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 centralisation
and localisation of its worship in Jerusalem. If to some the
ordinances of the Old Testament may in this respect seem
narrow and exclusive, it is at least doubtful, whether
without such a provision Monothsiem itself could have
continued as a creed or a worship. In view of the state of
the ancient world, and of the tendencies of Israel during the
earlier stages of their history, the strictest isolation was
necessary in order to preserve the religion of the Old
Testament from that mixture with foreign elements which would
speedily have proved fatal to its existence. And if one
source of that danger had ceased after the seventy years'
exile in babylonia, the dispersion of the greater part of the
nation among those manners and civilisation would necessarily
influence them, rendered the continuance of this separation
of as great importance as before. In this respect, even
traditionalism had its mission and use, as a hedge around the
Law to render its infringement or modification impossible.

Wherever a Roman, a Greek, or an Asiatic might wander, he
could take his gods with him, or find rites kindred to his
own. It was far otherwise with the Jew. He had only one
Temple, that in Jerusalem; only one God, Him Who had once
throned there between the Cherubim, and Who was still King
over Zion. That Temple was the only place where a
God-appointed, pure priesthood could offer acceptable
sacrifices, whether for forgiveness of sin, or for fellowship
with God. Here, in the impenetrable gloom of the innermost
sanctuary, which the High-Priest alone might enter once a
year for most solemn expiation, had stood the Ark, the leader
of the people into the Land of Promise, and the footstool on
which the Schechinah had rested. From that golden altar rose
the 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; on
that table, as it were before the face of Jehovah, was laid,
week by week, 'the Bread of the Face,' [1 Such is the literal
meaning of what is translated by 'shewbread.'] a constant
sacrificial meal which Israel offered unto God, and wherewith
God in turn fed His chosen priesthood. On the great
blood-sprinkled altar of sacrifice smoked the daily and
festive burnt-offerings, brought by all Israel, and for all
Israel, wherever scattered; while the vast courts of the
Temple were thronged not only by native Palestinians, but
literally by 'Jews out of every nation under heaven.' Around
this Temple gathered the sacred memories of the past; to it
clung the yet brighter hopes of the future. The history of
Israel and all their prospects were intertwined with their
religion; so that it may be said that without their religion
they had no history, and without their history no religion.
Thus, history, patriotism, religion, and hope alike pointed
to Jerusalem and the Temple as the centre of Israel's unity.

Nor could the depressed state of the nation alter their
views or shake their confidence. What mattered it, that the
Idumaean, Herod, had unsurped the throne of David, expect so
far as his own guilt and their present subjection were
concerned? Israel had passed through deeper waters, and stood
triumphant on the other shore. For centuries seemingly
hopeless bondsmen in Egypt, they had not only been delivered,
but had raised the God-inspired morning-song of jubilee, as
they looked back upon the sea cleft for them, and which had
buried their oppressors in their might and pride. Again, for
weary years had their captives hung Zion's harps by the
rivers of that city and empire whose colossal grandeur,
wherever they turned, must have carried to the scattered
strangers the desolate feeling of utter hopelessness. And yet
that empire had crumbled into dust, while Israel had again
taken root and sprung up. And now little more than a century
and a half had passed, since a danger greater even than any
of these had threatened the faith and the very existence of
Israel. In his daring madness, the Syrian king, Antiochus IV.
(Epiphanes) had forbidden their religion, sought to destroy
their sacred books, with unsparing ferocity forced on them
conformity to heathen rites, desecrated the Temple by
dedicating it to Zeus Olympios, what is translated by
'shewbread.' a constant sacrificial and even reared a heathen
altar upon that of burnt-offering. [2 Macc. i. 54, 59; Jos.
Ant. xii. 5. 4.] Worst of all, his wicked schemes had been
aided by two apostate High-Priests, who had outvied each
other in buying and then prostituting the sacred office of
God's anointed. [1 After the deposition of Onias III. through
the bribery of his own brother Jason, the latter and Menelaus
outvied each other in bribery for, and prostitution of, the
holy office.] Yet far away in the mountains of Ephraim [2
Modin, the birthplace of the Maccabees, has been identified
with the modern El-Medyeh, about sixteen miles northwest of
Jerusalem, in the ancient territory of Ephraim. Comp.
