its
modes of expression,allusions, and references. Yet we must all
feel howthoroughly Hellenistic it also is in its cast, [2 Keim
(LebenJesu von Nazara, i. a, pp. 112-114) fully recognises this;but
I entirely differ from the conclusions of his analyticalcomparison
of Philo with the fourth Gospel.] in what itreports and what it
omits, in short, in its whole aim; howadapted to Hellenist wants its
presentation of deep centraltruths; how suitably, in the report of
His Discourses, evenso far as their form is concerned, the promise
was herefulfilled, of bringing all things to remembrance
whatsoeverHe had said. [a St. John xiv. 26] It is the true Light
whichshineth, of which the full meridian-blaze lies on theHellenist
and Hellenic world. There is Alexandrian form ofthought not only
in the whole conception, but in the Logos,[3 The student who has
carefully considered the viewsexpressed by Philo about the Logos,
and analysed, as in theAppendix, the passages in the Targumim in
which the wordMemra occurs, cannot fail to perceive the immense
differencein the presentation of the Logos by St. John. Yet M.
Renan,in an article in the 'Contemporary Review' for
September1877, with utter disregard of the historical evidence on
thequestion, maintains not only the identity of these three setsof
ideas, but actually grounds on it his argument against
theauthenticity of the fourth Gospel. Considering the importanceof
the subject, it is not easy to speak with moderation ofassertions so
bold based on statements so entirelyinaccurate.] and in His
presentation as the Light, the Life,the Wellspring of the world. [4
Dr. Bucher, whose book, DesApostels Johannes Lehre vom Logos,
deserves careful perusal,tries to trace the reason of these
peculiarities as indicatedin the Prologue of the fourth Gospel.
Bucher differentiatesat great length between the Logos of Philo
and of the fourthGospel. He sums up his views by stating that in
the Prologueof St. John the Logos is presented as the fulness of
DivineLight and Life. This is, so to speak, the theme, while
theGospel history is intended to present the Logos as the giverof
this Divine Light and Life. While the other Evangelistsascend from
the manifestation to the idea of the Son of God,St. John descends
from the idea of the Logos, as expressed inthe Prologue, to its
concrete realisation in His history. Thelatest tractate (at the present
writing, 1882) on the Gospelof St. John, by Dr. Muller, Die
Johann. Frage, gives a goodsummary of the argument on both
sides, and deserves thecareful attention of students of the
question.] But theseforms are filled in the fourth Gospel with quite
othersubstance. God is not afar off, uncognisable by man,
withoutproperties, without name. He is the Father. Instead of
anebulous reflection of the Deity we have the Person of theLogos;
not a Logos with the two potencies of goodness andpower, but full
of grace and truth. The Gospel of St. Johnalso begins with a
'Bereshith', but it is the theological,not the cosmic Bereshith, when
the Logos was with God and wasGod. Matter is not pre-existent;
far less is it evil. St.John strikes the pen through Alexandrianism
when he lays itdown as the fundamental fact of New Testament
history that'the Logos was made flesh,' just as St. Paul does when
heproclaims the great mystery of 'God manifest in the flesh.'Best of
all, it is not by a long course of study, nor bywearing discipline,
least of all by an inborn gooddisposition, that the soul attains the
new life, but by abirth from above, by the Holy Ghost, and by
simple faithwhich is brought within reach of the fallen and the
lost. [1I cannot agree with Weiss (u. s., p. 122) that the greatobject
of the fourth Gospel was to oppose the rising Gnosticmovement,
This may have been present to the Apostle's mind,as evidenced in
his Epistle, but the object in view could nothave been mainly, nor
even primarily, negative andcontroversial.]
Philo had no successor. In him Hellenism had completed itscycle.
Its message and its mission were ended. Henceforth itneeded, like
Apollos, its great representative in theChristian Church, two
things: the baptism of John to theknowledge of sin and need, and
to have the way of God moreperfectly expounded. [a Acts xviii
24-28] On the other hand,Eastern Judaism had entered with Hillel
on a new stage. Thisdirection led farther and farther away from
that which theNew Testament had taken in following up and
unfolding thespiritual elements of the Old. That development was
incapableof transformation or renovation. It must go on to its
finalcompletion, and be either true, or else be swept away
anddestroyed.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
ALEXANDRIA AND ROME, THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN
THE CAPITALSOF WESTERN CIVILISATION.
CHAPTER V
We have spoken of Alexandria as the capital of the Jewishworld in
the West. Antioch was, indeed, nearer to Palestine,and its Jewish
population, including the floating part of it,as numerous as that of
Alexandria. But the wealth, thethought, and the influence of
Western Judaism centred in themodern capital of the land of the
Pharaohs. In those daysGreece was the land of the past, to which
the student mightresort as the home of beauty and of art, the
timehallowedtemple of thought and of poetry. But it was also the
land ofdesolateness and of ruins, where fields of corn waved
overthe remains of classic antiquity. The ancient Greeks had
ingreat measure sunk to a nation of traders, in keencompetition
with the Jews. Indeed, Roman sway had levelledthe ancient world,
and buried its national characteristics.It was otherwise in the far
East; it was otherwise also inEgypt. Egypt was not a land to be
largely inhabited, or to be'civilised' in the then sense of the term:
soil, climate,history, nature forbade it. Still, as now, and even
more thannow, was it the dream-land of untold attractions to
thetraveller. The ancient, mysterious Nile still rolled itshealing
waters out into the blue sea, where (so it wassupposed) they
changed its taste within a radius farther thanthe eye could reach.
To be gently borne in bark or ship onits waters, to watch the
strange vegetation and fauna of itsbanks; to gaze beyond, where
they merged into the tracklessdesert; to wander under the shade of
its gigantic monuments,or within the wierd avenues of its colossal
temples, to seethe scroll of mysterious hieroglyphics; to note the
samenessof manner and of people as of old, and to watch the
uniquerites of its ancient religion, this was indeed to be again inthe
old far-away world, and that amidst a dreaminessbewitching the
senses, and a gorgeousness dazzling theimagination. [1 What
charm Egypt had for the Romans may begathered from so many of
their mosaics and frescoes. Comp.Friedlander, u. s. vol. ii. pp.
134-136.
We are still far out at sea, making for the port ofAlexandria, the
only safe shelter all along the coast of Asiaand Africa. Quite thirty
miles out the silver sheen of thelighthouse on the island of Pharos
[1 This immense lighthouswas square up to the middle, then
covered by an octagon, thetop being round. The last recorded
repairs to thismagnificent structure of blocks of marble were made
in theyear 1303 of our era.], connected by a mole with
Alexandria,is burning like a star on the edge of the horizon. Now
wecatch sight of the palmgroves of Pharos; presently the
anchorrattles and grates on the sand, and we are ashore. What
crowdof vessels of all sizes, shapes and nationalities; what
amultitude of busy people; what a very Babel of languages;what a
commingling of old and new world civilisation; andwhat a variety
of wares piled up, loading or unloading!
Alexandria itself was not an old Egyptian, but acomparatively
modern, city; in Egypt and yet not of Egypt.Everything was in
character, the city, its inhabitants,public life, art, literature, study,
amusements, the veryaspect of the place. Nothing original
anywhere, butcombination of all that had been in the ancient
world, orthat was at the time, most fitting place therefore to be
thecapital of Jewish Hellenism.
As its name indicates, the city was founded by Alexander theGreat.
It was built in the form of an open fan, or rather, ofthe outspread
cloak of a Macedonian horseman. Altogether, itmeasured (16,360
paces) 3,160 paces more than Rome; but itshouses were neither so
crowded nor so many-storied. It hadbeen a large city when Rome
was still inconsiderable, and tothe last held the second place in the
Empire. One of the fivequarters into which the city was divided,
and which werenamed according to the first letters of the alphabet,
waswholly covered by the royal palaces, with their gardens,
andsimilar buildings, including the royal mausoleum, where
thebody of Alexander the Great, preserved in honey, was kept ina
glass coffin. But these, and its three miles of colonnadesalong the
principal highway, were only some of themagnificent architectural
adornments of a city full ofpalaces. The population amounted,
probably, to nearly amillion, drawn from the East and West by
trade, theattractions of wealth, the facilities for study, or
theamusements of a singularly frivolous city. A strange mixtureof
elements among the people, combining the quickness
andversatility of the Greek with the gravity, the conservatism,the
dream-grandeur, and the luxury of the Eastern.
Three worlds met in Alexandria: Europe, Asia, and Africa;and
brought to it, or fetched from it, their treasures. Aboveall, it was a
commercial city, furnished with an excellentharbour, or rather
with five harbours. A special fleetcarried, as tribute, from
Alexandria to Italy, two-tenths ofthe corn produce of Egypt, which
sufficed to feed the capitalfor four months of the year. A
magnificent fleet it was, fromthe light quick sailer to those
immense corn-ships whichhoisted a special flag, and whose early
arrival was awaitedat Puteoli [1 The average passage from
Alexandria to Puteoliwas twelve days, the ships touching at Malta
and in Sicily.It was in such a ship, the 'Castor and Pollux'
carryingwheat, that St. Paul sailed from Malta to Puteoli, where
itwould be among the first arrivals of the season.] with
moreeagerness than that of any modern ocean-steamer. [2
Theybore, painted on the two sides of the prow, the emblems ofthe
gods to whom they were dedicated, and were navigated
byEgyptian pilots, the most reowned in the world. One of
thesevessels is described as 180 by 45 feet and of about 1,575tons,
and is computed to have returned to its owner nearly3,000l.
annually. (Comp. Friedlander, u.s. vol. ii. p. 131,&c.) And yet
these were small ships compared with those builtfor the
conveyance of marble blocks and columns, andespecially of
obelisks. One of these is said to have carried,besides an obelisk,
1,200 passenger, a freight of paper,nitre, pepper, linen, and a large
cargo of wheat.] Thecommerce of India was in the hands of the
Alexandrianshippers. [3 The journey took aboutthree months,
either upthe Nile, thence by caravan, and again by sea; or
elseperhaps by the Ptolemy Canal and the Red Sea.] Since the
daysof the Ptolemies the Indian trade alone had increasedsixfold.
[4 It included gold-dust, ivory, and mother-of-pearlfrom the
interior of Africa, spices from Arabia, pearls fromthe Gulf of
Persia, precious stones and byssus from India,and silk from
China.] Nor was the native industryinconsiderable. Linen goods, to
suit the tastes or costumesof all countries; woolen stuffs of every
hue, some curiouslywrought with figures, and even scenes; glass of
every shadeand in every shape; paper from the thinnest sheet to
thecoarsest packing paper; essences, perfumeries, such were
thenative products. However idly or luxuriously inclined, stillevery
one seemed busy, in a city where (as the EmperorHadrian
expressed it) 'money was the people's god;' and everyone seemed
well-to-do in his own way, from the waif in thestreets, who with
little trouble to himself could pick upsufficient to go to the
restaurant and enjoy a comfortabledinner of fresh or smoked fish
with garlic, and his pudding,washed down with the favourite
Egyptian barley beer, up tothe millionaire banker, who owned a
palace in the city and avilla by the canal that connected Alexandria
with Canobus.What a jostling crowd of all nations in the streets, in
themarket (where, according to the joke of a
contemporary,anything might be got except snow), or by the
harbours; whatcool shades, delicious retreats, vast halls,
magnificentlibraries, where the savants of Alexandria assembled
andtaught every conceivable branch of learning, and itsfar-famed
physicians prescribed for the poor consumptivepatients sent thither
from all parts of Italy! What bustleand noise among that ever
excitable, chatty conceited, vain,pleasure-loving multitude, whose
highest enjoyment was thetheatre and singers; what scenes on that
long canal toCanobus, lined with luxurious inns, where barks full
ofpleasure-seekers revelled in the cool shade of the banks, orsped
to Canobus, that scene of all dissipation and luxury,proverbial
even in those days! And yet, close by, on theshores of Lake
Mareotis, as if in grim contrast, were thechosen retreats of that
sternly ascetic Jewish party, theTherapeutae, [a On theexistence of
the Therapeutes comp. Art.Philo in Smith & Wace's Dict. of Chr.
Biogr. vol. iv.] whoseviews and practices in so many points were
kindred to thoseof the Essenes in Palestine!
This sketch of Alexandria will help us to understand
thesurroundings of the large mass of Jews settled in theEgyptian
capital. Altogether more than an eighth of thepopulation of the
country (one million in 7,800,000) wasJewish. Whether or not a
Jewish colony had gone into Egypt atthe time of Nebuchadnezzar,
or even earlier, the great massof its residents had been attracted by
Alexander the Great,[b Mommsen (Rom. Gesch. v. p. 489)
ascribes this rather toPtolemy I.] who had granted the Jews equally
exceptionalprivileges with the Macedonians. The later troubles
ofPalestine under the Syrian kings greatly swelled theirnumber, the
more so that the Ptolemies, with one exception,favoured them.
Originally a special quarter had been assignedto the Jews in the
city, the 'Delta' by the eastern harbourand the Canobus canal,
probably alike to keep the communityseparate, and from its
convenience for commercial purposes.The priveleges which the
Ptolemies had accorded to the Jewswere confirmed, and even
enlarged, by Julius Caesar. Theexport trade in grain was now in
their hands, and the harbourand river police committed to their
charge. Two quarters inthe city are named as specially Jewish, not,
however, in thesense of their being confined to them. Their
Synagogues,surrounded by shady trees, stood in all parts of the
city.But the chief glory of the Jewish community in Egypt,
ofwhich even the Palestinians boasted, was the great
centralSynagogue, built in the shape of a basilica, with
doublecolonnade, and so large that it needed a signal for thosemost
distant to know the proper moment for the responses. Thedifferent
trade guilds sat there together, so that a strangerwould at once
know where to find Jewish employers orfellow-workmen. [c Sukk.
51 b.] In the choir of this Jewishcathedral stood seventy chairs of
state, encrusted withprecious stones, for the seventy elders who
constituted theeldership of Alexandria, on the model of the great
Sanhedrinin Jerusalem.
It is a strange, almost inexplicable fact, that the EgyptianJews had
actually built a schismatic Temple. During theterrible Syrian
persecutions in Palestine Onias, the son ofthe murdered
High-Priest Onias III., had sought safety inEgypt. Ptolemy
Philometor not only received him kindly, butgave a disused
heathen temple in the town of Leontopolis fora Jewish sanctuary.
Here a new Aaronic priesthood ministered,their support being
derived from the revenues of the districtaround. The new Temple,
however, resembled not that ofJerusalem either in outward
appearance nor in all itsinternal fittings. [1 Instead of the
seven-branched goldencandlestick there was a golden lamp,
suspended from a chainof the same metal.] At first the Egyptian
Jews were veryproud of their new sanctuary, and professed to see
in it thefulfilment of the prediction, [a is xix. 18.] that fivecities in
the land of Egypt should speak the language ofCanaan, of which
one was to be called Ir-ha-Heres, which theLXX. (in their original
form, or by some later emendation)altered into 'the city of
righteousness.' This templecontinued from about 160 B.C. to
shortly after thedestruction of Jerusalem. It could scarcely be
called a rivalto that on Mount Moriah, since the Egyptian Jews
also ownedthat of Jerusalem as their central sanctuary, to which
theymade pilgrimages and brought their contributions, [b Philo,ii,
646, ed. Mangey.] while the priests at Leontopolis,before
marrying, always consulted the official archives inJerusalem to
ascertain the purity of descent of theirintended wives. [c Jos. Ag.
Ap. i. 7.] The Palestiniansdesignated it contemptuously as 'the
house of Chonyi'(Onias), and declared the priesthood of
Leontopolis incapableof serving in Jerusalem, although on a par
with those whowere disqualified only by some bodily defect.
Offeringsbrought in Leontopolis were considered null, unless in
thecase of vows to which the name of this Temple had
beenexpressly attached. [d Men. xiii. 10, and the Gemara, 109
aand b.] This qualified condemnation seems, however,
strangelymild, except on the supposition that the statements we
havequoted only date from a time when both Temples had
longpassed away.
Nor were such feelings unreasonable. The Egyptian Jews
hadspread on all sides, southward to Abyssinia and Ethiopia,
andwestward to, and beyond, the province of Cyrene. In the cityof
that name they formed one of the four classes into whichits
inhabitants were divided. [e Strabo in Jos. Ant. xiv. 7,2.] A Jewish
inscription at Berenice, apparently dating fromthe year 13 B.C.,
shows that the Cyrenian Jews formed adistinct community under
nine 'rulers' of their own, who nodoubt attended to the communal
affairs, not always an easymatter, since the Cyrenian Jews were
noted, if not forturbulence, yet for strong anti-Roman Roman
feeling, whichmore than once was cruelly quenched in blood. [1
Could therehave been any such meaning in laying the Roman cross
whichJesus had to bear upon a Cyrenian (St. Luke xxiii. 26)?
Asymbolical meaning it certainly has, as we remember that thelast
Jewish rebellion (132-135 A.D.), which had Bar Cochbafor its
Messiah, first broke out in Cyrene. What terriblevengeance was
taken on those who followed the false Christ,cannot here be told.]
Other inscriptions prove, [2 Jewishinscriptions have also been
found in Mauritania and Algiers.]that in other places of their
dispersion also the Jews hadtheir own Archontes or 'rulers,' while
the special directionof public worship was always entrusted to the
Archisynagogos,or 'chief ruler of the Synagogue,' both titles
occurring sideby side. [3 On a tombstone at Capua (Mommsen,
Inscr. R. Neap.3,657, apud Schurer, p 629). The subject is of
greatimportance as illustrating the rule of the Synagogue in
thedays of Christ. Another designation on the gravestones seemsto
refer solely to age, one being described as 110 yearsold.] It is, to
say the least, very doubtful, whether theHigh-Priest at Leontopolis
was ever regarded as, in any realsense, the head of the Jewish
community in Egypt. [4 Jost,Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 345.] In
Alexandria, the Jews wereunder the rule of a Jewish Ethnarch, [5
Marquardt (Rom.Staatsverwalt. vol. i. p. 297). Note 5 suggests that
may heremean classes, ordo.] whose authority was similar to that
of'the Archon' of independent cities. [a Strabo in Jos. Ant.xiv. 7. 2]
But his authority [6 The office itself would seemto have been
continued. (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2.)] wastransferred, by Augustus, to
the whole 'eldership.' [b Philo,in Flacc. ed. Mangey, ii 527]
Another, probably Roman,office, though for obvious reasons often
filled by Jews, wasthat of the Alabarch, or rather Arabarch, who
was set overthe Arab population. [7 Comp. Wesseling, de Jud.
Archont. pp.63, &c., apud Schurer, pp. 627, 628.] Among
others,Alexander, the brother of Philo, held this post. If we
mayjudge of the position of the wealthy Jewish families
inAlexandria by that of this Alabarch, their influence musthave
been very great. The firm of Alexander was probably asrich as the
great Jewish banking and shipping house ofSaramalla in Antioch.
[c Jos. Antxiv. 13. 5; War. i. 13, 5]Its chief was entrusted with the
management of the affairs ofAntonia, the much respected
sister-in-law of the EmperorTiberius. [d Ant. xix 5. 1] It was a
small thing for such aman to lend King Agrippa, when his fortunes
were very low, asum of about 7,000l. with which to resort to Italy,
[c Ant.xviii. 6.3] since he advanced it on the guarantee ofAgrippa's
wife, whom he highly esteemed, and at the same timemade
provision that the money should not be all spent beforethe Prince
met the Emperor. Besides, he had his own plans inthe matter. Two
of his sons married daughters of KingAgrippa; while a third, at the
price of apostasy, rosesuccessively to the posts of Procurator of
Palestine, andfinally of Governor of Egypt. [f Ant. xix. 5. 1; xx. 5.
3]The Temple at Jerusalem bore evidence of the wealth
andmunificence of this Jewish millionaire. The gold and silverwith
which the nine massive gates were covered, which ledinto the
Temple, were the gift of the great Alexandrianbanker.
The possession of such wealth, coupled no doubt with prideand
self-assertion, and openly spoken contempt of thesuperstitions
around, [1 Comp.for example, such a trenchantchapter as Baruch
vi., or the 2nd Fragm. of the Erythr.Sibyl, vv. 21-33.] would
naturally excite the hatred of theAlexandria populace against the
Jews. The greater number ofthose silly stories about the origin,
early history, andreligion of the Jews, which even the philosophers
andhistorians of Rome record as genuine, originated in Egypt.
Awhole series of writers, beginning with Manetho, [a
Probablyabout 200 B.C] made it their business to give a kind
ofhistorical travesty of the events recorded in the books ofMoses.
The boldest of these scribblers was Apion, to whomJosephus
replied, a world-famed charlatan and liar, who wroteor lectured,
with equal presumption and falseness, on everyconceivable object.
He was just the man to suit theAlexandrians, on whom his
unblushing assurance imposed. InRome he soon found his level,
and the Emperor Tiberius wellcharacterised the irrepressible
boastful talker as the'tinkling cymbal of the world.' He had studied,
seen, andheard everything, even, on three occasions, the
mysterioussound on the Colossus of Memnon, as the sun rose upon
it! Atleast, so he graved upon the Colossus itself, for
theinformation of all generations. [2 Comp. Friedlander, u. s.ii. p.
155.] Such was the man on whom the Alexandriansconferred the
freedom of their city, to whom they entrustedtheir most important
affairs, and whom they extolled as thevictorious, the laborious, the
new Homer. [3 A very goodsketch of Apion is given by Hausrath,
Neutest. Zeitg. vol.ii. pp. 187-195. There can be little doubt, that
the popularfavour was partly due to Apion's virulent attacks upon
theJews. His grotesque accounts of their history and religionheld
them up to contempt. But his real object was to rousethe
fanaticism of the populace against the Jews. Every year,so he told
them, it was the practice of the Jews to get holdof some
unfortunate Hellene, whom ill-chance might bring intotheir hands,
to fatten him for the year, and then tosacrifice him, partaking of
his entrials, and burying thebody, while during these horrible rites
they took a fearfuloath of perpetual enmity to the Greeks. These
were the peoplewho battened on the wealth of Alexandria, who
had usurpedquarters of the city to which they had no right, and
claimedexceptional privileges; a people who had proved traitors
to,and the ruin of every one who had trusted them. 'If theJews,' he
exclaimed, 'are citizens of Alexandria, why do theynot worship the
same gods as the Alexandrians?' And, if theywished to enjoy the
protection of the Caesars, why did theynot erect statues, and pay
Divine honor to them? [1 Jos. Ag.Ap. ii. 4, 5, 6.] There is nothing
strange in these appealsto the fanaticism of mankind. In one form
or another, theyhave only too often been repeated in all lands and
ages, and,alas! by the representatives of all creeds. Well might
theJews, as Philo mourns, [a Leg. ad Caj. ed. Frcf.] wish nobetter
for themselves than to be treated like other men!
We have already seen, that the ideas entertained in Romeabout the
Jews were chiefly derived from Alexandrian sources.But it is not
easy to understand, how a Tacitus, Cicero, orPliny could have
credited such absurdities as that the Jewshad come from Crete
(Mount Ida, Idaei = Judaei), beenexpelled on account of leprosy
from Egypt, and emigratedunder an apostate priest, Moses; or that
the Sabbath-restoriginated in sores, which had obliged the
wanderers to stopshort on the seventh day; or that the Jews
worshipped thehead of an ass, or else Bacchus; that their
abstinence fromswine's flesh was due to remembrance and fear of
leprosy, orelse to the worship of that animal, and other puerilities
ofthe like kind. [b Comp. Tacitus, Hist. v. 2-4; Plut. Sympos.iv. 5]
The educated Roman regarded the Jew with a mixture ofcontempt
and anger, all the more keen that, according to hisnotions, the Jew
had, since his subjection to Rome, no longera right to his religion;
and all the more bitter that, dowhat he might, that despised race
confronted him everywhere,with a religion so uncompromising as
to form a wall ofseparation, and with rites so exclusive as to make
them notonly strangers, but enemies. Such a phenomenon was
nowhereelse to be encountered. The Romans were intensely
practical.In their view, political life and religion were not
onlyintertwined, but the one formed part of the other. A
religionapart from a political organisation, or which offered not,
asa quid pro quo, some direct return from the Deity to hisvotaries,
seemed utterly inconceivable. Every country has itsown religion,
argued Cicero, in his appeal for Flaccus. Solong as Jerusalem was
unvaquished, Judaism might claimtoleration; but had not the
immortal gods shown what theythought of it, when the Jewish race
was conquered? This was akind 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 transportfrom Asia to Jerusalem of the annual Temple-tribute.
This wasnot a popular accusation to bring against a man in such
anassembly. And as the Jews, who, to create a distrubance, had(we
are told) distributed themselves among the audience insuch
numbers, that Cicero somewhat rhetorically declared, hewould
fain have spoken with bated breath, so as to be onlyaudible to the
judges, listened to the great orator, theymust have felt a keen pang
shoot to their hearts while heheld them up to the scorn of the
heathen, and touched, withrough finger, their open sore, as he
urged the ruin of theirnation as the one unanswerable argument,
which Materialismcould bring against the religion of the Unseen.
And that religion, was it not, in the words of Cicero, a'barbarous
superstition,' and were not its adherents, asPliny had it, [a Hist.
Nat. xiii. 4] 'a race distinguishedfor its contempt of the gods'? To
begin with their theology.The Roman philosopher would
sympathise with disbelief of allspiritual realities, as, on the other
hand, he couldunderstand the popular modes of worship and
superstition. Butwhat was to be said for a worship of something
quite unseen,an adoration, as it seemed to him, of the clouds and
of thesky, without any visible symbol, conjoined with an
utterrejection of every other form of religion, Asiatic,
Egyptian,Greek, Roman, and the refusal even to pay the
customaryDivine honor to the Caesars, as the incarnation of
Romanpower? Next, as to their rites. Foremost among them was
theinitiatory rite of circumcision, a constant subject forcoarse jests.
What could be the meaning of it; or of whatseemed like some
ancestral veneration for the pig, or dreadof it, since they made it a
religious duty not to partake ofits flesh? Their Sabbath-observance,
however it hadoriginated, was merely an indulgence in idleness.
The fastyoung Roman literati would find their amusement in
wanderingon the Sabbath-eve through the tangled, narrow streets
of theGhetto, watching how the dim lamp within shed its
unsavorylight, while the inmates mumbled prayers 'with
blanchedlips;' [b Persius v. 184] or they would, like Ovid, seek
inthe Synagogue occasion for their dissolute amusements.
TheThursday fast was another target for their wit. In short, atthe
best, the Jew was a constant theme of popular merriment,and the
theatre would resound with laughter as his religionwas lampooned,
no matter how absurd the stories, or how poorthe punning. [1
Comp. the quotation of such scenes in theIntrod. to the Midrash on
Lamentations.]
And then, as the proud Roman passed on the Sabbath throughthe
streets, Judaism would obtrude itself upon his notice, bythe shops
that were shut, and by the strange figures thatidly moved about in
holiday attire. They were strangers in astrange land, not only
without sympathy with what passedaround, but with marked
contempt and abhorrence of it, whilethere was that about their
whole bearing, which expressed theunspoken feeling, that the time
of Rome's fall, and of theirown supremacy, was at hand. To put the
general feeling in thewords of Tacitus, the Jews kept close
together, and were evermost liberal to one another; but they were
filled with bitterhatred of all others. They would neither eat nor
sleep withstrangers; and the first thing which they taught
theirproselytes was to despise the gods, to renounce their
owncountry, and to rend the bonds which had bound them
toparents, children or kindred. To be sure, there was someground
of distorted truth in these charges. For, the Jew, assuch, was only
intended for Palestine. By a necessity, not ofhis own making, he
was now, so to speak, the negative elementin the heathen world;
yet one which, do what he might, wouldalways obtrude itself upon
public notice. But the Romansatirists went further. They accused
the Jews of such hatredof all other religionists, that they would not
even show theway to any who worshipped otherwise, nor point out
thecooling spring to the thirsty.[a Juv. Sat. xiv. 103,
104]According to Tacitus, there was a political and religiousreason
for this. In order to keep the Jews separate from allother nations,
Moses had given them rites, contrary to thoseof any other race,
that they might regard as unholy what wassacred to others, and as
lawful what they held inabomination. [b Hist. v. 13] Such a people
deserved neitherconsideration nor pity; and when the historian
tells howthousands of their number had been banished by Tiberius
toSardinia, he dismisses the probability of their perishing inthat
severe climate with the cynical remark, that it entaileda 'poor loss'
[c Ann. ii.85, Comp. Suet. Tib. 36] (viledamnum).
Still, the Jew was there in the midst of them. It isimpossible to fix
the date when the first Jewish wanderersfound their way to the
capital of the world. We know, that inthe wars under Pompey,
Cassius, and Antonius, many werebrought captive to Rome, and
sold as slaves. In general, theRepublican party was hostile, the
Caesars were friendly, tothe Jews. The Jewish slaves in Rome
proved an unprofitableand troublesome acquisition. They clung so
tenaciously totheir ancestral customs, that it was impossible to
make themconform to the ways of heathen households. [d Philo,
Leg. adCaj. ed. Frcf. p. 101] How far they would carry their
passiveresistance, appears from a story told by Josephus, [e Life
3]about some Jewish priests of his acquaintance, who, duringtheir
captivity in Rome, refused to eat anything but figs andnuts, so as to
avoid the defilement of Gentile food. [1Lutterbeck (Neutest.
Lehrbegr. p. 119), following up thesuggestions of Wieseler (Chron.
d. Apost. Zeitalt. pp. 384,402, etc.), regards these priests as the
accusers of St.Paul, who brought about his martyrdom.] Their
Roman mastersdeemed it prudent to give their Jewish slaves their
freedom,either at a small ransom, or even without it. These
freedmen(liberti) formed the nucleus of the Jewish community in
Rome,and in great measure determined its social character.
Ofcourse they were, as always, industrious, sober, pushing.
Incourse of time many of them acquired wealth. By-and-by
Jewishimmigrants of greater distinction swelled their number.
Stilltheir social position was inferior to that of theirco-religionists
in other lands. A Jewish population so largeas 40,000 in the time
of Augustus, and 60,000 in that ofTiberius, would naturally
included all ranks, merchants,bankers, literati, even actors. [1
Comp., for example, Mart.xi. 94; Jos. Life 3.] In a city which
offered suchtemptations, they would number among them those of
everydegree of religious profession; nay, some who would not
onlyimitate the habits of those around, but try to outdo theirgross
licentiousness. [2 Martialis, u. s. The 'Anchialus' bywhom the poet
would have the Jew swear, is a corruption ofAnochi Elohim ('I am
God') in Ex. xx. 2. Comp. Ewald, Gesch.Isr. vol. vii. p. 27.] Yet,
even so, they would vainlyendeavor to efface the hateful mark of
being Jews.
Augustus had assigned to the Jews as their special quarterthe
'fourteenth region' across the Tiber, which stretchedfrom the slope
of the Vatican onwards and across theTiber-island, where the boats
from Ostia were wont to unload.This seems to have been their
poor quarter, chiefly inhabitedby hawkers, sellers of matches, [a
Mart. i.41; xii. 57]glass, old clothes and second-hand wares. The
Jewishburying-ground in that quarter [3 Described by Bosio,
butsince unknown. Comp. Friedlander, u. s. vol. iii. pp. 510,511.]
gives evidence of their condition. The wholeappointments and the
graves are mean. There is neither marblenor any trace of painting,
unless it be a roughrepresentation of the seven-branched
candlestick in redcoloring. Another Jewish quarter was by the
Porta Capena,where the Appian Way entered the city. Close by,
the ancientsanctuary of Egeria was utilized at the time of Juvenal
[4Sat. iii.13; vi. 542.] as a Jewish hawking place. But theremust
have been richer Jews also in that neighborhood, sincethe
burying-place there discovered has paintings, some evenof
mythological figures, of which the meaning has not yetbeen
ascertained. A third Jewish burying-ground was near theancient
Christian catacombs.
But indeed, the Jewish residents in Rome must have spreadover
every quarter of the city, even the best, to judge bythe location of
their Synagogues. From inscriptions, we havebeen made
acquainted not only with the existence, but withthe names, of not
fewer than seven of these Synagogues. Threeof them respectively
bear the names of Augustus, Agrippa, andVolumnius, either as
their patrons, or because theworshippers were chiefly their
attendants and clients; whiletwo of them derived their names from
the Campus Martius, andthe quarter Subura in which they stood. [1
Comp. Friedlander,u. s. vol. iii. p.510.] The 'Synagoge Elaias' may
have beenso called from bearing on its front the device of
anolive-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
wouldshed its brightness through the night of heathendom. [2
Midr.R. on Ex. 36.] Of course, there must have been
otherSynagogues besides those whose names have been
discovered.
One other mode of tracking the footsteps of Israel'swanderings
seems strangely significant. It is by tracingtheir records among the
dead, reading them on brokentombstones, and in ruined
monuments. They are rude, and theinscriptions, most of them in
bad Greek, or still worseLatin, none in Hebrew, are like the
stammering of strangers.Yet what a contrast between the simple
faith and earnest hopewhich they express, and the grim
proclamation of utterdisbelief in any future to the soul, not
unmixed withlanguage of coarsest materialism, on the graves of so
many ofthe polished Romans ! Truly the pen of God in history has,
asso often, ratified the sentence which a nation had
pronouncedupon itself. That civilisation was doomed which
couldinscribe over its dead such words as: 'To eternal sleep;'
'Toperpetual rest;' or more coarsely express it thus, 'I wasnot, 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 wereby way of moral, 'And
thou who livest, drink, play, come.'Not so did God teach His
people; and, as we pick our wayamong these broken stones, we
can understand how a religion,which proclaimed a hope so
different, must have spoken to thehearts of many even at Rome,
and much more, how that blessedassurance of life and immortality,
which Christianityafterwards brought, could win its thousands,
though it wereat the cost of poverty, shame, torture, and the arena.
Wandering from graveyard to graveyard, and deciphering
therecords of the dead, we can almost read the history of Israelin
the days of the Caesars, or when Paul the prisoner setfoot on the
soil of Italy. When St. Paul, on the journey ofthe 'Castor and
Pollux,' touched at Syracuse, he would,during his stay of three
days, find himself in the midst of aJewish community, as we learn
from an inscription. When hedisembarked at Puteoli, he was in the
oldest Jewishsettlement next to that of Rome, [a Jos. Ant. xvii. 12.
1;War ii. 7. 1] where the loving hospitality of ChristianIsraelites
constrained him to tarry over a Sabbath. As he'went towards
Rome,' and reached Capua, he would meet Jewsthere, as we infer
from the tombstone of one 'Alfius Juda,'who had been 'Archon' of
the Jews, and 'Archisynagogus' inCapua. As he neared the city, he
found in Anxur (Terracina) aSynagogue. [1 Comp. Cassel, in
Ersch u. Gruber's Encyclop. 2dsect. vol. xxvii. p. 147.] In Rome
itself the Jewishcommunity was organized as in other places. [b
Acts xxviii.17] It sounds strange, as after these many centuries we
againread the names of the Archons of their various
Synagogues,all Roman, such as Claudius, Asteris, Julian (who was
Archonalike of the Campesian and the Agrippesian Synagogue
priest,the son of Julian the Archisynagogus, or chief of
theeldership of the Augustesian Synagogue). And so in
otherplaces. On these tombstones we find names of
JewishSynagogue-dignitaries, in every centre of population,
inPompeii, in Venusia, the birthplace of Horace; in
Jewishcatacombs; and similarly Jewish inscriptions in Africa,
inAsia, in the islands of the Mediterranean, in AEgina, inPatrae, in
Athens. Even where as yet records of their earlysettlements have
not been discovered, we still infer theirpresence, as we remember
the almost incredible extent ofRoman commerce, which led to
such large settlements inBritain, or as we discover among the
tombstones those of'Syrian' merchants, as in Spain (where St. Paul
hoped topreach, no doubt, also to his own countrymen),
throughoutGaul, and even in the remotest parts of Germany. [2
Comp.Friedlander, u. s. vol. ii. pp. 17-204 passim.] Thus
thestatements of Josephus and of Philo, as to the dispersion
ofIsrael throughout all lands of the known world, are fullyborne
out.
But the special importance of the Jewish community in Romelay
in its contiguity to the seat of the government of theworld, where
every movement could be watched and influenced,and where it
could lend support to the wants and wishes ofthat compact body
which, however widely scattered, was one inheart and feeling, in
thought and purpose, in faith andpractice, in suffering and in
prosperity. [3 It was probablythis unity of Israelitish interests
which Cicero had in view(Pro Flacco, 28) when he took such
credit for his boldness indaring to stand up against the Jews,
unless, indeed, theorator only meant to make a point in favour of
his client.]Thus, when upon the death of Herod a deputation
fromPalestine appeared in the capital to seek the restoration
oftheir Theocracy under a Roman protectorate, [a Jos. Ant.xvii. 11.
1; War. ii. 6. 1] no less than 8,000 of the RomanJews joined it.
And in case of need they could find powerfulfriends, not only
among the Herodian princes, but among courtfavourites who were
Jews, like the actor of whom Josephusspeaks; [b Life 3] among
those who were inclined towardsJudaism, like Poppaea, the
dissolute wife of Nero, whosecoffin as that of a Jewess was laid
among the urns of theemperors; [1 Schiller (Gesch. d. Rom.
Kaiserreichs, p. 583)denies that Poppaea was a proselyte. It is,
indeed, true, ashe argues, that the fact of her entombment affords
noabsolute evidence of this, if taken by itself; but comp. Jos.Ant.
xx. 8. 11; Life 3.] or among real proselytes, like thoseof all ranks
who, from superstition or conviction, hadidentified themselves
with the Synagogue. [2 The question ofJewish proselytes will be
treated in another place.]
In truth, there was no law to prevent the spread of
Judaism.Excepting the brief period when Tiberius [c 19 A.D.]
banishedthe Jews from Rome and sent 4,000 of their number to
fightthe banditti in Sardinia, the Jews enjoyed not only
perfectliberty, but exceptional privileges. In the reign of Caesarand
of Augustus we have quite a series of edicts, whichsecured the full
exercise of their religion and theircommunal rights. [3 Comp. Jos.
Ant. xiv. 10, passim, and xvi.6. These edicts are collated in Krebs.
Decreta Romanor. proJud. facta, with long comments by the
author, and byLevyssohn.] In virtue of these they were not to be
disturbedin their religious ceremonies, nor in the observance of
theirsabbaths and feasts. The annual Temple-tribute was allowed
tobe transported to Jerusalem, and the alienation of thesefunds by
the civil magistrates treated as sacrilege. As theJews objected to
bear arms, or march, on the Sabbath, theywere freed from military
service. On similar grounds, theywere not obliged to appear in
courts of law on their holydays. Augustus even ordered that, when
the publicdistribution of corn or of money among the citizens fell
on aSabbath, the Jews were to receive their share on thefollowing
day. In a similar spirit the Roman authoritiesconfirmed a decree by
which the founder of Antioch, SeleucusI. (Nicator), [d Ob.280
B.C.] had granted the Jews the rightof citizenship in all the cities
of Asia Minor and Syriawhich he had built, and the privilege of
receiving, insteadof the oil that was distributed, which their
religion forbadethem to use, [e Ab. Sar ii. 6] an equivalent in
money. [fJos. Ant. xii. 3. 1] These rights were maintained
byVespasian and Titus even after the last Jewish
war,notwithstanding the earnest remonstrances of these cities.
Nowonder, that at the death of Caesar [g 44 B.C.] the Jews
ofRome gathered for many nights, waking strange feelings of
awein the city, as they chanted in mournful melodies theirPsalms
around the pyre on which the body of their benefactorhad been
burnt, and raised their pathetic dirges. [a Suet.Caes. 84] The
measures of Sejanus, and ceased with his sway.Besides, they were
the outcome of public feeling at the timeagainst all foreign rites,
which had been roused by the vileconduct of the priests of Isis
towards a Roman matron, andwas again provoked by a gross
imposture upon Fulvia, a nobleRoman proselyte, on the part of
some vagabond Rabbis. Buteven so, there is no reason to believe
that literally allJews had left Rome. Many would find means to
remain secretlybehind. At any rate, twenty years afterwards Philo
found alarge community there, ready to support him in his mission
onbehalf of his Egyptian countrymen. Any temporary
measuresagainst the Jews can, therefore, scarcely be regarded as
aserious interference with their privileges, or a cessation ofthe
Imperial favour shown to them.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE JEWISH
DISPERSION IN THEWEST THEIR UNION IN THE GREAT
HOPE OF THE COMING DELIVERER.