Conder's Handbook of the Bible, p. 291; and for a full
reference to the whole literature of the subject, see Schurer
(Neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 78, note 1).] God had raised for them
most unlooked-for and unlikely help. Only three years later,
and, after a series of brilliant victories by undisciplined
men over the flower of the Syrian army, Judas the Maccabee,
truly God's 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, a
hammer, like Charles Martel.] had purified the Temple, and
restored its altar on the very same day [4 1 Macc. 1. 54.] on
which the 'abomination of desolation' [5 1 Macc. iv. 52-54:]
Megill. Taan. 23. had been set up in its place. In all their
history the darkest hour of their night had ever preceded the
dawn of a morning brighter than any that had yet broken. It
was thus that with one voice all their prophets had bidden
them wait and hope. Their sayings had been more than
fulfilled as regarded the past. Would they not equally become
true in reference to that far more glorious future for Zion
and for Israel, which was to be ushered in by the coming of
the Messiah?

Nor were such the feelings of the Palestinian Jews only.
These indeed were now a minority. The majority of the nation
constituted what was known as the dispersion; a term which,
however, no longer expressed its original meaning of
banishment by the judgment of God, [6 Alike the verb in
Hebrew, and in Greek, with their derivatives, are used in the
Old Testament, and in the rendering of the LXX., with
reference 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 absence
from Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But all the more
that it referred not to outward suffering, [7 There is some
truth, although greatly exaggerated, in the bitter remarks of
Hausrath (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93), as to the
sensitiveness of the Jews in the, and the loud outcry of all
its members at any interference with them, however trivial.
But events unfortunately too often proved how real and near
was their danger, and how necessary the caution 'Obsta
principiis.'] did its continued use indicate a deep feeling
of religious sorrow, of social isolation, and of political
strangership [8 St. Peter seems to have used it in that
sense, 1 Pet. i. 1.] in the midst of a heathen world. For
although, as Josephus reminded his countrymen, [Jew. W ii.
16. 4.] there was 'no nation inthe world which had not among
them part of the Jewish people,' since it was 'widely
dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants,' [b vii.
3.3.] yet they had nowhere found a real home. A century and a
half before our era comes to us from Egypt [1 Comp. the
remarks of Schneckenburger (Vorles u. Neutest. Zeitg. p.
95).] ,where the Jews possessed exceptional privileges,
professedly from the heathen, but really fdrom the Jewish [2
Comp. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag. xxii. 39.] Sibyl, this
lament of Israel:, Crowding with thy numbers every ocean and
country, Yet an offense to all around thy presence and
customs! [3 Orac Sibyll. iii. 271,272, apud Friedlieb, p.
62.] Sixty years later the Greek geographer and historian
Strabo bears the like witness to their presence in every
land, but in language that shows how true had been the
complaint of the Sibyl. [4 Strabo apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 7.2:
'It is not easy to find a place in the world that has not
admitted this race, and is not mastered by it.'] The reasons
for this state of feeling will by-and-by appear. Suffice it
for the present that, all unconsciously, Philo tells its
deepest ground, and that of Israel's loneliness in the
heathen world, when speaking, like the others, of his
countrymen as in 'all the cities of Europe, in the provinces
of Asia and in the islands,' he describes them as, wherever
sojourning, having but one metropolis, not Alexandria,
Antioch, or Rome, but 'the Holy City with its Temple,
dedicateda to the Most High God.' [5 Philo in Flaccum (ed.
Francf.), p. 971.] A nation, the vast majority of which was
dispersed over the whole inhabited earth, had ceased to be a
special, and become a world-nation. [6 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 the
life-blood passed to its most distant members. And this,
indeed, if we rightly understand it, was the grand object of
the 'Jewish dispersion' throughout the world.

What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, to
the Western, rather than to the Eastern 'dispersion.' The
connection of the latter with Palestine was so close as
almost to seem one of continuity. In the account of the truly
representative gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable
Feast of Weeks, [a Acts ii. 9-11] the division of the
'dispersion' into two grand sections, the Eastern or
Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist, seems clearly
marked. [7 Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 113) quotes two passages
from Philo, in one of which he contradistinguishes 'us,' the
Hellenist Jews, from 'the Hebrews,' and speaks of the Greek
as 'our language.'] In this arrangement the former would
include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in
Mesopotamia,' Judaea standing, so to speak, in the middle,
while 'the Bretes and Arabians' would typically represent the
farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and the
Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New
Testament, 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.] On
the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited
Babylon and many of the other satrapies,'[c Philo ad Cajum,
p. 1023; Jos. Ant. xv. 3.1.] were included with the
Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,' from
the common language which they spoke.

But the difference between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews'
was far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the
whole direction of thought. There were mental influences at
work in the Greek world from which, in the nature of things,
it was impossible even for Jews to withdraw themselves, and
which, indeed, were as necessary for the fulfillment of their
mission as their isolation from heathenism, and their
connection with Jerusalem. At the same time it was only
natural that the Hellenists, placed as they were in the midst
of such hostile elements, should intensely wish to be Jews,
equal to their Eastern brethren. On the other hand,
Pharisaism, in its pride of legal purity and of the
possession of traditional lore, with all that it involved,
made no secret of its contempt for the Hellenists, and openly
declared the Grecian far inferior to the Babylonian
'dispersion.' [1 Similarly we have (in Men. 110a) this
curious 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 not
settled, like women.] That such feelings, and the suspicions
which they engendered, had struck deep into the popular mind,
appears from the fact, that even in the Apostolic Church, and
that in her earliest days, disputes could break out between
the Hellenists and the Hebrews, arising from suspicion of
unkind and unfair dealings grounded on these sectional
prejudices. [d Acts vi. 1.]

Far other was the estimate in which the Babylonians were
held by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view
of it, Babylonia, as well as 'Syria' as far north as Antioch,
was regarded as forming part of the land of Israel. [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 the
Tigris, were supposed to have been in the territory which
King David had conquered, and this made them ideally for ever
like the land of Israel. But it was just between the
Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and wealthiest
settlements of the Jews were, to such extent that a later
writer actually designated them 'the land of Israel.' Here
Nehardaa, on the Nahar Malka, or royal canal, which passed
from the Euphrates to the Tigris, was the oldest Jewish
settlement. It boasted of a Synagogue, said to have been
built by King Jechoniah with stones that had been brought
from the Temple. [1 Comp. Furst, Kult. u. Literaturgesch d.
Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. 8.] In this fortified city the vast
contributions intended for the Temple were deposited by the
Eastern Jews, and thence conveyed to their destination under
escort of thousands of armed men. Another of these Jewish
treasure-cities was Nisibis, in northern Mesopotamia. Even
the fact that wealth, which must have sorely tempted the
cupidity of the heathen, could be safely stored in these
cities and transported to Palestine, shows how large the
Jewish population must have been, and how great their general
influence.

In general, it is of the greatest importance to remember in
regard to this Eastern dispersion, that only a minority of
the Jews, consisting in all of about 50,000, originally
returned from Babylon, first under Zerubbabel and afterwards
under Ezra. [a 537 B.C., and 459-'8 B.C.] Nor was their
inferiority confined to numbers. The wealthiest and most
influential of the Jews remained behind. According to
Josephus, [b Ant. xi. 5. 2; xv. 2. 2; xviii. 9.] with whom
Philo substantially agrees, vast numbers, estimated at
millions, inhabited the Trans-Euphratic provinces. To judge
even by the number of those slain in popular risings (50,000
in Seleucia alone [2 Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 9.] ),these figures
do not seem greatly exaggerated. A later tradition had it,
that so dense was the Jewish population in the Persian
Empire, that Cyrus forbade the further return of the exiles,
lest the country should be depopulated. [3 Midrash on Cant.
v. 5, ed. Warsh. p. 26 a.] So large and compact a body soon
became a political power. Kindly treated under the Persian
monarchy, they were, after the fall of that empire, [c 330 B.