CHAPTER VI
It was not only in the capital of the Empire that the Jewsenjoyed
the rights of Roman citizenship. Many in Asia Minorcould boast of
the same privilege. [a Jos. Ant. xiv. 10,passim; Acts xxii. 25-29]
The Seleucidic rulers of Syria hadpreviously bestowed kindred
privileges on the Jews in manyplaces. Thus, they possessed in
some cities twofold rights:the status of Roman and the privileges
of Asiatic,citizenship. Those who enjoyed the former were entitled
to acivil government of their own, under archons of theirchoosing,
quite independent of the rule and tribunals of thecities in which
they lived. As instances, we may mention theJews of Sardis,
Ephesus, Delos, and apparently also ofAntioch. But, whether
legally entitled to it or not, theyprobably everywhere claimed the
right of self-government, andexercised it, except in times of
persecution. But, as alreadystated, they also possessed, besides
this, at least in manyplaces, the privileges of Asiatic citizenship, to
the sameextent as their heathen fellow-citizens. This twofold
statusand jurisdiction might have led to serious complications,
ifthe archons had not confined their authority to strictlycommunal
interests, [b Co. np. Acts xix. 14 ix. 2] withoutinterfering with the
ordinary administration of justice, andthe Jews willingly submitted
to the sentences pronounced bytheir own tribunals.
But, in truth, they enjoyed even more than religious libertyand
communal privileges. It was quite in the spirit of thetimes, that
potentates friendly to Israel bestowed largessesalike on the Temple
in Jerusalem, and on the Synagogues inthe provinces. The
magnificent porch of the Temple was'adorned' with many such
'dedicated gifts.' Thus, we read ofrepeated costly offerings by the
Ptolemies, of a goldenwreath which Sosius offered after he had
taken Jerusalem inconjunction with Herod, and of rich flagons
which Augustusand his wife had given to the Sanctuary. [c Jos.
Ant. xii. 2.5; xiii. 3. 4; Ag. Ap.ii. 5; Ant. xiv. 16. 4; War v. 13]
And,although this same Emperor praised his grandson for
leavingJerusalem unvisited on his journey from Egypt to Syria,
yethe himself made provision for a daily sacrifice on hisbehalf,
which only ceased when the last war against Rome
wasproclaimed. [a Jos. War ii. 10. 4; ii. 17.] Even thecircumstance
that there was a 'Court of the Gentiles,' withmarble screen
beautifully ornamented, bearing tablets which,in Latin and Greek,
warned Gentiles not to proceed further,[1 One of these tablets has
lately been excavated. Comp. 'TheTemple: its Ministry and
Services in the Time of Christ,' p.24.] proves that the Sanctuary
was largely attended by othersthan Jews, or, in the words of
Josephus, that 'it was held inreverence by nations from the ends of
the earth.' [b War iv.4. 3; comp. War ii. 17. 2-4]
In Syria also, where, according to Josephus, the largestnumber of
Jews lived, [2 War, vii. 3. 3.] they experiencedspecial favour. In
Antioch their rights and immunities wererecorded on tables of
brass. [3 War, vii. 5. 2.]
But, indeed, the capital of Syria was one of their favouriteresorts.
It will be remembered what importance attached to itin the early
history of the Christian Church. Antioch was thethird city of the
Empire, and lay just outside what theRabbinists designated as
'Syria' and still regarded as holyground. Thus it formed, so to
speak, an advanced post betweenthe Palestinian and the Gentile
world. Its chief Synagoguewas a magnificent building, to which
the successors ofAntiochus Epiphanes had given the spoils which
that monarchhad brought from the Temple. The connection
between Jerusalemand Antioch was very close. All that occurred
in that citywas eagerly watched in the Jewish capital. The spread
ofChristianity there must have excited deep concern. Careful asthe
Talmud is not to afford unwelcome information, whichmight have
led to further mischief, we know that three of theprincipal Rabbis
went thither on a mission, we can scarcelydoubt for the purpose of
arresting the progress ofChristianity. Again, we find at a later
period a record ofreligious controversy in Antioch between Rabbis
andChristians. [4 Comp. generally Neubauer, Geogr. du
Talmud,pp. 312, 313.] Yet the Jews of Antioch were
strictlyHellenistic, and on one occasion a great Rabbi was unable
tofind among them a copy of even the Book of Esther in
Hebrew,which, accordingly, he had to write out from memory for
hisuse in their Synagogue. A fit place this great
border-city,crowded by Hellenists, in close connection with
Jerusalem, tobe the birthplace of the name 'Christian,' to send forth
aPaul on his mission to the Gentile world, and to obtain forit a
charter of citizenship far nobler than that of which therecord was
graven on tablets of brass.
But, whatever privileges Israel might enjoy, history recordsan
almost continuous series of attempts, on the part of
thecommunities among whom they lived, to deprive them not
onlyof their immunities, but even of their common rights.Foremost
among the reasons of this antagonism we place theabsolute
contrariety between heathenism and the Synagogue,and the social
isolation which Judaism rendered necessary. Itwas avowedly
unlawful for the Jew even 'to keep company, orcome unto one of
another nation.' [a Acts x. To quarrel withthis, was to find fault
with the law and the religion whichmade him a Jew. But besides,
there was that pride of descent,creed, enlightenment, and national
privileges, which St. Paulso graphically sums up as 'making boast
of God and of thelaw.' [b Comp. Rom. ii. 17-24 However
differently they mighthave expressed it, Philo and Hillel would
have been at one asto the absolute superiority of the Jew as such.
Pretensionsof this kind must have been the more provocative, that
thepopulace at any rate envied tne prosperity which
Jewishindustry, talent, and capital everywhere secured. Why
shouldthat close, foreign corporation possess every civic right,and
yet be free from many of its burdens? Why should theirmeetings
be excepted from the 'collegia illicita'? why shouldthey alone be
allowed to export part of the national wealth,to dedicate it to their
superstition in Jerusalem? The Jewcould not well feign any real
interest in what gave itsgreatness to Ephesus, it attractiveness to
Corinth, itsinfluence to Athens. He was ready to profit by it; but
hisinmost thought must have been contempt, and all he wanted
wasquietness and protection in his own pursuits. What concernhad
he with those petty squabbles, ambitions, or designs,which agitated
the turbulent populace in those Greciancities? what cared he for
their popular meetings and noisydiscussions? The recognition of
the fact that, as Jews, theywere strangers in a strange land, made
them so loyal to theruling powers, and procured them the
protection of kings andCaesars. But it also roused the hatred of the
populace.
That such should have been the case, and these widelyscattered
members have been united in one body, is a uniquefact in history.
Its only true explanation must be sought ina higher Divine
impulse. The links which bound them togetherwere: a common
creed, a common life, a common centre, and acommon hope.
Wherever the Jew sojourned, or however he might differ fromhis
brethern, Monotheism, the Divine mission of Moses, andthe
authority of the Old Testament, were equally to allunquestioned
articles of belief. It may well have been thatthe Hellenistic Jew,
living in the midst of a hostile,curious, and scurrilous population,
did not care to exhibitover his house and doorposts, at the right of
the entrance,the Mezuzah, [1 Ber. iii. 3; Meg. i. 8; Moed K. iii. 4;
Men.iii. 7. Comp. Jos. Ant. iv.8.13; and the tractate Mezuzah
inKirchheim, Septem libri Talmud. parvi Hierosol. pp.
12-17.]which enclosed the folded parchment that, on
twenty-twolines, bore the words from Deut. iv. 4-9 and xi. 13-21,
or tocall attention by their breadth to the Tephillin, [St. Matt.xxiii.
5; Ber. i. 3; Shabb. vi. 2; vii. 3; xvi. 1; Er. x. 1,2; Sheq. iii. 2; Meg.
i. 8; iv. 8; Moed. Q. iii. 4; Sanh. xi.3; Men. iii. 7; iv. 1; Kel. xviii.
8; Miqv. x. 3; yad. iii.3. Comp. Kirchheim, Tract. Tephillin, u. s.
pp. 18-21.] orphylacteries on his left arm and forehead, or even to
makeobservable the Tsitsith, [Moed K. iii. 4; Eduy. iv. 10; Men.iii.
7; iv. 1. Comp. Kirchheim, Tract. Tsitsith, u. s. pp.22-24.] or
fringes on the borders of his garments. [TheTephillin enclosed a
transcript of Exod. xiii. 1-10, 11-16;Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21. The
Tsitsith were worn in obedienceto the injunction in Num. xv. 37
etc.; Deut. xxii. 12 (comp.St. Matt. ix. 20; xiv. 36; St. Mark v. 27;
St. Luke viii.44).] Perhaps, indeed, all these observances may at
that timenot have been deemed incumbent on every Jew. [It
isremarkable that Aristeas seems to speak only of thephylacteries
on the arm, and Philo of those for the head,while the LXX. takes
the command entirely in a metaphoricalsense. This has already
been pointed out in that book ofgigantic learning, Spencer, De
Leg. Heb. p. 1213. Frankel(Uber d. Einfl. d. Pal. Exeg., pp. 89, 90)
tries in vain tocontrovert the statement. The insufficency of his
argumentshas been fully shown by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr.
vol.iii. p. 224).] At any rate, we do not find mention of them
inheathen writers. Similarly, they could easily keep out ofview, or
they may not have had conveniences for, theirprescribed
purifications. But in every place, as we haveabundant evidence,
where there were at least ten Batlanim -male householders who
had leisure to give themselves toregular attendance - they had,
from ancient times, [Acts xv.21.] one, and, if possible, more
Synagogues. [Jos. Ant. xix.6. 3; War, ii. 14. 4, 5; vii. 3. 3; Philo,
Quod omnis probusliber, ed. Mangey, ii. p. 458; Philo, Ad Caj. ii.
p. 591;Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2; Philo, Vita Mosis, lib. iii., ii. p.168.]
Where there was no Synagogue there was at least aProseuche,
[Acts xvi.13] [Jos. Ant. xvi. 10 23, life 54;Philo, In Flacc. ii. p.
523; Ad Caj. ii. pp. 565, 596;Epiphan. Haer. 1xxx. 1. Comp.
Juven. Sat. iii. 296: 'Ede ubiconsistas? in qua te quaero
proseucha?'] open sky, after theform of a theatre, generally outside
the town, near a riveror the sea, for the sake of lustrations. These,
as we knowfrom classical writers, were well known to the heathen,
andeven frequented by them. Their Sabbath observance,
theirfasting on Thursdays, their Day of Atonement, their
lawsrelating to food, and their pilgrimages to Jerusalem - allfound
sympathiers among Judaising Gentiles. [8 Comp., amongothers,
Ovid, Ars Amat. i. 76; Juv. Sat. xvi. 96, 97; Hor.Sat. i. 5. 100; 9.
70; Suet. Aug. 93.] They even watched tosee, how the Sabbath
lamp was kindled, and the solemn prayersspoken which marked
the beginning of the Sabbath. [9 Persiusv. 180. But to the Jew the
Synagogue was the bond of unionthroughout the world. There, on
Sabbath and feast days theymet to read, from the same Lectionary,
the sameScripture-lessons which their brethren read throughout
theworld, and to say, in the words of the same liturgy,
theircommon prayers, catching echoes of the
gorgeousTemple-services in Jerusalem. The heathen must have
beenstruck with awe as they listened, and watched in the gloom
ofthe Synagogue the mysterious light at the far curtained
end,where the sacred oracles were reverently kept, wrapped
incostly coverings. Here the stranger Jew also would findhimself at
home: the same arrangements as in his own land,and the
well-known services and prayers. A hospitable welcomeat the
Sabbath-meal, and in many a home, would be pressed onhim, and
ready aid be proffered in work or trial.
For, deepest of all convictions was that of their commoncentre;
strongest of all feelings was the love which boundthem to
Palestine and to Jerusalem, the city of God, the joyof all the earth,
the glory of His people Isael. 'If I forgetthee, O Jerusalem, let my
right hand forget her cunning; letmy tongue cleave to the roof of
my mouuth,' Hellenist andEastern equally realised this. As the soil
of his nativeland, the deeds of his people, or the graves of his
fathersdraw the far-off wanderer to the home of his childhood,
orfill the mountaineer in his exile with irrepressible longing,so the
sounds which the Jew heard in his Synagogue, and theobservances
which he kept. Nor was it with him merely matterof patriotism, of
history, or of association. It was areligious principle, a spiritual
hope. No truth more firmlyrooted in the consciousness of all, than
that in Jerusalemalone men could truly worship. [a St. John iv. 20]
As Danielof old had in his hour ofworship turned towards the
HolyCity, so in the Synagogue and in his prayers every Jew
turnedtowards Jerusalem; and anything that might imply want
ofreverence, when looking in that direction, was considered
agrievous sin. From every Synagogue in the Diaspora the
annualTemple-tribute went up to Jerusalem, [1 Comp. Jos. Ant.
xiv.7. 2; xvi. 6, passium; Philo, De Monarchia, ed. Mangey, ii.p.
224; Ad Caj. ii. p. 568; Contra Flacc. ii. p. 524.] nodoubt often
accompanied by rich votive offerings. Few, whocould undertake or
afford the journey, but had at some timeor other gone up to the
Holy City to attend one of the greatfeasts. [2 philo, De Monarchia,
ii. p. 223.] Philo, who washeld by the same spell as the most
bigoted Rabbinist, hadhimself been one of those deputed by his
fellow-citizens tooffer prayers and sacrifices in the great
Sanctuary. [3Philo, in a fragment preserved in Euseb., Praepar. Ev.
viii.13. What the Temple was in the estimation of Israel,]
Viewsand feelings of this kind help us to understand, how, on
somegreat feast, as Josephus states on sufficient authority,
thepopulation of Jerusalem - within its ecclesiasticalboundaries -
could have swelled to the enormous number ofnearly three
millions. [a War vi. 9. 3; comp. ii. 14. 3]
And still, there was an even stronger bond in their commonhope.
That hope pointed them all, wherever scattered, back toPalestine.
To them the coming of the Messiah undoubtedlyimplied the
restoration of Israel's kingdom, and, as a firstpart in it, the return of
'the dispersed.' [1 EvenMaimonides, in spite of his desire to
minimise the Messianicexpectancy, admits this. Indeed, every
devout Jew prayed, dayby day: 'Proclaim by Thy loud trumpet our
deliverance, andraise up a banner to gather our dispersed, and
gather ustogether from the four ends of the earth. Blessed be Thou,
OLord! Who gatherest the outcasts of Thy people Israel.' [2This is
the tenth of the eighteen (or rather nineteen)benedictions in the
daily prayers. Of these the first and thelast three are certainly the
oldest. But this tenth alsodates from before the destruction of
Jerusalem. Comp. Zunz,Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden, p. 368.] That
prayer included inits generality also the lost ten tribes. So, for
example, theprophecy [b Hos. xi. 11.] was rendered: 'They hasten
hither,like a bird out of Egypt,' - referring to Israel of old; 'andlike
a dove out of the land of Assyria' - referring to theten tribes. [c
Midr. on Cant. i. 15, ed. warshau, p. 11b] [3Comp. Jer. Sanh. x. 6;
Sanh. 110 b: Yalk. Shim.] And thuseven these wanderers, so long
lost, were to be reckoned inthe field of the Good Shepherd. [4 The
suggestion is made byCastelli, Il Messia, p. 253.]
It is worth while to trace, how universally and warmly bothEastern
and Western Judaism cherished this hope of allIsrael's return to
their own land. The Targumim bear repeatedreference to it; [5
Notably in connection with Ex. xii. 42(both in the Pseudo-Jon. and
Jer. Targum); Numb. xxiv. 7(Jer. Targ.); Deut. xxx. 4 (Targ.
Ps.-Jon.); Is. xiv. 29;Jer. xxxiii. 13; Hos. xiv. 7; Zech. x. 6. Dr.
Drummond, inhis 'Jewish Messiah,' p. 335, quotes from the
Targum onLamentations. But this dates from long after the
Talmudicperiod.] and although there may be question as to the
exactdate of these paraphrases, it cannot be doubted, that in
thisrespect they represented the views of the Synagogue at thetime
of Jesus. For the same reason we may gather from theTalmud and
earliest commentaries, what Israel's hope was inregard to the
return of the 'dispersed.' [6 As each sentencewhich follows would
necessitate one or more references todifferent works, the reader,
who may be desirous to verifythe statements in the text, is
generally referred toCastelli, u. s. pp. 251-255.] It was a beautiful
idea toliken Israel to the olive-tree, which is never stripped ofits
leves. [d Men. 53 b] The storm of trial that had sweptover it was,
indeed, sent in judgment, but not to destroy,only to purify. Even
so, Israel's persecutions had served tokeep them from becoming
mixed with the Gentiles. Heaven andearth might be destroyed, but
not Israel; and their finaldeliverance would far outstrip in
marvellousness that fromEgypt. The winds would blow to bring
together the dispersed;nay, if there were a single Israelite in a land,
howeverdistant, he would be restored. With every honour would
thenations bring them back. The patriarchs and all the justwould
rise to share in the joys of the new possession oftheir land; new
hymns as well as the old ones would rise tothe praise of God. Nay,
the bounds of the land would beextended far beyond what they had
ever been, and made as wideas originally promised to Abraham.
Nor would that possessionbe ever taken from them, nor those joys
be ever succeeded bysorrows. [1 The fiction of two Messiahs, one
the Son ofDavid, the other the Son of Joseph, the latter
beingconnected with the restoration of the ten tribes, has
beenconclusively shown to be the post-Christian date
(comp.Schottgen, Horae Hebr. i. p. 359; and Wunsche, Leiden
d.Mess. p. 109). Possibly it was invented to find anexplanation for
Zech. xii. 10 (comp. Succ. 52 a), just as theSocinian doctrine of
the assumption of Christ into heaven atthe beginning of His
ministry was invented to account for St.John iii. 13.] In view of
such general expectations we cannotfail to mark with what
wonderful sobriety the Apostles putthe question to Jesus: 'Wilt
Thou at this time restore thekingdom to Israel?' [a Acts i.6]
Hopes and expectations such as these are expressed not onlyin
Talmudical writings. We find them throughout that veryinteresting
Apocalyptic class of literature, thePseudepigrapha, to which
reference has already been made. Thetwo earliest of them, the
Book of Enoch and the SibyllineOracles, are equally emphatic on
this subject. The seer inthe Book of Enoch beholds Israel in the
Messianic time ascoming in carriages, and as borne on the wings
of the windfrom East, and West, and South. [b Book of En. ch.
lvii.;comp.xc.33] Fuller details of that happy event are furnishedby
the Jewish Sibyl. In her utterances these three events areconnected
together: the coming of the Messiah, the rebuildingof the Temple,
[c B. iii. 286-294; comp. B. v. 414-433] andthe restoration of the
dispersed, [d iii. 732-735] when allnations would bring their
wealth to the House of God. [e iii.766-783] [2 M. Maurice Vernes
(Hist. des Idees Messian. pp.43-119) maintains that the writers of
Enoch and Or. Sib. iii.expected this period under the rule of the
Maccabees, andregarded one of them as the Messiah. It implies a
peculiarreading of history, and a lively imagination, to arrive
atsuch a conclusion.] The latter trait specially reminds us oftheir
Hellenistic origin. A century later the same joyousconfidence, only
perhaps more clearly worded, appears in theso-called 'Psalter of
Solomon.' Thus the seventeenth Psalmbursts into this strain:
'Blessed are they who shall live inthose days, in the reunion of the
tribes, which God bringsabout.' [f Ps. of Sol. vxii. 50; comp. also
Ps. xi.] And nowonder, since they are the days when 'the King, the
Son ofDavid,' [a Ps. Sal. xviii. 23] having purged Jerusalem [b
v.25] and destroyed the heathen by the word of His mouth, [c v.27]
would gather together a holy people which He would rulewith
justice, and judge the tribes of His people, [d v. 28]'dividing them
over the land according to tribes;' when 'nostranger would any
longer dwell among them.' [e vv. 30,31]
Another pause, and we reach the time when Jesus the
Messiahappeared. Knowing the characteristics of that time,
wescarcely wonder that the Book of Jubilees, which dates fromthat
period, should have been Rabbinic in its cast ratherthan
Apocalyptic. Yet even there the reference to the futureglory is
distinct. Thus we are told, that, though for itswickedness Israel had
been scattered, God would 'gather themall from the midst of the
heathen,' 'build among them HisSanctuary, and dwell with them.'
That Sanctuary was to 'befor ever and ever, and God would appear
to the eye of everyone, and every one acknowledge that He was the
God of Israel,and the Father of all the Children of Jacob, and King
uponMount Zion, from everlasting to everlasting. And Zion
andJerusalem shall be holy.' [f Book of Jub. ch. i.; comp. alsoch.
xxiii.] When listening to this language of, perhaps, acontemporary
of Jesus, we can in some measure understand thepopular
indignation which such a charge would call forth, asthat the Man
of Nazareth had proposed to destroy the Temple,[g St. John ii. 19]
or that he thought merely of the childrenof Jacob.
There is an ominous pause of a century before we come to thenext
work of this class, which bears the title of the FourthBook of
Esdras. That century had been decisive in the historyof Israel.
Jesus had lived and died; His Apostles had goneforth to bear the
tidings of the new Kingdom of God; theChurch had been founded
and separated from the Synagogue; andthe Temple had been
destroyed, the Holy City laid waste, andIsrael undergone
sufferings, compared with which the formertroubles might almost
be forgotten. But already the newdoctrine had struck it roots deep
alike in Eastern and inHellenistic soil. It were strange indeed if, in
suchcircumstances, this book should not have been different
fromany that had preceded it; stranger still, if earnest Jewishminds
and ardent Jewish hearts had remained wholly unaffectedby the
new teaching, even though the doctrine of the Crossstill continued
a stumbling-block, and the Gospelannouncement a rock of offence.
But perhaps we could scarcelyhave been prepared to find, as in the
Fourth Book of Esdras,doctrinal views which were wholly foreign
to Judaism, andevidently derived from the New Testament, and
which, inlogical consistency, would seem to lead up to it. [1
Thedoctrinal part of IV. Esdras may be said to be saturated withthe
dogma of original sin, which is wholly foreign to thetheology alike
of Rabbinic and Hellenistic Judaism. Comp.Vis. i. ch. iii. 21, 22;
iv. 30, 38; Vis. iii. ch. vi, 18, 19(ed. Fritzsche, p. 607); 33-41; vii.
46-48; viii. 34-35.] Thegreater part of the book may be described
as restlesstossing, the seer being agitated by the problem and
theconsequences of sin, which here for the first and only timeis
presented as in the New Testament; by the question, whythere are
so few who are saved; and especially by what to aJew must have
seemed the inscrutable, terrible mystery ofIsrael's sufferings and
banishment. [1 It almost seems as ifthere were a parallelism
between this book and the Epistle tothe Romans, which in its
dogmatic part, seems successively totake up these three subjects,
although from quite anotherpoint of view. How different the
treatment is, need not betold.] Yet, so far as we can see, no other
way of salvationis indicated than that by works and personal
righteousness.Throughout there is a tone of deep sadness and
intenseearnestness. It almost seems sometimes, as if one heard
thewind of the new dispensation sweeping before it the
witheredleaves of Israel's autumn. Thus far for the principal
portionof the book. The second, or Apocalyptic, part, endeavors
tosolve the mystery of Israel's state by foretelling theirfuture. Here
also there are echoes of New Testamentutterances. What the end is
to be, we are told inunmistakable language. His 'Son,' Whom the
Highest has for along time preserved, to deliver 'the creature' by
Him, issuddenly to appear in the form of a Man. From His mouth
shallproceed alike woe, fire, and storm, which are thetribulations
of the last days. And as they shall gather forwar against Him, He
shall stand on Mount Zion, and the HolyCity shall come down
from heaven, prepared and ready, and Heshall destroy all His
enemies. But a peaceable multitudeshall now be gathered to Him.
These are the ten tribes, who,to separate themselves from the ways
of the heathen, hadwandered far away, miraculously helped, a
journey of one anda half years, and who were now similarly
restored by God totheir own land. But as for the 'Son,' or those
whoaccompanied him, no one on earth would be able to see or
knowthem, till the day of His appearing. [a Vis. vi. ch. xiii.27-52]
[2 The better reading is 'in tempore diei ejus. (v.52).']
It seems scarcely necessary to complete the series oftestimony by
referring in detail to a book, called 'TheProphecy and Assumption
of Moses,' and to what is known asthe Apocalypse of Branch, the
servant of Jeremiah. Both datefrom probably a somewhat later
period than the Fourth Book ofEsdras, and both are fragmentary.
The one distinctlyanticipates the return of the ten tribes;[b Prophet.
et Ass.Mos. iv. 7-14; vii. 20] the other, in the letter to the nineand
a half tribes, far beyond the Euphrates, [c Ap. Bar.xxvii. 22] with
which the book closes, preserves an ominoussilence on that point,
or rather alludes to it in languagewhich so strongly reminds us of
the adverse opinion expressedin the Talmud, that we cannot help
suspecting some internalconnection between the two. [1 In Sanh.
110 b we read, 'OurRabbisteach, that the Ten Tribes have no part
in the era tocome, because it is written "The Lord drave them out
of theirland in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation,
andcast them into another land." "The Lord drave them from
theirland", in the present era, "and cast them into another land",in
the era to come.' In curious agreement with this,Pseudo-Baruch
writes to the nine and a half tribes to'prepare their hearts to that
which they had formerlybelieved,' least they should suffer 'in both
eras (ab utroquesaeculo),' being led captive in the one, and
tormented in theother (Apoc. Bar. lxxxiii. 8).]
The writings to which we have referred have all a
decidedlyHellenistic tinge of thought. [2 Thus, for example,
theassertion that there had been individuals who fulfilled
thecommandments of God, Vis. i. ch. iii. 36; the domain ofreason,
iv. 22; v. 9; general Messianic blessings to theworld at large, Vis.
i. ch. iv. 27, 28; the idea of a lawwithin their minds, like that of
which St. Paul speaks in thecase of the heathen, Vis. iii. ch. vi.
45-47 (ed. Fritzsche,p. 609). These are only instances, and we refer
besides tothe general cast of the reasoning.] Still they are not
theoutcome of pure Hellenism. It is therefore with peculiarinterest
that we turn to Philo, the great representative ofthat direction, to
see whether he would admit an idea sopurely national and, as it
might seem, exclusive. Nor are wehere left in doubt. So universal
was this belief, sodeep-seated the conviction, not only in the mind,
but in theheart of Israel, that we could scarcely find it
moredistinctly expressed than by the great Alexandrian.
Howeverlow the condition of Israel might be, he tells us, [a
DeExecrat. ed. Frcf. pp. 936, 937] or however scattered thepeople
to the ends of the earth, the banished would, on agiven sign, be set
free in one day. In consistency with hissystem, he traces this
wondrous event to their suddenconversion to virtue, which would
make their masters ashamedto hold any longer in bondage those
who were so much betterthan themselves. Then, gathering as by
one impulse, thedispersed would return from Hellas, from the
lands of thebarbarians, from the isles, and from the continents, led
by aDivine, superhuman apparition invisible to others, andvisible
only to themselves. On their arrival in Palestine thewaste places
and the wilderness would be inhabited, and thebarren land
transformed into fruitfulness.
Whatever shades of difference, then, we may note in theexpression
of these views, all anticipate the deliverance ofIsrael, their
restoration, and future pre-eminent glory, andthey all connect these
events with the coming of the Messiah.This was 'the promise' unto
which, in their 'instant servicenight and day, the twelve tribes,'
however grievouslyoppressed, hoped to come. [b Acts xxvi. 7] To
this 'surewordof prophecy' 'the strangers scattered' throughout
alllands would 'take heed, as unto a light that shineth in adark
place,' until the day dawned, and the day-star rose intheir hearts. [a
2 Pet. i. 19] It was this which gave meaningto their worship, filled
them with patience in suffering,kept them separate from the
nations around, and ever fixedtheir hearts and thoughts upon
Jerusalem. For the 'Jerusalem'which was above was 'the mother' of
them all. Yet a littlewhile, and He that would come should come,
and not tarry, andthen all the blessing and glory would be theirs.
At anymoment the gladsome tidings might burst upon them, that
Hehad come, when their glory would shine out from one end ofthe
heavens to the other. All the signs of His Advent hadcome to pass.
Perhaps, indeed, the Messiah might even now bethere, ready to
manifest Himself, so soon as the voice ofIsrael's repentance called
Him from His hiding. Any hourmight 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 withJerusalem, as their salvation drew nigh; more
earnest theirlonging, and more eager their gaze, till the dawn of
thatlong expected day tinged the Eastern sky with its brightness.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
IN PALESTINE, JEWS AND GENTILES IN 'THE LAND', THEIR
MUTUALRELATIONS AND FEELINGS, 'THE WALL OF
SEPARATION.'
CHAPTER VII
THE pilgrim who, leaving other countries, entered Palestine,must
have felt as if he had crossed the threshold of anotherworld.
Manners, customs, institutions, law, life, nay, thevery 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 wasinseparably connected with the soil, as
well as the people ofPalestine, at least so long as the Temple
stood. Nowhere elsecould the Shekhinah dwell or manifest itself;
nor could,unless under exceptional circumstances, and for 'the
merit ofthe fathers,' the spirit of prophecy be granted outside
itsbounds. To the orthodox Jew the mental and spiritual
horizonwas bounded by Palestine. It was 'the land'; all the rest
ofthe world, except Babylonia, was 'outside the land.' No needto
designate it specially as 'holy'; for all here bore theimpress of
sanctity, as he understood it. Not that the soilitself, irrespective of
the people, was holy; it was Israelthat made it such. For, had not
God given so manycommandments and ordinances, some of them
apparentlyneedless, simply to call forth the righteousness of
Israel;[a Mac. 23 b] did not Israel possess the merits of 'thefathers,'
[b Rosh HaSh. 11 a] and specially that of Abraham,itself so
valuable that, even if his descendants had, morallyspeaking, been
as a dead body, his merit would have beenimputed to them? [c
Ber. R. 44] More than that, God hadcreated the world on account
of Israel, [d Yalkut 2] and fortheir merit, making preparation for
them long before theirappearance on the scene, just as a king who
foresees thebirth of his son; nay, Israel had been in God's thoughts
notonly before anything had actually been created, but evenbefore
every other creative thought. [e Ber. R. 1] If thesedistinctions seem
excessive, they were, at least, not out ofproportion to the estimate
formed of Israel's merits. Intheory, the latter might be supposed to
flow from 'goodworks,' of course, including the strict practice of
legalpiety, and from 'study of the law.' But in reality it was'study'
alone to which such supreme merit attached. Practicerequired
knowledge for its direction; such as the Am-ha-arets('country
people,' plebeians, in the Jewish sense of beingunlearned) could
not possess, [a Comp. Ab ii. 5] who hadbartered away the highest
crown for a spade with which todig. And 'the school of Arum', the
sages, the 'great ones ofthe world' had long settled it, that study
was before works.[b Jer. Chag. i. hal. 7, towards the end; Jer. Pes.
iii.7]And how could it well be otherwise, since the studies,
whichengaged His chosen children on earth, equally occupied
theirAlmighty Father in heaven? [c Ab. Z. 3 b] Could
anything,then, be higher than the peculiar calling of Israel, orbetter
qualify them for being the sons of God?
It is necessary to transport oneself into this atmosphere
tounderstand the views entertained at the time of Jesus, or toform
any conception of their infinite contrast in spirit tothe new
doctrine. The abhorrence, not unmingled withcontempt, of all
Gentile ways, thoughts and associations; theworship of the letter of
the Law; the self-righteousness, andpride of descent, and still more
of knowledge, become thusintelligible to us, and, equally so, the
absolute antagonismto the claims of a Messiah, so unlike
themselves and theirown ideal. His first announcement might,
indeed, excite hope,soon felt to have been vain; and His miracles
might startlefor a time. But the boundary lines of the Kingdom
which Hetraced were essentially different from those which they
hadfixed, and within which they had arranged everything, alikefor
the present and the future. Had He been content to stepwithin
them, to complete and realise what they had indicated,it might
have been different. Nay, once admit theirfundamental ideas, and
there was much that was beautiful,true, and even grand in the
details. But it was exactly inthe former that the divergence lay. Nor
was there anypossibility of reform or progress here. The past,
thepresent, and the future, alike as regarded the Gentile worldand
Israel, were irrevocably fixed; or rather, it mightalmost be said,
there were not such, all continuing as theyhad been from the
creation of the world, nay, long before it.The Torah had really
existed 2,000 years before Creation; [dShir haShir. R. on Cant. v.
11, ed War shau, p. 26b] thepatriarchs had had their Academies of
study, and they hadknown and observed all the ordinances; and
traditionalism hadthe same origin, both as to time and authority, as
the Lawitself. As for the heathen nations, the Law had been
offeredby God to them, but refused, and even their after
repentancewould prove hypocritical, as all their excuses would be
shownto be futile. But as for Israel, even though their good
deedsshould be few, yet, by cumulating them from among all
thepeople, they would appear great in the end, and God
wouldexact payment for their sins as a man does from his
friends,taking little sums at a time. It was in this sense, that
theRabbis employed that sublime figure, representing the
Churchas one body, of which all the members suffered and
joyedtogether, which St. Paul adopted and applied in a
vastlydifferent and spiritual sense. [a Eph. iv. 16]
If, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of Israel depended onthe
Land, and, on the other, that of the Land on the presenceof Israel in
it, the Rabbinical complaint was, indeed, wellgrounded, that its
'boundaries were becoming narrow.' We canscarcely expect any
accurate demarcation of them, since thequestion, what belonged to
it, was determined by ritual andtheological, not by geographical
considerations. Not only theimmediate neighborhood (as in the
case of Ascalon), but thevery wall of a city (as of Acco and of
Caesarea) might bePalestinian, and yet the city itself be regarded
as 'outside'the sacred limits. All depended on who had
originallypossessed, and now held a place, and hence what
ritualobligations lay upon it. Ideally, as we may say, 'the land
ofpromise' included all which God had covenanted to give toIsrael,
although never yet actually possessed by them. Then,in a more
restricted sense, the 'land' comprised what 'theywho came up from
Egypt took possession of, from Chezib [aboutthree hours north of
Acre] and unto the river [Euphrates],and unto Amanah.' This
included, of course, the conquestsmade by David in the most
prosperous times of the Jewishcommonwealth, supposed to have
extended over Mesopotamia,Syria, Zobah, Achlah, &c. To all
these districts the generalname 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
thecountries in which Israel was specially interested, such asEgypt,
Babylon, Ammon, and Moab, formed an outer band. Theselands
were heathen, and yet not quite heathen, since thededication of the
so-called Terumoth, or first-fruits in aprepared state, was expected
from them, while Soria sharedalmost all the obligations of
Palestine, except those of the'second tithes,' and the fourth year's
product of plants. [bLev. xix. 24.] But the wavesheaf at the Paschal
Feast, andthe two loaves at Pentecost, could only be brought from
whathad grown on the holy soil itself. This latter was
roughlydefined, as 'all which they who came up from Babylon
tookpossession of, in the land of Israel, and unto Chezib.'Viewed
in this light, there was a special significance in thefact that
Antioch, where the name 'Christian' first markedthe new 'Sect'
which had sprung up in Palestine, [c Acts xi.26.] and where the
first Gentile Church was formed, [a Actsxi. 20, 21] lay just outside
the northern boundary of 'theland.' Similarly, we understand, why
those Jewish zealots whowould fain have imposed on the new
Church the yoke of theLaw, [b Acts xv.1]concentrated their first
efforts on thatSoria which was regarded as a kind of outer
Palestine.
But, even so, there was a gradation of sanctity in the HolyLand
itself, in accordance with ritual distinctions. Tendegrees are here
enumerated, beginning with the bare soil ofPalestine, and
culminating in the Most Holy Place in theTemple, each implying
some ritual distinction, which did notattach to a lower degree. And
yet, although the very dust ofheathen soil was supposed to carry
defilement, likecorruption or the grave, the spots most sacred
wereeverywhere surrounded by heathenism; nay, its traces
werevisible in Jerusalem itself. The reasons of this are to besought
in the political circumstances of Palestine, and inthe persistent
endeavour of its rulers, with the exception ofa very brief period
under the Maccabees, to Grecianise thecountry, so as to eradicate
that Jewish particularism whichmust always be antagonistic to
every foreign element. Ingeneral, Palestine might be divided into
the strictly Jewishterritory, and the so-called Hellenic cities. The
latter hadbeen built at different periods, and were
politicallyconstituted after the model of the Greek cities, having
theirown senates (generally consisting of several hundred
persons)and magistrates, each city with its adjoining
territoryforming a sort of commonwealth of its own. But it must
not beimagined, that these districts were inhabited exclusively,
oreven chiefly, by Greeks. One of these groups, that
towardsPeraea, was really Syrian, and formed part of
SyriaDecapolis; [1 The following cities probably formed
theDecapolis, though it is difficult to feel quite sure inreference to
one or the other of them: Damascus,Philadelphia, Raphana,
Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos Dion,Pella, Gerasa, and Canatha. On
these cities, comp. Caspari,Chronol. Geogr. Einl. in d. Leben J.
Christ, pp. 83-90.]while the other, along the coast of the
Mediterranean, wasPhoenician. Thus 'the land' was hemmed in,
east and west,within its own borders, while south and north
stretchedheathen or semi-heathen districts. The strictly
Jewishterritory consisted of Judaea proper, to which
Galilee,Samaria and Peraea were joined as Toparchies.
TheseToparchies consisted of a group of townships, under
aMetropolis. The villages and townships themselves had
neithermagistrates of their own, nor civic constitution, nor
lawfulpopular assemblies. Such civil adminstration as they
requireddevolved on 'Scribes' (the so-called). Thus Jerusalem
wasreally, as well as nominally, the capital of the whole
land.Judaea itself was arranged into eleven, or rather, moreexactly,
into nine Toparchies, of which Jerusalem was thechief. While,
therefore, the Hellenic cities were eachindependent of the other,
the whole Jewish territory formedonly one 'Civitas.' Rule,
government, tribute, in short,political life, centred in Jerusalem.
But this is not all. From motives similar to those which ledto the
founding of other Hellenic cities, Herod the Great andhis
immediate successors built a number of towns, which
wereinhabited chiefly by Gentiles, and had
independentconstitutions, like those of the Hellenic cities. Thus,
Herodhimself built Sebaste (Samaria), in the centre of thecountry;
Caesarea in the west, commanding the sea-coast; Gabain Galilee,
close to the great plain of Esdraelon; andEsbonitis in Peraea. [1
Herod rebuilt or built other cities,such as Antipatris, Cypros,
Phasaelis, Anthedon, &c. Schurerdescribes the two first as built,
but they were only rebuiltor fortified (comp. Ant. xiii. 15. 1; War i.
21. 8.) byHerod.] Similarly, Philip the Tetrarch built
CaesareaPhilippi and Julias (Bethsaida-Julias, on the western
shoreof the lake); and Herod Antipas another Julias, and
Tiberias.[2 He also rebuilt Sepphoris.] The object of these cities
wastwofold. As Herod, well knowing his unpopularity,
surroundedhimself by foreign mercenaries, and reared fortresses
aroundhis palace and the Temple which he built, so he erected
thesefortified posts, which he populated with strangers, as somany
outworks, to surround and command Jerusalem and the Jewson all
sides. Again, as, despite his profession of Judaism,he reared
magnificent heathen temples in honour of Augustusat Sebaste and
Caesarca, so those cities were really intendedto form centres of
Grecian influence within the sacredterritory itself. At the same
time, the Herodian citiesenjoyed not the same amount of liberty as
the 'Hellenic,'which, with the exception of certain imposts, were
entirelyself-governed, while in the former there were
representativesof the Herodian rulers. [3 Comp. on the subject of
the civicinstitutions of the Roman Empire, Kuhn, Die Stadt.
u.burgerl. Verf. d. Rom. Reichs, 2 vols.; and for this part.vol. ii.
pp. 336-354, and pp. 370-372.]
Although each of these towns and districts had its specialdeities
and rites, some being determined by local traditions,their
prevailing character may be described as a mixture ofGreek and
Syrian worship, the former preponderating, as mightbe expected.
[4 A good sketch of the variousrites prevailingin different places is
given by Schurer, Neutest. Zeitg. pp.378-385.] On the other hand,
Herod and his successorsencouraged the worship of the Emperor
and of Rome, which,characteristically, was chiefly practised in the
East. [5Comp. Weiseler, Beitr. z richt. Wur dig. d. Evang. pp.