C.] favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn the
Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire, [d 63
B.C.] the Jews formed, from their national opposition to
Rome, an important element in the East. Such was their
influence that, as late as the year 40 A.D., the Roman legate
shrank from provoking their hostility. [4 Philo ad Caj.] At
thesame time it must not be thought that, even in these
favoured regions, they were wholly without persecution. Here
also history records more than one tale of bloody strife on
the part of those among whom they dwelt. [5 The following are
the chief passages in Josephus relating to that part of
Jewish history: Ant. xi. 5. 2; xiv. 13. 5; xv. 2. 7; 3. 1;
xvii. 2. 1-3; xviii. 9. 1, &c.; xx. 4. Jew. W. i. 13. 3.]

To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and of
Syria, to which they had wandered under the fostering rule of
the Macedono-Syrian monarchs (the Seleucidae), were indeed
pre-eminently the Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them the
Sanhedrin in Jerusalem intimated by fire-signals from
mountain-top to mountain-top the commencement of each month
for the regulation of the festive calendar, [1 Rosh. haSh.
ii. 4; comp. the Jer. Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud 23
b.] even as they afterwards despatched messengers into Syria
for the same purpose. [2 Rosh. haSh. i. 4.] In some respects
the Eastern dispersion was placed on the same footing; in
others, on even a higher level than the mothercountry. Tithes
and Terumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared condition, [3
Shev. vi. passim; Gitt. 8 a.] were due from them, while the
Bikkurim, or first-fruits in a fresh state, were to be
brought from Syria to Jerusalem. Unlike the heathen
countries, whose very dust defiled, the soil of Syria was
declared clean, like that of Palestine itself. [a Ohol.
xxiii. 7.] So far as purity of descent was concerned, the
Babylonians, indeed, considered themselves superior to their
Palestinian brethren. They had it, that when Ezra took with
him those who went to Palestine, he had left the land behind
him as pure as fine flour. [b Kidd. 69.] To express it in
their own fashion: In regard to the genealogical purity of
their Jewish inhabitants, all other countries were, compared
to Palestine, like dough mixed with leaven; but Palestine
itself was such by the side of Babylonia. [4 Cheth. 111 a.]
It was evemaintained, that the exact boundaries could be
traced in a district, within which the Jewish population had
preserved itself unmixed. Great merit was in this respect
also ascribed to Ezra. In the usual mode of exaggeration, it
was asserted, that, if all the genealogical studies and
researches [5 As comments upon the genealogies from 'Azel' in
1 Chr. viii. 37 to 'Azel' in ix. 44. Pes. 62 b.] had been put
together, they would have amounted to many hundred
camel-loads. There was for it, however, at least this
foundation in truth, that great care and labour were bestowed
on preserving full and accurate records so as to establish
purity of descent. What importance attached to it, we know
from the action on Ezra [c Chs. ix. x.] in that respect, and
from the stress which Josephus layson this point. [d Life i.;
Ag Apion i. 7.] Official records of descent as regarded the
priesthood were kept in the Temple. Besides, the Jewish
authorities seem to have possessed a general official
register, which Herod afterwards ordered to be burnt, from
reasons which it is not difficult to infer. But from that
day, laments a Rabbi, the glory of the Jews decreased! [6
Pes. 62 b; Sachs,Beitr. vol. ii. p. 157.]

Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Eastern
dispersion could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everything
to Ezra, the Babylonian, [1 According to tradition he
returned to Babylon, and died there. Josephus says that he
died in Jerusalem (Anti. xi. 5. 5).] a man so distinguished
that, according to tradition, the Law would have been given
by him, if Moses had not previously obtained that honor.