9091.] Thus, in the temple which Herod built to Augustus
inCaesarea, there were statues of the Emperor as Olympian
Zeus,and of Rome as Hera. [a Jos. Ant. xv. 9. 6; War i. 21. 5-8.]He
was wont to excuse this conformity to heathenism beforehis own
people on the ground of political necessity. Yet,even if his
religious inclinations had not been in thatdirection, he would have
earnestly striven to Grecianise thepeople. Not only in Caesarea,
but even in Jerusalem, he builta theatre and amphitheatre, where at
great expense games wereheld every four years in honour of
Augustus. [1 The Actiangames took place every fifth year, three
years alwaysintervening. The games in Jerusalem were held in the
year 28B.C. (Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1); the first games in Caesarea in
theyear 12 B.C. (Ant. xvi. 5. 1; comp. War. i. 21. 8).] Nay,
heplaced over the great gate of Temple at Jerusalem a
massivegolden eagle, the symbol of Roman dominion, as a sort
ofcounterpart to that gigantic golden vine, the symbol ofIsrael,
which hung above the entrance to the Holy Place.These measures,
indeed, led to popular indignation, and evento conspiracies and
tumults, [b Ant. xv. 8. 1-4; xvii. 6. 2]though not of the same
general and intense character, aswhen, at a later period, Pilate
sought to introduce intoJerusalem images of the Emperor, or when
the statue ofCaligula was to be placed in the Temple. In
connection withthis, it is curious to notice that the Talmud, while
on thewhole disapproving of attendance at theatres
andamphitheatres, chiefly on the ground that it implies 'sittingin
the seat of scorners,' and might involve contributions tothe
maintenance of idol-worship, does not expressly prohibitit, nor
indeed speak very decidedly on the subject. [c So atleast in a
Boraitha. Comp. the the discussion and the verycurious arguments
in favour of attendance in Ab. Zar. 18 b,and following The views
of the Rabbis in regard to pictorialrepresentations are still more
interesting, as illustratingtheir abhorrence of all contact with
idolatry. We mark heredifferences at two, if not at three periods,
according to theoutward circumstances of the people. The earliest
andstrictest opinions [d Mechilta on Ex. xx. 4 ed. Weiss, p. 75a.]
absolutely forbade any representation of things inheaven, on earth,
or in the waters. But the Mishnah [e Ab.Zar. iii.] seems to relax
these prohibitions by subtledistinctions, which are still further
carried out in theTalmud. [2 For a full statement of the Talmudical
views as toimages, representations on coins, and the most ancient
Jewishcoins, see Appendix III.]
To those who held such stringent views, it must have
beenpeculiarly galling to see their most sacred feelings
openlyoutraged by their own rulers. Thus, the Asmonean
princess,Alexandra, the mother-in-law of Herod, could so far
forgetthe traditions of her house, as to send portraits of her sonand
daughter to Mark Antony for infamous purposes, in hope ofthereby
winning him for her ambitious plans. [f Jos. Ant. xv.2. 5 and 6]
One would be curious to know who painted thesepictures, for,
when the statue of Caligula was to be made forthe Temple at
Jerusalem, no native artist could be found, andthe work was
entrusted to Phoenicians. It must have beenthese foreigners also
who made the 'figures,' with whichHerod adorned his palace at
Jerusalem, and 'the brazenstatues' in the gardens 'through which the
water ran out,' [aJos. Warv. 4. 4] as well as the colossal statues at
Caesarea,and those of the three daughters of Agrippa, which after
hisdeath [b Acts xii. 23] were so shamefully abused bythesoldiery
at Sebaste and Caesarea. [cAnt. xix. 9. l]
This abhorrence of all connected with idolatry, and thecontempt
entertained for all that was non-Jewish, will ingreat measure
explain the code of legislation intended tokeep the Jew and Gentile
apart. If Judaea had to submit tothe power of Rome, it could at
least avenge itself in theAcademies of its sages. Almost
innumerable stories are toldin which Jewish sages, always easily,
confute Roman and Greekphilosophers; and others, in which even
a certain Emperor(Antoninus) is represented as constantly in the
most menialrelation of self-abasement before a Rabbi. [1 Comp.
here theinteresting tractate of Dr. Bodek, 'Marc. Aur. Anton.
alsFreund u. Zeitgenosse des R. Jehuda ha Nasi.'] Rome, whichwas
the fourth beast of Daniel, [d Dan. vii. 23.] would inthe age to
come, [2 The Athidlabho, 'saeculum futurum,' to bedistinguished
from the Olam habba, 'the world to come.'] whenJerusalem would
be the metropolis of all lands, [e Midr. R.on Ex. Par. 23.] be the
first to excuse herself on falsethough vain pleas for her wrongs to
Israel. [f Ab. Z. 2 b]But on wordly grounds also, Rome was
contemptible, havingderived her language and writing from the
Greeks, and notpossessing even a hereditary succession in her
empire. [g Ab.Z. 10 a; Gitt. 80 a.] If such was the estimate of
dreadedRome, it may be imagined in what contempt other nations
wereheld. Well might 'the earth tremble,' [Ps. ixxvi. 9.] for, ifIsrael
had not accepted the Law at Sinai, the whole worldwould have
been destroyed, while it once more 'was still'when that [i Shabb. 88
a.] happy event took place, althoughGod in a manner forced Israel
to it. And so Israel waspurified at Mount Sinai from the impurity
which clung to ourrace in consequence of the unclean union
between Eve and theserpent, and which still adhered to all other
nations! [3 Ab.Z. 22 b. But as in what follows the quotations
would be toonumerous, they will be omitted. Each statement,
however,advanced in the text or notes is derived from part of
theTalmudic tractate Abodah Zarah.]
To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was tobe
regarded as unclean. Those who actually worshippedmountains,
hills, bushes, &c., in short, gross idolaters,should be cut down with
the sword. But as it was impossibleto exterminate heathenism,
Rabbinic legislation kept certaindefinite objects in view, which
may be thus summarised: Toprevent Jews from being inadvertenly
led into idolatry; toavoid all participation in idolatry; not to do
anything whichmight aid the heathen in their worship; and, beyond
all this,not to give pleasure, nor even help, to heathens. The
latterinvolved a most dangerous principle, capable of
almostindefinite application by fanaticism. Even the Mishnah
goesfor far [a Ab. Z. ii. 1] as to forbid aid to amother in thehour of
her need, or nourishment to her babe, in order not tobring up a
child for idolatry! [1 The Talmud declares it onlylawful if done to
avoid exciting hatred against the Jews.]But this is not all. Heathens
were, indeed, not to beprecipitated into danger, but yet not to be
delivered fromit. Indeed, an isolated teacher ventures even upon
thisstatement: 'The best among the Gentiles, kill; the best
amongserpents, crush its head.' [b Mechilta, ed. Weiss, p. 33 b,line
8 from top] Still more terrible was the fanaticism whichdirected,
that heretics, traitors, and those who had left theJewish faith
should be thrown into actual danger, and, ifthey were in it, all
means for their escape removed. Nointercourse of any kind was to
be had with such, not even toinvoke their medical aid in case of
danger to life, [2 Thereis a well-known story told of a Rabbi who
was bitten by aserpent, and about to be cured by the invocation of
the nameof Jesus by a Jewish Christian, which was,
however,interdicted.] since it was deemed, that he who had to do
withheretics was imminent peril of becoming one himself, [3
Yet,such is the moral obliquity, that even idolatry is allowed
tosave life, provided it be done in secret!] and that, if aheretic
returned to the true faith, he should die at once,partly, probably, to
expiate his guilt, and partly from fearof relapse. Terrible as all this
sounds, it was probably notworse than the fanaticism displayed in
what are called moreenlightened times. Impartial history must
chronicle it,however painful, to show the circumstances in which
teachingso far different was propounded by Christ. [4 Against
this,although somewhat doubtfully, such concessions may be put
asthat, outside Palestine, Gentiles were not to be consideredas
idolators, but as observing the customs of their fathers(Chull. 13
b), and that the poor of the Gentiles were to beequally supported
with those of Israel, their sick visited,and their dead buried; it
being, however, significantlyadded, 'on account of the
arrangements of the world' (Gitt.61 a). The quotation so often
made (Ab. Z. 3 a), that aGentile who occupied himself with the
Torah was to beregarded as equal to the High-Priest, proves
nothing, sincein the case supposed the Gentile acts like a Rabbinic
Jew.But, and this is a more serious point, it is difficult tobelieve
that those who make this quotation are not aware, howthe Talmud
(Ab. Z. 3 a) immediately labours to prove thattheir reward is not
equal to that of Israelites. A somewhatsimilar charge of
one-sideness, if not of unfairness, must bebrought against Deutsch
(Lecture on the Talmud, Remains, pp.146, 147), whose sketch of
Judaism should be compared, forexample, with the first Perek of
the Talmudic tractate AbodahZarah.]
In truth, the bitter hatred which the Jew bore to theGentile can
only be explained from the estimate entertainedof his character.
The most vile, and even unnatural, crimeswere imputed to them. It
was not safe to leave cattle intheir charge, to allow their women to
nurse infants, or theirphysicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in
their company,without taking precautions against sudden and
unprovokedattacks. They should, so far as possible, be
altogetheravoided, except in cases of necessity or for the sake
ofbusiness. They and theirs were defiled; their houses unclean,as
containing idols or things dedicated to them; theirfeasts, their
joyous occasions, their very contact, waspolluted by idolatry; and
there was no security, if a heathenwere left alone in a room, that he
might not, in wantonnessor by carelessness, defile the wine or
meat on the table, orthe oil and wheat in the store. Under such
circumstances,therefore, everything must be regarded as having
beenrendered unclean. Three days before a heathen
festival(according to some, also three days after) every
businesstransaction with them was prohibited, for fear of
givingeither help or pleasure. Jews were to avoid passing through
acity where there was an idolatrous feast, nay, they were noteven
to sit down within the shadow of a tree dedicated toidol-worship.
Its wood was polluted; if used in baking, thebread was unclean; if
a shuttle had been made of it, not onlywas all cloth woven on it
forbidden, but if such had beeninadvertently mixed with other
pieces of cloth, or a garmentmade from it placed with other
garments, the whole becameunclean. Jewish workmen were not to
assist in buildingbasilicas, nor stadia, nor places where judicial
sentenceswere pronounced by the heathen. Of course, it was not
lawfulto let houses or fields, nor to sell cattle to them. Milkdrawn
by a heathen, if a Jew had not been present to watchit, [a Ab. Zar.
35 b.] bread and oil prepared by them, wereunlawful. Their wine
was wholly interdicted [1 According toR. Asi, there was a
threefold distinction. If wine had beendedicated to an idol, to
carry, even on a stick, so much asthe weight of an olive of it,
defiled a man. Other wine, ifprepared by a heathen, was
prohibited, whether for personaluse or for trading. Lastly, wine
prepared by a Jew, butdeposited in custody of a Gentile, was
prohibited forpersonal use, but allowed for traffic.] , the mere
touch of aheathen polluted a whole cask; nay, even to put one's
nose toheathen wine was strictly prohibited!
Painful as these details are, they might be multiplied. Andyet the
bigotry of these Rabbis was, perhaps, not worse thanthat of other
sectaries. It was a painful logical necessityof their system, against
which their heart, no doubt, oftenrebelled; and, it must be
truthfully added, it was in measureaccounted for by the terrible
history of Israel.
INTRODUCTORY.THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYSOF CHRIST
TRADITIONALISM, ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTER, AND
LITERATURE, THEMISHNAH AND TALMUD, THE GOSPEL
OF CHRIST, THE DAWN OF A NEWDAY.
CHAPTER VIII
In trying to picture to ourselves New Testament scenes, thefigure
most prominent, next to those of the chief actors, isthat of the
Scribe (literatus). He seems ubiquitous; we meethim in Jerusalem,
in Judaea, and even in Galilee. [a St. Lukev. 17.] Indeed, he is
indispensable, not only in Babylon,which may have been the
birthplace of his order, but amongthe 'dispersion' also. [b Jos. Ant.
xviii. 3. 5 xx. 11. 2]Everywhere he appears as the mouthpiece and
representative ofthe people; he pushes to the front, the crowd
respectfullygiving way, and eagerly hanging on his utterances, as
thoseof a recognised authority. He has been solemnly ordained
bythe laying on of hands; and is the Rabbi, [1 The title Rabbon(our
Master) occurs first in connection with Gamaliel i.(Acts v. 34).
The N.T. expression Rabboni or Rabbouni (St.Mark x. 51; St. John
xx. 16) takes the word Rabbon or Rabban(here in the absolute
sense)= Rabh, and adds to it thepersonal suffix 'my,' pronouncing
the Kamez in the Syriacmanner.] 'my great one,' Master,
amplitudo. He putsquestions; he urges objections; he expects full
explanationsand respectful demeanour. Indeed, his hyper-ingenuity
inquestioning has become a proverb. There is not measure of
hisdignity, nor yet limit to his importance. He is the 'lawyer,'[c the
legis Divinae peritus, St. Matt. xxii. 35; St. Lukevii. 30; x.25; xi.
45; xiv. 3.] the well-plastered pit,'filled with the water of
knowledge'out of which not a dropcan escape,' [d Ab. ii. 8.] in
opposition to the weeds ofuntilled soil' of ignorance. [e Ber. 45 b
2; Ab. ii. 5;Bemid. R. 3.] He is the Divine aristocrat, among the
vulgarherd of rude and profane 'country-people,' who 'know not
theLaw' and are 'cursed.' More than that, his order constitutesthe
ultimate authority on all questions of faith andpractice; he is 'the
Exegete of the Laws,' [f Jos. Ant. xvii.6 2.] the 'teacher of the Law,'
[g St. Luke v. 17; Acts v.34; comp. also 1 Tim. i. 7.] and along
with 'the chiefpriests' and 'elders' a judge in the
ecclesiasticaltribunals, whether of the capital or in the provinces.
[h St.Matt. ii. 4; xx. 18; xxi. 15; xxvi. 57; xxvii. 41; St.
Markxiv.1.43;xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 2, 66; xxiii. 10; Acts iv.
5.]Although generally appearing incompany with 'the Pharisees,'he
is not necessarily one of them, for they represent areligious party,
while he has a status, and holds an office.[1 The distinction
between 'Pharisees' and 'Scribes,' ismarked in may passages in the
N.T., for example, St. Matt.xxiii. passim; St. Luke vii. 30; xiv. 3;
and especially inSt. Luke xi. 43, comp. with v. 46. The words
'Scribes andPharisees, hypocrites,' in ver. 44, are, according to
allevidence, spurious.] In short, he is the Talmid or learnedstudent,
the Chakham or sage, whose honour is to be great inthe future
world. Each Scribe outweighed all the commonpeople, who must
accordingly pay him every honour. Nay, theywere honoured of
God Himself, and their praises proclaimed bythe angels; and in
heaven also, each of them would hold thesame rank and distinction
as on earth. [a Siphre or Numb. p25 b.] Such was to be therespect
paid to their sayings, thatthey were to be absolutely believed, even
if they were todeclare that to be at the right hand which was at the
left,or vice versa. [b Siphre on Deut. p. 105 a.]
An institution which had attained such proportions, andwielded
such power, could not have been of recent growth. Inpoint of fact,
its rise was very gradual, and stretched backto the time of
Nehemiah, if not beyond it. Although from theutter confusion of
historical notices in Rabbinic writingsand their constant practice
of antedating events, it isimpossible to furnish satisfactory details,
the generaldevelopment of the institution can be traced with
sufficientprecision. If Ezra is described in Holy Writ [c Ezra
vii.6,10, 11, 12.] as 'a ready (expertus) Scribe,' who had 'set
hisheart to seek (seek out the full meaning of) the law of theLord,
and to do it, and to teach in Israel,' this mightindicate to his
successors, the Sopherim (Scribes), thethreefold direction which
their studies afterwards took: theMidrash, the Halakhah, and the
Haggadah, [e Nedar. iv. 8.] [2In Ned. iv. 3 this is the actual
division. Of course, inanother sense the Midrash might be
considered as the sourceof both the Halakhah and the Haggadah.]
of which the onepointed to Scriptural investigation, the other to
what was tobe observed, and the third to oral teaching in the
widestsense. But Ezra left his work uncompleted. On
Nehemiah'ssecond arrival in Palestine, he found matters again in
astate of utmost confusion. [f Neh. xiii.] He must have feltthe need
of establishing some permanent authority to watchover religious
affairs. This we take to have been 'the GreatAssembly,' or, as it is
commonly called, the 'GreatSynagogue.' It is impossible with
certainty to determine, [3Very strange and ungrounded conjectures
on this subject havebeen hazarded, which need not here find a
place. Comp. forex. the two articles of Gratz in Frankel's
Montsschrift for1857, pp. 31 etc. 61 etc., the main positions of
which have,however, been adopted by some learned English
writers.]either who composed this assembly, or of how many
members itconsisted. [4 The Talmudic notices are often
inconsistent.The number as given in them amounts to about 120.
But themodern doubts (of Kuenen and others) against the
institutionitself cannot be sustained.] Probably it comprised
theleading men in Church and State, the chief priests, elders,and
'judges', the latter two classes including 'the Scribes,'if, indeed, that
order was already separately organised. [aEzra x. 14; Neh. v. 7.]
Probably also the term 'GreatAssembly' refers rather to a
succession of men than to oneSynod; the ingenuity of later times
filling such parts of thehistorical canvas as had been left blank
with fictitiousnotices. In the nature of things such an assembly
could notexercise permanent sway in a sparsely populated
country,without a strong central authority. Nor could they
havewielded real power during the political difficulties
andtroubles of foreign domination. The oldest tradition [b Ab.i. 1.]
sums up the result of their activity in this sentenceascribed to
them: 'Be careful in judgment, set up manyTalmidim, and make a
hedge about the Torah (Law).'
In the course of time this rope of sand dissolved. TheHigh-Priest,
Simon the Just, [c In the beginning of the thirdcentury B.C.] is
already designated as 'of the remnants ofthe Great Assembly.' But
even this expression does notnecessarily imply that he actually
belonged to it. In thetroublous times which followed his
Pontificate, the sacredstudy seems to have been left to solitary
individuals. TheMishnic tractate Aboth, which records 'the sayings
of theFathers,' here gives us only the name of Antigonus of
Socho.It is significant, that for the first time we now meet aGreek
name among Rabbinic authorities, together with anindistinct
allusion to his disciples. [d Ab. i. 3, 4] [1 Zunzhas well pointed out
that, if in Ab. i. 4 the first 'couple'is said to have 'received from
them', while only Antigonus ismentioned in the preceding
Mishnah, it must imply Antigonusand his unnamed disciples and
followers. In general, I maytake this opportunity of stating that,
except for specialreasons, I shall not refer to previous writers on
thissubject, partly because it would necessitate too
manyquotations, but chiefly because the line of argument I
havetaken differs from that of my predecessors.] The longinterval
between Simon theJust and Antigonus and hisdisciples, brings us
to the terrible time of AntiochusEpiphanes and the great Syrian
persecution. The very sayingsattributed to these two sound like an
echo of the politicalstate 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
(thenon-participation in Grecianism), and on works
ofrighteousness. [e Ab. i. 2.] They were dark times, when
God'spersecuted people were tempted to think, that it might bevain
to serve Him, in which Antigonus had it: 'Be not likeservants who
serve their master for the sake of reward, butbe like servants who
serve their lord without a view to thegetting of reward, and let the
fear of heaven be upon you.'[f Ab. i. 3.] After these two names
come those of theso-called five Zugoth, or 'couples,' of whom
Hillel andShammai are the last. Later tradition has represented
thesesuccessive couples as, respectively, the Nasi (president),and
Ab-beth-din (vice-president, of the Sanhedrin). Of thefirst three of
these 'couples' it may be said that, exceptsignificant allusions to
the circumstances and dangers oftheir times, their recorded
utterances clearly point to thedevelopment of purely Sopheric
teaching, that is, to theRabbinistic part of their functions. From the
fourth'couple,' which consists of Simon ben Shetach, who figured
solargely in the political history of the later Maccabees [1See
Appendix IV.: 'Political History of the Jews from theReign of
Alexander to the Accession of Herod.'] (asAb-beth-din), and his
superior in learning and judgment,Jehudah ben Tabbai (as Nasi),
we have again utterances whichshow, in harmony with the
political history of the time, thatjudicial functions had been once
more restored to the Rabbis.The last of five couples brings us to
the time of Herod andof Christ.
We have seen that, during the period of severe domestictroubles,
beginning with the persecutions under theSeleucidae, which
marked the mortal struggle between Judaismand Grecianism, the
'Great Assembly' had disappeared from thescene. The Sopherim
had ceased to be a party in power. Theyhad become the Zeqenim,
'Elders,' whose task was purelyecclesiastical, the perservation of
their religion, such asthe dogmatic labours of their predecessors
had made it. Yetanother period opened with the advent of the
Maccabees. Thesehad been raised into power by the enthusiasm of
the Chasidim,or 'pious ones,' who formed the nationalist party in
theland, and who had gathered around the liberators of theirfaith
and country. But the later bearing of the Maccabees hadalienated
the nationalists. Henceforth they sink out of view,or, rather, the
extreme section of them merged in the extremesection of the
Pharisees, till fresh national calamitiesawakened a new nationalist
party Instead of the Chasidim, wesee now two religious parties
within the Synagogue, thepharisees and the Sadducees. The latter
originallyrepresented a reaction from the Pharisees, the modern
men,who sympathised with the later tendencies of the
Maccabees.Josephus places the origin of these two schools in the
timeof Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabee, [a
160-143B.C.] and with this other Jewish notices agree.
Jonathanaccepted from the foreigner (the Syrian) the
High-Priestlydignity, and combined with it that of secular ruler.
But thisis not all. The earlier Maccabees surrounded themselves
witha governing eldership. [b The Pepovajia, 1 Maco. xii. 6;xiii.
36; xiv. 28; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. 9; 5. 8] [2 At the sametime some kind
of ruling existed earlier than at this period,if we may judge from
Jos. Ant. xii 3.3.] On the coins oftheir reigns this is designated as
the Chebher, or eldership(association) of the Jews. Thus, theirs
was what Josephusdesignates as an aristocratic government, [a
Ant. xi. 4. 8]and of which he somewhat vaguely says, that it lasted
'fromthe Captivity until the descendants of the Asmoneans set
upkingly government.' In this aristocratic government
theHigh-Priest would rather be the chief of a
representativeecclesiastical body of rulers. This state of things
continueduntil the great breach between Hycanus, the fourth from
JudasMaccabee, and the Pharisaical party, [1 Even Ber. 48
afurnishes evidence of this 'enmity.' On the hostile
relationsbetween the Pharisaical party and the Maccabees
seeHamburger, Real-Enc. ii. p. 367. Comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 5.]which
is equally recorded by Josephus [b Ant. xiii. 10. 5. 6]and the
Talmud, with only variations of names and details.The dispute
apparently arose from the desire of thePharisees, that Hycanus
should be content with the secularpower, and resign the
Pontificate. But it ended in thepersecution, and removal from
power, of the Pharisees. Verysignificantly, Jewish tradition
introduces again at this timethose purely ecclesiastical authorities
which are designatedas 'the couples.' [d Jer. Maas Sheni v. end, p.
56 d Jer.Sot. ix. p. 24 a] In accordance with this, altered state
ofthings, the name 'Chebher' now disappears from the coins ofthe
Maccabees, and Rabbinical celebrities ('the couples' orZugoth) are
only teachers of traditionalism, andecclesiastical authorities. The
'eldership,' which under theearlier Maccabees was called 'the
tribunal of the Asmoneans.'[f Sanh 82 a; Ab. Z. 36 b.] [2
Derenbourg takes a differentview, and identifies the tribunal of the
Asmoneans with theSanhedrin. This seems to me, historically,
impossible. Buthis opinion to that effect (u. s. p. 87) is
apparentlycontradicted at p. 93.] now passed into the Sanhedrin.
[3Schurer, following Wieseler, supposes the Sanhedrin to
havebeen of Roman institution. But the arguments of Wieseler
onthis point [Beitr. zur richt. Wurd. d. Evang. p. 224]
areinconclusive.] [g in the N.T also once Acts v. 21 and twiceSt.
Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii 5.] Thus we place the origin ofthis
institution about the time of Hyrcanus. With this Jewishtradition
fully agrees. [4 Comp. Derenbourg, u. s. p. 95.]The power of the
Sanhedrin would, of course, vary withpolitical circumstances,
being at times almost absolute, asin the reign of the Pharisaic
devotee-Queen, Alexandra, whileat others it was shorn of all but
ecclesiasticla authority.But as the Sanhedrin was in full force at
the time of Jesus,its organization will claim our attention in the
sequel.
After this brief outline of the origin and development of
aninstitution which exerted such decisive influence on thefuture of
Israel, it seems necessary similarly to trace thegrowth of the
'traditions of the Elders, 'so as to understandwhat, alas! so
effectually, opposed the new doctrine of theKingdom. The first
place must here be assigned to those legaldeterminations, which
traditionalism declared absolutelybinding on all, not only of equal,
but even greaterobligation than Scripture itself. [5 Thus we read:
'Thesayings of the elders have more weight than those of
theprophets' (Jer. Ber. i. 7); 'an offence against the sayingsof the
Scribes is worse than one against those of Scripture'(Sanh. xi. 3).
Compare also Er. 21 b The comparison betweensuch claims and
those sometimes set up on behalf of 'creeds'and 'articles' (Kitto's
Cyclop., 2nd ed., p. 786, col a) doesnot seem to me applicable. In
the introduction to the Midr.on Lament. it is inferred from Jer. ix.
12, 13, that toforsake the law, in the Rabbinic sense, was worse
thanadolatry, uncleanness, or the shedding of blood. Seegenerally
that Introduction.] And this not illogically, sincetradition was
equally 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 forseen in Biblical
times; and generallyguarded its sanctity by extending and adding
to itsprovisions, drawing 'a hedge,' around its 'garden
enclosed.'Thus, in new and dangerous circumstances, would the
fullmeaning of God's Law, to its every title and iota, beelicited 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 greatestmerit a Rabbi could claim was the
strictest adherence to thetraditions, which he had received from his
teacher. Nor mightone Sanhedrin annul, or set aside, the decrees of
itspredecessors. To such length did they go in this worship ofthe
letter, that the great Hillel was actually wont tomispronounce a
word, because his teacher before him had doneso. [a Eduy. i. 3.
See the comment of Maimonides.]
These traditional ordinances, as already stated, bear thegeneral
name of the Halakhah, as indicating alike the way inwhich the
fathers had walked, and that which their childrenwere bound to
follow. [1 It is so explained in the Aruch (edZandau, vol. ii. p. 529,
col b).] These Halakhoth were eithersimply the laws laid down in
Scripture; or else derived from,or traced to it by some ingenious
and artificial method ofexegesis; or added to it, by way of
amplification and forsafety's sake; or, finally, legalized customs.
They providedfor every possible and impossible case, entered into
everydetail of private, family, and public life; and with ironlogic,
unbending rigour, and most minute analysis pursued anddominated
man, turn whither he might, laying on him a yokewhich was truly
unbearable. The return which it offered wasthe pleasure and
distinction of knowledge, the acquisition ofrighteousness, and the
final attainment of rewards; one ofits chief advantages over our
modern traditionalism, that itwas expressly forbidden to draw
inferences from thesetraditions, which should have the force of
fresh legaldeterminations. [2 Comp. Hamburger, u.s. p 343.]
In describing the historical growth of the Halakhah, [3Comp. here
especially the detailed description by Herzfeld(u. s. vol. iii. pp.
226, 263); also the Introduction ofMaimonides, and the very able
and learned works (notsufficiently appreciated) by Dr. H. S.
Hirschfeld,Halachische Exegese (Berlin, 1840), and Hagadische
Exegese(Berlin, 1847). Perhaps I may also take leave to refer to
thecorresponding chapters in my 'History of the Jewish
Nation.'Similarly, the expressions in Ex. xxiv. 12 were
thusexplained: 'the tables of stone,' the ten commandments;
the'law,' the written Law; the 'commandments,' the Mishnah;'which
I have written,' the Prophets and Hagiographa; 'thatthou mayest
teach them,' the Talmud, which shows that theywere all given to
Moses on Sinai' (Ber. 5 a, lines 11-16). Alike application was
made of the various clauses in Cant.vii. 12 (Erub. 21 b). Nay, by
an alternation of the words inHos. vii. 10, it was shown that the
banished had been broughtback for the merit of their study (of the
sacrificialsections) of the Mishnah (Vayyik R. 7).] we may dismiss
in afew sentences the legends of Jewish tradition aboutpatriarchal
times. They assure us, that there was an Academyand a Rabbinic
tribunal of Shem, and they speak of traditionsdelivered by that
Patriarch to Jacob; of diligent attendanceby the latter on the
Rabbinic College; of a tractate (in 400sections) on idolatry by
Abraham, and of his observance ofthe whole traditional law; of the
introduction of the threedaily times of prayer, successively by
Abraham, Isaac, andJacob; of the three benedictions in the
customary 'grace atmeat,' as propounded by Moses, Joshua, and
David and Solomon;of the Mosaic introduction of the practice of
reading lessonsfrom the law on Sabbaths, New Moons, and Feast
Days, and evenon the Mondays and Thursdays; and of that, by the
sameauthority, of preaching on the three great festivals aboutthose
feasts. Further, they ascribe to Moses the arrangementof the
priesthood into eight courses (that into sixteen toSamuel, and that
into twenty-four to David), as also, theduration of the time for
marriage festivities, and formourning. But evidently these are
vague statements, with theobject of tracing traditionalism and its
observances toprimaeval times, even as legend had it, that Adam
was borncircumcised, [a Midr. Shochar Tobh on Ps. ix. 6. ed.
Warshau,p. 14 b; Abde R. Nath. 2.] and later writers that he had
keptall the ordinances.
But other principles apply to the traditions, from
Mosesdownwards. According to the Jewish view, God had given
Moseson Mount Sinai alike the oral and the written Law, that
is,the Law with all its interpretations and applications. FromEx.
xx. 1, it was inferred, that God had communicated toMoses the
Bible, the Mishnah, and Talmud, and the Haggadah,even to that
which scholars would in latest times propound.In answer to the
somewhat natural objection, why the Biblealone had been written,
it was said that Moses had proposedto write down all the teaching
entrusted to him, but theAlmighty had refused, on account of the
future subjection ofIsrael to the nations, who would take from
them the writtenLaw. Then the unwritten traditions would remain
to separatebetween Israel and the Gentiles. Popular exegesis found
thisindicated even in the language of prophecy. [b Hos.
viii12;comp. Shem. R. 47.]
But traditionalism went further, and placed the oralactually above
the written Law. The expression, [a Ex. xxxiv.27.] 'After the tenor
of these words I have made a covenantwith thee and with Israel,'
was explained as meaning, thatGod's covenant was founded on the
spoken, in opposition tothe written words. [b Jer. Chag. p. 76 d.] If
the written wasthus placed below the oral Law, we can scarcely
wonder thatthe reading of the Hagiographa was actually prohibited
to thepeople on the Sabbath, from fear that it might divertattention
from the learned discourses of the Rabbis. Thestudy of them on
that day was only allowed for the purpose oflearned investigation
and discussions. [c Tos. Shabb. xiv.][1. Another reason also is,
however, mentioned for hisprohibition.]
But if traditionalism was not to be committed to writing byMoses,
measures had been taken to prevent oblivion orinaccuracy. Moses
had always repeated a traditional lawsuccessively to Aaron, to his
sons, and to the elders of thepeople, and they again in turn to each
other, in such wise,that Aaron heard the Mishnah four times, his
sons threetimes, the Elders twice, and the people once. But even
thiswas not all, for by successive repetitions of Aaron, hissons, and
the Elders) the people also heard it four times. [dErub. 54b.] And,
before his death, Moses had summoned any oneto come forward,
if he had forgotten aught of what he hadheard and learned. [e Deut.
i. 5.] But these 'Halakhoth ofMoses from Sinai' do not make up the
whole of traditionalism.According to Maimonides, it consists of
five, but morecritically of three classes. [2 Hirschfeld, u. s. pp.
92-99.]The first of these comprises both such ordinances as
arefound in the Bible itself, and the so-called Halakhoth ofMoses
from Sinai, that is, such laws and usages as prevailedfrom time
immemorial, and which, according to the Jewishview, had been
orally delivered to, but not written down byMoses. For these,
therefore, no proof was to be sought inScripture, at most support,
or confirmatory allusion(Asmakhtu). [3 From to lean against. At
the same time theordinances, 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).] Nor were these open todiscussion.
The second class formed the 'oral law,' [f.] orthe 'traditional
teaching' [g.] in the stricter sense. Tothis class belonged all that
was supposed to be implied in,or that could be deduced from, the
Law of Moses. [4 Inconnection with this it is very significant that
R. Jochananben Zaccai, who taught not many years after the
Crucifixionof Christ, was wont to say, that, in the future,
Halakhahs inregard to purity, which had not the support of
Scripture,would be repeated (Sot. 27 b, line 16 from top). In
general,the teaching of R. Jochanan should be studied to
understandthe unacknowledged influence which Christianity
exercisedupon the Synagogue.] The latter contained, indeed,
insubstance or germ, everything; but it had not been broughtout,
till circumstances successfully evolved what from thefirst had been
provided in principle. For this class ofordinances reference to, and
proof from, Scripture wasrequired. Not so for the third class of
ordinances, whichwere 'the hedge' drawn by the Rabbis around the
Law, toprevent any breach of the Law or customs, to ensure
theirexact observance, or to meet peculiar circumstances
anddangers. These ordinances constituted 'the sayings of
theScribes' or 'of the Rabbis' [1 But this is not always.] , andwere
either positive in their character (Teqqanoth), or elsenegative
(Gezeroth from gazar to cut off'). Perhaps thedistinction of these
two cannot always be strictly carriedout. But it was probably to
this third class especially,confessedly unsupported by Scripture,
that these words ofChrist referred: [c St. Matt. xxiii. 3, 4.] 'All
thereforewhatsoever they tell you, that do and observe; but do not
yeafter their works: for they say, and do not. For they bindheavy
burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men'sshoulders;
but with their finger they will not move them away(set in motion).'
[2 To elucidate the meaning of Christ, itseemed necessary to
submit an avowedly difficult text tofresh criticism. I have taken
the word moveo in the sense ofire facio (Grimm, Clavis N.T. ed.
2(da), p. 241 a), but Ihave not adopted the inference of Meyer
(Krit. Exeget. Handb.p. 455). In classical Greek also is used for 'to
remove, toalter.' My reasons against what may be called the
traditionalinterpretation of St. Matt. xxiii. 3, 4, are: 1. It
seemsscarcely possible to suppose that, before such an
audience,Christ would have contemplated the possiblity of
notobserving either of the two first classes of Halakhoth,
whichwere regarded as beyond controversy. 2. It could scarcely
betruthfully charged against the Scribes and Pharisees, thatthey did
not attempt to keep themselves the ordinances whichthey imposed
upon others. The expression in the parallelpassage (St. Luke xi.
46) must be explained in accordancewith the commentation on St.
Matt. xxiii. 4. Nor is there anyserious difficulty about it.] This
view has two-foldconfirmation. For, this third class of Halakhic
ordinanceswas the only one open to the discussion of the learned,
theultimate decision being according to the majority. Yet
itpossessed practically (though not theoretically) the sameauthority
as the other two classes. In further confirmationof our view the
following may be quoted: 'A Gezerah (i.e.this third class of
ordinances) is not to be laid on thecongregation, unless the
majority of the congregation is ableto bear it' [d B. Kam. 79.] ,
words which read like acommentary on those of Jesus, and show
that these burdenscould be laid on, or moved away, according to
the varyingjudgment or severity of a Rabbinic College. [3 For
theclassification, arrangement, origin, and enumeration of
theseHalakhoth, see Appendix V.: 'Rabbinic Theology
andliterature.']
This body of traditional ordinances forms the subject of
theMishnah, or second, repeated law. We have here to place onone
side the Law of Moses as recorded in the Pentateuch, asstanding
by itself. All else, even the teaching of theProphets and of the
Hagiographa, as well as the oraltraditions, bore the general name
of Qabbalah, 'that whichhas been received.' The sacred study, or
Midrash, in theoriginal application of the term, concerned either
theHalakhah, traditional ordinance, which was always 'that
whichwas said' upon the authority of individuals, not as
legalordinance. It was illustration, commentary, anecdote, cleveror
learned saying, &c. At first the Halakhah remainedunwritten,
probably owing to the disputes between Phariseesand Sadducees.
But the necessity of fixedness and order ledin course of time to
more or less complete collections of theHalakhoth. [1 See the
learned remarks of Levy about thereasons for the earlier
prohibition of writing down the orallaw, and the final collection of
the Mishnah (Neuhebr. u.Chald. Worterb. vol. ii. p. 435).] The
oldest of these isascribed to R. Akiba, in the time of the Emperor
Hadrian. [a132-135 A.D.] [2 These collections are enumerated in
theMidrash on eccles. xii. 3. They are also distinguished as'the
former' and 'the later' Mishnah (Nedar. 91 a).] But theauthoritative
collection in the so-called Mishhan is the workof Jehudah the
Holy, who died about the end of the secondcentury of our era.
Altogether, the Mishnah comprises six 'Orders' (Sedarim),each
devoted to a special class of subjects. [3 The first'Order' (Zeraim,
'seeds') begins with the ordinancesconcerning 'benedictions,' or the
time, mode, manner, andcharacter of the prayers prescribed. It then
goes on todetail what may be called the religio-agrarian laws (such
astithing, Sabbatical years, first fruits, &c.). The second'Order'
(Moed, 'festive time') discusses all connected withthe Sabbath
observance and the other festivals. The third'Order' (Nashim,
'women') treats of all that concernsbetrothal, marriage and divorce,
but also includes a tractateon the Nasirate. The fourth 'Order'
(Neziqin, 'damages')contains the civil and criminal law.
Characteristically, itincludes all the ordinances concerning
idol-worship (in thetractate Abhodah Zarah) and 'the sayings of the
Fathers'(Abhoth). The fifth 'Order' (Qodashim, 'holy things')
treatsof the various classes of sacrifices, offerings, and
thingsbelonging (as the first-born), or dedicated, to God, and ofall
questions which can be grouped under 'sacred things'(such as the
redemption, exchange, or alienation of what hadbeen dedicated to
God). It also includes the laws concerningthe daily morning and
evening service (Tamid), and adescription of the structure and
arrangements of the Temple(Middoth, 'the measurements').
Finally, the sixth 'Order'(Toharoth, 'cleannesses') gives every
ordinance connectedwith the questions of 'clean and unclean,' alike
as regardshuman beings, animals, and inanimate things.] These
'Orders'are divided into tractates (Massikhtoth,
Massekhtiyoth,'textures, webs'), of which there are sixty-three (or
elsesixty-two) in all. These tractates are again subdivided
intochapters (Peraqim), in all 525, which severally consist of
acertain number of verses, or Mishnahs (Mishnayoth, in all4,187).
Considering the variety and complexity of thesubjects treated, the
Mishnah is arranged with remarkablelogical perspicuity. The
language is Hebrew, though of coursenot that of the Old
Testament. The words rendered necessaryby the new
circumstances are chiefly derived from the Greek,the Syriac, and
the Latin, with Hebrew terminations. [1 Comp.the very interesting
tractate by Dr. Brill (FremdsprRedensart in d. Talmud), as well as
Dr. Eisler's Beitrage z.Rabb. u. Alterthumsk., 3 fascic; Sachs,
Beitr. z. Rabb u.Alterthumsk.] But all connected with social
intercourse, orordinary 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
theHalakhoth collected in the Mishnah. Some that had not
beenrecorded there, found a place in the works of certain
Rabbis,or were derived from their schools. These are
calledBoraithas, that is, traditions external to the Mishnah.Finally,
there were 'additions' (or Tosephtoth), dating afterthe completion
of the Mishnah, but probably not later thanthe third century of our
era. Such there are to not fewerthan fifty-two out of the sixty-three
Mishnic tractates. Whenspeaking of the Halakhah as distinguished
from the Haggadah,we must not, however, suppose that the latter
could beentirely separated from it. In point of fact, one
wholetractate in the Mishnah (Aboth: The Sayings of the
'Fathers')is entirely Haggadah; a second (Middoth: the
'Measurements ofthe Temple') has Halakhah in only fourteen
places; while inthe rest of the tractates Haggadah occurs in not
fewer than207 places. [2 Comp. the enumeration in Pinner, u. s.]
Onlythirteen out of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah
areentirely free from Haggadah.
Hitherto we have only spoken of the Mishnah. But thiscomprises
only a very small part of traditionalism. In courseof time the
discussions, illustrations, explanations, andadditions to which the
Mishnah gave rise, whether in itsapplication, or in the Academies
of the Rabbis, wereauthoritatively collected and edited in what are
known as thetwo Talmuds or Gemaras. [3 Talmud: that which is
learned,doctrine.Gemara: either the same, or else
'perfection,'completion.'] If we imagine something combining law
reports,a Rabbinical 'Hansard,' and notes of a theological
debatingclub, all thoroughly Oriental, full of
digressions,anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too
often ofwhat, from its profanity, superstition, and even
obscenity,could scarcely be quoted, we may form some general
idea ofwhat the Talmud is. The oldest of these two Talmuds
datesfrom about the close of the fourth century of our era. It isthe
product of the Palestinian Academies, and hence calledthe
Jerusalem Talmud. The second is about a century younger,and the
outcome of the Babylonian schools, hence called theBabylon
(afterwards also 'our') Talmud. We do not possesseither of these
works complete. [1 The following will explainour meaning: On the
first 'order' we have the JerusalemTalmud complete, that is, on
every tractate (comprising inall 65 folio leaves), while the Babylon
Talmud extends onlyover its first tractate (Berakhoth). On the
second order, thefour last chapters of one tractate (Shabbath) are
wanting inthe Jerusalem, and one whole tractate (Sheqalim) in
theBabylon Talmud. The third order is complete in both
Gemaras.On the fourth order a chapter is wanting in one
tractate(Makkoth) in the Jerusalem, and two whole tractates
(Eduyothand Abhoth) in both Gemaras. The fifth order is
whollywanting in the Jerusalem, and two and a half tractates of
itBabylon Talmud. Of the sixth order only one tractate
(Niddah)exists in both Gemaras. The principal Halakhoth
werecollected in a work (dating from about 800 A.D.)
entitledHalakhoth Gedoloth. They are arranged to correspond with
theweekly lectionary of the Pentateuch in a work entitledSheeltoth
('Questions:' bested. Dghernfurth, 1786). TheJerusalem Talmud
extends over 39, the Babylonian over 36 1/2tractates, 15 1/2
tractates have no Gemara at all.] The mostdefective is the
Jerusalem Talmud, which is also muchbriefer, and contains far
fewer discussions than that ofBabylon. The Babylon Talmud,
which in its present formextends over thirty-six out of the
sixty-three tractates ofthe Mishnah, is about ten or eleven times the
size of thelatter, and more than four times that of the
JerusalemTalmud. It occupies (in our editions), with
marginalcommentations, 2,947 folio leaves (pages a and b).