Putting aside the various traditional ordinances which the
Talmud ascribes to him, [2 Herzfeld has given a very clear
historical arrangement of the order in which, and the persons
by whom, the various legal determinations were supposed to
have been given. See Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. iii. pp. 240 &c.]
we know from the Scriptures what his activity for good had
been. Altered circumstances had brought many changes to the
new Jewish State. Even the language, spoken and written, was
other than formerly. Instead of the characters anciently
employed, the exiles brought with them, on their return,
those now common, the so-called square Hebrew letters, which
gradually came into general use. [a Sanh. 21 b.] [3 Although
thus 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 spoken
by the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaean, both in
Palestine and in Babylonia; [4 Herzfeld (u. s. vol. iii. p.
46) happily designates the Palestinian as the
Hebraeo-Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The Hebrew, as
well as the Aramaean, belongs to the Semitic group of
languages, which has thus been arranged: 1. North Semitic:
Punico-Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic (Western and Eastern
dialects). 2. South Semitic: Arabic, Himyaritic, and
Ethipian. 3. East Semitic: The Assyro-Baylonian cuneiform.
When we speak of the dialect used in Palestine, we do not, of
course, forget the great influence of Syria, exerted long
before and after the Exile. Of these three branches the
Aramaic is the most closely connected with the Hebrew. Hebrew
occupies an intermediate position between the Aramaic and the
Arabic, and may be said to be the oldest, certainly from a
literary point of view. Together with the introduction of the
new dialect into Palestine, we mark that of the new, or
square, characters of writing. The Mishnah and all the
kindred literature up to the fourth century are in Hebrew, or
rather in a modern development and adaptation of that
language; 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 latter
the Eastern dialect. In fact, the common people were ignorant
of pure Hebrew, which henceforth became the language of
students and of the Synagogue. Even there a Methurgeman, or
interpreter, had to be employed to translate into the
vernacular the portions of Scripture read in the public
services, [5 Could St. Paul have had this in mind when, in
referring to the miraculous gift of speaking in other
languages, he directs that one shall always interpret (1 Cor.
xiv. 27)? At any rate, the word targum in Ezra iv. 7 is
rendered in the LXX. by The following from the Talmud (Ber. 8
a and b) affords a curious illustration of 1 Cor. xiv. 27:
'Let a man always finish his Parashah (the daily lesson from
the Law) with the congregation (at the same time), twice the
text, and once targum.']. and the address delivered by the
Rabbis. This was the origin of the so-called Targumim, or
paraphrases of Scripture. In earliest times, indeed, it was
forbidden to the Methurgeman to read his translation or to
write down a Targum, lest the paraphrase should be regarded
as of equal authority with the original. It was said that,
when Jonathan brought out his Targum on the Prophets, a voice
from heaven was heard to utter: 'Who is this that has
revealed My secrets to men?' [a Megill. 3.] Still, such
Targumim seem to have existed from a very early period, and,
amid the varying and often incorrect renderings, their
necessity must have made itself increasingly felt.
Accordingly, their use was authoritatively sanctioned before
the end of the second century after Christ. This is the
origin of our two oldest extant Targumim: that of Onkelos (as
it is called), on the Pentateuch; and that on the Prophets,
attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names do not,
indeed, accurately represent the authorship of the oldest
Targumim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and
authoritative recensions of what, in some form, had existed
before. But although these works had their origin in
Palestine, it is noteworthy that, in the form in which at
present we possess them, they are the outcome of the schools
of Babylon.

But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt to
Babylonia. The new circumstances in which the Jews were
placed on their return seemed to render necessary an
adaptation of the Mosaic Law, if not new legislation.