BothTalmuds are written in Aramaean; the one in its western,
theother in its eastern dialect, and in both the Mishnah isdiscussed
seriatim, and clause by clause. Of the character ofthese discussions
it would be impossible to convey anadequate idea. When we bear
in mind the many sparkling,beautiful, and occasionally almost
sublime passages in theTalmud, but especially that its forms of
thought andexpression so often recall those of the New Testament,
onlyprejudice and hatred could indulge in
indiscriminatevituperation. On the other hand, it seems
unaccountable howany one who has read a Talmudic tractate, or
even part ofone, could compare the Talmud with the New
Testament, or findin the one the origin of the other.
To complete our brief survey, it should be added that oureditions
of the Babylon Talmud contain (at the close of vol.ix. and after the
fourth 'Order') certain Boraithas. Of thesethere were originally
nine, but two of the smaller tractates(on 'the memorial fringes,' and
on 'non-Israelites') have notbeen preserved. The first of these
Boraithas is entitledAbhoth de Rabbi Nathan, and partially
corresponds with atractate of a similar name in the Mishnah. [2
The last tenchapters curiously group together events or things
undernumerals from 10 downwards. The most generally interesting
ofthese is that of the 10 Nequdoth, or passages of Scripture
inwhich letters are marked by dots, together with theexplanation of
their reasons (ch. xxxiv.). The whole Boraithaseems composed of
parts of three different works, andconsists of forty (or forty-one)
chapters, and occupies tenfolio leaves.] Next follow six minor
tractates. These arerespectively entitled Sopherim (Scribes), [1 In
twenty-onechapters, each containing a number of Halakhahs,
andoccupying in all four folio leaves.] detailing the
ordinancesabout copying the Scriptures, the ritual of the
Lectionary,and festive prayers; Ebhel Rabbathi or Semakhoth, [2
Infourteen chapters, occupying rather more than three folioleaves.]
containing Halakhah and Haggadah about funeral andmourning
observances; Kallah, [3 It fills little more than afolio page.] on the
married relationship; Derekh Erets, [4 Ineleven chapters, covering
about 1 3/4 folio leaves.]embodying moral directions and the rules
and customs ofsocial intercourse; Derekh Erets Zuta, [5 In nine
chapters,filling one folio leaf.] treating of similar subjects, but
asregards learned students; and, lastly, the Pereq ha Shalom,[6
Little more than a folio column.] which is a eulogy onpeace. All
these tractates date, at least in their presentform, later than the
Talmudic period. [7 Besides these,Raphael Kirchheim has
published (Frankfort, 1851) theso-called seven smaller tractates,
covering altogether, withabundant notes, only forty-four small
pages, which treat ofthe copying of the Bible (Sepher Torah, in
five chapters), ofthe Mezuzah, or memorial on the doorposts (in
two chapters),of the Tsitsith, (Tephillin, in one chapter), of
theTsitsith, or memorial-fringes (in one chapter), of
Slaves(Abhadim, in three chapters) of the Cutheans, or
Samaritans(in two chapters), and, finally, a curious tractate
onProselytes (Gerim, in four chapters).]
But when the Halakhah, however varied in its application,was
something fixed and stable, the utmost latitude wasclaimed and
given in the Haggadah. It is sadlycharacteristic, that, practically,
the main body of Jewishdogmatic and moral theology is really only
Haggadah, andhence of no absolute authority. The Halakhah
indicated withthe most minute and painful punctiliousness every
legalordinance as to outward observances, and it explained
everybearing of the Law of Moses. But beyond this it left theinner
man, the spring of actions, untouched. What he was tobelieve and
what to feel, was chiefly matter of the Haggadah.Of course the
laws of morality, and religion, as laid down inthe Pentateuch, were
fixed principles, but there was thegreatest divergence and latitude
in the explanation andapplication of many of them. A man might
hold or propoundalmost any views, so long as he contravened not
the Law ofMoses, as it was understood, and adhered in teaching
andpractice to the traditional ordinances. In principle it wasthe
same liberty which the Romish Church accords to itsprofessing
members, only with much wider application, sincethe debatable
ground embraced so many matters of faith, andthe liberty given
was not only that of private opinion but ofpublic utterance. We
emphasise this, because the absence ofauthoritative direction and
the latitude in matters of faithand inner feeling stand side by side,
and in such sharpcontrast, with the most minute punctiliousness in
all mattersof outward observance. And here we may mark the
fundamentaldistinction between the teaching of Jesus and
Rabbinism. Heleft the Halakhah untouched, putting it, as it were,
on oneside, as something quite secondary, while He insisted
asprimary on that which to them was chiefly matter of
Haggadah.And this rightly so, for, in His own words, 'Not that
whichgoeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which
comethout of the mouth,' since 'those things which proceed out
ofthe mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile theman.' [a
St. Matt. xv. 11, 18.] The difference was one offundamental
principle, and not merely of development, form,or detail. The one
developed the Law in its outward directionas ordinances and
commandments; the other in its inwarddirection as life and liberty.
Thus Rabbinism occupied onepole, and the outcome of its
tendency to pure externalism wasthe Halakhah, all that was
internal and higher being merelyHaggadic. The teaching of Jesus
occupied the opposite pole.Its starting-point was the inner
sanctuary in which God wasknown and worshipped, and it might
well leave the RabbinicHalakhoth aside, as not worth controversy,
to be in themeantime 'done and observed,' in the firm assurance
that, inthe course of its development, the spirit would create
itsown appropriate forms, or, to use a New Testament figure,
thenew wine burst the old bottles. And, lastly, as closelyconnected
with all this, and marking the climax ofcontrariety: Rabbinism
started with demand of outwardobedience and righteousness, and
pointed to sonship as itsgoal; the Gospel started with the free gift
of forgivenessthrough faith and of sonship, and pointed to
obedience andrighteousness as its goal.
In truth, Rabbinism, as such, had no system of theology;only what
ideas, conjectures, or fancies the Haggadah yieldedconcerning
God, Angels, demons, man, his future destiny andpresent position,
and Israel, with its past history andcoming glory. Accordingly, by
the side of what is noble andpure, what a terrible mass of utter
incongruities, ofconflicting statements and too often debasing
superstitions,the outcome of ignorance and narrow nationalism; of
legendarycolouring of Biblical narratives and scenes, profane,
coarse,and degrading to them; the Almighty Himself and His
Angelstaking part in the conversations of Rabbis, and
thediscussions of Academies; nay, forming a kind of
heavenlySanhedrin, which occasionally requires the aid of an
earthlyRabbi. [1 Thus, in B. Mez. 86 a, we read of a discussion
inthe heavenly Academy on the subject of purity, when Rabbahwas
summoned to heaven by death, although this required amiracle,
since he was constantly engaged in sacred study.Shocking to write,
it needed the authority of Rabbah toattest the correctness of the
Almighty's statement on theHalakhic question discussed.] The
miraculous merges into theridiculous, and even the revolting.
Miraculous cures,miraculous supplies, miraculous help, all for the
glory ofgreat Rabbis, who by a look or word can kill, and restore
tolife. At their bidding the eyes of a rival fall out, and areagain
inserted. Nay, such was the veneration due to Rabbis,that R.
Joshua used to kiss the stone on which R. Eliezer hadsat 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 suchstories. It should own the
terrible contrast existing side byside: Hebrewism and Judaism, the
Old Testament andtraditionalism; and it should recognise its
deeper cause inthe absence of that element of spiritual and inner
life whichChrist has brought. Thus as between the two - the old
and thenew - it may be fearlessly asserted that, as regards
theirsubstance and spirit, there is not a difference, but a
totaldivergence, of fundamental principle between Rabbinism
andthe New Testament, so that comparison between them is
notpossible. Here there is absolute contrariety.
The painful fact just referred to is only too clearlyillustrated by the
relation in which traditionalism placesitself to the Scriptures of the
Old Testament, even though itacknowledges their inspiration and
authority. The Talmud hasit, [a Baba Mets. 33 a] that he who
busies himselfwithScripture only (i.e. without either the Mishnah
or Gemara)has merit, and yet no merit. Even the comparative
paucity ofreferences to the Bible in the Mishnah is significant
Israelhad made void the Law by its traditions. Under a load
ofoutward ordinances and observances its spirit had beencrushed.
The religion as well as the grand hope of the OldTestament had
become externalized. And so alike Heathenismand Judaism - for it
was no longer the pure religion of theOld Testament - each
following its own direction, had reachedits goal. All was prepared
and waiting. The very porch hadbeen built, through which the new,
and yet old, religion wasto pass into the ancient world, and the
ancient world intothe new religion. Only one thing was needed: the
Coming ofthe Christ. As yet darkness covered the earth, and
grossdarkness lay upon the people. But far away the golden lightof
the new day was already tingeing the edge of the horizon.Presently
would the Lord arise upon Zion, and His glory beseen upon her.
Presently would the Voice from out thewilderness prepare the way
of the Lord; presently would itherald the Coming of His Christ to
Jew and Gentile, and thatKingdom of heaven, which, established
upon earth, isrighteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
[1 Fordetails on the Jewish views on the Canon, and historical
andmystical theology, see Appendix V.: 'Rabbinic Theology
andLiterature.']
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
IN JERUSALEM WHEN HEROD REIGNED
CHAPTER I
IF the dust of ten centuries could have been wiped from theeyelids
of those sleepers, and one of them who throngedJerusalem in the
highday of its glory, during the reign ofKing Solomon, had
returned to its streets, he would scarcelyhave recognised the once
familiar city. Then, as now, aJewish king reigned, who bore
undivided rule over the wholeland; then, as now, the city was filled
with riches andadorned with palaces and architectural monuments;
then, asnow, Jerusalem was crowded with strangers from all
lands.Solomon and Herod were each the last Jewish king over
theLand of Promise; [1 I do not here reckon the brief reign ofKing
Agrippa.] Solomon and Herod, each, built the Temple. Butwith the
son of David began, and with the Idumaean ended,'the kingdom';
or rather, having fulfilled its mission, itgave place to the spiritual
world-kingdom of 'David's greaterSon.' The sceptre departed from
Judah to where the nationswere to gather under its sway. And the
Temple which Solomonbuilt was the first. In it the Shekhinah
dwelt visibly. TheTemple which Herod reared was the last. The
ruins of itsburning, which the torch of the Romans had kindled,
werenever to be restored. Herod was not the antitype, he was
theBarabbas, of David's Royal Son.
In other respects, also, the difference was almost equallygreat. The
four 'companion-like' hills on which the city wasbuilt, [a Ps. cxxii]
the deep clefts by which it wassurrounded, the Mount of Olives
rising in the the east, werethe same as a thousand years ago. There,
as of old were thePool of Siloam and the royal gardens, nay, the
very wall thathad then surrounded the city. And yet all was so
altered asto be scarcely recognisable. The ancient Jebusite fort,
theCity of David, Mount Zion, [2 It will be seen that, with themost
recent explorers, I locate Mount Zion not on thetraditional site, on
the western hill of Jerusalem, but ontheeastern, south of the
Temple area.] was now the priests'quarter, Ophel, andthe old royal
palace and stables had beenthrown into the Temple area, now
completely levelled, wherethey formed the magnificent treble
colonnade, known as theRoyal Porch. Passing through it, and out
by the Western Gateof the Temple, we stand on the immense
bridge which spans the'Valley of the Cheesemongers,' or the
Tyropoeon, and connectsthe Eastern with the Western hills of the
city. It is perhapshere that we can best mark the outstanding
features, and notethe changes. On the right, as we look northward,
are (on theEastern hill) Ophel, the Priest-quarter, and the Temple,
oh,how wondrously beautiful and enlarged, and rising terraceupon
terrace, surrounded by massive walls: a palace, afortress, a
Sanctuary of shining marble and glittering gold.And beyond it
frowns the old fortress of Baris, rebuilt byHerod, and named after
his patron, Antonia. This is the Hillof Zion. Right below us is the
cleft of the Tyropoeon, andhere creeps up northwards the 'Lower
City' or Acra, in theform of a crescent, widening into an almost
square 'suburb.'Across the Tyropoeon, westward, rises the 'Upper
City.' Ifthe Lower City and suburb form the business-quarter with
itsmarkets, bazaars, and streets of trades and guilds, the'Upper
City' is that of palaces. Here, at the other end ofthe great bridge
which connects the Temple with the 'UpperCity,' is the palace of
the Maccabees; beyond it, the Xystos,or vast colonnaded
enclosure, where popular assemblies areheld; then the Palace of
Ananias the High-Priest, and nearestto the Temple, 'the Council
Chamber' and public Archives.Behind it, westwards, rise, terrace
upon terrace, the statelymansions of the Upper City, till, quite in
the north-westcorner of the old city, we reach the Palace which
Herod hadbuilt for himself, almost a city and fortress, flanked
bythree high towers, and enclosing spacious gardens. Beyond
itagain, and outside the city walls, both of the first and thesecond,
stretches all north of the city the new suburb ofBezetha. Here on
every side are gardens and villas; herepasses the great northern
road; out there must they have laidhold on Simon the Cyrenian,
and here must have led the way tothe place of the Crucifixion.
Changes that marked the chequered course of Israel's historyhad
come even over the city walls. The first and oldest, thatof David
and Solomon, ran round the west side of the UpperCity, then
crossed south to the Pool of Siloam, and ran upeast, round Ophel,
till it reached the eastern enclosure ofthe Temple, whence it passed
in a straight line to the pointfrom which it had started, forming the
northern boundary ofthe ancient city. But although this wall still
existed, therewas now a marked addition to it. When the Maccabee
Jonathanfinally cleared Jerusalem of the Syrian garrison that lay
inFort Acra, [a 1 Macc. i. 33, and often; but the precisesituation of
this 'fort' is in dispute] he built a wall right'through the middle of
the city,' so as to shut out the foe.[b 1 Macc. xii. 36; Jos. Ant. xiii.
5. 11; comp. with it xiv.16. 2; War vi. 7. 2; 8. 1] This wall
probably ran from thewestern angle of the Temple southwards, to
near the pool ofSiloam, following the winding course of the
Tyropoeon, but onthe other side of it, where the declivity of the
Upper Citymerged in the valley. Another monument of the Syrian
Wars, ofthe Maccabees, and of Herod, was the fortress Antonia.
Partof it had, probably, been formerly occupied by what was
knownas Fort Acra, of such unhappy prominence in the wars
thatpreceded and marked the early Maccabean period. it had
passedfrom the Ptolemies to the Syrians, and always formed
thecentral spot round which the fight for the city turned.
JudasMaccabee had not been able to take it. Jonathan had
laidsiege to it, and built the wall, to which reference has justbeen
made, so as to isolatc its garrison. It was at lasttaken by Simon, the
brother and successor of Jonathan, andlevelled with the ground. [c
141 B.C.] Fort Baris, which wasconstructed by his successor
Hyrcanus I., [d 135-106 B.C.]covered a much wider space. It lay
on the northwestern angleof the Temple, slightly jutting beyond it
in the west, butnot covering the whole northern area of the
Temple. The rockon which it stood was higher than the Temple, [1
It is, tosay the least, doubtful, whether the numeral 50 cubits
(75feet), which Josephus assigns to this rock (War v. 5. 8),applies
to its height (comp. Speiss, Das Jerus. d. Jos.p.66).] although lower
than the hill up which the new suburbBezetha crept, which,
accordingly, was cut off by a deepditch, for the safety of the
fortress. Herod greatly enlargedand strengthened it. Within
encircling walls the fort rose toa height of sixty feet, and was
flanked by four towers, ofwhich three had a height of seventy, the
fourth (S.E.), whichjutted into the Temple area, of 105 feet, so as
to commandthe sacred enclosure. A subterranean passage led into
theTemple itself, [e Ant. xv. 11. 7]which was also connectedwith it
by colonnades and stairs. Herod had adorned as wellas
strengthened and enlarged, this fort (now Antonia), andmade it a
palace, an armed camp, and almost a city. [f Jos.War v. 5. 8]
Hitherto we have only spoken of the first, or old wall,which was
fortified by sixty towers. The second wall, whichhad only fourteen
towers, began at some point in the northernwall at the Gate
Gennath, whence it ran north, and then east,so as to enclose Acra
and the Suburb. It terminated at FortAntonia. Beyond, and all
around this second wall stretched,as already noticed, the new, as
yet unenclosed suburbBezetha, rising towards the north-east. But
these changeswere as nothing compared with those within the city
itself.First and foremost was the great transformation in the
Templeitself, [1 I must take leave to refer to the description
ofJerusalem, and especially of the Temple, in the 'Temple andits
Services at the Time of Jesus Christ.'] which, from asmall
building, little larger than an ordinary church, in thetime of
Solomon, [2 Dr. Muhlau, in Riehm's Handworterb. Partviii. p. 682
b, speaks of the dimensions of the old Sanctuaryas little more than
those of a village church.] had becomethat great and glorious
House which excited the admiration ofthe foreigner, and kindled
the enthusiasm of every son ofIsrael. At the time of Christ it had
been already forty-sixyears in building, and workmen were still,
and for a longtime, engaged on it. [3 It was only finished in 64
A.D., thatis, six years before its destruction.] But what
aheterogeneous crowd thronged its porches and courts!Hellenists;
scattered wanderers from the most distant partsof the earth, east,
west, north, and south; Galileans, quickof temper and uncouth of
Jewish speech; Judaeans andJerusalemites; white-robed Priests
and Levites; Templeofficials; broad-phylacteried, wide-fringed
Pharisees, andcourtly, ironical Sadducees; and, in the outer court,
curiousGentiles! Some had come to worship; others to pay vows,
orbring offerings, or to seek purification; some to meetfriends, and
discourse on religious subjects in thosecolonnaded porches, which
ran round the Sanctuary; or else tohave their questions answered,
or their causes heard anddecided, by the smaller Sanhedrin of
twenty-three, that satin the entering of the gate or by the Great
Sanhedrin. Thelatter 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-Priestlyfamily of Ananias, and where such profitable trade
was drivenby those who, in their cupidity and covetousness, were
worthysuccessors of the sons of Eli. In the Court of the Gentiles(or
in its porches) sat the official money-changers, who fora fixed
discount changed all foreign coins into those of theSanctuary. Here
also was that great mart for sacrificialanimals, and all that was
requisite for offerings. How thesimple, earnest country people,
who came to pay vows, orbring offerings for purifying, must have
wondered, and feltoppressed in that atmosphere of strangely
blended religiousrigorism and utter worldliness; and how they
must have beentaxed, imposed upon, and treated with utmost
curtness, nay,rudeness, by those who laughed at their boorishness,
anddespised them as cursed, ignorant country people, littlebetter
than heathens, or, for that matter, than brute beasts.Here also there
lay about a crows of noisy beggars, unsightlyfrom disease, and
clamorous for help. And close by passed theluxurious scion of the
High-Priestly families; the proud,intensely self-conscious Teacher
of the Law, respectfullyfollowed by his disciples; and the
quick-witted, subtleScribe. These were men who, on Sabbaths and
feast-days, wouldcome out on the Temple-terrace to teach the
people, orcondescend to answer their questions; who in the
Synagogueswould hold their puzzled hearers spell-bound by
theirtraditional lore and subtle argumentation, or tickle thefancy of
the entranced multitude, that thronged everyavailable space, by
their ingenious frivolities, theirmarvellous legends, or their clever
sayings; but who would,if occasion required, quell an opponent by
well-poisedquestions, or crush him beneath the sheer weight
ofauthority. Yet others were there who, despite the utterlylowering
influence which the frivolities of the prevalentreligion, and the
elaborate trifling of its endlessobservances, must have exercised
on the moral and religiousfeelings of all, perhaps, because of them,
turned aside, andlooked back with loving gaze to the spiritual
promises of thepast, and forward with longing expectancy to the
near'consolation of Israel,' waiting for it in prayerfulfellowship,
and with bright, heaven-granted gleams of itsdawning light amidst
the encircling gloom.
Descending from the Temple into the city, there was morethan
enlargement, due to the increased population.Altogether,
Jerusalem covered, at its greatest, about 300acres. [1 See Conder,
Heth and Moab, p. 94.]As of old therewere still the same narrow
streets in the business quarters;but in close contiguity to bazaars
and shops rose statelymansions of wealthy merchants, and palaces
of princes. [2Such as the Palace of Grapte, and that of Queen
Helena ofAdiabene.] And what a change in the aspect of these
streets,in the character of those shops, and, above all, in
theappearance of the restless Eastern crowd that surged to andfro!
Outside their shops in the streets, or at least in sightof the passers,
and within reach of their talk, was theshoemaker hammering his
sandals, the tailor plying hisneedle, the carpenter, or the worker in
iron and brass. Thosewho were less busy, or more enterprising,
passed along,wearing some emblem of their trade: the dyer,
variouslycoloured threads; the carpenter, a rule: the writer, a
reedbehind his ear; the tailor, with a needle prominently stuckin
his dress. In the side streets the less attractiveoccupations of the
butcher, the wool-comber, or theflaxspinner were pursued: the
elegant workmanship of thegoldsmith and jeweller; the various
articles de luxe, thatadorned the houses of the rich; the work of the
designer, themoulder, or the artificer in iron or brass. In these
streetsand lanes everything might be purchased: the production
ofPalestine, or imported from foreign lands, nay, the rarestarticles
from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped,curiously designed and
jewelled cups, rings and otherworkmanship of precious metals;
glass, silks, fine linen,woollen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings;
essences,ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles
offood and drink from foreign lands, in short, what India,Persia,
Arabia, Media Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even thefar-off lands of
the Gentiles yielded, might be had in thesebazaars.
Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than118
different articles of import from foreign lands, coveringmore than
even modern luxury has devised. Articles of luxury,especially from
abroad, fetched indeed enormous prices; and alady might spend
36l. on a cloak; [a Baba B. ix. 7.] silkwould be paid by its weight
in gold; purple wool at 3l. 5s.the pound, or, if double-dyed, at
almost ten times thatamount; while the price of the best balsam
and nard was mostexorbitant. On the other hand, the cost of
common living wasvery low. In the bazaars you might get a
complete suit foryour slave for eighteen or nineteen shillings, [b
Arakh. vi.5.] and a tolerable outfit for yourself from 3l. to
6l.Forthe same sum you might purchase an ass, [c Baba K. x. 4.]
anox, [d Men. xiii. 8; or a cow, [e Tos. Sheq. ii.; Tos. Ar.iv.] and ,
for little more, a horse. A calf might be had forless than fifteen
shillings, a goat for five or six. [f Men.xiii. 8.] Sheep were dearer,
and fethed from four to fifteenor sixteen shillings, while a lamb
might sometimes be had aslow 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 asmall, of course unfurnished, lodging for about sixpence
aweek. [g Tos. Baba Mets. iv.] A day labourer was paid about
71/2d. a day, though skilled labour would fetch a good dealmore.
Indeed, the great Hillel was popularly supposed to havesupported
his family on less than twopence a day, [h Yoma 35b.] while
property to the amount of about 6l., or trade with2l. or 3l. of
goods, was supposed to exclude a person fromcharity, or a claim
on what was left in the corners of fieldsand the gleaners. [i Peah
viii. 8, 9.]
To these many like details might be added. [1 Comp.Herzfeld's
Handelsgesch.] Sufficient has been said to showthe two ends of
society: the exceeding dearness of luxuries,and the corresponding
cheapness of necessaries. Such extremeswould meet especially at
Jerusalem. Its population, computedat from 200,000 to 250,000, [2
Ancient Jerusalem is supposedto have covered about double the
area of the modern city.Comp. Dr. Schick in A.M. Luncz,
'Jerusalem,' for 1882.] wasenormously swelled by travellers, and
by pilgrims during thegreat festivals. [1 Although Jerusalem
covered only about 300acres, yet, from the narrowness of Oriental
streets, it wouldhold a very much larger population than any
Western city ofthe same extent. Besides, we must remember that
itsecclesiastical boundaries extended beyond the city.] Thegreat
Palace was the residence of King and Court, with alltheir
following and luxury; in Antonia lay afterwards theRoman
garrison. The Temple called thousands of priests, manyof them
with their families, to Jerusalem; while the learnedAcademies
were filled with hundreds, though it may have beenmostly poor,
scholars and students. In Jerusalem must havebeen many of the
large warehouses for the near commercialharbour of Joppa; and
thence, as from the industrial centresof busy Galilee, would the
pedlar go forth to carry his waresover the land. More especially
would the markets ofJerusalem, held, however, in bazaars and
streets rather thanin squares, be thronged with noisy sellers and
bargainingbuyers. Thither would Galilee send not only its
manufactures,but its provisions: fish (fresh or salted), fruit [a
Maaser.ii. 3.] known for its lusciousness, oil, grape-syrup,
andwine. There were special inspectors for these markets,
theAgardemis or Agronimos, who tested weights and measures,
andofficially stamped them, [b Baba B. 89 a.] tried thesoundness
of food or drink, [c Jer. Ab. Z 44 b; Ab. Z. 58 a.]and occasionally
fixed or lowered the market-prices,enforcing their decision, [d Jer.
Dem 22 c.] if need were,even with the stick. [e Yoma 9 a.] [2On
the question ofofficially fixing the market-price, diverging
opinions areexpressed, Baba B. 89 b. It was thought that the
market-priceshould leave to the producer a profit of one-sixth on
thecost (Baba B. 90 a). In general, the laws on these subjectsform a
most interesting study. Bloch (Mos. Talm. Polizeir.)holds, that
there were two classes of market-officials. Butthis is not supported
by sufficient evidence, nor, indeed,would such an arrangement
seem likely. 3 That of Botnah wasthe largest, Jer. Ab. Z. 39 d.] Not
only was there an upperand a lower market in Jerusalem, [f Sanh.
89 a.] but we readof at least seven special markets: those for cattle,
[g Erub.x. 9.] wool, iron-ware, [h Jos. War v. 8. 1.] clothes,
wood,[i Ibid. ii. 19. 4.] bread, and fruit and vegetables. Theoriginal
market-days were Monday and Tuesday, afterwardsFriday. [k Tos.
Baba Mets. iii.] The large fairs (Yeridin)were naturally confined to
the centres of import and export,the borders of Egypt (Gaza), the
ancient Phoenician maritimetowns (Tyro and Acco), and the
Emporium across the Jordan(Botnah). Besides, every caravansary,
or khan (qatlis,atlis,), was a sort of mart, where goods were
unloaded, andespecially cattle set out [l Kerith. iii. 7;] for sale,
andpurchases made. But in Jerusalem one may suppose the
sellersto have been every day in the market; and the magazines,
inwhich greengrocery and all kinds of meat were sold (the
BethhaShevaqim), [m Makhsh. vi. 2] must have been always
open.Besides, there were the many shops (Chanuyoth)
eitherfronting the streets, or in courtyards, or else movablewooden
booths in the streets. Stangely enough, occasionallyJewish women
were employed in selling. [a Kethub. ix. 4]Business was also done
in the resturants and wineshops, ofwhich there were many; where
you might be served with somedish: fresh or salted fish, fried
locusts, a mess ofvegetables, a dish of soup, pastry, sweetmeats, or
a piece ofa fruit-cake, to be washed down with Judaean or
Galileanwine, Idumaean vinegar, or foreign beer.
If from these busy scenes we turn to the more aristocraticquarters
of the Upper City, [1 Compare here generally Unruh,D. alte
Jerusalem.] we stillsee the same narrow streets, buttenanted by
another class. First, we pass the High-Priest'spalace on the slope of
the hill, with a lower story under theprincipal apartments, and a
porch in front. Here, on thenight of the Betrayal, Peter was
'beneath in the Palace.' [aSt. Mark xiv. 66.] Next, we come to
Xystos, and thenpause fora moment at the Palace of the
Maccabees. It lies higher upthe hill, and westward from the Xytos.
From its halls you canlook into the city, and even into the Temple.
We know notwhich of the Maccabees had built this palace. But it
wasoccupied, not by the actually reigning prince, who
alwaysresided in the fortress (Baris, afterwards Antonia), but
bysome other member of the family. From them it passed into
thepossession of Herod. There Herod Antipas was when, on
thatterrible Passover, Pilate sent Jesus from the old palace ofHerod
to be examined by the Ruler of Galilee. [b St. Lukexxiii. 6,7] If
these buildings pointed to the differencebetween the past and
present, two structures of Herod's were,perhaps, more eloquent
than any words in their accusations ofthe Idumaean. One of these,
at least, would come in sight inpassing along the slopes of the
Upper City. The Maccabeanrule had been preceded by that of
corrupt High-Priests, whohad prostituted their office to the vilest
purposes. One ofthem, who had changed his Jewish name of
Joshua into Jason,had gone so far, in his attempts to Grecianise the
people, asto build a Hippodrome and Gymnasium for heathen
games. Weinfer, it stood where the Western hill sloped into
theTyropoeon, to the south-west of the Temple. [c Jos. War ii.3.1]
It was probably this which Herod afterwards enlarged
andbeautified, and turned into a threatre. No expense was sparedon
the great games held there. The threatre itself wasmagnificently
adorned with gold, silver, precious stones, andtrophies of arms and
records of the victories of Augustus.But to the Jews this essentially
heathen place, over againsttheir Temple, was cause of deep
indignation and plots. [dAnt. xv. 8. 1] Besidesthis theatre, Herod
also built animmense amphitheatre, which we must locate
somewhere in thenorth-west, and outside the second city wall. [e
Ant. xvii.10. 2; War ii. 3. 1, 2]
All this was Jerusalem above ground. But there was an
underground Jerusalem also, which burrowed everywhere under
thecity, under the Upper City, under the Temple, beyond the
citywalls. Its extent may be gathered from the circumstance
that,after the capture of the city, besides the living who hadsought
shelter there, no fewer than 2,000 dead bodies werefound in those
subterranean streets.
Close by the tracks of heathenism in Jerusalem, and in
sharpcontrast, was what gave to Jerusalem its intensely
Jewishcharacter. It was not only the Temple, nor the
festivepilgrims to its feasts and services. But there were
hundredsof Synagogues, [1 Tradition exaggerates their number as
460(Jer. Kethub. 35 c.) or even 480 (Jer. Meg. 73 d). But eventhe
large number (proportionally to the size of the city)mentioned in
the text need not surprise us when we rememberthat ten men were
sufficient to form a Synagogue, and howmany, what may be called
'private', Synagogues exist atpresent in every town where there is a
large and orthodoxJewish population.] some for different
nationalities, such asthe Alexandrians, or the Cyrenians; some for,
or perhapsfounded by, certain trade-guilds. If possible, the
Jewishschools were even more numerous than the Synagogues.
Thenthere were the many Rabbinic Academies; and, besides,
youmight also see in Jerusalem that mysterious sect, theEssenes, of
which the members were easily recognized by theirwhite dress.
Essenes, Pharisees, stranger Jews of all hues,and of many dresses
and languages! One could have imaginedhimself almost in another
world, a sort of enchanted land, inthis Jewish metropolis, and
metropolis of Judaism. When thesilver trumpets of the Priests
woke the city to prayer, orthe strain of Levite music swept over it,
or the smoke of thesacrifices hung like another Shekhinah over the
Temple,against the green background of Olivet; or when in
everystreet, court, and housetop rose the booths at the Feast
ofTabernacles, and at night the sheen of the Templeillumination
threw long fantastic shadows over the city; orwhen, at the
Passover, tens of thousands crowded up the Mountwith their
Paschal lambs, and hundreds of thousands sat downto the Paschal
supper, it would be almost difficult tobelieve, that heathenism was
so near, that the Roman wasvirtually, and would soon be really,
master of the land, orthat a Herod occupied the Jewish throne.
Yet there he was; in the pride of his power, and thereckless cruelty
of his ever-watchful tyranny. Everywhere washis mark. Temples to
the gods and to Caesar, magnificent, andmagnificently adorned,
outside Palestine and in itsnon-Jewish cities; towns rebuilt or built:
Sebaste for theacient Samaria, the splendid city and harbour of
Coesarea inthe west, Antipatris (after his father) in the north,
Kyprosand Phasaelis (after his mother and brother), and
Agrippeion;unconquerable fortresses, such as Essebonitis and
Machoerusin Peraea, Alexandreion, Herodeion, Hyrcania, and
Masada inJudaea, proclaimed his name and sway. But in
Jerusalem itseemed as if he had gathered up all his strength. The
theatreand amphitheatre spoke of his Grecianism; Antonia was
therepresentative fortress; for his religion he had built thatglorious
Temple, and for his residence the noblest ofpalaces, at the
north-western angle of the Upper City, closeby where Milo had
been in the days of David. It seems almostincredible, that a Herod
should have reared the Temple, andyet we can understand his
motives. Jewish tradition had it,that a Rabbi (Baba ben Buta) had
advised him in this mannerto conciliate the people, [a Baba B. 3 b]
or else thereby toexpiate the slaughter of so many Rabbis. [b
Bemid. R. 14.] [1The occasion is said to have been, that the
Rabbis, in answerto Herod's question, quoted Deut. xvii. 15. Baba
ben Butahimself is said to have escaped the slaughter, indeed, but
tohave been deprived of his eyes.] Probably a desire to
gainpopularity, and supersition, may alike have contributed, asalso
the wish to gratify his love for splendour and building.At the same
time, he may have wished to show himself a betterJew than that
rabble of Pharisees and Rabbis, who perpetuallywould cast it in his
teeth, that he was an Idumaean. Whateverhis origin, he was a true
king of the Jews, as great, naygreater, than Solomon himself.
Certainly, neither labour normoney had been spared on the
Temple. A thousand vehiclescarried up the stone; 10,000
workmen, under the guidance of1,000 priests, wrought all the
costly material gathered intothat house, of which Jewish tradition
could say, 'He that hasnot seen the temple of Herod, has never
known what beautyis.' [c Baba B. 4a.] And yet Israel despised and
abhorred thebuilder! Nor could his apparent work for the God of
Israelhave deceived the most credulous. In youth he had
browbeatenthe venerable Sanhedrin, and threatened the city
withslaughter and destruction; again and again had he murderedher
venerable sages; he had shed like water the blood of herAsmonean
princes, and of every one who dared to be free; hadstifled every
national aspiration in the groans of thetorture, and quenched it in
the gore of his victims. Notonce, nor twice, but six times did he
change theHigh-Priesthood, to bestow it at last on one who bears
nogood name in Jewish theology, a foreigner in Judaea,
anAlexandrian. And yet the power of that Idumaean was but
ofyesterday, and of mushroom growth!
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF HEROD, THE TWO WORLDS
IN JERUSALEM.
CHAPTER II
It is an intensely painful history, [1 For a fuller sketchof this
history see Appendix IV.] in the course of whichHerod made his
way to the throne. We look back nearly two anda half centuries to
where, with the empire of Alexander,Palestine fell to his
successors. For nearly a century and ahalf it continued the
battle-field of the Egyptian and Syriankings (the Ptolemies and the
Seleucidae). At last it was acorrupt High-Priesthood, with which
virtually the governmentof the land had all along lain, that
betrayed Israel'sprecious trust. The great-grandson of so noble a
figure inJewish history as Simon the Just (compare Ecclus. 1.)
boughtfrom the Syrians the High-Priestly office of his
brother,adopted the heathen name Jason, and sought to Grecianise
thepeople. 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
persecutionsof Antiochus Epiphanes, when Judaism was all but
exterminatedin Palestine. The glorious uprising of the Maccabees
calledforth all the national elements left in Israel, and
kindledafresh the smouldering religious feeling. It seemed like
arevival of Old Testament times. And when Judas the
Maccabee,with a band so inferior in numbers and discipline,
defeatedthe 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 appearedas if a
new Theocracy were to be inaugurated. The ceremonialof that
feast of the new 'dedication of the Temple,' wheneach night the
number of lights grew larger in the winter'sdarkness, seemed
symbolic of what was before Israel. But theMaccabees were not
the Messiah; nor yet the kingdom, whichtheir sword would have
restored , that of Heaven, with itsblessings and peace. If ever,
Israel might then have learnedwhat Saviour to look for.
The period even of promise was more brief than might havebeen
expected. The fervour and purity of the movement ceasedalmost
with its success. It was certainly never the goldenage of Israel, not
even among those who remained faithful toits God, which those
seem to imagine who, forgetful of itshistory and contests, would
trace to it so much that is mostprecious and spiritual in the Old
Testament. It may have beenthe pressure of circumstances, but it
was anything but apious, or even a 'happy' thought [1 So Schurer in
hisNeutestam. Zeitgesch.] of Judas the Maccabee, to seek
thealliance of the Romans. From their entrance on the scenedates
the decline of Israel's national cause. For a time,indeed, though
after varying fortunes of war, all seemedprosperous. The
Maccabees became both High-Priests and Kings.But partystrife
and worldliness, ambition and corruption, andGrecianism on the
throne, soon brought their sequel in thedecline of morale and
vigour, and led to the decay anddecadence of the Maccabean
house. It is a story as old as theOld Testament, and as wide as the
history of the world.Contention for the throne among the
Maccabees led to theinterference of the foreigner. When, after
capturingJerusalem, and violating the sanctity of the Temple,
althoughnot plundering its treasures, Pompey placed Hyrcanus II.
inthe possession of the High-Priesthood, the last of theMaccabean
rulers [2 A table of the Maccabean and Herodianfamilies is given
in Appendix VI.] was virtually shorn ofpower. The country was
now tributary to Rome, and subject tothe Governor of Syria. Even
the shadow of political powerpassed from the feeble hands of
Hyrcanus when, shortlyafterwards, Gabinius (one of the Roman
governors) divided theland into five districts, independent of each
other.
But already a person had appeared on the stage of Jewishaffairs,
who was to give them their last decisive turn. Aboutfifty years
before this, the district of Idumaea had beenconquered by the
Maccabean King Hyrcanus I., and itsinhabitants forced to adopt
Judaism. By this Idumaea we arenot, however, to understand the
ancient or Eastern Edom,which was now in the hands of the
Nabataeans, but parts ofSouthern Palestine which the Edomites
had occupied since theBabylonian Exile, and especially a small
district on thenorthern and eastern boundary of Judaea, and below
Samaria.[a Comp. 1 Macc. vi. 31] After it became Judaean,
itsadministration was entrusted to a governor. In the reign ofthe
last of the Maccabees this office devolved on oneAntipater, a man
of equal cunning and determination. Hesuccessfully interfered in
the unhappy dispute for the crown,which was at last decided by the
sword of Pompey. Antipatertook the part of the utterly weak
Hyrcanus in that contestwith his energetic brother Aristobulus. He
soon became thevirtual ruler, and Hyrcanus II. only a puppet in his
hands.From the accession of Judas Maccabaeus, in 166 B.C., to
theyear 63 B.C., when Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, only
abouta century had elapsed. Other twenty-four years, and the lastof
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 risingsattempted by them,
the interference of the Parthians onbehalf of those who were
hostile to Rome, and, lastly, thecontentions for supremacy in
Rome itself, made this periodone of confusion, turmoil, and
constant warfare in Palestine.When Pompey was finally defeated
by Caesar, the prospects ofAntipater and Hycanus seemed dark.
But they quickly changedsides; and timely help given to Caesar in
Egypt brought toAntipater the title of Procurator of Judaea, while
Hycanuswas left in the High-Priesthood, and, at least, nominal
headof the people. The two sons of Antipater were now
madegovernors: the elder, Phasaelus, of Jerusalem; the
younger,Herod, only twenty-five years old, of Galilee. Here
hedisplayed the energy and determination which were
hischaracteristics, in crushing a guerilla warfare, of which
thedeeper springs were probably nationalist. The execution ofits
leader brought Herod a summons to appear before the
GreatSanhedrin of Jerusalem, for having arrogated to himself
thepower of life and death. He came, but arrayed in
purple,surrounded by a body-guard, and supported by the
expressdirection of the Roman Governor to Hyrcanus, that he was
tobe acquitted. Even so he would have fallen a victim to
theapprehensions of the Sanhedrin, only too well grounded, hadhe
not been persuaded to withdrawn from the city. He returnedat the
head of an army, and was with difficulty persuaded byhis father to
spare Jerusalem. Meantime Caesar had named himGovernor of
Coelesyria.
On the murder of Caesar, and the possession of Syria byCassius,
Antipater and Herod again changed sides. But theyrendered such
substantial service as to secure favour, andHerod was continued in
the position conferred on him byCaesar. Antipater was, indeed,
poisoned by a rival, but hissons Herod and Phasaelus repressed and
extinguished allopposition. When the battle of Philippi placed the
Romanworld in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the
formerobtained Asia. Once more the Idumaeans knew how to gain
thenew ruler, and Phasaelus and Herod were named Tetrarchs
ofJudaea. Afterwards, when Antony was held in the toils
ofCleopatra, matters seemed, indeed, to assume a differentaspect.
The Parthians entered the land, in support of therival Maccabean
prince Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus. Bytreachery, Phasaelus
and Hyrcanus were induced to go to theParthian camp, and made
captives. Phasaelus shortlyafterwards destroyed himself in his
prison, [1 By dashing outhis brains againstthe prison walls.] while
Hyrcanus wasdeprived of his ears, to unfit him for the
High-Priestlyoffice. And so Antigonus for a short time succeeded
both tothe High-Priesthood and royalty in Jerusalem. Meantime
Herod,who had in vain warned his brother and Hyrcanus against
theParthian, had been able to make his escape from Jerusalem.His
family he left to the defence of his brother Joseph, inthe
inaccessible fortress of Masada; himself fled intoArabia, and
finally made his way to Rome. There he succeeded,not only with
Antony, but obtained the consent of Octavius,and was proclaimed
by the Senate King of Judaea. A sacrificeon the Capitol, and a
banquet by Antony, celebrated theaccession of the new successor
of David.
But he had yet to conquer his kingdom. At first he made wayby the
help of the Romans. Such success, however, as he hadgained, was
more than lost during his brief absence on avisit to Antony.
Joseph, the brother of Herod, was defeatedand slain, and Galilee,
which had been subdued, revoltedagain. But the aid which the
Romans rendered, after Herod'sreturn from Antony, was much
more hearty, and his losses weremore than retrieved. Soon all
Palestine, with the exceptionof Jerusalem, was in his hands. While
laying siege to it, hewent to Samaria, there to wed the beautiful
Maccabeanprincess Mariamme, who had been betrothed to him
five yearsbefore. [2 He had previously been married to one Doris,
theissue of the marriage being a son, Antipater.] That
ill-fatedQueen, and her elder brother Aristobulus, united
inthemselves 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 inJerusalem; and their mother, Alexandra, the daughter
ofHyrcanus II. The uncle of Mariamme was not long able to
holdout against the combined forces of Rome and Herod.
Thecarnage was terrible. When Herod, by rich presents, at
lengthinduced the Romans to leave Jerusalem, they took
Antigonuswith them. By desire of Herod he was executed.
This was the first of the Maccabees who fell victim to hisjealousy
and cruelty. The history which now follows is one ofsickening
carnage. The next to experience his vengeance werethe principal
adherents in Jerusalem of his rival Antigonus.Forty-five of the
noblest and richest were executed. His nextstep was to appoint an
abscure Babylonian to theHigh-Priesthood. This awakened the
active hostility ofAlexandra, the mother of Marimme, Herod's
wife. The Maccabeanprincess claimed the High-Priesthood for her
son Aristobulus.Her intrigues with Cleopatra, and through her with
Antony,and the entreaties of Mariamme, the only being whom
Herodloved, though in his own mad way, prevailed. At the age
ofseventeen Aristobulus was made High-Priest. But Herod,
whowell knew the hatred and contempt of the Maccabean
members ofhis family, had his mother-in-law watched, a
precautionincreased after the vain attempt of Alexandra to have
herselfand her son removed in coffins from Jerusalem, to flee
toCleopatra. Soon the jealousy and suspicions of Herod wereraised
to murderous madness, by the acclamations whichgreeted the
young Aristobulus at the Feast of Tabernacles. Sodangerous a
Maccabean rival must be got rid of; and, bysecret order of Herod,
Aristobulus was drowned while bathing.His mother denounced the
murderer, and her influence withCleopatra, who also hated Herod,
led to his being summonedbefore Antony. Once more bribery,
indeed, prevailed; butother troubles awaited Herod.
When obeying the summons of Antony, Herod had committed
thegovernment to his uncle Joseph, who was also
hisbrother-in-law, having wedded Salome, the sister of Herod.His
mad jealousy had prompted him to direct that, in case ofhis
condemnation, Mariamme was to be killed, that she mightnot
become the wife of another. Unfortunately, Joseph toldthis to
Mariamme, to show how much she was loved. But on thereturn of
Herod, the infamous Salome accused her old husbandof
impropriety with Mariamme. When it appeared that Josephhad
told the Queen of his commission, Herod, regarding it
asconfirming his sister's charge, ordered him to be
executed,without even a hearing. External complications of the
gravestkind now supervened. Herod had to cede to Cleopatra
thedistricts of Phoenice and Philistia, and that of Jericho withits
rich balsam plantations. Then the dissensions betweenAntony and
Octavius involved him, in the cause of the former,in a war with
Arabia, whose king had failed to pay tribute toCleopatra. Herod
was victorious; but he had now to reckonwith another master. The
battle of Actium [a 31 B.C.] decidedthe fate on Antony, and Herod
had to make his peace withOctavius. Happily, he was able to do
good service to the newcause, ere presenting himself before
Augustus. But, in orderto be secure from all possible rivals, he had
the agedHyrcanus II. executed, on pretence of intrigues with
theArabs. Herod was successful with Augustus; and when, in
thefollowing summer, he furnished him supplies on his march
toEgypt, he was rewarded by a substantial addition ofterritory.
When about to appear before Augustus, Herod had entrusted toone
Soemus the charge of Mariamme, with the same fataldirections as
formerly to Joseph. Again Mariamme learnt thesecret; again the
old calumnies were raised, this time notonly by Salome, but also
by Kypros, Herod's mother; and againHerod imagined he had
found corroborative evidence. Soemuswas slain without a hearing,
and the beautiful Mariammeexecuted after a mock trail. The most
fearful paroxysm ofremorse, passion, and longing for his murdered
wife nowseized the tyrant, and brought him to the brink of the
grave.Alexandra, the mother of Mariamme, deemed the
momentfavorable for her plots, but she was discovered,
andexecuted. Of the Maccabean race there now remained
onlydistant members, the sons of Babas, who had found an
asylumwith Costobarus, the Governor of Idumaea, who had
weddedSalome after the death of her first husband. Tired of him,
asshe had been of Joseph, Salome denounced her second
husband;and Costobarus, as well as the sons of Babas, fell victims
toHerod. Thus perished the family of the Maccabees.
The hand of the maddened tyrant was next turned against hisown
family. Of his ten wives, we mention only those whosechildren
occupy a place in this history. The son of Doris wasAntipater;
those of the Maccabean Mariamme, Alexander andAristobulus;
another Mariamme, whose father Herod had madeHigh-Priest,
bore him a son named Herod (a name which otherof the sons
shared); Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother ofArchelaus and
Herod Antipas; and, lastly, Cleopatra ofJerusalem bore Philip. The
sons of the Maccabean princess, asheirs presumptive, were sent to
Rome for their education. Onthis occasion Herod received, as
reward for many services,the country east of the Jordan, and was
allowed to appointhis still remaining brother, Pheroras, Tetrarch of
Peraea. Ontheir return from Rome the young princes were
married:Alexander to a daughter of the King of Cappadocia,
andAristobulus to his cousin Berenice, the daughter of Salome.But
neither kinship, nor the yet nearer relation in whichAristobulus
now stood to her, could extinguish the hatred ofSalome 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. Atfirst, Herod gave not heed to the
denunciations of hissister. Presently he yielded to vague
apprehensions. As afirst step, Antipater, the son of Doris, was
recalled fromexile, and sent to Rome for education. So the breach
becameopen; and Herod took his sons to Italy, to lay
formalaccusation against them before Augustus. The wise counsels
ofthe Emperor restored peace for a time. But Antipater
nowreturned to Plaestine, and joined his calumnies to those
ofSalome. Once more the King of Cappadocia succeeded
inreconciling Herod and his sons. But in the end the intriguesof
Salome, Antipater, and of an infamous foreigner who hadmade his
way at Court, prevailed. Alexander and Aristobuluswere
imprisoned, and an accusation of high treason laidagainst them
before the Emperor. Augustus gave Herod fullpowers, but advised
the convocation of a mixed tribunal ofJews and Romans to try the
case. As might have been expected,the two princes were
condemned to death, and when some oldsoldiers ventured to
intercede for them, 300 of the supposedadherents of the cause
were cut down, and the two princesstrangled in prison. This
happened in Samaria, where, thirtyyears before, Herod had wedded
their ill-fated mother.
Antipater was now the heir presumptive. But, impatient ofthe
throne, he plotted with Herod's brother, Pheroras,against his father.
Again Salome denounced her nephew and herbrother. Antipater
withdrew to Rome; but when, after thedeath of Pheraras, Herod
obtained indubitable evidence thathis son had plotted against his
life, he lured Antipater toPalestine, where on his arrival he was
cast into prison. Allthat was needed was the permission of
Augustus for hisexecution. It arrived, and was carried out only five
daysbefore the death of Herod himself. So ended a reign
almostunparalleled for reckless cruelty and bloodshed, in which
themurder of the Innocents in Bethlehem formed but so triflingan
episode among the many deeds of blood, as to have seemednot
deserving of record on the page of the Jewish historian.
But we can understand the feelings of the people towardssuch a
King. They hated the Idumaean; they detested hissemi-heathen
reign; they abhorred his deeds of cruelty. theKing had surrounded
himself with foreign councillors, and wasprotected by foreign
mercenaries from Thracia, Germany, andGaul. [a Jos. Ant. vxii. 8.
3] So long as he lived, nowoman's honour was safe, no man's life
secure. An army ofallpowerful spies pervaded Jerusalem, nay, the
King himselfwas said to stoop to that office. [b Ant. xv. 10. 4] If
piqueor private enmity led to denunciation, the torture
wouldextract any confession from the most innocent. What
hisrelation to Judaism had been, may easily be inferred. Hewould
be a Jew, even build the Temple, advocate the cause ofthe Jews in
other lands, and, in a certain sense, conform tothe Law of Judaism.
In building the Temple, he was so anxiousto conciliate national
prejudice, that the Sanctuary itselfwas entrusted to the
workmanship of priests only. Nor did heever intrude into the Holy
Place, nor interfere with anyfunctions of the priesthood. None of
his coins bear deviceswhich could have shocked popular feeling,
nor did any of thebuildings he erected in Jerusalem exhibit any
forbiddenemblems. The Sanhedrin did exist during his reign, [1
Comp.the discussion of this question in Wieseler, Beitr. pp.
215&c.] though it must have been shorn of all real power, andits
activity confined to ecclesiastical, orsemi-ecclesiastical, causes.
Strangest of all, he seems tohave had at least the passive support of
two of the greatestRabbis, the Pollio and Sameas of Josephus [a
Ant. xiv. 9. 4;xv. 1 1 10. 4.], supposed to represent those great
figures inJewish tradition, Abtalion and Shemajah. [b Ab. i. 10,
11] [2Even their recorded fundamental principles bear this
out.That of Shemajah was: 'Love labour, hate lordship, and do
notpush forward to the authorities.' That of Abtalion was: 'Yesages,
be careful in your words, lest perchance ye incurbanishment, and
are exiled to a place of bad waters, and thedisciples who follow
you drink of them and die, and so in theend the name of God be
profaned.' We can but conjecture, thatthey preferres even his rule
to what had preceded; and hopedit might lead to a Roman
Protectorate, which would leaveJudaea practically independent, or
rather under Rabbinc rule.
It was also under the government of Herod, that Hillel
andShammai lived and taught in Jerusalem: [3 On Hillel
andShammai see the article in Herzog's Real-Encyklop.; that
inHamburger's; Delitzscg, Jesus u. Hillel. and books on
Jewishhistory generally.] the two, whom tradition designates as'the
fathers of old.' [c Eduj. 1. 4] Both gave their names to'schools,'
whose direction was generally different, notunfrequently, it seems,
chiefly for the sake of opposition.But it is not correct to describe
the former as consistentlythe more liberal and mild. [4 A number
of points on which theordinances of Hillel were more severe than
those of Shammaiare enumerated in Eduj. iv. 1-12; v. 1-4; Ber. 36
a, end.Comp. also Ber. R. 1.] The teaching of both was supposed
tohave been declared by the 'Voice from Heaven' (the Bath-Qol)as
'the words of the living God;' yet the Law was to behenceforth
according to the teaching of Hillel. [d Jer. Ber.3 b, lines 3 and 2
from botton But to us Hillel is sointensely interesting, not merely
as the mild and gentle, noronly as the earnest student who came
from Babylon to learn inthe Academies of Jerusalem; who would
support his family on athird of his scanty wages as a day labourer,
that he mightpay for entrance into the schools; and whose zeal and
meritswere only discovered when, after a severe night, in
which,from poverty, he had been unable to gain admittance into
theAcademy, his benumbed form was taken down from
thewindow-sill, to which he had crept up not to lose aught ofthe
precious instruction. And for his sake did they gladlybreak on that
Sabbath the sacred rest. Nor do we think ofhim, as tradition fables
him, the descendant of David, [aBer. R. 98] possessed of every
great quality of body, mind,and heart; nor yet as the second Ezra,
whose learning placedhim at the head of the Sanhedrin, who laid
down theprinciples afterwards applied and developed by
Rabbinism, andwho was the real founder of traditionalism. Still
less do wethink of him, as he is falsely represented by some: as
hewhose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus,
or,according to certain writers, were its source. By the side ofJesus
we think of him otherwise than this. We remember that,in his
extreme old age and near his end, he may have presidedover that
meeting of Sanhedrin which, in answer to Herod'sinquiry, pointed
to Bethlehem as the birthplace of theMessiah. [b St.Matt. ii. 4.] [1
On the chronology of the lifeof Hillel &c., see also Schmilg, Ueb.
d. Entsteh. &c. derMegillath Taanith, especially p. 34. Hillel is
said to havebecome Chief of the Sanhedrin in 30 B.C., and to have
heldthe office for forty years. These numbers, however, are
nodoubt somewhat exaggerated.] We think of him also as
thegrandfather of that Gamaliel, at whose feet Saul of Tarsussat.
And to us he is the representative Jewish reformer, inthe spirit of
those times, and in the sense of restoringrather than removing;
while we think of Jesus as the Messiahof Israel, in the sense of
bringing the Kingdom of God to allmen, and opening it to all
believers.
And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. Onthe
one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre andamphitheatre;
foreigners filling the Court, and crowding thecity; foreign
tendencies and ways, from the foreign Kingdownwards. On the
other hand, was the old Jewish world,becoming now set and
ossified in the Schools of Hillel andShammai, and overshadowed
by Temple and Synagogue. And eachwas pursuing its course, by
the side of the other. If Herodhad everywhere his spies, the Jewish
law provided its twopolice magistrates in Jerusalem, the only
judges who receivedrenumeration. [c Jer, Kethub. 35 c; Kethub.
104 b] [2 Thepolice laws of the Rabbis might well serve us as a
model forall similar legislation.] If Herod judged cruelly
anddespotically, the Sanhedrin weighed most deliberately,
thebalance always inclining to mercy. If Greek was the languageof
the court and camp, and indeed must have been understoodand
spoken by most in the land, the language of the people,spoken also
by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of theancient Hebrew,
the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. [3 At thesame time I can
scarcely agree with Delitzsch and others,that this was the dialect
called Sursi. The latter was ratherSyriac. Comp. Levy, ad voc.] It
seems strange, that thiscould ever have been doubted. [4 Professor
Roberts hasadvocated, with great ingenuity, the view that Christ
and HisApostles used the Greek language. See especially
his'Discussions on the Gospels.' The Roman Catholic
Churchsometimes maintained, that Jesus and His disciples
spokeLatin, and in 1822 a work appeared by Black to prove that
theN.T. Greek showed a Latin origin.] A Jewish Messiah Who
wouldurge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost
acontradiction in terms. We know, that the language of theTemple
and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addressesof the
Rabbis had to be 'targumed' into the vernacularAramaean, and can
we believe that, in a Hebrew service, theMessiah could have risen
to address the people in Greek, orthat He would have argued with
the Pharisees and Scribes inthat tongue, especially remembering
that its study wasactually forbidden by the Rabbis? [1 For a full
statement ofthe arguments on this subject we refer the student to
Bohl,Forsch. n. e. Volksbibel z. Zeit Jesu, pp. 4-28; to thelatter
work by the same writer (Aittestam. Citate im N.Test.); to a very
interesting article by Professor Delitzschin the 'Daheim' for 1874
(No. 27); to Buxtorf, sub Gelil; toJ. D. Goldberg, 'The Language of
Christ'; but especiallyprop. di Cristo (Parma 1772).]
Indeed, it was a peculiar mixture of two worlds inJerusalem: not
only of the Grecian and the Jewish, but ofpiety and frivolity also.
The devotion of the people and theliberality of the rich were
unbounded. Fortunes were lavishedon the support of Jewish
learning, the promotion of piety, orthe advance of the national
cause. Thousands of votiveofferings, and the costly gifts in the
Temple, bore evidenceof this. priestly avarice had artificially
raised the priceof sacrificial animals, a rich man would bring into
theTemple at his own cost the number requisite for the
poor.Charity was not only open-handed, but most delicate, and
onewho had been in good circumstances would actually be
enabledto live according to his former station. [2 Thus Hillel
wassaid to have hired a horse, and even an outrunner, for adecayed
rich man.] Then these Jerusalemites, townspeople, asthey called
themselves, were so polished, so witty, sopleasant. There was a
tact in their social intercourse, and aconsiderateness and delicacy
in their public arrangements andprovisions, nowhere else to be
found. Their very language wasdifferent. There was a Jerusalem
dialect, [a Bemid. R. 14;ed. Warsh. p. 59a.] quicker, shorter,
'lighter' (LishnaQalila). [b Baba K.] And their hospitality,
especially atfestive seasons, was unlimited. No one considered his
househis own, and no stranger or pilgrim but found reception.
Andhow much there was to be seen and heard in those
luxuriouslyfurnished houses, and at those sumptuous
entertainments! Inthe women's apartments, friends from the
country would seeevery novelty in dress, adornment, and
jewellery, and havethe benefit of examining themselves in
looking-glasses. To besure, as being womanish vanity, their use
was interdicted tomen, except it were to the members of the family
of thePresident of the Sanhedrin, on account of their
intercoursewith those in authority, just as for the same reason
theywere allowed to learn Greek. [a Jer.Shabb. 7 d] Nor mighteven
women look in theglass on the Sabbath. [b Shabb. 149 a]But that
could only apply to those carried in the hand, sinceone might be
tempted, on the holy day, to do such servilework as to pull out a
grey hair with the pincers attached tothe end of the glass; but not
to a glass fixed in the lid ofa basket; [c Kel. xiv. 6] nor to such as
hung on the wall. [dTos. Shabb.xiii. ed. Zuckerm. p. 130] And then
thelady-visitor might get anything in Jerusalem; from a falsetooth
to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an Indiandress!
While the women so learned Jerusalem manners in the
innerapartments, the men would converse on the news of the day,
oron politics. For the Jerusalemites had friends andcorrespondents
in the most distant parts of the world, andletters were carried by
special messengers, [e Shabb. x.4] ina kind of post-bag. Nay, there
seem to have been some sort ofreceiving-offices in towns, [f
Shabb. 19a] and even somethingresembling our parcel-post. [g
Rosh haSh. 9 b] And, strangeas it may sound, even a species of
newspapers, orbroadsheets, appears to have been circulating
(Mikhtabhin),not allowed, however, on the Sabbath, unless they
treated ofpublic affairs. [h Tos. Shabb. xviii.]
Of course, it is difficult accurately to determine which ofthese
things were in use in the earliest times, or elseintroduced at a later
period. Perhaps, however, it was saferto bring them into a picture
of Jewish society. Undoubted,and, alas, too painful evidence
comes to us of theluxuriousness of Jerusalem at that time, and of
the moralcorruption to which it led. It seems only too clear,
thatsuch commentations as the Talmud [i Shabb. 62 b] gives of
Is.iii. 16-24, in regard to the manners and modes of
attractionpractised by a certain class of the female population
inJerusalem, applied to a far later period than that of theprophet.
With this agrees only too well the recorded covertlascivious
expressions used by the men, which gives alamentable picture of
the state of morals of many in thecity, [k Comp. Shabb. 62 b, last
line and first of 63 a] andthe notices of the indecent dress worn not
only by women, [lKel. xxiv. 16; xxviii. 9] but evenby corrupt
High-Priestlyyouths. Nor do the exaggerated descriptions of what
theMidrash on Lamentations [m On ch. iv 2] describes as
thedignity of the Jerusalemites; of the wealth which theylavished
on their marriages; of the ceremony which insistedon repeated
invitations to the guests to a banquet, and thatmen inferior in rank
should not be bidden to it; of the dressin which they appeared; the
manner in which the dishes wereserved, the wine in white crystal
vases; and the punishmentof the cook who had failed in his duty,
and which was to becommensurate to the dignity of the party, give
a betterimpression of the great world in Jerusalem.
And yet it was the City of God, over whose destruction notonly the
Patriarch and Moses, but the Angelic hosts, nay, theAlmighty
Himself and His Shekhinah, had made bitterestlamentation. [1 See
the Introduction to the Midrash onLamentations. But some of the
descriptions are so painful,even blasphemous , that we do not
venture on quotation.] TheCity of the Prophets, also, since each of
them whosebirthplace had not been mentioned, must be regarded
as havingsprung from it. [aMeg. 15 a] Equally, even more, marked,
butnow for joy and triumph, would be the hour of
Jerusalem'suprising, when it would welcome its Messiah. Oh,
when wouldHe come? In the feverish excitement of expectancy
they wereonly too ready to listen to the voice of any
pretender,however coarse and clumsy the imposture. Yet He was
at hand,even now coming: only quite other than the Messiah of
theirdreams. 'He came unto His own, and His own received Him
not.But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to
becomechildren of God, even to them that believe on His Name.'
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
THE ANNUNCIATION OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST (St. Luke i.
5-25.)
CHAPTER III
It was the time of the Morning Sacrifice. [1 We presume,that the
ministration of Zacharias (St. Luke i. 9) took placein the morning,
as the principal service. But Meyer (Komm. i.2, p. 242) is
mistaken in supposing, that this follows fromthe reference to the
lot. It is, indeed, true that, of thefour lots for the priestly functions,
three took place onlyin the morning. But that for incensing was
repeated in theevening (Yoma 26 a). Even Bishop Haneberg (Die
Relig.Alterth. p. 609) is not accurate in this respect. As themassive
Temple gates slowly swung on their hinges, athree-fold blast from
the silver trumpets of the Priestsseemed to waken the City, as with
the Voice of God, to thelife of another day. As its echoes came in
the still airacross the cleft of the Tyropoeon, up the slopes of the
UpperCity, down the busy quarters below, or away to the new
suburbbeyond, they must, if but for a moment, have brought
holierthoughts to all. For, did it not seem to link the present tothe
past and the future, as with the golden chain of promisesthat bound
the Holy City to the Jerusalem that was above,which in type had
already, and in reality would soon descendfrom heaven? Patriot,
saint, or stranger, he could not haveheard it unmoved, as thrice the
summons from within theTemple-gates rose and fell.
It had not come too soon. The Levites on ministry, and thoseof the
laity, whose 'course' it was to act as therepresentatives of Israel,
whether in Palestine or far away,in a sacrifice provided by, and
offered for, all Israel,hastened to their duties. [2 For a description
of the detailsof that service, see 'The Temple and its Services,'
&c.] Foralready the blush of dawn, for which the Priest on
thehighest pinnacle of the Temple had watched, to give thesignal
for beginning the services of the day, had shot itsbrightness far
away to Hebron and beyond. Within the Courtsbelow all had long
been busy. At some time previously,unknown to those who waited
for the morning, whether atcockcrowing, or a little earlier or later,
[a Tamid i. 2] thesuperintending Priest had summoned to their
sacred functionsthose who had 'washed,' according to the
ordinance. Theremust have been each day about fifty priests on
duty. [1 If wereckon the total number in the twenty-four courses
of,presumably, the officiating priesthood, at 20,000, accordingto
Josephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 8), which is very much below theexaggerated
Talmudic computation of 85,000 for the smallestcourse (Jer. Taan.
69 a), and suppose, that little more thanone-third of each course
had come up for duty, this wouldgive fifty priests for each
week-day, while on the Sabbaththe whole course would be on
duty. This is, of course,considerably more than the number
requisite, since, exceptfor the incensing priest, the lot for the
morning also heldgood for the evening sacrifice.] Such of them as
were readynow divided into two parties, to make inspection of
theTemple courts by torchlight. Presently they met, and troopedto
the well-known Hall of Hewn Polished Stones, [a Yoma 25
a]where formerly the Sanhedrin had been wont to sit. Theministry
for the day was there apportioned. To prevent thedisputes of carnal
zeal, the 'lot' was to assign to each hisfunction. Four times was it
resorted to: twice before, andtwice after the Temple-gates were
opened. The first act oftheir ministry had to be done in the grey
dawn, by the fitfulred light that glowed on the altar of burnt
offering, ere thepriests had stirred it into fresh flame. It was
scarcelydaybreak, when a second time they met for the 'lot,'
whichdesignated those who were to take part in the sacrificeitself,
and who were to trim the golden candlestick, and makeready the
altar of incense within the Holy Place. And nowmorn had broken,
and nothing remained before the admission ofworshippers but to
bring out the lamb, once again to makesure of its fitness for
sacrifice, to water it from a goldenbowl, and then to lay it in
mystic fashion, as traditiondescribed the binding of Isaac, on the
north side of thealtar, with its face to the west.
All, priests and laity, were present as the Priest, standingon the
east side of the altar, from a golden bowl sprinkledwith sacrificial
blood two sides of the altar, below the redline which marked the
difference between ordinary sacrificesand those that were to be
wholly consumed. While thesacrifice was prepared for the altar,
the priests, whose lotit was, had made ready all within the Holy
Place, where themost solemn part of the day's service was to take
place, thatof offering the incense, which symbolised Israel's
acceptedprayers. 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.[b Tamid v.
2] Henceforth he was called 'rich,' [2 Yoma 26 a.The designation
'rich' is derived from the promise which, inDeut. xxxiii. 11,
follows on the service referred to in verse10. But probably a
spiritual application was also intended.]and must leave to his
brethren the hope of the distinctionwhich had been granted him. It
was fitting that, as thecustom was, such lot should be preceded by
prayer andconfession of their faith [1 The so-called Shema,
consistingof Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Num. xv. 37-41.] on the part
ofthe assembled priests.
It was the first week in October 748 A.U.C., [2 The questionof this
date is, of course, intimately connected with that ofthe Nativity of
Christ, and could therefore not be treated inthe text. It is discussed
in Appendix VII.: 'On the Date ofthe Nativity of our Lord.'] that is,
in the sixth year beforeour present era, when 'the course of Abia' [3
This was theeighth course in the ,iginal arrangement (1 Chr. xxiv.
10).], the eighth in the original arrangement of the weeklyservice,
was on duty in the Temple. True this, as indeed mostof the
twenty-four 'courses' into which the Priesthood hadbeen arranged,
could not claim identity, only continuity,with those whose names
they bore. For only three, or at mostfour, of the ancient 'courses'
had returned from Babylon. Butthe original arrangement had been
preserved, the names of themissing courses being retained, and
their number filled up bylot from among those who had come back
to Palestine. In ourignorance of the number of 'houses of their
father,' orfamilies,' which constituted the 'course of Abia,' it
isimpossible to determine, how the services of that week hadbeen
apportioned among them. But this is of comparativelysmall
importance, since there is no doubt about the centralfigure in the
scene.
In the group ranged that autumn morning around thesuperintending
Priest was one, on whom the snows of at leastsixty winters had
fallen. [4 According to St. Luke i. 7, theywere both 'well stricken
in years.' But from Aboth v. 21 welearn, that sixty years was
considered 'the commencement ofagedness.'] But never during
these many years had he beenhonoured with the office of
incensing, and it was perhapswell he should have learned, that this
distinction camedirect from God. Yet the venerable figure of
Zacharias musthave been well known in the Temple. For, each
course wastwice a year on ministry, and, unlike the Levites,
thepriests were not disqualified by age, but only by infirmity.In
many respects he seemed different from those around. Hishome
was not in either of the great priest-centres, theOphel-quarter in
Jerusalem, nor in Jericho [5 According totradition, about
one-fourth of the priesthood was resident inJericho. But, even
limiting this to those who were in thehabit of officiating, the
statement seems greatlyexaggerated.], but in some small town in
those uplands, southof Jerusalem: the historic 'hill-country of
Judea.' And yethe might have claimed distinction. To be a priest,
andmarried to the daughter of a priest, was supposed to
conveytwofold honour. [6 Comp. Ber. 44 a; Pes. 49 a; Vayyikra
R.4.] That he was surrounded by relatives and friends, and thathe
was well known and respected throughout his district,appears
incidentally from the narrative.(1) It would, indeed,have been
strange had it been otherwise. There was much inthe popular
habits of thought, as well as in the office andprivileges of the
Priesthood, if worthily represented, toinvest it with a veneration
which the aggressive claims ofRabbinism could not wholly
monopolise. And in this instanceZacharias and Elisabeth, his wife,
were truly 'righteous,' [1, of course not in the strict sense in which
the word issometimes used, especially by St. Paul, but as pius et
bonus.See Vorstius (De Hebraism. N.T. pp. 55 &c.). As the
accountof the Evangelist seems derived from an original
Hebrewsource, the word must have corresponded to that of
Tsaddiq inthe then popular signification.] in the sense of walking,
sofar as man could judge, 'blamelessly,' alike in
thosecommandments which were specially binding on Israel, and
inthose statues that were of universal bearing on mankind.
[2evidently mark an essential division of the Law at the time.But it
is almost impossible to determine their exact Hebrewequivalents.
The LXX. render by these two terms not alwaysthe same Hebrew
words. Comp. Gen. xxvi. 5 with Deut. iv. 40.They cannot refer to
the division of the law into affirmative(248) and prohibitive (365)
commandments.] No doubt theirpiety assumed in some measure
the form of the time, being, ifwe 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 sharplycontrasts with
the narrow bigotry, the self-glory, and theunspiritual externalism
of their successors. We may notunreasonably infer, that the
Tsaddiq in the quiet home of thehill-country was quite other than
the self-asserting Rabbi,whose dress and gait, voice and manner,
words and evenprayers, were those of the religious parvenu,
pushing hisclaims to distinction before angels and men. Such a
householdas that of Zacharias and Elisabeth would have all that
wasbeautiful in the religion of the time: devotion towards God;a
home of affection and purity; reverence towards all thatwas sacred
in things Divine and human; ungrudging,self-denying, loving
charity to the poor; the tenderestregard for the feelings of others,
so as not to raise ablush, nor to wound their hearts; [3 There is,
perhaps, nopoint on which the Rabbinic Law is more explicit or
stringentthan on that of tenderest regard for the feelings of
others,especially of the poor.] above all, intense faith and hope
inthe higher and better future of Israel. Of such, indeed,there must
have been not a few in the land, the quiet, theprayerful, the pious,
who, though certainly not Sadducees norEssenes, but reckoned
with the Pharisaic party, waited forthe consolation of Israel, and
received it with joy whenmanifested. Nor could aught more
certainly have marked thedifference between the one and the other
section than on amatter, which must almost daily, and most
painfully haveforced itself on Zacharias and Elisabeth. There were
amongthe Rabbis those who, remembering the words of the
prophet,[a Mal. ii. 13 16] spoke in most pathetic language of
thewrong of parting from the wife of youth, [b Gitt. 90 b] andthere
were those to whom the bare fact of childlessnessrendered
separation a religious duty. [c Yeb. 64 a] Elisabethwas childless.
Formany a year this must have been the burdenof Zacharias'
prayer; the burden also of reproach, whichElisabeth seemed
always to carry with her. They had waitedtogether these many
years, till in the evening of life theflower of hope had closed its
fragrant cup; and still the twosat 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 suchthoughts
would come to Zacharias. For the first, and for thelast time in life
the lot had marked him for incensing, andevery thought must have
centred on what was before him. Evenoutwardly, all attention
would be requisite for the properperformance of his office. First,
he had to choose two of hisspecial friends or relatives, to assist in
his sacredservice. Their duties were comparatively simple.
Onereverently removed what had been left on the altar from
theprevious evening's service; then, worshipping,
retiredbackwards. The second assistant now advanced, and,
havingspread to the utmost verge of the golden altar the live
coalstaken from that of burnt-offering, worshipped and
retired.Meanwhile the sound of the 'organ' (the Magrephah), heard
tothe most distant parts of the Temple, and, according totradition,
far beyond its precincts, had summoned priests,Levites, and people
to prepare for whatever service or dutywas before them. For, this
was the innermost part of theworship of the day. But the celebrant
Priest, bearing thegolden censer, stood alone within the Holy
Place, lit by thesheen of the seven-branched candlestick. Before
him, somewhatfarther away, towards the heavy Veil that hung
before theHoly of Holies, was the golden altar of incense, on
which thered coals glowed. To his right (the left of the altar, thatis,
on the north side) was the table of shewbread; to hisleft, on the
right or south side of the altar, was the goldencandlestick. And still
he waited, as instructed to do, till aspecial signal indicated, that the
moment had come to spreadthe incense on the altar, as near as
possible to the Holy ofHolies. Priests and people had reverently
withdrawn from theneighbourhood of the altar, and were prostrate
before theLord, offering unspoken worship, in which record of
pastdeliverance, longing for mercies promised in the future,
andentreaty for present blessing and peace, [1 For the
prayersoffered by the people during the incensing, see 'The
Temple,'pp. 139, 140.] seemed the ingredients of the incense,
thatrose in a fragrant cloud of praise and prayer. Deep silencehad
fallen on the worshippers, as if they watched to heaventhe prayers
of Israel, ascending in the cloud of 'odours'that rose from the
golden altar in the Holy Place. [a Rev. v.8; viii. 1, 3, 4] Zacharias
waited, until he saw the incensekindling. Then he also would have
'bowed down in worship,'and reverently withdrawn, [b Tamid vi.
3] had not a wondroussight arrested his steps.
On the right (or south) side of the altar, between it andthe golden
candlestick, stood what he could not but recogniseas an Angelic
form. [2 The following extract from Yalkut(vol. i. p. 113 d, close)
affords a curious illustration ofthis Divine communication from
beside the altar of incense:'From what place did the Shekhinah
speak to Moses? R. Nathansaid: From the altar of incense,
according to Ex. xxx. 6.Simeon ben Asai said: From the side of the
altar ofincense.'] Never, indeed, had even tradition reported such
avision to an ordinary Priest in the act of incensing. The
twosuper-natural apparitions recorded, one of an Angel each
yearof the Pontificate of Simon the Just; the other in
thatblasphemous account of the vision of the Almighty by
Ishmael,the son of Elisha, and of the conversation which then
ensued[c Ber. 7 a] [3 According to the Talmud, Ishmael once
wentinto the innermost Sanctuary, when he had a vision of
God,Who called upon the priest to pronounce a benediction.
Thetoken of God's acceptance had better not be quoted.] ,
hadbothbeen vouchsafed to High-Priests, and on the Day
ofAtonement. Still, there was always uneasiness among thepeople
as any mortal approached the immediate Presence ofGod, and
every delay in his return seemed ominous. [d Jer.Yoma 42 c] No
wonder, then, that Zacharias 'was troubled, andfear fell on him,' as
of a sudden, probably just after he hadspread the incense on the
altar, and was about to offer hisparting prayer, he beheld what
afterwards he knew to be theAngel Gabriel ('the might of God').
Apart from higherconsiderations, there could perhaps be no better
evidence ofthe truth of this narrative than its accord
withpsychological facts. An Apocryphal narrative would
probablyhave painted the scene in agreement with what, in the
view ofsuch a writer, should have been the feelings of
Zacharias,and the language of the Angel. [4 Instances of an
analogouskind frequently occur in the Apocryphal Gospels.] The
Angelwould have commenced by referring to Zacharias' prayers
forthe coming of a Messiah, and Zacharias would have
beenrepresented in a highly enthusiastic state. Instead of
thestrangely prosaic objection which he offered to the
Angelicannouncement, there would have been a burst of
spiritualsentiment, or what passed for such. But all this would
havebeen psychologically untrue. There are moments of
moralfaintness, so to spseak, when the vital powers of thespiritual
heart are depressed, and, as in the case of theDisciples on the
Mount of Transfiguration and in the Gardenof Gethsemane, the
physical part of our being and all that isweakest in us assert their
power.
It was true to this state of semi-consciousness, that theAngel first
awakened within Zacharias the remembrance oflife-long prayers
and hopes, which had now passed into thebackground of his being,
and then suddenly startled him bythe promise of their realisation.
But that Child of so manyprayers, who was to bear the significant
name of John(Jehochanan, or Jochanan), 'the Lord is gracious,' was
to bethe source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle thanthat of
the family. This might be called the first rung ofthe ladder by
which the Angel would take the priest upwards.Nor was even this
followed by an immediate disclosure ofwhat, in such a place, and
from such a messenger, must havecarried to a believing heart the
thrill of almost unspeakableemotion. Rather was Zacharias led
upwards, step by step. TheChild was to be great before the Lord;
not only an ordinary,but a life-Nazarite, [1 On the different classes
ofNazarites, see 'The Temple, &c.,' pp. 322-331.] as Samson
andSamuel of old had been. Like them, he was not to
consecratehimself, but from the inception of life wholly to belong
toGod, for His work. And, greater than either of
theserepresentatives of the symbolical import of Nazarism,
hewould combine the twofold meaning of their mission ,
outwardand inward might in God, only in a higher and more
spiritualsense. For this life-work he would be filled with the
HolyGhost, from the moment life woke within him. Then, as
anotherSamson, would he, in the strength of God, lift the axe
toeach tree to be felled, and, like another Samuel, turn manyof 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, [a Mal. iii. 1]precede the Messianic manifestation,
and, not indeed in theperson or form, but in the spirit and power of
Elijah,accomplish the typical meaning of his mission, as on that
dayof decision it had risen as the burden of his prayer [b 1Kings
xviii. 37] , that is, in the words of prophecy, [c Mal.iv. 5, 6] 'turn
the heart of the fathers to the children,'which, in view of the
coming dispensation, would be 'thedisobedient (to walk) in the
wisdom of the just.' [d St. Lukei. 17; comp. St. Matt. xi. 19] Thus
would this new Elijah'make ready for the Lord a people prepared.'
If the apparition of the Angel, in that place, and at thattime, had
overwhelmed the aged priest, the words which heheard must have
filled him with such bewilderment, that forthe moment he scarcely
realised their meaning. One ideaalone, which had struck its roots
so long in hisconsciousness, stood out: A son, while, as it were in
the dimdistance beyond, stretched, as covered with a mist of
glory,all those marvellous things that were to be connected
withhim. So, when age or strong feeling renders us
almostinsensible to the present, it is ever that which connectsitself
with the past, rather than with the present, whichemerges first and
strongest in our consciousness. And so itwas the obvious doubt,
that would suggest itself, which fellfrom his lips, almost
unconscious of what he said. Yet therewas in his words an element
of faith also, or at least ofhope, as he asked for some pledge or
confirmation of what hehad heard.
It is this demand of some visible sign, by which to 'know'all that
the Angel had promised, which distinguishes thedoubt of
Zacharias from that of Abraham, [a Gen. xvii. 17,18] or of Manoah
and his wife,[b Judg. xiii 2-21] undersomewhat similar
circumstances, although, otherwise also,even a cursory reading
must convey the impression of mostmarked differences. Nor ought
we perhaps to forget, that weare on the threshold of a dispensation,
to which faith is theonly entrance. This door Zacharias was now to
hold ajar, adumb 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
ofunbelief, was its punishment also. And yet, when rightlyapplied,
a sign in another sense also, a sign to the waitingmultitude in the
Temple; a sign to Elisabeth; to all who knewZacharias in the
hill-country; and to the priest himself,during those nine months of
retirement and inward solitude; asign also that would kindle into
flame in the day when Godwould loosen his tongue.
A period of unusual length had passed, since the signal
forincensing had been given. The prayers of the people had
beenoffered, and their anxious gaze was directed towards the
HolyPlace. At last Zacharias emerged to take his stand on the topof
the steps which led from the Porch to the Court of thePriests,
waiting to lead in the priestly benediction, [cNumb. vi. 24-26] that
preceded the daily meat-offering andthe chant of the Psalms of
praise, accompanied with joyoussound of music, as the
drink-offering was poured out. Butalready the sign of Zacharias
was to be a sign to all thepeople. The pieces of the sacrifices had
been ranged in dueorder on the altar of burnt-offering; the priests
stood onthe steps to the porch, and the people were in
waiting.Zacharias essayed to speak the words of
benediction,unconscious that the stoke had fallen. But the people
knew itby his silence, that he had seen a vision in the Temple.
Yetas he stood helpless, trying by signs to indicate it to
theawestruck assembly, he remained dumb.