Besides, piety and zeal now attached themselves to the
outward observance and study of the letter of the Law. This
is the origin of the Mishnah, or Second Law, which was
intended to explain and supplement the first. This
constituted the only Jewish dogmatics, in the real sense, in
the study of which the sage, Rabbi , scholar, scribe, and
Carshan, [1 From darash, to search out, literally, to tread
out. The preacher was afterwards called the Darshan.] were
engaged. The result of it was the Midrash, or investigation,
a term which afterwards was popularly applied to commentaries
ont he Scriptures and preaching. From the outset, Jewish
theology divided into two branches: the Halakhah and the
Haggadah. The former (from halakh, to go) was, so to speak,
the Rule of the Spiritual Road, and, when fixed, had even
greater authority than the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the
since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the
Haggadah [2 The Halakhah might be described as the apocryphal
Pentateuch, the personal saying of the teacher, more or less
valuable according to his learning and popularity, or the
authorities which he could quote in his support. Unlike the
Halakhah, the Haggadah had no absolute authority, either as
to doctrine practice, or exegesis. But all the greater would
be its popular influence, [1 We may here remind ourselves of
1 Tim. v. 17. St. Paul, as always, writes with the familiar
Jewish phrases ever recurring to his mind. The expression
seems to be equivalent to Halakhic teaching. Comp. Grimm,
Clavis N. T. pp. 98, 99.] and all the more dangerous the
doctrinal license which it allowed. In fact, strange as it
may sound, almost all the doctrinal teaching of the Synagogue
is to be derived from the Haggadah and this also is
characteristic of Jewish traditionalism. But, alike in
Halakhah and Haggadah, Palestine was under the deepest
obligation to Babylonia. For the father of Halakhic study was
Hillel, the Babylonian, and among the popular Haggadists
there is not a name better known than that of Eleazar the
Mede, who flourished in the first century of our era.

After this, it seems almost idle to inquire whether, during
the first period after the return of the exiles from Babylon,
there were regular theological academies in Babylon. Although
it is, of course, impossible to furnish historical proof, we
can scarely doubt that a community so large and so intensely
Hebrew would not have been indifferent to that study, which
constituted the main thought and engagement of their brethren
in Palestine. We can understand that, since the great
Sanhedrin in Palestine exercised supreme spiritual authority,
and in that capacity ultimately settled all religious
questions, at least for a time, the study and discussion of
these subjects should also have been chiefly carried on in
the schools of Palestine; and that even the great Hillel
himself, when still a poor and unknown student, should have
wandered thither to acquire the learning and authority, which
at that period he could not have found in his own country.
But even this circumstance implies, that such studies were at
least carried on and encouraged in Babylonia. How rapidly
soon afterwards the authority of the Babylonian schools
increased, till they not only overshadowed those of
Palestine, but finally inherited their prerogatives, is well
known. However, therefore, the Palestinians in their pride or
jealousy might sneer, [2 In Moed Q. 25 a. sojourn in Babylon
is mentioned as a reason why the Shekhinah could not rest
upon 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. du
Talmud, p. 323. In Keth. 75 a, they are styled the 'silly
Babylonians.' See also Jer. Pes. 32 a.] even they had to
acknowledge that, 'when the Law had fallen into oblivion, it
was restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was a second time
forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it; and
when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija came
from Babylon and gave it back once more.' [4 Sukk. 20 a. R.
Chija, one of the teachers of the second century, is among
the most.celebrated Rabbinical authorities, around whose
memory legend has thrown a special halo.] Such then was that
Hebrew dispersion which, from the first, constituted Such
then was that Hebrew dispersion which, from the first,
constituted really the chief part and the strength of the
Jewish nation, and with which its religious future was also
to lie. For it is one of those strangely significant, almost
symbolical, facts in history, that after the destruction of
Jerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to
Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress of
political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the
seats of Israel's ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by its
own act what the judgment of God had formerly executed. But
long before that time the Babylonian 'dispersion' had already
stretched out its hands in every direction. Northwards, it
had spread through Armenia, the Caucasus, and to the shores
of the Black Sea, and through Media to those of the Caspian.
Southwards, it had extended to the Persian Gulf and through
the vast extent of Arabia, although Arabia Felix and the land
of the Homerites may have received their first Jewish
colonies from the opposite shores of Ethiopia. Eastwards it
had passed as far as India. [1 In this, as in so many
respects, Dr. Neubauer has collated very interesting
information, to which we refer. See his Geogr. du Talm. pp.