Wondering, they had dispersed, people and priests. The
day'sservice over, another family of ministrants took the place
ofthose among whom Zacharias had been; and again, at the closeof
the week's service, another 'course' that of Abia. Theyreturned to
their homes, some to Ophel, some to Jericho, someto their quiet
dwellings in the country. But God fulfilledthe word which He had
spoken by His Angel.
Before leaving this subject, it may be well to inquire intothe
relation between the events just described, and thecustoms and
expectations of the time. The scene in theTemple, and all the
surroundings, are in strictest accordancewith what we know of the
services of the Sanctuary. In anarrative that lays hold on some
details of a very complexservice, such entire accuracy conveys the
impression ofgeneral truthfulness. Similarly, the sketch of
Zacharias andElisabeth is true to the history of the time,
thoughZacharias could not have been one of the 'learned,' nor tothe
Rabbinists, a model priest. They would have described himas an
'idiot,' [1 The word or 'idiot,' when conjoined with'priest' ordinarily
means a common priest, in distinction tothe High priest. But the
word unquestionably also signifiesvulgar, ignorant, and illiterate.
See Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 3from bottom; Sanh. 21 b. Comp. also Meg.
12 b; Ber. R. 96.]or common, and as an Amha-arets, a 'rustic'
priest, andtreated himm with benevolent contempt. [2 According
to Sanh.90 b, such an one was not even allowed to get the
Terumah.]The Angelic apparition, which he saw, was
whollyunprecedented, and could therefore not have lain within
rangeof common expectation; though the possibility, or rather
thefear, of some contact with the Divine was always present tothe
popular mind. But it is difficult to conceive how, if nottrue, the
invention of such a vision in such circumstancescould have
suggested itself. This difficulty is enhanced bythe obvious
difference between the Evangelic narrative, andthe popular ideas
of the time. Far too much importance hashere been attached by a
certain class of writers to aRabbinic saying, [a Jer. haSh. 56 d, line
10 from bottom]that the names of the Angels were brought from
Babylon. For,not only was this saying (of Ben Lakish) only a
cleverScriptural deduction (as the context shows), and not even
anactual tradition, but no competent critic would venture tolay
down the principle, that isolated Rabbinic sayings in theTalmud
are to be regarded as sufficient foundation forhistorical facts. On
the other hand, Rabbinic tradition doeslay it down, that the names
of the Angels were derived fromtheir mission, and might be
changed with it. Thus the replyof the Angel to the inquiry of
Manoah [a Judg. xiii. 18] isexplained as implying, that he knew
not what other name mightbe given him in the future. In the Book
of Daniel, to whichthe son of Lakish refers, the only two Angelic
namesmentioned are Gabriel [b Dan. ix. 21] and Michael, [c x.
21]while the appeal to the Book of Daniel, as evidence of
theBabylonish origin of Jewish Angelology, comes with
strangeinconsistency from writers who date it in Maccabean times.
[1Two other Angels are mentioned, but not named, in Dan. x.
13,20.] But the question of Angelic nomenclature is
quitesecondary. The real point at issue is, whether or not
theAngelology and Demonology of the New Testament was
derivedfrom contemporary Judaism. The opinion, that such was
thecase, has been so dogmatically asserted, as to have
almostpassed among a certain class as a settled fact.
Thatnevertheless such was not the case, is capable of the
mostample proof. Here also, with similarity of form, slighterthan
usually, there os absolutely contrast of substance. [2The Jewish
ideas and teaching about angels are fully given inAppendix XIII.:
'Jewish Angelology and Demonology.']
Admitting that the names of Gabriel and Michael must havebeen
familiar to the mind of ZXacharias, some not
unimportantdifferences must be kept in view. Thus, Gabriel was
regardedin tradition as inferior to Michael; and, though both
wereconnected with Israel, Gabriel was represented as chiefly
theminister of justice, and Michael of mercy; while,
thirdly,Gabriel was supposed to stand on the left, and not (as in
theEvangelic narrative) on the right, side of the throne ofglory.
Small as these divergences may seem, they areallimportant, when
derivation of one set of opinions fromanother is in question.
Finally, as regarded the coming ofElijah as forerunner of the
Messiah, it is to be observedthat, according to Jewish notions, he
was to appearpersonally, and not merely 'in spirit and power.' In
fact,tradition represents his ministry and appearances as
almostcontinuous , not only immediately before the coming
ofMessiah, but at all times. Rabbinic writings introduce him onthe
scene, not only frequently, but on the most incongruousoccasions,
and for the most diverse purposes. In this senseit is said of him,
that he always liveth. [d Moed k. 26a]Sometimes, indeed, he is
blamed, as for the closing words inhis prayer about the turning of
the heart of the people, [e 1Kings xviii. 37 (in Hebr. without 'that'
and 'again'); seeBer. 31 b, last two lines] and even his sacrifice on
Carmelwas only excused on the ground of express command.
[fBemidbar R. 14. Another view in Par. 13] But his greatactivity as
precursor of the Messiah is to resolve doubts ofall kinds; to
reintroduce those who had been violently andimproperly extruded
from the congregation of Israel, andvice-versa; to make peace;
while, finally, he was connectedwith the raising of the dead. [a
This in Shir haSh R. i. ed.Warshau, p. 3 a.] [1 All the Rabbinic
traditions about'Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah' are
collated inAppendix VIII.] But nowhere is he prominently
designated asintended 'to make ready for the Lord a people
prepared.' [2 Ishould, however, remark, that that very curious
chapter onRepentance, in the Pirke de R. Elieser (c. 43), closes
withthese words: 'And Israel will not make great repentance
tillElijah, his memory for blessing!, come, as it is said, Mal.iv. 6,'
&c. From this isolated and enigmatic sentence,Professor
Delitzsch's implied inference (Zeitschr. furLuther. Theol. 1875, p.
593) seems too sweeping.]
Thus, from whatever source the narrative may be supposed tohave
been derived, its details certainly differ, in almostall particulars,
from the theological notions current at thetime. And the more
Zacharias meditated on this in the longsolitude of his enforced
silence, the more fully must newspiritual thoughts have come to
him. As for Elisabeth, thosetender feelings of woman, which ever
shrink from thedisclosure of the dearest secret of motherhood,
wereintensely deepened and sanctified in the knowledge of allthat
had passed. Little as she might understand the fullmeaning of the
future, it must have been to her, as if shealso now stood in the
Holy Place, gazing towards the Veilwhich concealed the innermost
Presence. Meantime she wascontent with, nay, felt the need of,
absolute retirement fromother fellowship than that of God and her
own heart. Like herhusband, she too would be silent and alone, till
anothervoice called her forth. Whatever the future might
bring,sufficient for the present, that thus the Lord had done toher,
in days in which He looked down to remove her reproachamong
men. The removal of that burden, its manner, itsmeaning, its end,
were all from God, and with God; and it wasfitting to be quite
alone and silent, till God's voice wouldagain wake the echoes
within. And so five months passed inabsolute retirement.
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
THE ANNUNCIATION OF JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND THE
BIRTH OF HISFORERUNNER.
CHAPTER IV
(St. Matt. i.; St. Luke i. 26-80.)
FROM the Temple to Nazareth! It seems indeed most fittingthat
the Evangelic story should have taken its beginningwithin the
Sanctuary, and at the time of sacrifice. Despiteits outward
veneration for them, the Temple, its services,and specially its
sacrifices, were, by an inward logicalnecessity, fast becoming a
superfluity for Rabbinism. But thenew development, passing over
the intruded elements, whichwere, after all, of rationalistic origin,
connected itsbeginning directly with the Old Testament
dispensation, itssacrifices, priesthood, and promises. In the
Sanctuary, inconnection with sacrifice, and through the priesthood,
suchwas significantly the beginning of the era of fulfillment.And
so the great religious reformation of Israel under Samuelhad also
begun in the Tabernacle, which had so long been inthe
background. But if, even in this Temple-beginning, and inthe
communication to, and selection of an idiot 'priest,'there was
marked divergence from the Rabbinic ideal, thatdifference widens
into the sharpest contrast, as we pass fromthe Forerunner to the
Messiah, from the Temple to Galilee,from the 'idiot' priest to the
humble, unlettered family ofNazareth. It is necessary here to recall
our generalimpression of Rabbinism: its conception of God, [1
Terribleas it may sound, it is certainly the teaching of
Rabbinism,that God occupied so many hours every day in the
study of theLaw. Comp. Targ. Ps.-Jonathan on Deut. xxxii. 4, and
Abhod.Z. 3 b. Nay, Rabbinism goes farther in its daring, and
speaksof the Almighty as arrayed in a white dress, or as
occupyinghimself by day with the study of the Bible, and by night
withthat of the six tractates of the Mishnah. Comp. also theTargum
on Cant. v. 10.] and of the highest good and ultimateobject of all
things, as concentrated in learned study,pursued in Academies; and
then to think of the unmitigatedcontempt with which they were
wont to speak of Galilee, andof the Galileans, whose very patois
was an offence; of theutter abhorrence with which they regarded
the unletteredcountry-people, in order to realise, how such an
household asthat of Joseph and Mary would be regarded by the
leaders ofIsrael. A Messianic announcement, not the result of
learnedinvestigation, nor connected with the Academies, but in
theSanctuary, to a 'rustic' priest; an Elijah unable to untiethe
intellectual or ecclesiastical knots, of whose mission,indeed, this
formed no part at all; and a Messiah, theoffspring of a Virgin in
Galilee betrothed to a humbleworkman , assuredly, such a picture
of the fulfillment ofIsrael's hope could never have been conceived
by contemporaryJudaism. There was in such a Messiah absolutely
nothing,past, present, or possible; intellectually, religiously, oreven
nationally, to attract, but all to repel. And so we can,at the very
outset of this history, understand the infinitecontrast which it
embodied, with all the difficulties to itsreception, even to those
who became disciples, as at almostevery step of its progress they
were, with ever freshsurprise, 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 therepresentative of
the good and the true in the Priesthood atthat time, so the family of
Nazareth as a typical Israelitishhousehold. We feel, that the
scantiness of particulars heresupplied by the Gospels, was intended
to prevent the humaninterest from overshadowing the grand
central Fact, to whichalone attention was to be directed. For, the
design of theGospels was manifestly not to furnish a biography of
Jesusthe Messiah, [1 The object which the Evangelists had in
viewwas certainly not that of biography, even as the OldTestament
contains no biography. The twofold object of theirnarratives is
indicated by St. Luke i. 4, and by St. John xx.31.] but, in organic
connection with the Old Testament, totell the history of the
long-promised establishment of theKingdom of God upon earth.
Yet what scanty details we possessof the 'Holy Family' and its
surroundings may here find aplace.
The highlands which form the central portion of Palestineare
broken by the wide, rich plain of Jezreel, which seversGailee from
the rest of the land. This was always the greatbattle-field of Israel.
Appropriately, it is shut in asbetween mountain-walls. That along
the north of the plain isformed by the mountains of Lower Galilee,
cleft about themiddle by a valley that widens, till, after an
hour'sjourney, we stand within an enclosure which seems almost
oneof Nature's own sanctuaries. As in an amphitheatre,
fifteenhill-tops rise around. That to the west is the highest,
about500 feet. On its lower slopes nestles a little town, itsnarrow
streets ranged like terraces. This is Nazareth,probably the ancient
Sarid (or En-Sarid), which, in the timeof Joshua, marked the
northern boundary of Zebulun. [a Josh.xix. 10,11] [1 The name
Nazareth may best be regarded as theequivalent of 'watch' or
'watcheress.' The name does notoccur in the Talmud, nor in those
Midrashim which have beenpreserved. But the elegy of Eleazar ha
Kallir, written beforethe close of the Talmud, in which Nazareth is
mentioned as aPriestcentre, is based upon an ancient Midrash, now
lost(comp. Neubauer, Geogr. du Talmud, p. 117, note 5). It
is,however, possible, as Dr. Neubauer suggests (u.s. p. 190,note 5),
that the name in Midr. on Eccl. ii. 8 should readand refers to
Nazareth.]
Climbing this steep hill, fragrant with aromatic plants, andbright
with rich-coloured flowers, a view almost unsurpassedopens
before us. For, the Galilee of the time of Jesus wasnot only of the
richest fertility, cultivated to the utmost,and thickly covered with
populous towns and villages, but thecentre of every known
industry, and the busy road of theworld's commerce. Northward
the eye would sweep over a richplain; rest here and there on white
towns, glittering in thesunlight; then quickly travel over the
romantic hills andglens which form the scenes of Solomon's Song,
till, passingbeyond Safed (the Tsephath of the Rabbis, the 'city set
on ahill'), the view is bounded by that giant of the
far-offmountain-chain, snow-tipped Hermon. Westward stretched
a likescene of beauty and wealth, a land not lonely, but wedded;not
desolate, but teeming with life; while, on the edge ofthe horizon,
lay purple Carmel; beyond it a fringe of silversand, and then the
dazzling sheen of the Great Sea. In thefarthest distance, white
sails, like wings outspread towardsthe ends of the world; nearer,
busy ports; then, centres ofindustry; and close by, travelled roads,
all bright in thepure Eastern air and rich glow of the sun. But if
you turnedeastwards, the eye would soon be arrested by the
woodedheight of Tabor, yet not before attention had been riveted
bythe long, narrow string of fantastic caravans, and curiosityroused
by the motley figures, of all nationalities and in allcostumes, busy
binding the East to the West by that line ofcommerce that passed
along the route winding around Tabor.And when, weary with the
gaze, you looked once more down onlittle Nazareth nestling on the
breast of the mountain, theeye would rest on a scene of tranquil,
homely beauty. Justoutside the town, in the north-west, bubbled
the spring orwell, the trysting-spot of townspeople, and
welcomeresting-place of travellers. Beyond it stretched lines
ofhouses, each with its flat roof standing out distinctlyagainst the
clear sky; watered, terraced gardens, gnarledwide-spreading
figtrees, graceful feathery palms, scentedoranges, silvery
olive-trees, thick hedges, richpasture-land, then the bounding hills
to the south; andbeyond, the seemingly unbounded expanse of the
wide plain ofEsdraelon!
And yet, withdrawn from the world as, in its enclosure
ofmountains, Nazareth might seem, we must not think of it as
alonely village which only faint echoes reached of what rousedthe
land beyond. With reverence be it said: such a placemight have
suited the training of the contemplative hermit,not the upbringing
of Him Whose sympathies were to be withevery clime and race.
Nor would such an abode have furnishedwhat (with all due
acknowledgment of the supernatural) wemark as a constant,
because a rationally necessary, elementin Scripture history: that of
inward preparedness in whichthe higher and the Divine afterwards
find their ready pointsof contact.
Nor was it otherwise in Nazareth. The two great interestswhich
stirred the land, the two great factors in thereligious future of
Israel, constantly met in the retirementof Nazareth. The great
caravan-route which led from Acco onthe sea to Damascus divided
at its commencement into threeroads: the most northern passing
through Caesarea Philippi;the Upper Galilean; and the Lower
Galilean. The latter, theancient Via Maris led through Nazareth,
and thence either byCana, or else along the northern shoulder of
Mount Tabor, tothe Lake of Gennesaret, each of these roads soon
uniting withthe Upper Galilean. [1 Comp. the detailed description
ofthese roads, and the references in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol.xv.
pp. 160, 161.] Hence, although the stream of commercebetween
Acco and the East was divided into three channels,yet, as one of
these passed through Nazareth, the quietlittle town was not a
stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. Menof all nations, busy with
another life than that of Israel,would appear in the streets of
Nazareth; and through themthoughts, associations, and hopes
connected with the greatoutside world be stirred. But, on the other
hand, Nazarethwas also one of the great centers of Jewish
Temple-life. Ithas already been indicated that the Priesthood was
dividedinto twenty-four 'course' which, in turn, ministered in
theTemple. The Priests of the 'course' which was to be on
dutyalways gathered in certain towns, whence they went up
incompany to Jerusalem, while those of their number who
wereunable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer.
NowNazareth was one of these Priest-centres, [2 Comp.
Neubauer,u. s. p. 190. See a detailed account in 'sketches of
JewishSocial Life,' &c. p. 36.] and although it may well have
been,that comparatively few in distant Galilee conformed to
thePriestly regulations, some must have assembled there
inpreparation for the sacred functions, or appeared in
itsSynagogue. Even the fact, so well known to all, of thisliving
connection between Nazareth and the Temple, must havewakened
peculiar feelings. Thus, to take the wider view, adouble symbolic
significance attached to Nazareth, sincethrough it passed alike
those who carried on the traffic ofthe world, and those who
ministered in the Temple. [1 It isstrange, that these two
circumstances have not been noticed.Keim (Jesu von Nazari i. 2,
pp. 322, 323) only cursorilyrefers to the great road which passed
through Nazareth.]
We may take it, that the people of Nazareth were like thoseof other
little towns similarly circumstanced: [2 Theinference, that the
expression of Nathanael (St. John i. 46)implies a lower state of the
people of Nazareth, isunfounded. Even Keim points out, that it
only marks disbeliefthat the Messiah would come from such a
place.] with all thepeculiarities of the impulsive, straight-spoken,
hot-blooded,brave, intensely national Galileans; [3 Our description
ofthem is derived from notices by Josephus (such as War iii. 3,2),
and many passages in the Talmud,] with the deeperfeelings and
almost instinctive habits of thought and life,which were the
outcome of long centuries of Old Testamenttraining; but also with
the petty interest and jealousies ofsuch places, and with all the
ceremonialism and punctiliousself-assertion of Orientals. The cast
of Judaism prevalent inNazareth would, of course, be the same as
in Galileegenerally. We know, that there were marked divergences
fromthe observances in that stronghold of Rabbinism, [4
Thesedifferences are marked in Pes. iv. 5; Keth. iv. 12; Ned. ii.4;
Chull. 62 a; Baba K. 80 a; Keth. 12 a.] Judaea, indicatinggreater
simplicity and freedom from the constant intrusion oftraditional
ordinances. The home-life would be all the purer,that the veil of
wedded life was not so coarsely lifted as inJudaea, nor its sacred
secrecy interfered with by anArgus-eyed legislation. [5 The reader
who wishes tounderstand what we have only ventured to hint, is
referred tothe Mishnic tractate Niddah.] The purity of betrothal
inGalilee wasless likely to be sullied, [a Keth. 12 a] andweddings
were more simple than in Judaea, without the dubiousinstitution of
groomsmen, [b Keth. 12 a, and often] [6 Comp.'Sketches of Jewish
Social Life,' &c., pp. 152 &c.] or'friends of the bridegroom,' [c St.
John iii. 29.] whoseoffice must not unfrequently have degenerated
into uttercoarseness. The bride was chosen, not as in Judaea,
wheremoney was too often the motive, but as in Jerusalem,
withchief regard to 'a fair degree;' and widows were (as
inJerusalem) more tenderly cared for, as we gather even fromthe
fact, that they had a life-right of residence in theirhusband's house.
Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring
themaiden, to whom he had been betrothed. Whatever view may
betaken of the genealogies in the Gospels according to St.Matthew
and St. Luke, whether they be regarded as those ofJoseph and of
Mary, [1 The best defence of this view is thatby Wieseler, Beitr.
zur Wurdig. d. Evang. pp. 133 &c. It isalso virtually adopted by
Weiss (Leben Jesu, vol. i. 1882).]or, which seems the more likely,
[2 This view is adoptedalmost unanimously by modern writers.] as
those of Josephonly, marking his natural and his legal descent [3
This viewis defended with much skill by Mr. McClellan in his
NewTestament, vol. i. pp. 409-422.] from David, or vice versa
[4So Grotius, Bishop Lord Arthur Hervey, and after him
mostmodern English writers.], there can be no question, that
bothJoseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David. [5
TheDavidic descent of the Virgin-Mother, which is questioned
bysome even among orthodox interpreters, seems implied in
theGospel (St. Luke i. 27, 32, 69; ii. 4), and an almostnecessary
inference from such passages as Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim.ii. 8; Hebr. vii.
14. The Davidic descent of Jesus is notonly admitted, but
elaborately proved, on purelyrationalistic grounds, by Keim (u. s.
pp. 327-329).] Mostprobably the two were nearly related, [6 This
is the generalview of antiquity.] while Mary could also claim
kinship withthe Priesthood, being, no doubt on her mother's side,
a'blood-relative' of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias.[a St.
Luke i. 36.] [7 Reference to this union of Levi andJudah in the
Messiah is made in the Test. xii. Patriarch.,Test. Simeonis vii.
(apud Fabr. Cod. Pseudepigr. vol. ii. p.542). Curiously, the great
Hillel was also said by some tohave descended, through his father
and mother, from thetribes of Judah and Levi, all, however,
asserting his Davidicorigin (comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 2; Ber. R. 98 and
33).] Eventhis seems to imply, that Mary's family must shortly
beforehave held higher rank, for only with such did custom
sanctionany alliance on the part of Priests. [8 Comp, Maimonides,
YadhaChaz Hil. Sanh. ii. The inference would, of course, be
thesame, whether we suppose Mary's mother to have been
thesister-in-law, or the sister, of Elisabeth's father.] But atthe time
of their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary wereextremely poor, as
appears, not indeed from his being acarpenter, since a trade was
regarded as almost a religiousduty, but from the offering at the
presentation of Jesus inthe Temple. [b St. Luke ii. 24.]
Accordingly, their betrothalmust have been of the simplest, and
the dowry settled thesmallest possible. [9 Comp. 'Sketches of
Jewish Social Lifein the Days of Christ,' pp. 143-149. Also the
article on'Marriage' in Cassell's Bible-Educator, vol. iv.
pp.267-270.] Whichever of the two modes of betrothal [10
Therewas a third mode, by cohabitation; but this was
highlydisapproved of even by the Rabbis.] may have been adopted:
inthe presence of witnesses, either by solemn word of mouth,
indue prescribed formality, with the added pledge of a piece
ofmoney, however small, or of money's worth for use; or else
bywriting (the so-called Shitre Erusin), there would be
nosumptuous feast to follow; and the ceremony would
concludewith some such benediction as that afterwards in
use:'Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World,
Whohath sanctified us by His Commandments, and enjoined us
aboutincest, and forbidden the betrothed, but allowed us
thosewedded by Chuppah (the marriage-baldachino) and
betrothal.Blessed art Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel by Chuppah
andbetrothal', the whole being perhaps concluded by abenediction
over the statutory cup of wine, which was tastedin turn by the
betrothed. From that moment Mary was thebetrothed wife of
Joseph; their relationship as sacred, as ifthey had already been
wedded. Any breach of it would betreated as adultery; nor could
the band be dissolved except,as after marriage, by regular divorce.
Yet months mightintervene between the betrothal and marriage. [1
Theassertion of Professor Wunsche (Neue Beitr. zur Erlauter.
d.Evang. p. 7) that the practice of betrothal was
confinedexclusively, or almost so, to Judaea, is quite
ungrounded.The passages to which he refers (Kethub. i. 5, not 3,
andespecially Keth. 12 a) are irrelevant. Keth. 12 a marks
thesimpler and purer customs of Galilee, but does not refer
tobetrothals.]
Five months of Elisabeth's sacred retirement had passed,when a
strange messenger brought its first tidings to herkinswoman in
far-off Galilee. It was not in the solemngrandeur of the Temple,
between the golden altar of incenseand the seven-branched
candlesticks that the Angel Gabrielnow appeared, but in the
privacy of a humble home atNazareth. The greatest honor
bestowed on man was to comeamidst circumstances of deepest
human lowliness, as if themore clearly to mark the exclusively
Divine character of whatwas to happen. And, although the awe of
the Supernatural mustunconsciously have fallen upon her, it was
not so much thesudden appearance of the mysterious stranger in
herretirement that startled the maiden, as the words of hisgreeting,
implying unthought blessing. The 'Peace to thee' [2I have rendered
the Greek by the Hebrew and for thecorrectness of it refer the
reader to Grimm's remarks on 1Macc. x. 18 (Exeget. Handb. zu d.
Apokryph. 3(tte) Lief. p.149).] was, indeed, the well-known
salutation, while thewords, 'The Lord is with thee' might waken the
remembrance ofthe Angelic call, to great deliverance in the past.
[a Judg.vi. 12.] But this designation of 'highly favored' [3
Bengelaptly remarks, 'Non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia
gratiae.'Even Jeremy Taylor's remarks (Life of Christ, ed.
Pickering,vol. i. p. 56) would here require modification. Following
thebest critical authorities, I have omitted the words, 'Blessedart
thou among women.'] came upon her with bewilderingsurprise,
perhaps not so much from its contrast to thehumbleness of her
estate, as from the self-conscious humilityof her heart. And it was
intended so, for of all feelingsthis would now most become her.
Accordingly, it is this storyof special 'favour' or grace, which the
Angel traces in rapidoutline, from the conception of the
Virgin-Mother to thedistinctive, Divinely-given Name, symbolic of
the meaning ofHis coming; His absolute greatness; His
acknowledgment as theSon of God; and the fulfillment in Him of
the great Davidichope, with its never-ceasing royalty, [1 We here
refer, as aninteresting corroboration, to the Targum on Ps. xlv. 7 (6
inour A. V.). But this interest is intensely increased when weread
it, not as in our editions of the Targum, but as foundin a MS. copy
of the year 1208 (given by Levy in his Targum.Worterb. vol. i. p.
390 a). Translating it from that reading,the Targum thus renders
Ps. xlv. 7, 'Thy throne, O God, inthe heaven' (Levy renders, 'Thy
throne from God in heaven,'but in either case it refers to the throne
of the Messiah)'is for ever and ever' (for 'world without end,' 'a rule
ofrighteousness is the rule of Thy kingdom, O Thou
KingMessiah!'] and its never-ending, boundless Kingdom. [2
InPirque' de R. El. c. 11, the same boundless dominion isascribed
to Messiah the King. In that curious passagedominion is ascribed
to 'ten kings,' the first being God, theninth the Messiah, and the
tenth again God, to Whom thekingdom would be delivered in the
end, according to Is. xliv.6; Zechar. xiv. 9; Ezek. xxxiv. 24, with
the result describedin Is. lii. 9.]
In all this, however marvellous, there could be nothingstrange to
those who cherished in their hearts Israel's greathope, not merely
as an article of abstract belief, but asmatter of certain fact, least of
all to the maiden of thelineage of David, betrothed to him of the
house and lineageof David. So long as the hand of prophetic
blessing rested onthe house of David, and before its finger had
pointed to theindividual who 'found favor' in the highest sense,
theconsciousness of possibilities, which scarce dared
shapethemselves into definite thoughts, must at times have
stirrednameless feelings, perhaps the more often in circumstances
ofoutward depression and humility, such as those of the
'HolyFamily.' Nor was there anything strange even in the naming
ofthe yet unconceived Child. It sounds like a saying currentamong
the people of old, this of the Rabbis, [a Pirque' de R.El. 32, at the
beginning] concerning the six whose names weregiven before their
birth: Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon,Josiah, and 'the Name of the
Messiah, Whom may the Holy One,blessed be His Name, bring
quickly in our days!' [3 ProfessorWunsche's quotation is here not
exact (u. s. p. 414)] But asfor the deeper meaning of the name
Jesus, [b St. Matt. i. 21]which, like an unopened bud, enclosed the
flower of HisPassion, that was mercifully yet the unthought-of
secret ofthat sword, which should pierce the soul of
theVirgin-Mother, and which only His future history would
layopen to her and to others.
Thus, on the supposition of the readiness of her believingheart, and
her entire self-unconsciousness, it would havebeen only the
glorious announcement of the impending event,which would
absorb her thinking, with nothing strange aboutit, or that needed
further light, than the how of her ownconnection with it. [4 Weiss
(Leben Jesu, 1882, vol. i. p.213) rightly calls attention to the
humility of herself-surrender, when she willingly submitted to
what herheart would feel hardest to bear, that of incurring
suspicionof her purity in the sight of all.] And the words, which
shespake, were not of trembling doubt, that required to lean onthe
staff of a 'sign,' but rather those of enquiry, for thefurther guidance
of a willing self-surrender. The Angel hadpointed her opened eyes
to the shining path: that was notstrange; only, that She should walk
in it, seemed so. And nowthe Angel still further unfolded it in
words which, howeverlittle she may have understood their full
meaning, had againnothing strange about them, save once more
that she should bethus 'favoured'; words which, even to her
understanding, musthave carried yet further thoughts of Divine
favour, and sodeepened her humility. For, the idea of the activity
of theHoly Ghost in all great events was quite familiar to Israelat
the time, [1 So in almost innumerable Rabbinic passages.]even
though the Individuation of the Holy Ghost may not havebeen fully
apprehended. Only, that they expected suchinfluences to rest
exclusively upon those who were eithermighty, or rich, or wise. [a
Nedar. 38 a] And of this twofoldmanifestation of miraculous
'favour,' that she, and as aVirgin, should be its subject, Gabriel, 'the
might of God,'gave this unasked sign, in what had happened to her
kinswomanElisabeth.
The sign was at the same time a direction. The first, butalso the
ever-deepening desire in the heart of Mary, when theAngel left
her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, andfor the relief of
opening her heart to a woman, in all thingslike-minded, who
perhaps might speak blessed words to her.And to such an one the
Angel himself seemed to have directedher. It is only what we
would have expected, that 'withhaste' she should have resorted to
her kinswoman, withoutloss of time, and before she would speak
to her betrothed ofwhat even in wedded life is the first secret
whispered. [2This is answer to the objection, so pertinaciously
urged, ofinconsistency with the narrative in St. Matt. i. 19 &c. It
isclear, that Mary went 'with haste' to her kinswoman, and thatany
communication to Joseph could only have taken place afterthat,
and after the Angelic prediction was in all its partsconfirmed by
her visit to Elisabeth. Jeremy Taylor (u. s. p.64) has already
arranged the narrative as in the text.]
It could have been no ordinary welcome that would greet
theVirgin-Mother, on entering the house of her
kinswoman.Elisabeth must have learnt from her husband the
destiny oftheir son, and hence the near Advent of the Messiah. But
shecould not have known either when, or of whom He would
beborn. When, by a sign not quite strange to Jewish expectancy,[3
According to Jewish tradition, the yet unborn infants intheir
mother's] she recognised in her near kinswoman theMother of her
Lord, her salutation was that of a mother to amother, the mother of
the 'preparer' to the mother of Him forWhom he would prepare. To
be more precise: the words which,filled with the Holy Ghost, she
spake, were the mother'sutterance, to the mother, of the homage
which her unborn babeoffered to his Lord; while the answering
hymn of Mary was theoffering of that homage unto God. It was the
antiphonalmorning-psalmody of the Messianic day as it broke, of
whichthe words were still all of the old dispensation, [1 Thepoetic
grandeur and the Old Testament cast of the Virgin'shymn (comp.
the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10), needscarcely be pointed out.
Perhaps it would read fullest andbest by trying to recall what must
have been its Hebreworiginal.] but their music of the new; the
keynote being thatof 'favour,' 'grace,' struck by the Angel in his
firstsalutation: 'favour' to the Virgin; [a 1st stanza vv.
46-49]'favour,' eternal 'favour' to all His humble and poor ones;[b
2nd stanza, vv. 50-53] and 'favour' to Israel, stretchingin golden
line from the calling of Abraham to the gloriousfuture that now
opened. [c 3rd stanza, vv. 54-55] Not one ofthese fundamental
ideas but lay strictly within the range ofthe Old Testament; and yet
all of them now lay beyond it,bathed in the golden light of the new
day. Miraculous it allis, and professes to be; not indeed in the
connection ofthese events, which succeed each other with
psycologicaltruthfulness; nor yet in their language, which is of
thetimes and the circumstances; but in the underlying facts.
[2Weiss, while denying the historical accuracy of much in
theGospel-narrative of it, unhesitatingly accepts the fact ofthe
supernatural birth of Jesus.] And for these there can beno other
evidence than the Life, the Death, and theResurrection of Jesus the
Messiah. If He was such, and if Hereally rose from the dead, then,
with all soberness andsolemnity, such inception of His appearance
seems almost alogical necessity. But of this whole narrative it may
besaid, that such inception of the Messianic appearance,
suchannouncement of it, and such manner of His Coming,
couldnever have been invented by contemporary Judaism; indeed,
randirectly counter to all its preconceptions. [3 Keimelaborately
discusses the origin of what he calls the legendof Christ's
supernatural conception. He arrives at theconclusion that it was a
Jewish-Christian legend, as if aJewish invention of such a 'legend'
were not the mostunlikely of all possible hypotheses! But negative
criticismis at least bound to furnish some historical basis for
theorigination of such an unlikely legend. Whence was the ideaof
it first derived? How did it find such ready acceptance inthe
Church? Weiss has, at considerable length, and veryfully, shown
the impossibility of its origin either in Jewishor heathen legend.]
Three months had passed since the Virgin-Mother entered
thehome of her kinswoman. And now she must return to
Nazareth.Soon Elisabeth's neighbours and kinsfolk would gather
withsympathetic joy around a home which, as they thought,
hadexperienced unexpected mercy, little thinking,
howwide-reaching its consequences would be. But
theVirgin-Mother must not be exposed to the publicity of
suchmeetings. However conscious of what had led to her
condition,it must have been as the first sharp pang of the sword
whichwas to pierce her soul, when she told it all to herbetrothed.
For, however deep his trust in her whom he hadchosen for wife,
only a direct Divine communication couldhave chased all
questioning from his heart, and given himthat assurance, which
was needful in the future history ofthe Messiah. Brief as, with
exquisite delicacy, the narrativeis, we can read in the 'thoughts' of
Joseph the anxiouscontending of feelings, the scarcely established,
and yetdelayed, resolve to 'put her away,' which could only be
doneby regular divorce; this one determination only standing
outclearly, that, if it must be, her letter of divorce shall behanded
to her privately, only in the presence of twowitnesses. The humble
Tsaddiq of Nazareth would not willinglyhave brought the blush to
any face, least of all would hemake of her 'a public exhibition of
shame.' [1 I havethusparaphrased the verb rendered in Heb. vi. 6
'put to anopen shame.' Comp. also LXX. Num. xxv. 4; Jer. xiii.
22;Ezek. xxviii. 17 (see Grimm, Clavis N.T. p. 333 b)
ArchdeaconFarrar adopts the reading.] It was a relief that he
couldlegally divorce her either publicly or privately, whetherfrom
change of feeling, or because he had found just causefor it, but
hesitated to make it known, either from regardfor his own
character, or because he had not sufficient legalevidence [2 For
example, if he had not sufficient witnesses,or if their testimony
could be invalidated by any of thoseprovisions in favour of the
accused, of which traditionalismhad not a few. Thus, as indicated
in the text, Joseph mighthave privately divorced Mary leaving it
open to doubt on whatground he had so acted.] of the charge. He
would follow, allunconscious of it, the truer manly feeling of R.
Eliezar, [aKeth. 74 b 75 a.] R. Jochanan, and R. Zera, [b Keth. 97
b.]according to which a man would not like to put his wife
toshame before a Court of Justice, rather than the oppositesentence
of R. Meir.
The assurance, which Joseph could scarcely dare to hope for,was
miraculously conveyed to him in a dream-vision. All wouldnow be
clear; even the terms in which he was addressed ('thouson of
David'), so utterly unusual in ordinary circumstances,would
prepare him for the Angel's message. The naming of theunborn
Messiah would accord with popular notions; [3 See aformer note.]
the symbolism of such a name was deeply rootedin Jewish belief;
[1 Thus we read in (Shocher Tobh) theMidrash on Prov. xix. 21
(closing part; ed. Lemberg. p. 16 b)of eight names given to the
Messiah, viz. Yinnon (Ps. xxii.17, 'His name shall sprout [bear
sprouts] before the Sun;'comp. also Pirqe de 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 (Mal. iv. 5). The Messiah is also called Anani (Hethat
cometh in the clouds, Dan. vii. 13; see Tanch. Par.Toledoth 14);
Chaninah, with reference to Jer. xvi. 13; theLeprous, with
reference to Is. liii. 4 (Sanh. 96 b). It is acurious instance of the
Jewish mode of explaining a meaningby gimatreya, or numerical
calculation, that they proveTsemach (Branch) and Menachem
(Comforter) to be the same,because the numerical equivalents of
the one word are equalto those of the other:] while the explanation
of Jehoshua orJeshua (Jesus), as He who would save His people
(primarily,as he would understand it, Israel) from their sins,
describedat least one generally expected aspect of His Mission,
[2Professor Wunsche (Erlauter. d. Evang. p. 10) proposes tostrike
out the words 'from their sins' as an un-Jewishinterpolation. In
answer, it would suffice to point him tothe passages on this very
subject which he has collated in aprevious work: Die Leiden des
Messias, pp. 63-108. To these Iwill only add a comment in the
Midrash on Cant. i. 14 (ed.Warshau, p. 11 a and b), where the
reference is undoubtedlyto the Messiah (in the words of R.
Berakhyah, line 8 frombottom; and again in the words of R. Levi,
11 b, line 5 fromtop, &c.). The expression is there explained as
meaning 'HeWho makes expiation for the sins of Israel,' and it
isdistinctly added that this expiation bears reference to
thetransgressions and evil deeds of the children of Abraham,
forwhich God provides this Man as the Atonement.]
althoughJoseph may not have known that it was the basis of all
therest. And perhaps it was not without deeper meaning andinsight
into His character, that the Angel laid stress onthis very element in
His communication to Joseph, and not toMary.
The fact that such an announcement came to Him in a
dream,would dispose Joseph all the more readily to receive it.
'Agood dream' was one of the three things [3 'A good king,
afruitful year, and a good dream.'] popularly regarded asmarks of
God's favour; and so general was the belief in theirsignificance, as
to have passed into this popular saying: 'Ifany one sleeps seven
days without dreaming (or rather,remembering his dream for
interpretation), call him wicked'(as being unremembered of God [a
Ber. 55 b] [4 Rabbi Zeraproves this by a reference to Prov. xix. 23,
the readingSabhea (satisfied) being altered into Shebha, both
written,while is understood as of spending the night. Ber. 55 a to
57b contains a long, and sometimes very coarse, discussion
ofdreams, giving their various interpretations, rules foravoiding the
consequences of evil dreams, &c. The fundamentalprinciple is,
that 'a dream is according to itsinterpretation' (Ber. 55 b). Such
views about dreams would,no doubt, have long been matter of
popular belief, beforebeing formally expressed in the Talmud.]).
Thus Divinely setat rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. The
highest dutytowards the Virgin-Mother and the unborn Jesus
demanded animmediate marriage, which would afford not only
outward, butmoral protection to both. [5 The objection, that the
accountof Joseph and Mary's immediate marriage is inconsistent
withthe designation of Mary in St. Luke ii. 5, is sufficientlyrefuted
by the consideration that, in any other case, Jewishcustom would
not have allowed Mary to travel to Bethlehem incompany with
Joseph. The expression used in St. Luke ii. 5,must be read in
connection with St. Matt. i. 25.]
Viewing events, not as isolated, but as links welded in thegolden
chain of the history of the Kingdom of God, 'allthis', not only the
birth of Jesus from a Virgin, nor evenHis symbolic Name with its
import, but also the unrestfulquestioning of Joseph, 'happened' [1
Haupt (Alttestam. Citatein d. vier Evang. pp. 207-215) rightly lays
stress on thewords, 'all this was done.' He even extends its
reference tothe threefold arrangement of the genealogy by St.
Matthew, asimplying the ascending splendour of the line of David,
itsmidday glory, and its decline.] in fulfilment [2 The
correctHebrew equivalent of the expression 'that it might
befulfilled' is not, as Surenhusius (Biblos Katallages, p. 151)and
other writers have it, still loss (Wunsche) but, asProfessor
Delitzsch renders it, in his new translation of St.Matthew, The
difference is important, and Delitzsch'stranslation completely
established by the similar renderingof the LXX. of 1 Kings ii. 27
and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.] ofwhat had been prefigured. [a Is. vii. 14.]
The promise of aVirginborn son as a sign of the firmness of God's
covenant ofold with David and his house; the now unfolded
meaning of theformer symbolic name Immanuel; even the unbief
of Ahaz, withits 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,
inthe words of Ahaz, it seemed to renounce the very foundationof
its claim to continuance; never had the fortunes of thehouse of
David fallen lower, than when a Herod sat on itsthrone, and its
lineal representative was a humble villagecarpenter, from whose
heart doubts of the Virgin-Mother hadto be Divinely chased. And
never, not even when God gave tothe doubts of Moses this as the
sign of Israel's futuredeliverance, that in that mountain they should
worship [b Ex.iii. 12.] had unbelief been answered by more
strangeevidence. But as, nevertheless, the stability of the
Davidichouse was ensured by the future advent of Immanuel, and
withsuch certainty, that before even such a child could
discernbetween choice of good and evil, the land would be freed
ofits dangers; so now all that was then prefigured was tobecome
literally true, and Israel to be saved from its realdanger by the
Advent of Jesus, Immanuel. [3 A criticaldiscussion of Is. vii. 14
would here be out of place; thoughI have attempted to express my
views in the text. (Thenearest approach to them is that by
Engelhardt in theZeitschr. fur Luth. Theol. fur 1872, Heft iv.). The
quotationof St. Matthew follows, with scarcely any variation,
therendering of the LXX. That they should have translated
theHebrew by, 'a Virgin,' is surely sufficient evidence of
theadmissibility of such a rendering. The idea that the
promisedSon was to be either that of Ahaz, or else of the
prophet,cannot stand the test of critical investigation (see
Haupt,u.s., and Bohl, Alttest. Citate im N.T. pp. 3-6).
Ourdifficulties of interpretation are, in great part, due to
theabruptness of Isaiah's prophetic language, and to ourignorance
of surrounding circumstances. Steinmeyeringeniously argues
against the mythical theory that, sinceIs. vii. 14 was not interpreted
by the ancient Synagogue in aMessianic sense, that passage could
not have led to theorigination of 'the legend' about the 'Virgin's
Son' (Gesch.d. Geb. d. Herrn, p. 95). We add this further
question,Whence did it originate?] And so it had all been
intended.Thegolden cup of prophecy which Isaiah had placed
empty onthe Holy Table, waiting for the time of the end, was now
fullfilled, up to its brim, with the new wine of the Kingdom.
Meanwhile the long-looked-for event had taken place in thehome
of Zacharias. No domestic solemnity so important or sojoyous as
that in which, by circumcision, the child had, asit were, laid upon
it the yoke of the Law, with all of dutyand privilege which this
implied. Even the circumstance, thatit took place at early morning
[a Pes. 4 a.] might indicatethis. It was, so tradition has it, as if the
father had actedsacrificially as High-Priest, [b Yalkut Sh. i. par.
81.]offering his child to God in gratitude and love; [c Tanch.
PTetsavveh, at the beginning, ed. Warshau, p. 111 a.] and
itsymbolised this deeper moral truth, that man must by his ownact
complete what God had first instituted. [d Tanch. u. s.]To
Zacharias and Elisabeth the rite would have even more thanthis
significance, as administered to the child of their oldage, so
miraculously given, and who was connected with such afuture.
Besides, the legend which associates circumcisionwith Elijah, as
the restorer of this rite in the apostateperiod of the Kings of Israel,
[e Pirq de R. Elies. c. 29.]was probably in circulation at the time.
[1 Probably thedesignation of 'chair' or 'throne of Elijah,' for the
chairon which the godparent holding the child sits, and
certainlythe invocation of Elijah, are of later date. Indeed,
theinstitution of godparents is itself of later origin.Curiously
enough, the Council of Terracina, in 1330 had tointerdict
Christians acting as godparents at circumcision!Even the great
Buxtorf acted as godparent in 1619 to a Jewishchild, and was
condemned to a fine of 100 florins for hisoffence. See Low,
Lebensalter, p. 86.] We can scarcely bemistaken in supposing, that
then, as now, a benediction wasspoken before circumcision, and
that the ceremony closed withthe usual grace over the cup of wine,
[2 According toJosephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 26) circumcision was not
followed by afeast. 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.). LaterMidrashim
traced it up to the history of Abraham and thefeast at the weaning
of Isaac, which they represented as oneat circumcision (Pirqe d. R.
Eliez. 29).] when the childreceived his name in a prayer that
probably did not muchdiffer from this at present in use: 'Our God,
and the God ofour fathers, raise up this child to his father and
mother,and let his name be called in Israel Zacharias, the son
ofZacharias. [3 Wunsche reiterates the groundless objection
ofRabbi Low (u. s. p.96), that a family-name was only given
inremembrance of the grandfather, deceased father, or
othermember of the family! Strange, that such a statement
shouldever have been hazarded; stranger still, that it should
berepeated after having been fully refuted by Delitzsch. Itcertainly
is contrary to Josephus (War iv. 3, 9), and to thecircumstance that
both the father and brother of Josephusbore the name of Mattias.
See also Zunz (Z. Gesch. u. Liter.p. 318).] Let his father rejoice in
the issue of his loins,and his mother in the fruit of her womb, as it
is written inProv. xxiii. 25, and as it is said in Ezek. xvi. 6, and
againin Ps. cv. 8, and Gen. xxi. 4;' the passages being, ofcourse,
quoted in full. The prayer closed with the hope thatthe child might
grow up, and successfully, 'attain to theTorah, the
marriagebaldachino, and good works.' [1 The readerwill find B. H.
Auerbach's Berith Abraham (with a Hebrewintroduction) an
interesting tractate on the subject. Foranother and younger version
of these prayers, see Low, u. s.p. 102.]
Of all this Zacharias was, though a deeply interested, yet adeaf and
dumb [2 From St. Luke i. 62 we gather, thatZacharias was what the
Rabbis understood by, one deaf as wellas dumb. Accordingly they
communicated with him by 'signs',as Delitzsch correctly renders
it:] witness. This only had henoticed, that, in the benediction in
which the child's namewas inserted, the mother had interrupted the
prayer. Withoutexplaining her reason, she insisted that his name
should notbe that of his aged father, as in the peculiar
circumstancesmight have been expected, but John (Jochanan). A
reference tothe father only deepened the general astonishment,
when healso gave the same name. But this was not the sole cause
formarvel. For, forthwith the tongue of the dumb was loosed,
andhe, who could not utter the name of the child, now burst
intopraise of the name of the Lord. His last words had been thoseof
unbelief, his first were those of praise; his last wordshad been a
question of doubt, his first were a hymn ofassurance. Strictly
Hebrew in its cast, and closely followingOld Testament prophecy,
it is remarkable and yet almostnatural, that this hymn of the Priest
closely follows, and,if the expression be allowable, spiritualises a
great part ofthe most ancient Jewish prayer: the so-called
EighteenBenedictions; rather perhaps, that it transforms
theexpectancy of that prayer into praise of its realisation. Andif we
bear in mind, that a great portion of these prayers wassaid by the
Priests before the lot was cast for incensing, orby the people in the
time of incesing, it almost seems as if,during the long period of his
enforced solitude, the agedPriest had meditated on, and learned to
understand, what sooften he had repeated. Opening with the
common form ofbenediction, his hymn struck, one by one, the
deepest chordsof that prayer, specially this the most significant of
all(the fifteenth Eulogy), 'Speedily make to shoot forth theBranch
[3 Although almost all modern authorities are againstme, I cannot
persuade myself that the expression (St. Luke i.78) rendered
'dayspring' in our A. V. is here not theequivalent of the Hebrew
'Branch.' The LXX at any raterendered in Jer. xxiii. 5; Ezek. xvi. 7;
xvii. 10; Zech. iii.8; vi. 12, by.] of David, Thy servant, and exalt
Thou hishorn by Thy salvation, for in Thy salvation we trust all
theday long. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah! Who causeth to
springforth the Horn of Salvation' (literally, to branch forth).This
analogy between the hymn of Zacharias and the prayers ofIsrael
will best appear from the benedictions with whichthese eulogies
closed. For, when thus examined, their leadingthoughts will be
found to be as follows: God as the Shield ofAbraham; He that
raises the dead, and causes salvation toshoot forth; the Holy One;
Who graciously giveth knowledge;Who taketh pleasure in
repentance; Who multipliethforgiveness; Who redeemeth Israel;
Who healeth their(spiritual) diseases; Who blesseth the years; Who
gathereththe outcasts of His people; Who loveth righteousness
andjudgment; Who is the abode and stay of the righteous;
Whobuildeth Jerusalem; Who causeth the Horn of Salvation
toshoot forth; Who heareth prayer; Who bringeth back
HisShekhinah to Zion; God the Gracious One, to Whom praise
isdue; Who blesseth His people Israel with peace.
It was all most fitting. The question of unbelief had struckthe
Priest dumb, for most truly unbelief cannot speak; andthe answer
of faith restored to him speech, for most trulydoes faith loosen the
tongue. The first evidence of hisdumbness had been, that his
tongue refused to speak thebenediction to the people; and the first
evidence of hisrestored power was, that he spoke the benediction
of God in arapturous burst of praise and thanksgiving. The sign of
theunbeliving Priest standing before the awe-struck people,vainly
essaying to make himself understood by signs, was mostfitting;
most fitting also that, when 'they made signs' tohim, the believing
father should burst in their hearing intoa prophetic hymn.
But far and wide, as these marvellous tidings spreadthroughout the
hill-country of Judaea, fear fell on all, thefear also of a nameless
hope. The silence of a long-cloudedday had been broken, and the
light which had suddenly rivenits gloom, laid itself on their hearts
in expectancy: 'Whatthen shall this Child be? For the Hand of the
Lord also waswith Him!' [2 The insertion of seems critically
established,and gives the fuller meaning.]
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
WHAT MESSIAH DID THE JEWS EXPECT?
CHAPTER V
It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, toregard the
difference between Judaism and Christianity asconfined to the
question of the fulfillment of certainprophecies in Jesus of
Nazareth. These predictions could onlyoutline individual features
in the Person and history of theMessiah. It is not thus that a
likeness is recognised, butrather by the combination of the various
features into aunity, and by the expression which gives it meaning.
So faras we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection
wasever taken to the fulfillment of individual prophecies inJesus.
But the general conception which the Rabbis had formedof the
Messiah, differed totally from what was presented bythe Prophet
of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamentaldivergence between the
two may be said to have existed longbefore the events which
finally divided them. It is thecombination of letters which
constitute words, and the sameletters may be combined into
different words. Similarly, bothRabbinism and, what, by
anticipation, we designate,Christianity might regard the same
predictions as Messianic,and look for their fulfillment; while at the
same time theMessianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite
other thanthat, to which the faith and hope of the Church have
clung.
1. The most important point here is to keep in mind theorganic
unity of the Old Testament. Its predictions are notisolated, but
features of one grand prophetic picture; itsritual and institutions
parts of one great system; itshistory, not loosely connected events,
but an organicdevelopment tending towards a definite end. Viewed
in itsinnermost substance, the history of the Old Testament is
notdifferent from its typical institutions, nor yet these twofrom its
predictions.The idea, underlying all, is God'sgracious
manifestation in the world, the Kingdom of God; themeaning of
all, the establishment of this Kingdom upon earth.That gracious
purpose was, so to speak, individualized, andthe Kingdom actually
established in the Messiah. Both thefundamental and the final
relationship in view was that ofGod towards man, and of man
towards God: the former asexpressed by the word Father; the latter
by that of Servant,or rather the combination of the two ideas:
'Son-Servant.'This was already implied in the so-called
Protevangel; [aGen. iii. 13 ] and in this sense also the words of
Jesus holdtrue: 'Before Abraham came into being, I am.'
But, narrowing our survey to where the history of theKingdom of
God begins with that of Abraham, it was indeed asJesus said: 'Your
father Abraham rejoiced that he should seeMy day, and he saw it,
and was glad.' [b St. John viii. 56]For, all that followed from
Abraham to the 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 of the children of
God;their institutions those of the family of God; theirpredictions
those of the household of God. And Israel wasalso the Servant of
God, 'Jacob My Servant'; and its history,institutions, and
predictions those of the Servant of theLord. Yet not merely
Servant, but Son-Servant, 'anointed' tosuch service. This idea was,
so to speak, crystallised in thethree great representative institutions
of Israel. The'Servant of the Lord' in relation to Israel's history
wasKingship in Israel; the 'Servant of the Lord' in relation toIsrael's
ritual ordinances was the Priesthood in Israel; the'Servant of the
Lord' in relation to prediction was theProphetic order. But all
sprang from the same fundamentalidea: that of the 'Servant of
Jehovah.'
One step still remains. The Messiah and His history are
notpresented in the Old Testament as something separate from,
orsuperadded to, Israel. The history, the institutions, and
thepredictions of Israel run up into Him. [1 In this respectthere is
deep significance in the Jewish legend (frequentlyintroduced; see,
for example, Tanch. ii. 99 a; Deb. R. 1),that all the miracles which
God had shown to Israel in thewilderness would be done again to
redeemed Zion in the'latter days.'] He is the typical Israelite, nay,
typicalIsrael itself, alike the crown, the completion, and
therepresentative of Israel. He is the Son of God and theServant of
the Lord; but in that highest and only true sense,which had given
its meaning to all the preparatorydevelopment. As He was
'anointed' to be the 'Servant of theLord,' not with the typical oil, but
by 'the Spirit ofJehovah' 'upon' Him, so was He also the 'Son' in a
uniquesense. His organic connection with Israel is marked by
thedesignations 'Seed of Abraham' and 'Son of David,' while atthe
same time He was essentially, what Israel wassubordinately and
typically: 'Thou art My Son, this day haveI begotten Thee.' Hence
also, in strictest truthfulness, theEvangelist could apply to the
Messiah what referred toIsrael, and see it fulfilled in His history:
'Out of Egypthave I called my Son.' [a St. Matt. ii. 15] And this
othercorrelate idea, of Israel as 'the Servant of the Lord,' isalso
fully concentrated in the Messiah as the RepresentativeIsraelite, so
that the Book of Isaiah, as the series ofpredictions in which His
picture is most fully outlined,might be summarised as that
concerning 'the Servant ofJehovah.' Moreover, the Messiah, as
Representative Israelite,combined in Himself as 'the Servant of the
Lord' thethreefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, and
joinedtogether the two ideas of 'Son' and 'Servant'. [b Phil. ii.6-11]
And the final combination and full exhibition of thesetwo ideas
was the fulfillment of the typical mission ofIsrael, and the
establishment of the Kingdom of God amongmen.
Thus, in its final, as in its initial, [c Gen. iii. 15]stage it was the
establishment of the Kingdom of God uponearth, brought about by
the 'Servant' of the Lord, Who was tostricken humanity the
God-sent 'Anointed Comforter' (Mashiachha-Menachem): in this
twofold sense of 'Comforter' ofindividuals ('the friend of sinners'),
and 'Comforter' ofIsrael and of the world, reconciling the two, and
bringing toboth eternal salvation. And here the mission of Israel
ended.It had passed through three stages. The first, or
historical,was the preparation of the Kingdom of God; the second,
orritual, the typical presentation of that Kingdom; while thethird,
or prophetic, brought that Kingdom into actual contactwith the
kingdoms of the world. Accordingly, it is during thelatter 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 toregard the Babylonish exile as only a
punishment for Israel'ssin. There is, in truth, nothing in all God's
dealings inhistory exclusively punitive. That were a merely
negativeelement. But there is always a positive element also
ofactual progress; a step forward, even though in the taking ofit
something should have to be crushed. And this step forwardwas
the development of the idea of the Kingdom of God in itsrelation
to the world.
2. This organic unity of Israel and the Messiah explains
howevents, institutions, and predictions, which initially werepurely
Israelitish, could with truth be regarded as findingtheir full
accomplishment in the Messiah. From this point ofview the whole
Old Testament becomes the perspective in whichthe figure of the
Messiah stands out. And perhaps the mostvaluable element in
Rabbinic excommentation on Messianictimes is that in which, as
so frequently, it is explained,that all the miracles and deliverances
of Israel's past wouldbe re-enacted, only in a much wider manner,
in the days ofthe Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and
typical ofthe future, the Old Testament the glass, through which
theuniversal blessings of the latter days were seen. It is inthis sense
that we would understand the two sayings of theTalmud: 'All the
prophets prophesied only of the days of theMessiah,' [a Sanh. 99 a]
and 'The world was created only forthe Messiah.' [b Sanh. 98 b]
In accordance with all this, the ancient Synagogue foundreferences
to the Messiah in many more passages of the OldTestament than
those verbal predictions, to which wegenerally appeal; and the
latter formed (as in the NewTestament) a proportionately small,
and secondary, element inthe conception of the Messianic era.
This is fully borne outby a detailed analysis of those passages in
the Old Testamentto which the ancient Synagogue referred as
Messianic. [1 SeeAppendix IX., where a detailed list is given of all
the OldTestament passages which the ancient Synagogue
appliedMessianically, together with the references to the
Rabbinicworks where they are quoted.] Their number amounts to
upwardsof 456 (75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets,
and138 from the Hagiographa), and their Messianic application
issupported by more than 558 references to the most
ancientRabbinic writings. [2 Large as this number is, I do
notpresent the list as complete. Thus, out of the
thirty-sevenParashahs constituting the Midrash on Leviticus, no
fewerthan twenty-five close with an outlook on Messianic
times.The same may be said of the close of many of the Parashahs
inthe Midrashim known as Pesiqta and Tanchuma (Zunz, u.s.
pp.181, 234). Besides, the oldest portions of the Jewish liturgyare
full of Messianic aspirations] But comparatively few ofthese are
what would be termed verbal predictions. Ratherwould 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 pictureof the Messianic age in the far
back-ground stood out in thehundredfold variegated brightness of
prophetic events, andprophetic utterances; or, as regarded the then
state ofIsrael, till the darkness of their present night was lit upby a
hundred constellations kindling in the sky overhead, andits lonely
silence broken by echoes of heavenly voices, andstrains of
prophetic hymns borne on the breeze.
Of course, there was the danger that, amidst these dazzlinglights,
or in the crowd of figures, each so attractive, orelse in the
absorbing interest of the general picture, thegrand central
Personality should not engage the attention itclaimed, and so the
meaning of the whole be lost in thecontemplation of its details.
This danger was the greaterfrom the absence of any deeper
spiritual elements. All thatIsrael needed: 'study of the Law and
good works,' lay withinthe reach of every one; and all that Israel
hoped for, wasnational restoration and glory. Everything else was
but meansto these ends; the Messiah Himself only the grand
instrumentin attaining them. Thus viewed, the picture presented
wouldbe of Israel's exaltation, rather than of the salvation ofthe
world. To this, and to the idea of Israel's exclusivespiritual position
in the world, must be traced much, thatotherwise would seem
utterly irrational in the Rabbinicpictures of the latter days. But in
such a picture therewould be neither room nor occasion for a
Messiah-Saviour, inthe only sense in which such a heavenly
mission could berational, or the heart of humanity respond to it.
TheRabbinic ideal of the Messiah was not that of 'a light tolighten
the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel',the satisfaction of
the wants of humanity, and the completionof Israel's mission but
quite different, even to contrariety.Accordingly, there was a
fundamental antagonism between theRabbis and Christ, quite
irrespective of the manner in whichHe carried out His Messianic
work. On the other hand, it isequally noteworthy, that the purely
national elements, whichwell nigh formed the sum total of
Rabbinic expectation,scarcely entered into the teaching of Jesus
about the Kingdomof God. And the more we realise, that Jesus so
fundamentallyseparated Himself from all the ideas of His time, the
moreevidential is it of the fact, that He was not the Messiah
ofJewish conception, but derived His mission from a
sourceunknown to, or at least ignored by, the leaders of Hispeople.
3. But still, as the Rabbinic ideas were at least based onthe Old
Testament, we need not wonder that they also embodiedthe chief
features of the Messianic history. Accordingly, acareful perusal of
their Scripture quotations [1 For these,see Appendix IX.] shows,
that the main postulates of the NewTestament concerning the
Messiah are fully supported byRabbinic statements. Thus, such
doctrines as the pre-mundaneexistence of the Messiah; His
elevation above Moses, and evenabove the Angels; His
representative character; His cruelsufferings and derision; His
violent death, and that for Hispeople; His work on behalf of the
living and of the dead; Hisredemption, and restoration of Israel;
the opposition of theGentiles; their partial judgment and
conversion; theprevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of
the latterdays; and His Kingdom, can be clearly deduced
fromunquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings. Only,
aswe might expect, all is there indistinct, incoherent,unexplained,
and from a much lower standpoint. At best, it isthe lower stage of
yet unfulfilled prophecy, the haze whenthe sun is about to rise, not
the blaze when it has risen.Most painfully is this felt in connection
with the oneelement on which the New Testament most insists.
There is,indeed, in Rabbinic writings frequent reference to
thesufferings, and even the death of the Messiah, and these
arebrought into connection with our sins, as how could it
beotherwise in view of Isaiah liii. and other passages, and inone
most remarkable comment [a Yalkut on Is. ix. 1] theMessiah is
represented as willingly taking upon Himself allthese sufferings,
on condition that all Israel, the living,the dead, and those yet
unborn, should be saved, and that, inconsequence of His work,
God and Israel should be reconciled,and Satan cast into hell. But
there is only the mostindistinct reference to the removal of sin by
the Messiah, inthe sense of vicarious sufferings.
In connection with what has been stated, one most importantpoint
must be kept in view. So far as their opinions can begathered from
their writings, the great doctrines of OriginalSin, and of the
sinfulness of our whole nature, were not heldby the ancient
Rabbis. [1 This is the view expressed by allJewish dogmatic
writers. See also Weber, Altsynag. Theol. p.217.] Of course, it is
not meant that they denied theconsequences of sin, either as
concerned Adam himself, or hisdescendants; but the final result is
far from thatseriousness which attaches to the Fall in the New
Testament,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 difference is so fundamental as to render
furtherexplanation necessary. [2 Comp. on the subject. Ber.
R.12-16.] The fall of Adam is ascribed to the envy of the Angels [3
InBer. R., however, it has seemed to me, as if sometimes amystical
and symbolical view of the history of the Fall wereinsinuated, evil
concupiscence being the occasion of it.] ,not the fallen ones, for
none were fallen, till God cast themdown in consequence of their
seduction of man. The Angels,having in vain tried to prevent the
creation of man, at lastconspired to lead him into sin as the only
means of his ruin,the task being undertaken by Sammael (and his
Angels), who inmany respects was superior to the other Angelic
princes. [bPirqe de R. El. c. 13; Yalkut i. p. 8 c] The
instrumentemployed was the serpent, of whose original condition
thestrangest legends are told, probably to make the
Biblicalnarrative appear more rational. [c Comp. Pirqe de R. El.
andYalkut, u.s.; also Ber. R. 19] The details of the story ofthe Fall,
as told by the Rabbis, need not be here repeated,save to indicate its
consequences. The first of these was thewithdrawal of the
Shekhinah from earth to the first heaven,while subsequent sins
successively led to its further removalto the seventh heaven. This,
however, can scarcely beconsidered a permanent sequel of sin,
since the good deeds ofseven righteous men, beginning with
Abraham, brought itagain, in the time of Moses, to earth. [a Ber.
R. 19, ed.Warshau, p. 37a] Six things Adam is said to have lost by
hissin; but even these are to be restored to man by the Messiah.[b
Bemidb. R. 13] [1 They are: the shiningsplendour of hisperson,
even his heels being like suns; his gigantic size,from east to west,
from earth to heaven; the spontaneoussplendid products of the
ground, and of all fruit-trees; aninfinitely greater measure of light
on the part of theheavenly bodies; and, finally, endless duration of
life (Ber.R. 12, ed. Warsh. p. 24 b; Ber. R. 21; Sanh. 38 b; Chag.
12a; and for their restoration by the Messiah, Bem. R. 13).]That
the physical death of Adam was the consequence of hissin, is
certainly taught. Otherwise he would have livedforever, like Enoch
and Elijah. [c Vayyikra R. 27] Butalthough the fate which
overtook Adam was to rest on all theworld, [d Ber. R. 16 21, and
often] and death came not onlyon our first father but on his
descendants, and all creationlost its perfectness, [e Ber. R. 5, 12,
10; comp. also Midr.on Eccl. vii. 13; and viii. 1, and Baba B. 17 a]
yet eventhese temporal sequences are not universally admitted.
Itrather seems taught, that death was intended to be the fateof all,
or sent to show the folly of men claiming Divineworship, or to test
whether piety was real, [f Ber. R. 9] themore so that with death the
weary struggle with our evilinclination ceased. It was needful to
die when our work wasdone, that others might enter upon it. In
each case death wasthe consequence of our own, not of Adam's
sin. [g Bemidb. R.19] In fact, over these six, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses,Aaron, and Miriam, the Angel of Death had had no
absolutepower. Nay, there was a time when all Israel were not
onlyfree from death, but like the Angels, and even higher thanthey.
For, originally God had offered the Law to all Gentilenations, [h
According to Deut.xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 3] butthey had refused to
submit to it. [i Ab. Zar. 2 b] But whenIsrael took on themselvesthe
Law at Mount Sinai, thedescription in Psalm 1xxxii. 6 applied
literally to them.They would not have died, and were 'the sons of
God.' [k Ab.Z. 5 a] But all this was lost by the sin of making the
goldencalf,although the Talmud marks that, if Israel had
continuedin that Angelic state, the nation would have ceased with
thatgeneration. [2 By a most ingenious theological artifice thesin
of the golden calf, and that of David are made matter
forthanksgiving; the one as showing that, even if the wholepeople
sinned, God was willing to forgive; the other asproving, that God
graciously condescended to each individualsinner, and that to each
the door of repentance was open.]Thus there were two divergent
opinions, the one ascribingdeath to personal, the other tracing it to
Adam's guilt.] [3In the Talmud (Shabb. 55 a and b) each view is
supported indiscussion, the one by a reference to Ezek. xviii. 20,
theother to Eccles. ix. 2 (comp. also Siphre on Deut. xxxii.49). The
final conclusion, however, greatly inclines towardsthe connection
between death and the fall (see especially theclear statement in
Debar. R. 9, ed. Warsh., p. 20 a). Thisview is also supported by
such passages in the Apocrypha asWisdom ii. 23, 24; iii. 1, &c.;
while, on the other hand,Ecclus. xv. 11-17 seems rather to point in
a differentdirection.]
When, however, we pass from the physical to the moralsequences
of the fall, our Jewish authorities wholly fail us.They teach, that
man is created with two inclinations, thatto evil (the Yetser ha-ra),
and that to good; [a TargumPs.-Jon. on Gen. ii. 7] the first working
in him from thebeginning, the latter coming gradually in the
course of time.[b Nedar. 32 b; Midr. on Eccl. iv. 13, 14, ed. W. p.
89 a;ix. 15; ib. p. 101 a] Yet, so far from guilt attaching to
theYetser ha-ra, its existence is absolutely necessary, if theworld is
to continue. [c Ber. R. 9] In fact, as the Talmudexpressly teaches,
[d Ber. 61 a] the evil desire or impulsewas created by God
Himself; while it is also asserted [eSukk. 52 a, and Yalkut ii. p.
149 b] that, on seeing theconsequences, God actually repented
having done so. Thisgives quite another character to sin, as due to
causes forwhich no blame attaches to man. [f Comp. also Jer.
Targum onEx. xxxii. 22] On the other hand, as it is in the power
ofeach wholly to overcome sin, and to gain life by study andworks;
[g Ab. Z. 5 b; Kidd. 30 b] as Israel at Mount Sinaihad actually got
rid of the Yetser ha-ra; and as there hadbeen those, who were
entirely righteous, [h For example, Yoma28 b; Chag. 4 b] there
scarcely remains any moral sequence ofAdam's fall to be
considered. Similarly, the Apocrypha aresilent on the subject, the
only exception being the verystrong language used in II. Esdras,
which dates after theChristian era. [i Comp. IV. Esd. iii. 21, 22,
26; iv. 30; andespecially vii. 46-53] [1 There can be no question
that,despite its strong polemical tendency against Christianity,the
Fourth Book of Esdras (II. Esdras in our Apocrypha),written at the
close of the first century of our era, isdeeply tinged with Christian
doctrine. Of course, the firsttwo and the last two chapters in our
Apocryphal II. Esdrasare later spurious additions of Christian
authorship. But inproof of the influence of the Christian teaching
on thewriter of the Fourth Book of Esdras we may call
attention,besides the adoption of the doctrine of original sin, to
theremarkable application to Israel of such N.T. expressions asthe
'firstborn,' the 'only-begotten,' and the 'Well-beloved'(IV. Esdras vi.
58, in our Apocr. II. Esdras iv. 58).
4. In the absence of felt need of deliverance from sin, wecan
understand, how Rabbinic tradition found no place for thePriestly
office of the Messiah, and how even His claims to bethe Prophet of
His people are almost entirely overshadowed byHis appearance as
their King and Deliverer. This, indeed, wasthe ever-present want,
pressing the more heavily as Israel'snational sufferings seemed
almost inexplicable, while theycontrasted so sharply with the glory
expected by the Rabbis.Whence these sufferings? From sin [k
Men. 53 b], nationalsin; the idolatry of former times; [l Gitt. 7 a]
theprevalence of crimes and vices; the dereliction of
God'sordinances; [m Gitt. 88 a] the neglect of instruction, ofstudy,
and of proper practice of His Law; and, in later days,the love of
money and party strife. [n Jer. Yoma i. 1; Yoma 9a, and many
other passages] But the seventy years' captivityhad ceased, why not
the present dispersion? Because hypocrisyhad been added to all
other sins; [o Yoma 9 b] because therehad not been proper
repentance; [pJer. Yoma i. 1] because ofthe half-heartedness of the
Jewish proselytes; because ofimproper marriages, and other evil
customs; [a Nidd. 13 b]and because of the gross dissoluteness of
certain cities. [bYoma 19 b] The consequences appeared not only
in thepolitical condition of Israel, but in the land itself, in
theabsence of rain and dew, of fruitfulness and of plenty; inthe
general disorder of society; the cessation of piety andof religious
study; and the silence of prophecy. [c For allthese points comp.
Ber. 58 b; 59 a; Sot. 48 a; Shabb. 138 b;Baba B. 12 a, b] As
significantly summed up, Israel waswithout Priesthood, without
law, without God. [d Vayyikra R19] Nay, the world itself suffered
in consequence of thedestruction of the Temple. In a very
remarkable passage, [eSukk. 55 b] where it is explained, that the
seventy bullocksoffered during the Feast of Tabernacles were for
the nationsof the world, R. Jochanan deplores their fate, since
whilethe Temple had stood the altar had atoned for the
Gentiles,but who was now to do so? The light, which had shone
from outthe Temple windows into the world, had been
extinguished. [fPesiqta, 1 ed. Buber, p. 145 a, last lines] Indeed,
but forthe intercession of the Angels the world would now
bedestroyed. [g Midr, on Ps.cxxxvii.] In the poetic language ofthe
time, the heavens, sun, moon and stars, trees andmountains, even
the Angels, mourned over the desolation ofthe Temple, [h Pesiqta
148 b] and the very Angelic hosts hadsince been diminished. [i
Chag. 13 b] But, though the DivinePresence had been withdrawn,
it still lingered near His own;it had followed them in all their
banishments; it hadsuffered with them in all their sorrows. [2 This
in very manyRabbinical passages. Comp. Castelli, II Messia, p.
176, note4.] It is a touching legend, which represents the
Shekhinahas still lingering over the western wall of the Temple
[kShemoth R. 2. ed. Warsh. p. 7 b, lines 12 &c.] , the only
onesupposed to be still standing. [3 In proof they appeal tosuch
passages as 2 Chr. vii. 16; Ps. iii. 4; Cant. ii. 9,proving it even from
the decree of Cyrus (Ezra i. 3, 4), inwhich God is spoken of as still
in desolate Jerusalem.] Nay,in language still bolder, and which
cannot be fullyreproduced, God Himself is represented as
mourning overJerusalem and the Temple. He has not entered His
Palace sincethen, and His hair is wet with the dew. [4 The passage
fromYalkut on Is. lx. 1 is quoted in full in Appendix IX.] Heweeps
over His children and their desolateness, [m Ber. 3 a;59 a] and
displays in the heavens tokens ofmourning,corresponding to those
which an earthly monarchwould show. [n Pesiqta 119 b; 120 a]
All this is to be gloriously set right, when the Lordturneth the
captivity of Zion, and the Messiah cometh. Butwhen may He be
expected, and what are the signs of Hiscoming? Or perhaps the
question should thus be put: Why arethe redemption of Israel and
the coming of the Messiah sounaccountably delayed? It is here that
the Synagogue findsitself in presence of an insoluble mystery. The
explanationsattempted are, confessedly, guesses, or rather attempts
toevade the issue. The only course left is, authoritatively toimpose
silence on all such inquiries, the silence, as theywould put it, of
implicit, mournful submission to theinexplicable, in faith that
somehow, when least expected,deliverance would come; or, as we
would put it, the silenceof ever-recurring disappointment and
despair. Thus the grandhope of the Synagogue is, as it were,
written in an epitaphon a broken tombstone, to be repeated by the
thousands who,for these long centuries, have washed the ruins of
theSanctuary with unavailing tears.
5. Why delayeth the Messiah His coming? Since the brief
andbroken sunshine of the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the
skyoverhead has ever grown darker, nor have even the
terriblestorms, which have burst over Israel, reft the canopy
ofcloud. The first capitivity passed, why not the second? Thisis the
painful question ever and again discussed by theRabbis. [a Jer.
Yoma i. 1, ed. Krot. p 38 c, last part, Sanh.97 b, 98 a] Can they
mean it seriously, that the sins of thesecond, are more grievous
than those which caused the firstdispersion; or that they of the first
captivity repented, butnot they of the second? What constitutes this
repentancewhich yet remains to be made? But the reasoning
becomesabsolutely self-contradictory when, together with
theassertion that, if Israel repented but one day, the Messiahwould
come, [b Midr. on Cant. v. 2, ed. Warsh. p. 25 a;Sanh.98 a] we are
told, that Israel will not repent till Elijahcomes. [c Pirqe de R.
Eliez. 43 end] Besides, bold asthelanguage is, there is truth in the
expostulation, whichthe Midrash [d On Lam. v. 21, ed. Warsh. vo.
iii. p. 77 a]puts into the mouth of the congregation of Israel: 'Lord
ofthe world, it depends on Thee that we repent.' Such truth,that,
although at first the Divine reply is a repetition ofZechar. i. 3, yet,
when Israel reiterates the words, 'TurnThou us unto Thee, O Lord,
and we shall be turned,'supporting them by Ps lxxxv. 4, the
argument provesunanswerable.
Other conditions of Israel's deliverance are, indeed,mentioned. But
we can scarcely regard the Synagogue asseriously making the
coming of Messiah dependent on theirrealisation. Among the most
touching of these is a beautifulpassage (almost reminding us of
Heb. xi.), in which Israel'sfuture deliverance is described as the
reward of faith. [eTanch. on Ex. xv. 1, ed. Warsh. p. 86 b]
Similarly beautifulis the thought, [f On Jer.' xxxi. 9] that, when
God redeemsIsrael, it will be amidst their weeping. [g Tanch. on
Gen.xiv. 2, ed. Warsh.] But neither can this be regarded as
thecondition of Messiah's coming; nor yet such generalities asthe
observance of the Law, or of some special commandments.The
very variety of suggestions [h Sanh. 97 b 98 a] [1 Thereader will
find these discussions summarised at the close ofApendix IX.]
shows, how utterly unable the Synagogue felt toindicate any
condition to be fulfilled by Israel. Such vaguestatements, as that
the salvation of Israel depended on themerits of the patriarchs, or
on that of one of them, cannothelp us to a solution; and the long
discussion in the Talmud[a Sanh. 98 a and b] leaves no doubt, that
the final and mostsober opinion was, that the time of Messiah's
coming dependednot on repentance, nor any other condition, but
on the mercyof God, when the time fixed had arrived. But even so,
we areagain thrown into doubt by the statement, that it might
beeither hastened or retarded by Israel's bearing! [1 See, onthe
whole subject, also Debar. R. 2.]
In these circumstances, any attempt at determining the dateof
Messiah's coming would be even more hypothetical than
suchcalculations generally are. [2 We put aside, as
universallyrepudiated, the opinion expressed by one Rabbi, that
Israel'sMessianic era was past, the promises having been fulfilled
inKing Hezekiah (Sanh. 98 b; 99 a).] Guesses on the subjectcould
only be grounded on imaginary symbolisms. Of such wehave
examples in the Talmud. [3 See, in Appendix IX. theextracts from
Sanh.] Thus, some fixed the date at 4000 yearsafter the Creation,
curiously enough, about the era ofChrist, though Israel's sin had
blotted out the whole pastfrom the reckoning; others at 4291 from
the Creation; [bSanh. 97b] others again expected it at the
beginning, or end,of the eighty-fifth Jubilee, with this proviso, that
it itwould not take place earlier; and so on, through
equallygroundless conjectures. A comparatively late work speaks
offive monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome
andIshmael. During the last of these God would hear the cry
ofIsrael, [c Pirqe de R. Ehes. 32] and the Messiah come, aftera
terrible war between Rome and Ishmael (the West and theEast). [d
u. s. 30] But as the rule of these monarchies wasto last altogether
one day (= 1000 years), less two-thirds ofan hour (1 hour = 83 1/2
years); [e Comp. Pirqe de R. El. 48]it would follow, that their
domination would last 9444/9years. [4 Pirqe de R. El. 28. The
reasoning by which thisduration of the monarchies is derived from
Lament. i. 13 andZech. xiv. 7, is a very curious specimen of
Rabbinicargumentation.] Again, according to Jewish tradition,
therule of Babylon had lasted 70, that of Medo-Persia 34, andthat
of Greece 180 years, leaving 6604/9 years for Rome andIshmael.
Thus the date for the expected Advent of the Messiahwould have
been about 661 after the destruction of Jerusalem,or about the year
729 of the Christian era. [5 Comp. Zunz,Gottesd. Vortr. p. 277.]
In the category of guesses we must also place such
vaguestatements, as that the Messiah would come, when all
wererighteous, or all wicked; or else nine months after theempire
of Rome had extended over the whole world; [a Sanh. 98b 1] or
when all the souls, predestined to inhabit bodies,had been on earth.
[b Ab. Z. 5 a, Ber. R. 24] But as, afteryears of unrelieved
sufferings, the Synagogue had toacknowledge that, one by one, all
the terms had passed, andas despair settled on the heart of Israel, it
came to begenerally thought, that the time of Messiah's Advent
couldnot be known beforehand, [c Targum Pseudo-Jon on Gen.
xlix.1] and that speculation on the subject was dangerous,
sinful,even damnable. The time of the end had, indeed, been
revealedto two sons of Adam, Jacob and David; but neither of
them hadbeen allowed to make it known. [d Midrash on Ps. xxxi.
ed.Warsh. p. 41 a, lines 18 to 15 from bottom] In view of this,it
can scarcely be regarded as more than a symbolical,
thoughsignificant guess, when the future redemption of Israel
isexpected on the Paschal Day, the 15th of Nisan. [e Pesikta,ed.
Buber, 47 b. 48 a, Sopher. xxi. Hal. 2. Shir. haShir. R.ii. 8. ed.
Warsh. vol. iii. p. 15 a] [2 Solitary opinions,however, place the
future redemption in the month Tishri(Tanch. on Ex. xii. 37, ed.
Warsh. p. 81 b, line 2 frombottom).
6. We now approach this most difficult and delicatequestion: What
was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue,as regarded the
Nature, Person, and qualifications of theMessiah? In answering it,
not at present from the OldTestament, but from the views
expressed in Rabinicliterature, and, so far as we can gather from
theGospel-narratives, from those cherished by the
contemporariesof Christ, two inferences seem evident. First, the
idea of aDivine Personality, and of the union of the two Natures
inthe Messiah, seems to have been foreign to the Jewishauditory of
Jesus of Nazareth, and even at first to Hisdisciples. Secondly, they
appear to have regarded the Messiahas far above the ordinary
human, royal, prophetic, and evenAngelic type, to such extent, that
the boundary-lineseparating it from Divine Personality is of the
narrowest, sothat, when the conviction of the reality of the
Messianicmanifestation in Jesus burst on their minds,
thisboundary-line was easily, almost naturally, overstepped,
andthose who would have shrunk from framing their belief in
suchdogmatic form, readily owned and worshipped Him as the Son
ofGod. Nor need we wonder at this, even taking the highest viewof
Old Testament prophecy. For here also the principleapplies, which
underlies one of St. Paul's most wide-reachingutterance: 'We
prophesy in part' [3 See the telling remarksof Oehler in Herzog's
Real-Encykul., vol. ix. p. 417. Wewould add, that there is always a
'hereafter' of furtherdevelopment in the history of the individual
believer, as inthat of the Church, growing brighter and brighter,
withincreased spiritual communication and knowledge, till at
lastthe perfect light is reached.] In the nature of it, allprophecy
presents but disjecta, membra, and it almost seems,as if we had to
take our stand in the prophet's valley ofvision (Ezek. xxxvii.),
waiting till, at the bidding of theLord, the scattered bones should
be joined into a body, towhich the breath of the Spirit would give
life.
These two inferences, derived from the Gospel-narratives,are in
exact accordance with the whole line of ancient Jewishteaching.
Beginning with the LXX. rendering of Genesis xlix.10, and
especially of Numbers xxiv. 7, 17, we gather, thatthe Kingdom of
the Messiah [1 No reasonable doubt can be lefton the mind, that
the LXX. translators have here the Messiahin view.] was higher
than any that is earthly, and destinedto subdue them all. But the
rendering of Psalm lxxii. 5, 7;Psalm cx. 3; and especially of Isaiah
ix., carries us muchfarther. They convey the idea, that the
existence of thisMessiah was regarded as premundane (before the
moon, [a Ps.lxxii.] before the morning-star [b Ps. cx.]), and
eternal, [cPs. lxxii.] and His Person and dignity as superior to that
ofmen and Angels: 'the Angel of the Great Council,' [d Is. ix.6(2).]
probably 'the Angel of the Face',a view fullyconfirmed by the
rendering of the Targum. [3 Three, if notfour, different renderings
of the Targum on Is. ix. 6 arepossible. But the minimum conveyed
to my mind implies thepremundane existence, the eternal
continuance, and thesuperhuman dignity of the Messiah. (See also
the Targum onMicah v. 2.)] The silence of the Apocrypha about
the Personof the Messiah is so strange, as to be scarcely
explainedbythe consideration, that those books were composed
when theneed of a Messiah for the deliverance of Israel was
notpainfully felt. [4 This is the view of Grimm, and more
fullycarried out by Oehler. The argument of Hengstenberg, that
themention of such a Messiah was restrained from fear of
theheathen, does not deserve serious refutation.] All the
morestriking are the allusions in the Pseudepigraphic
Writings,although these also do not carry us beyond our
twoinferences. Thus, the third book of the Sibylline Oracleswhich,
with few exceptions, [5 These exceptions are,according to
Friedlieb (Die Sibyllin. Weissag.) vv. 1-45, vv.47-96 (dating from
40-31 before Christ), and vv. 818-828. Onthe subject generally, see
our previous remarks in Book 1.]dates from more than a century
and a half before Christ,presents a picture of Messianic times, [e
vv. 652-807.]generally admitted to have formed the basis of
Virgil'sdescription of the Golden Age, and of similar
heathenexpectations. In these Oracles, 170 years before Christ,
theMessiah is 'the King sent from heaven' who would 'judge
everyman in blood and splendour of fire.' [f vv. 285,
286.]Similarly, the vision of Messianic times opens with
areference to 'the King Whom God will send from the sun. [g
v.652.] [6 Mr. Drummond defends (at pp. d 274, 275)
Holtxmann'sview, taht the expression applies to Simon the
Maccabee,although on p. 291 he argues on the opposite
supposition thatthe text refers to the Messiah. It is difficult
tounderstand, how on reading the whole passage the hypothesisof
Holtzmann could be entertained. While referring to the 3rdBook of
the Sib. Or., another point of considerable interestdeserves notice.
According to the theory which places theauthorship of Daniel in
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, orsay about 165 B.C., the 'fourth
kingdom' of Daniel must bethe Grecian. But, on the other hand,
such certainly was notthe view entertained by Apocalypts of the
year 165, since the3d Book of the Sib. Or., which dates from
precisely thatperiod, not only takes notice of the rising power of
Rome,but anticipates the destruction of the Grecian Empire
byRome, which in turn is to be vanquished by Israel (vv.175-195;
520-544; 638-807). This most important fact wouldrequire to be
accounted for by the opponents of theauthenticity of Daniel.] That
a superhuman Kingdom of eternalduration, such as this vision
paints, [a vv. 652-807.] shouldhave a superhuman King, seems
almost a necessary corollary.[1 I have purposely omittedall
referances to controvertedpassages. But see Langen, D. Judenth. in
Palest. pp. 401 &c.]
Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called 'Bookof
Enoch.' Critics are substantially agreed, that the oldestpart of it [b
ch. i.- xxxvi. and lxxii.-cv. dates frombetween 150 and 130 B.C. [2
The next oldest portion,consisting of the so-called Similitudes (ch
xxxvii.- xxi.),excepting what are termed 'the Noachic parts, dates
fromabout the time of Herod the Great.] The part next in date
isfull of Messianic allusions; but, as a certain class ofmodern
writers has ascribed to it a post-Christian date, and,however
ungrounded, [3 Schiirer (Lehrb. d. Neutest. Zitg. pp.534, 535) has,
I think, consclusively shown that this portionof the Book of Enoch
is of Jewish authorship, andpre-Christian date. If so, it were deeply
interesting tofollow its account of the Messiah. He appears by the
side ofthe Ancient of Days, His face like appearance of a man,
andyet so lovely, like that of one of the holy Angels. This 'Sonof
Man' has, and with Him dwells, all righteousness; Hereveals the
treasures of all that is hidden, being chosen bythe Lord, is superior
to all, and destined to subdue anddestroy all the powers and
kingdoms of wickedness (ch.xivi.). Although only revealed at the
last, His Name had beennamed before God, before sun or stars
were created. He is thestaff on which the righteous lean, the light
of nations, andthe hope of all who mourn in spirit. All are to bow
downbefore Him, and adore Him, and for this He was chosen
andhidden with God before the world was created, and
willcontinue 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 abide on the and only the saints wouldabide on the
renewed earth (ch. xiv.). He is mighty in allthe secrets of
righteousness, and unrighteousness would fleeas a shadow,
because His glory lasted from eternity toeternity, and 'is power
from generation to generation (ch.xlix.). Then would the earth,
Hades, and hell give up theirdead, and Messiah, sitting on His
throne, would select andown the just, and open up all secrets of
wisdom, amidst theuniversal joy of ransomed earth (ch. li., lxi.,
lxii.).] toChristian authorship, it may be better not to refer to it
inthe present argument, the more so as we have other
testimonyfrom the time of Herod. Not to speak, therefore, of
suchpeculiar designations of the Messiah as 'the Woman's Son,'
[clxii. 5.] 'the Son of Man, [d For ex. xlviii. 2: lxii. 7;lxix 29.] 'the
Elect,' and 'the Just One,' we mark that theMessiah is expressly
designed in the oldest portion as 'theSon of God' ('I and My Son').
[e cv. 2.] That this implies,not, indeed, essential Sonship, but
infinite superiority overall other servants of God, and rule over
them, appears fromthe mystic description of the Messiah as 'the
first of the[now changed] white bulls,' 'the great Animal among
them,having great and black horns on His head' [a xc. 38.],
Whom'all the beasts of the field and all the fowls of heavendread,
and to Whom they cry at all times.'
Still more explicit is that beautiful collection of eighteenPsalms,
dating from about half a century before Christ, whichbears the
name of 'the Psalter of Solomon.' Achasteanticipation of the
Messianic Kingdom [b in Ps. xi.]. isfollowed by a full description
of its need and it blessings,[c in Ps. xvii.] to which the concluding
Psalm [d xviii.]forms an apt epilogue. The King Who reigns is of
ther houseof David. [e xvii. 5.] He is the Son of David, Who comes
atthe time known to God only, to reign over Israel. [f v. 23.]He is a
righteous King, taught of God. [g v. 35.] He isChrist the Lord [h v.
36.] exactlyu as inthe LXX.translations of Lamentations iv. 20).
'He is pure from sin,'which qualifies Him for ruling His people,
and banishingsinners by His word. [i v. 41.] Never in His days will
He beinfirm towards His God, since God renders Him strong in
theHoly Ghost,' wise in counsel, with might and
righteousness('mighty in deed and word'). The blessingof the Lord
beingupon Him, He does not fail. [k vv. 42, 43.] 'This is thebeauty
of the King of Israel, Whom God hath chosen, to setHim over the
house of Israel to rule it.' [m v. 47.] Thusinvincible, not by outward
might, but in His God, He willbring His people the blessings of
restoration to their tribalpossessions, and of righteousness, but
break in pieces Hisenemies, not by outward weapons, but by the
word of Hismouth; purify Jerusalem, and judge the nations, who
will besubject to His rule, and behold and own His glory. [n
vv.25-35.] Manifestly, this is not an earthly Kingdom, nor yetan
earthly King.
If we now turn to works dating after the Christian era, wewould
naturally expect them, either simply to reproduceearlier opinions,
or, from opposition to Christ, to presentthe Messiah in a less
exalted manner. [1 In illustration ofthis tendency we may quote the
following evidently polemicalsaying, of R. Abbahu. 'If any man
saith to thee, "I am God"he is a liar; "I am the Son of Man," he will
at last repentof it; "I go up to heaven," hath he said, and shall he
not doit? [or, he hath said, and shall not make it good] (Jer.Taan.
p. 65 b. line 7 from bottom). This R. Abbahu (279-320of our era)
seems to have largely engaged in controversy withJewish
Christians. Thus he sought to argue against theSonship of Christ,
by commenting, as follows, on Is. xliv. 6:'"I am the first" because
He has no father; "I am the last",because He has no Son; "and
beside me there is no God",because He has no brother (equal)'
(Shem. R. 29, ed. Warsh.vol. ii. p. 41 a, line 8 from bottom).] But
since, strange tosay, they even more strongly assert the high
dignity of theMessiah, we are warranted in regarding this as the
rootedbelief of the Synagogue. [2 It is, to say the least, a pitythat
Mr. Drummond should have imagined that the questioncould be so
easily settled on the premises which hepresents.] This estimate of
the Messiah may be gathered fromIV Esdras, [o xii. 32; xiii. 26,
52; xiv. 9.] [3 The 4th Bookof Esdras (in our Apocr. II. Esdras)
dates from the end ofthe first century of our era, and so does the
Apocalypse ofBaruch.] with which the kindred picture of the
Messiah andHis reign in the Apocalypse of Baruch [a lxx.9- lxxiv.]
maybe compared. But even in strictly Rabbinic documents,
thepremundane, if not the eternal existence of the Messiahappears
as matter of common belief. Such is the viewexpressed in the
Targum on Is. ix. 6, and in that on Micah v.2. But the Midrash on
Prov. viii. 9 [b Ed. Lemb. p. 7 a]expressly mentions the Messiah
among the seven things createdbefore the world. [1 These are: the
Throne of Glory, Messiahthe King, the Torah, (ideal) Israel, the
Temple, repentance,and Gehenna.] The passage is the more
important, as it throwslight on quite a series of others, in which the
Name of theMessiah is said to have been created before the world.
[cPirqe de R. E. 3; Midr.on Ps. xciii.1; Ps. 54a; Nedar. 39 b;Ber. R.
1; 3 Tanch. on Numb. vii. 14, ed. Warsh. vol. iiMidr. on Ps. 54 a;
Nedar. 39 b; Ber. R. 1; Tanch. on Numb.vii. 14, ed. Warsh. vol. ii.
p. 56 b, at the bottom.] [2 InPirqu de R. El. and the other
authorities these seven thingsare: the Torah, Gehenna, Paradise,
the Throne of Glory, theTemple, repentance, and the Name of the
Messiah.] Even ifthis were an ideal conception, it would prove the
Messiah tobe elevated above the ordinary conditions of humanity.
But itmeans much more than this, since not only the existence
ofthe Messiah long before His actual appearance, but
Hispremundane state are clearly taught in other places. In
theTalmud [d Jer. Ber. ii. 4, p. 5 a.] it is not only implied,that the
Messiah may already be among the living, but astrange story is
related, according to which He had actuallybeen born in the royal
palace at Bethlehem, bore the nameMenachem (Comforter), was
discovered by one R. Judan througha peculiar device, but had been
carried away by a storm.Similarly, the Babylon Talmud represents
Him as sitting atthe gate of Imperial Rome. [e Sanh. 98 a; comp.
also Jerus.Targ. on Ex. xii. 42, Pirqe de R. El. 30, and
otherpassages.] In general, the idea of the Messiah's
appearanceand concealment is familiar to Jewish tradition. [f See
forexample Pesiqta, ed Buber, p. 49 b 5.] But the Rabbis go
muchfarther back, and declare that from the time of
Judah'smarriage, [g Gen.. xxxviii. 1, 2.] 'God busied Himself
withcreating the light of the Messiah,' it being significantlyadded
that, 'before the first oppressor [Pharaoh] was born,the final
deliverer [Messiah, the son of David] was alreadyborn.' [h Ber. R.
85, ed. Warsh. p. 151 b.] In anotherpassage the Messiah is
expresily identified with Anani, [1These ar: the Throne of Glory,
Messiah the King, the Torah,(ideal) Israel, the Temple, repentance,
and Gehenna.] andtherefore represented as pre-existent long before
his actualmanifestation. [k Tanch. Par. To edoth, 14. ed. Warsh. p.
37b.] The same inference may be drawn from His
emphaticdesignation as the First. [m Ber. R. 65 ed. Warsh. p. 114
b;Vayyikra R. 30, ed. W. vol. iii. p. 47 a; Pes 5 a.] Lastly,in Yalkut
on Is. lx., the words 'In Thy light shall we seelight' (Ps. xxxvi. 9)
are explained as meaning, that this isthe light of the Messiah, the
same which God had at the firstpronounced to be very good, and
which, before the world wascreated, He had hid beneath the throne
of His glory for theMessiah and His age. When Satan asked for
whom it wasreserved, he was told that it was destined for Him
Who wouldput him to shame, and destroy him. And when, at his
request,he was shown the Messiah, he fell on his face and owned,
thatthe Messiah would in the future cast him and the Gentilesinto
Gehenna [a Yalkut ii.p. 56 c] Whatever else may beinferred from
it, this passage clearly implies not only thepre-existence, but the
premundane existence of the Messiah.[1 The whole of this very
remarkable passage is given inAppendix IX., in the notes on Is.
xxv. 8; lx l; lxiv. 4; Jer.xxxi. 8.]
But, indeed, it carries us much farther. For, a Messiah,preexistent,
in the Presence of God, and destined to subdueSatan and cast him
into hell, could not have been regarded asan ordinary man. It is
indeed true that, as the history ofElijah, so that of the Messiah is
throughout compared withthat of Moses, the 'first' with 'the last
Redeemer.' As Moseswas educated at the court of Pharaoh, so the
Messiah dwellsin Rome (or Edom) among His enemies. [b Shem.
R. 1, ed. W.vol. ii. p. 5 b; Tanch. Par. Tazrya, 8, ed. W. vol. ii. p.
20a] Like Moses He comes, withdraws, and comes again.
[cPesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 49 b; Midr. Ruth. Par. 5, ed. W. p. 43b]
Like Moses He works deliverance. But here the analogyceases, for,
whereas the redemption by Moses was temporaryand
comparatively small, that of the Messiah would be eternaland
absolute. All the marvels connected with Moses were to
beintensified in the Messiah. The ass on which the Messiahwould
ride, and this humble estate was only caused byIsrael's sin [d Sanh.
98 a], would be not only that on whichMoses had come backto
Egypt, but also that which Abraham hadused when he went to
offer up Isaac, and which had beenspecially created on the eve of
the world's first Sabbath. [ePirque de R. El. 31, ed. Lemb. p. 38 a]
Similarly, thehornsof the ram caught in the thicket, which was
offered insteadof Isaac, were destined for blowing --the left one by
theAlmighty on Mount Sinai, the right and larger one by
theMessiah, when He would gather the outcasts of Israel (Is.xxvii.
13).[f Pirque de R. El. u. s., p. 39 a, close] Again,the 'rod' of the
Messiah was that of Aaron, which had budded,blossomed, and
burst into fruit; as also that on which Jacobhad leaned, and which,
through Judah, had passed to all thekings of Israel, till the
destruction of the Temple. [gBemid. R. 18, close of the Phar. h Ps.
lxxii. 16] And so theprinciple that 'the later Deliverer would be
like the first'was carried into every detail. As the first Deliverer
broughtdown the Manna, so the Messiah; [h According to the
lastclause of (English verson) Joel iii. 18 (Midr. on Eccles. i.9 ed.
Warsh, vol. iv. p. 80 b)] as the first Deliverer hadmade a spring of
water to rise, so would the second.(i)
But even this is not all. That the Messiah had, without
anyinstruction, attained to knowledge of God; [a Bemid. R. 14,ed.
Warsh. p. 55 a] and that He had received, directly fromHim, all
wisdom, knowledge, counsel, and grace, [b Bemid. R.13] is
comparatively little, since the same was claimed forAbraham, Job,
and Hezekiah. But we are told that, when Godshowed Moses all
his successors, the spirit of wisdom andknowledge in the Messiah
equalled that of all the otherstogether. [c Yalkut on Numb. xxvii.
16,] vol. i. p. 247 d]The Messiah would be 'greater than the
Patriarchs,' higherthan Moses, [1 This is the more noteworthyas,
according Sotah9 b, none in Israel was so great as Moses, who was
onlyinferior to the Almighty.] and even loftier than theministering
Angels. [d Tanch., Par. Toledoth 14] In view ofthis we
canunderstand, how the Midrash on Psalm xxi. 3 shouldapply to
the Messiah, in all its literality, that 'God wouldset His own crown
on His head,' and clothe Him with His'honour and majesty.' It is
only consistent that the sameMidrash should assign to the Messiah
the Divine designations:'Jehovah is a Man of War,' and 'Jehovah
our Righteousness.'[e Midr. Tehill. ed.Warsh. p. 30 b] One other
quotation, fromperhaps the most spiritual Jewish commentary,
must be added,reminding us of that outburst of adoring wonder
which oncegreeted Jesus of Nazareth. The passage first refers to
theseven garments with which God successively robed Himself,
thefirst of 'honour and glory,' at creation; [f Ps. civ. 1] thesecond of
'majesty,' at the Red Sea; [g Ps. xciii. 1] thethird of 'strength,' at the
giving of the Law; [h Ps. xciii.1] the fourth 'white,' when He
blotteth outthe sins ofIsrael; [i Dan. vii. 9] the fifth of 'zeal,' when
He avengeththem of their enemies; [k Is. lix. 17] the sixth
of'righteousness,' at the time when the Messiah should berevealed;
[m Is. lix. 17] and the seventh 'red,' when Hewouldtake vengeance
on Edom (Rome). [n Is. lxiii.] 'But,'continues the commentary, 'the
garment with which in thefuture He will clothe the Messiah, its
splendour will extendfrom one end of the world to the other, as it
is written: [oIs. lxi. 10] 'As a bridegroom priestly in headgear."
AndIsrael are astounded at His light, and say: Blessed the hourin
which the Messiah was created; blessed the womb whence
Heissued; blessed the generation that sees Him; blessed the eyethat
is worthy to behold Him; because the opening of His lipsis
blessing and peace, and His speech quieting of the spirit.Glory and
majesty are in His appearance (vesture), andconfidence and
tranquillity in His words; and on His tonguecompassion and
forgiveness; His prayer is a sweet-smellingodour, and His
supplication holiness and purity. HappyIsrael, what is reserved for
you! Thus it is written: [p Ps.xxxi. 19] "How manifold is Thy
goodness, which Thou hastreserved to them that fear Thee." '[q
Pesiqta. ed. Buber. pp.149, a, b] Such a King Messiah might well
be represented assitting at the Right Hand of God, while Abraham
was only atHis left; [a Midr. on Ps. xviii. 36, ed. Warsh. p. 27 a]
nay,as throwing forth His Right Hand, while God stood up to
warfor Him [b Midr. on Ps. cx. 1, ed. Warsh. p. 80 b]
It is not without hesitation, that we make reference toJewish
allusions to the miraculous birth of the Saviour. Yetthere are two
expressions, which convey the idea, if not ofsuperhuman origin,
yet of some great mystery attaching to Hisbirth. The first occurs in
connection with the birth of Seth.'Rabbi Tanchuma said, in the
name of Rabbi Samuel: Eve hadrespect [had regard, looked
forward] to that Seed which is tocome from another place. And
who is this? This is Messiah theKing.' [c Ber. R. 23, ed Warsh p.
45 b] The second appears inthe narrative of the crime of Lot's
daughters: [d Gen. xix.32] 'It is not written "that we may preserve a
son from ourfather," but "seed from our father." This is that seed
whichis coming from another place. And who is this? This is
theKing Messiah.' [e Ber. R. 51 ed. Warsh. p. 95 a] [1 I am,
ofcourse, aware that certain Rabbinists explain the expression'Seed
from another place,' as referring to the descent of theMessiah from
Ruth--a non-Israelite. But if this explanationcould be offered in
reference to the daughters of Lot, it isdifficult to see its meaning in
reference to Eve and thebirth of Seth. The connection there with
the words (Gen. iv.25), 'God hath appointed me another Seed,'
would be the veryloosest.]
That a superhuman character attached, if not to thePersonality, yet
to the Mission of the Messiah, appears fromthree passages, in
which the expression, 'The Spirit of theLord moved upon the face
of the deep,' is thus paraphrased:'This is the Spirit of the King
Messiah.' [f Ber. R. 2; and8; Vayyikra R. 14, ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p.
21 b] [2 I amsurprised, that Castelli (u. s. p. 207) should
havecontended, that the reading in Ber. R. 8 and Vay. R. 14should
be 'the Spirit of Adam.' For (1) the attemptedcorrection gives
neither sense, nor proper meaning. (2) Thepassage Ber. R. 1 is not
impugned; yet that passage is thebasis of the other two. (3) Ber. R.
8 must read, 'The Spiritof God moved on the deep--that is, the
Spirit of Messiah theKing,' because the proof-passage is
immediately added, 'andthe spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,'
which is aMessianic passage; and because, only two lines before
theimpugned passage, we are told, that Gen. i. 26, 1st clause,refers
to the 'spirit of the first man.' The latter remarkapplies also to
Vayyikra R. 14, where the context equallyforbids the proposed
correction.] Whether this implies someactivity of the Messiah in
connection with creation, [3 Itwould be very interesting to
compare with this the statementsof Philo as to the agency of the
Logos in Creation. Thesubject is very well treated by Riehm
(Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. Br.pp. 414-420), although I cannot agree with
all hisconclusions.] or only that, from the first,His Mission was
tohave a bearing on all creation, it elevates His character andwork
above every other agency, human or Angelic. And,
withoutpressing the argument, it is at least very remarkable
thateven the Ineffable Name Jehovah is expressly attributed tothe
Messiah. [g Midr. on Lament. i 16, ed Warsh. p. 64 a,last line
comp. Pesiqta, p. 148 a ; 4 Midr. on Ps. xxi. andthe very curious
concessions in a controvesy with a Christianrecorded in Sanh. 38
b] The whole of this passage, beginningat p. 147 b, is very curious
and deeply interesting. It wouldlead too far to quote fact becomes
the more significant, whenwe recall that one of the most familiar
names of the Messiahwas Anani, He Whi cometh in the clouds of
heaven. [a Dan.vii. 13]
In what has been stated, no reference has been made to thefinal
conquests of Messiah, to His reign with all itswonders, or to the
subdual of all nation, in short, to whatare commonly called 'the last
things.' This will be treatedin another connection. Nor is it
contented that, whateverindividuals may have expected, the
Synagogue taught thedoctrine of the Divine Personality of the
Messiah, as held bythe Christian Church. On the other hand, the
cumulativeevidence just presented must leave on the mind at least
thisconviction, that the Messiah expected was far above
theconditions of the most exalted of God's servants, even
HisAngels; in short, so closely bordering on the Divine, that itwas
almost impossible to distinguish Him therefrom. In
suchcircumstances, it only needed the personal conviction, thatHe,
Who taught and wrought as none other, was really theMessiah, to
kindle at His word into the adoring confession,that He was indeed
'the Son of the Living God.' And once thatpoint reached, the mind,
looking back through the teaching ofthe Synagogue, would, with
increasing clearness, perceivethat, however ill-understood in the
past, this had been allalong the sum of the whole Old Testament.
Thus, we canunderstand alike the preparedness for, and yet
thegradualness of conviction on this point; then, the
increasingclearness with which it emerged in the consciousness of
thedisciples; and, finally, the unhesitating distinctness withwhich it
was put forward in Apostolic teaching as thefundamental article of
belief to the Church Catholic. [1 Itwill be noticed, that the
cummulative argument presented inthe foregoing pages follows
closely that in the first chapterof the Epistle to the Hebrews; only,
that the latter carriesit up to its final conclusion, that the Messiah
was truly theSon of God, while it has been our purpose simply to
state,what was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue, not
whatit should have been according to the Old Testament.]
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
THE NATIVITY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH.
CHAPTER VI
(St. Matthew i. 25; St. Luke ii. 1-20.)
SUCH then was 'the hope of the promise made of God unto
thefathers,' for which the twelve tribes, 'instantly serving(God)
night and day,' longed, with such vividness, that theyread it in
almost every event and promise; with suchearnestness, that it ever
was the burden of their prayers;with such intensity, that many and
long centuries ifdisappointment have not quenched it. Its light,
comparativelydim in days of sunshine and calm, seemed to burn
brightestinthe dark and lonely nights of suffering, as if each
gustthat swept over Israel only kindled it into fresh flame.
To the question, whether this hope has ever been realised,or rather,
whether One has appeared Whose claims to theMessiahship have
stood the test of investigation and of time,impartial history can
make only one answer. It points toBethlehem and to Nazareth. If
the claims of Jesus have beenrejected by the Jewish Nation, He has
at least, undoubtedly,fulfilled one part of the Mission prophetically
assigned tothe Messiah. Whether or not He be the Lion of the tribe
ofJudah, to Him, assuredly, has been the gathering of thenations,
and the isles have waited for His law. Passing thenarrow bounds of
obscure Judaea, and breaking down the wallsof national prejudice
and isolation, He has made the sublimerteaching of the Old
Testament the common possession of theworld, and founded a
great Brotherhood, of which the God ofIsrael is the Father. He
alone also has exhibited a life, inwhich absolutely no fault could
be found; and promulgated ateaching, to which absolutely no
exception can be taken.Admittedly, He was the One perfect Man,
the ideal ofhumanity, His doctrine the one absolute teaching. The
worldhas known none other, none equal. And the world has owned
it,if not by the testimony of words, yet by the evidence offacts.
Springing from such a people; born, living, and dyingin
circumstances, and using means, the most unlikely of suchresults,
the Man of Nazareth has, by universal consent, beenthe mightiest
Factor in our world's history: alikepolitically, socially,
intellectually, and morally. If He benot the Messiah, He has at least
thus far done the Messiah'swork. If He be not the Messiah, there
has has at least beennone 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 OldTestament
prediction, [a Micah v. 2] but the testimony ofRabbinic teaching,
unhesitatingly pointed. Yet nothing couldbe imagined more
directly contrary to Jewish thoughts andfeelings, and hence
nothing less likely to suggest itself toJewish invention [1 The
advocates of the mythical theory havenot answered, not even faced
or understood, what to us seems,on their hypothesis, an
insuperable difficulty. Granting,that Jewish expectancy would
suggest the birth of Jesus atBethlehem, why invent such
circumstances to being Mary toBethlehem? Keim may be right in
saying: 'The belief in thebirth at Bethlehem originated very simply
(Leben Jesu i. 2,p. 393); but all the more complicated and
inexplicable is theorigination of the legend, which accounts for the
journeythither of Mary and Joseph.] , than the circumstances
which,according to the Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth
ofthe Messiah in Bethlehem. Acounting of the people, of
Census;and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen
Emperor,andexecuted by one so universally hated as Herod,
wouldrepresent the ne plus ultra of all that was most repugnant
toJewish feeling. [2 In evidence of of these feelings, we havethe
account of Josephus of the consequences of the taxationof
Cyrenius (Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Comp. Acts v. 37).] If theaccount to the
Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth ofthe Bethlehem, has no
basis in fact, but is a legend inventedto locate the birth of the
Nazarene in the royal City ofDavid, it must be pronounced most
clumsily devised. There isabsolutely nothing to account for its
origination, eitherfrom parallel events in the past, or from
contemporaryexpectancy. Why then connect the birth of their
Messiah withwhat was most repugnant to Israel, especially if, as
theadvocates of the legendary hypothesis contend, it did notoccur
at a time when any Jewish Census was taken, but tenyears
previously?
But if it be impossible rationally to account for anylegendary
origin of the narrative of Joseph and Mary'sjourney to Bethlehem,
the historical grounds, on which itsaccuracy has been impugned,
are equally insufficient. Theyresolve themselves into this: that
(beyond theGospel-narrative) we have no solid evidence that
Cyrenius wasat that time occupying the needful official position in
theEast, to order such a registration for Herod to carry out.But
even this feeble contention is by no means historicallyunassailable.
[3 The arguments on what may be calledtheorthodox side have,
from different points of view, been sooften and well stated, latterly
by Wieseler, Huschke, Zumpt,and Steinmeyer, and on the
otherside almost ad nauseam bynegative critics of every school,
that it seems unnecessaryto go again over them. The reader will
find the whole subjectstated by Canon Cook, whose views we
substantially adopt, inthe 'Speaker's Commentary' (N.T. i. pp.
326-329). Thereasoning of Mommsen (Res gestae D. Aug. pp. 175,
176) doesnot seem to me to affect the view taken in the text.] At
anyrate, there are two facts, which render any historicalmistake by
St. Luke on this point extremely difficult tobelieve. First, he was
evidently aware of a Census underCyrenius, ten years later; [a
Comp. Acts v. 37] secondly,whatever rendered of St. Luke ii. 2
may be adopted, it willat least be admitted, that the intercalated
sentence aboutCyrenius was not necessary for the narrative, and
that thewriter must have intended thereby emphatically to mark
acertain event. But an author would not be likely to callspecial
attention to a fact, of which he had only indistinctknowledge;
rather, if it must be mentioned, would he do so inthe most
indefinite terms. This presumption in favour of St.Luke's statement
is strengthened by the consideration, thatsuch an event as the
taxing of Judaea must have been soeasily ascertainable by him.
We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning justset
forth. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of theRoaman
Empire, and of subject and tributary states, is nowgenerally
admitted. This registration, for the purpose offuture taxation,
would also embrace Palestine. Even if noactual order to that effect
had been issued during thelifetime of Herod, we can understand
that he would deem itmost expedient, both on account of his
relations to theEmperor, and in view of the probable excitement
which aheathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps
formaking a registration, and that rather according to theJewish
than the Roman manner. This Census, then, arranged byAugustus,
and taken by Herod in his own manner, was,according to St. Luke,
'first [really] carried out whenCyrenius was Governor of Syria,'
some years after Herod'sdeath and when Judaea had become a
Roman province. [1 For thetextual explanation we again refer to
Canon Cook, only wewould mark, with Steinmeyer, that the
meaning of theexpression, in St. Luke ii. 2, is determined by the
similaruse of it in Acts xi. 28, where what was predicted is said
tohave actually taken place at the time of Claudius Caesar.]
We are now prepared to follow the course of theGospel-narrative.
In consequence of 'the decree of CaesarAugustus,' Herod directed a
general registration to be madeafter the Jewish, rather than the
Roman, manner. Practicallythe two would, indeed, in this instance,
be very similar.According to the Roman law, all country-people
were to beregistered in their 'own city', meaning thereby the town
towhich the village or place, where they were born, wasattached.
In so doing, the 'house and lineage' (the nomen andcognomen) of
each were marked. [1 Comp. Huschke. Ueber d. z.Zeit d. Geb. J.
C. gehalt. Census pp. 119, 120. Most criticshave written very
confusedly on this point.] According to theJewish mode of
registration, the people would have beenenrolled according to
tribes, families or clans, and thehouse of their fathers. But as the
ten tribes had notreturned to Palestine, this could only take place
to a verylimited extent, [2 The reader will now be able to
appreciatethe value of Keim's objections against such a Census,
asinvolving a 'wahre Volkswanderung' (!), and being 'eine
Sacheder Unmoglichkeit.'] while it would be easy for each to
beregistered in 'his own city.' In the case of Joseph and
Mary,whose descent from David was not only known, but where,
forthe sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important thatthis
should be distinctly noted, it was natural that, inaccordance with
Jewish law, they should have gone toBethlehem. Perhaps also, for
many reasons which will readilysuggest themselves, Joseph and
Mary might be glad to leaveNazareth, and seek, if possible, a home
in Bethlehem. Indeed,so strong was this feeling, that it afterwards
requiredspecial Divine direction to induce Joseph to relinquish
thischosen place of residence, and to return into Galilee. [a St.Matt
ii. 22.] In these circumstances, Mary, now the 'wife' ofJoseph,
though standing to him only in the actualrelationship of 'betrothed,'
[b St. Luke ii. 5.] would, ofcourse, accompany her husband to
Bethlehem. Irrespective ofthis, every feeling and hope in her must
have prompted such acourse, and there is no need to discuss
whether Roman orJewish 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 This, ofcourse,
is only a conjecture; but I call it 'probable,'partly because one
would naturally so arrange a journey ofseveral days, to make its
stages as slow and easy aspossible, and partly from the
circumstance, that, on theirarrival, they found the khan full, which
would scarcely havebeen the case had they reached Bethlehem
early in the day.]as the two travellers from Nazareth, bringing with
them thefew necessaries of a poor Eastern household, neared
theirjourney's end. If we think of Jesus as the Messiah fromheaven,
the surroundings of outward poverty, so far fromdetracting, seem
most congruous to His Divine character.Earthly splendor would
here seem like tawdry tinsel, and theutmost simplicity like that
clothing of the lilies, which farsurpassed all the glory of Solomon's
court. But only in theEast would the most absolute simplicity be
possible, and yetneither it, nor the poverty from which it sprang,
necessarilyimply even the slightest taint of social inferiority. The
wayhad been long and weary, at the very least, three days'journey,
whatever route had been taken from Galilee. Mostprobably it
would be that so commonly followed, from a desireto avoid
Samaria, along the eastern banks of the Jordan, andby the fords of
Jericho. [1 Comp. the account of the roads,inns, &c. in the 'History
of the Jewish Nation,' p. 275; andthe chapter on Travelling in
Palestine,' in 'Sketches ofJewish Social Life in the Days of Christ.']
Although passingthrough one of the warmest parts of the country,
the seasonof the year must, even in most favorable circumstances,
havegreatly increased the difficulties of such a journey. A senseof
rest and peace must, almost unconsciously, have crept overthe
travellers when at last they reached the rich fields thatsurrounded
the ancient 'House of Bread,' and, passing throughthe valley which,
like an amphitheatre, sweeps up to thetwain heights along which
Bethlehem stretches (2,704 feetabove the sea), ascended through
the terraced vineyards andgardens. Winter though it was, the green
and silvery foliageof the olive might, even at that season, mingle
with the palepink of the almond, nature's 'early waker' [2 The
almond iscalled, in Hebrew, 'the waker,' from the word 'to be
awake.'It is quite possible, that many of the earliest springflowers
already made the landscape bright.], and with thedarker coloring
of the opening peach-buds. The chaste beautyand sweet quiet of
the place would recall memories of Boaz,of Jesse, and of David.
All the more would such thoughtssuggest themselves, from the
contrast between the past andthe present. For, as the travellers
reached the heights ofBethlehem, and, indeed, long before, the
most prominentobject in view must have been the great castle
which Herodhad built, and called after his own name. Perched on
thehighest hill south-east of Bethlehem, it was, at the sametime
magnificent palace, strongest fortress, and almostcourtier-city. [a
Jos. Ant. xiv. 13. 9; xv. 9. 4; War. i. 13.8:21, 10.] With a sense of
relief the travellers would turnfrom this, to mark the undulating
outlines of the highlandwilderness of Judaea, till the horizon was
bounded by themountain-ridges of Tekoa. Through the break of
the hillseastward the heavy molten surface of the Sea of
Judgementwould appear in view; westward wound the road to
Hebron;behind them lay the valleys and hills which
separatedBethlehem from Jerusalem, and concealed the Holy City.
But for the present such thoughts would give way to thepressing
necessity of finding shelter and rest. The littletown of Bethlehem
was crowded with those who had come fromall the outlying
district to register their names. Even ifthe strangers from far-off
Galilee had been personallyacquainted with any one in Bethlehem,
who could have shownthem hospitality, they would have found
every house fullyoccupied. The very inn was filled, and the only
availablespace was, where ordinarily the cattle were stabled. [1
Dr.Geikie indeed 'feelssure' that the was not an inn, but
aguest-chamber, because the word is used in that sense in St.Mark
xiv. 14, Luke xxii. 11. But this inference is criticallyuntenable. The
Greek word is of very wide application, andmeans (as Schleusner
puts it) 'omnis locus quieti aptus.' Inthe LXX. is the equivalent of
not less than five Hebrewwords, which have widely different
meanings. In the LXX.rendering of Ex. iv. 24 it is used for the
Hebrew whichcertainly cannot mean a guest-chamber, but an inn.
No onecould imagine that. If private hospitality had been
extendedto the Virgin-Mother, she would have been left in
suchcircumstances in a stable. The same term occurs in
Aramaicform, in Rabbinic writings, as an inn. Delitzsch, in
hisHebrew N.T., uses the more common Bazaars and markets
werealso held in those hostelries; animals killed, and meat
soldthere; also wine and cider; so that they were a much
morepublic place of resort than might at first be imagined.
Comp.Herzfeld. Handelsgesch. p. 325.] Bearing in mind the
simplehabits of the East, this scarcely implies, what it would inthe
West; and perhaps the seclusion and privacy from thenoisy,
chattering crowd, which thronged the khan, would beall the more
welcome. Scanty as these particulars are, eventhus much is
gathered rather by inference than from thenarrative itself. Thus
early in this history does the absenceof details, which painfully
increases as we proceed, remindus, that the Gospels were not
intended to furnish a biographyof Jesus, nor even the materials for
it; but had only thistwofold object: that those who read them 'might
believe thatJesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' and that believing
they'might have life through His Name.' [a St. John xx. 31;
comp.St. Luke i. 4.] The Christian heart and imagination,
indeed,long to be able to localise the scene of such
surpassingimportance, and linger with fond reverence over that
Cave,which is now covered by 'the Church of the Nativity.' It
maybe, nay, it seems likely, that this, to which the mostvenerable
tradition points, was the sacred spot of theworld's greatest event. [2
Perhaps the best authenticated ofall local traditions is that which
fixes on this cave as theplace of the Nativity. The evidence in its
favour is wellgiven by Dr. Farrar in his 'Life of Christ.' Dean
Stanley,however, and others, have questioned it.] But certainly
wehave not. It is better, that it should be so. As to all thatpassed in
the seclusion of that 'stable,' the circumstancesof the 'Nativity,'
even its exact time after the arrival ofMary (brief as it must have
been), the Gospel-narrative issilent. This only is told, that then and
there theVirgin-Mother 'brought forth her first-born Son, and
wrappedHim in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger.'
Beyondthis announcement of the bare fact, Holy Scripture,
withindescribable appropriateness and delicacy, draws a veil
overthat most sacred mystery. Two impressions only are left onthe
mind: that of utmost earthly humility, in the
surroundingcircumstances; and that of inward fitness, in the
contrastsuggested by them. Instinctively, reverently, we feel that
itis well it should have been so. It best befits the birth ofthe Christ,
if He be what the New Testament declares Him.
On the other hand, the circumstances just noted afford thestrongest
indirect evidence of the truth of this narrative.For, if it were the
outcome of Jewish imagination, where isthe basis for it in
contemporary expectation? Would Jewishlegend have ever
presented its Messiah as born in a stable,to which chance
circumstances had consigned His Mother? Thewhole current of
Jewish opinion would run in the contrarydirection. The opponents
of the authenticity of thisnarrative are bound to face this. Further,
it may safely beasserted, that no Apocryphal or legendary narrative
of such a(legendary) event would have been characterised by
suchscantiness, or rather absence, of details. For, the twoessential
features, alike of legend and of tradition, are,that they ever seek to
surround their heroes with a halo ofglory, and that they attempt to
supply details, which areotherwise wanting. And in both these
respects a moresharply-marked contrast could scarcely be
presented, than inthe Gospel-narrative.
But as we pass from the sacred gloom of the cave out intothe
night, its sky all aglow with starry brightness, itsloneliness is
peopled, and its silence made vocal fromheaven. There is nothing
now to conceal, but much to reveal,though the manner of it would
seem strangely incongruous toJewish thinking. And yet Jewish
tradition may here prove bothillustrative and helpful. That the
Messiah was to be born inBethlehem, [1 In the curious story of His
birth, related inthe Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 3), He is said to have been
born in'the royal castle of Bethlehem;' while in the
parallelnarrative in the Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. W. p. 64 b)
thesomewhat mysterious expression is used But we must keep
inview the Rabbinic statement that, even if a castle fallsdown, it is
still called a castle (Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 60b).] was a settled
conviction. Equally so was the belief,that He was to be revealed
from Migdal Eder, 'the tower ofthe flock.' [a Targum Pseudo-Jon.
on Gen. xxxv 21.] ThisMigdal Eder was not the watchtower for the
ordinary flockswhich pastured on the barren sheepground beyond
Bethlehem,but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem.
Apassage in the Mishnah [b Shek. vii. 4.] leads to theconclusion,
that the flocks, which pastured there, weredestined for
Temple-sacrifices, [2 In fact the Mishnah (BabaK. vii. 7) expressly
forbids the keeping of flocks throughoutthe land of Israel, except
in the wilderness, and the onlyflocks otherwise kept, would be
those for the Temple-services(Baba K. 80 a).] and, accordingly,
that the shepherds, whowatched over them, were not ordinary
shepherds. The latterwere under the ban of Rabbinism, [1 This
disposes of an inaptquotation (from Delitzsch) by Dr. Geikie. No
one couldimagine, that the Talmudic passages in question could
applyto such shepherds as these.] on account of their
necessaryisolation from religious ordinances, and their manner
oflife, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if
notabsolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads
usto infer, that these flocks lay out all the year round, sincethey are
spoken of as in the fields thirty days before thePassover, that is, in
the month of February, when inPalestine the average rainfall is
nearly greatest. [2 Themean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted
to 4.718 inches inDecember, 5.479 in January, and 5.207 in
February (see a veryinteresting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart. Stat.
of Pal.Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have
thesestartling figures: mean for December, .490; for January,1.595;
for February, 8.750, and, similarly, in other years.And so we read:
'Good the year in which Tebheth (December) iswithout rain' (Taan.
6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot'squotations about the flocks
not lying out during the winter |