369-399.] Everywhere we have distinct notices of these
wanderers, and everywhere they appear as in closest
connection with the Rabbinical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus
the Mishnah, in an extremely curious section, [2 The whole
section gives a most curious glimpse of the dress and
ornaments worn by the jews at that time. The reader
interested in the subject will find special information int
he three little volumes of Hartmann (Die Hebraerin am
Putztische), in N. G. Schroder's some-what heavy work: De
Vestitu Mulier. Hebr., and especially in that interesting
tractate, Trachten d. Juden, by Dr. A. Brull, of which,
unfortunately, only one part has appeared.] tells us how on
Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia might wear their long veils,
and those of India the kerchief round the head, customary in
those countries, without incurring the guilt of desecrating
the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of the
law, would be a burden; [a Shabb. vi. 6.] while in the rubric
for the Day of Atonement we haveit noted that the dress which
the High-Priest wore 'between the evenings' of the great
fast, that is, as afternoon darkened into evening, was of
most costly 'Indian' stuff. [b Yoma iii. 7.]

That among such a vast community there should have been
poverty, and that at one time, as the Palestinians sneered,
learning may have been left to pine in want, we can readily
believe. For, as one of the Rabbis had it in explanation of
Deut. xxx. 13: 'Wisdom is not "beyond the sea", that is, it
will not be found among traders or merchants,' [c Er. 55 a.]
whose mind must be engrossed by gain. And it was trade and
commerce which procured to the Babylonians their wealth and
influence, although agriculture was not neglected. Their
caravans, of whose camel drivers, by the way, no very
flattering account is given [a Kidd. iv.], carried the rich
carpets and woven stuffs of the East, as well as its precious
spices, to the West: generally through Palestine to the
Phoenician harbours, where a fleet of merchantmen belonging
to Jewish bankers and shippers lay ready to convey them to
every quarter of the world. These merchant princes were
keenly alive to all that passed, not only in the financial,
but in the political world. We know that they were in
possession of State secrets, and entrusted with the
intricacies of diplomacy. Yet, whatever its condition, this
Eastern Jewish community was intensely Hebrew. Only eight
days' journey, though, according to Philo's western ideas of
it, by a difficult road [1 Philo ad Cajum, ed. Frcf. p.
1023.], separated them from Palestine; and every pulsation
there vibrated in Babylonia. It was in the most outlying part
of that colony, in the wide plains of Arabia, that Saul of
Tarsus spent those three years of silent thought and unknown
labour, which preceded his re-appearance in Jerusalem, when
from the burning longing to labour among his brethren,
kindled by long residence among these Hebrews of the Hebrews,
he was directed to that strange work which was his life's
mission. [b Gal. i. 17;] And it was among the same community
that Peter wrote and laboured, [c 1 Pet. v. 13.] amidst
discouragements of which we can form some conception from the
sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the third
century it had not numbered among its members any convert to
Christianity. [2 Pes. 56 a, apud Neubauer, u. s., p. 351.] In
what has been said, no notice has been taken of those
wanderers of the ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seem
as mysterious as their after-fate. The Talmudists name four
countries as their seats. But, even if we were to attach
historic credence to their vague statements, at least two of
these localities cannot with any certainty be identified. [3
Comp. 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 the
Caucasus. And with this tallies a curious reference in what
is known as IV. Esdras, which locates them in a land called
Arzareth, a term which has, with some probability, been
identified with the land of Ararat. [4 Comp. Volkmar, Handb.
d. Einl. in d. Apokr. iite Abth., pp. 193, 194, notes. For
the reasons there stated, I prefer this to the ingenious
interpretation proposed by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of
Philol. for 1870, pp. 113, 114), who regards it as a
contraction of Erez achereth, 'another land,' referred to in
Deut. xxix. 27 (28).] Josephus [a Ant. xi. 5.2.] describes
them as an innumerable multitude, and vaguely locates them
beyond the Euphrates. The Mishnah is silent as to their
seats, but discusses their future restoration; Rabbi Akiba
denying and Rabbi Eliezer anticipating it. [b Sanh. x. 3.] [1
R. Eliezer seems to connect their return with the dawn of the
new Messianic day.] Another Jewish tradition [c Ber. R. 73.]
locates them by the fabled river Sabbatyon, which was
supposed to cease its flow on the weekly Sabbath. This, of
course, is an implied admission of ignorance of their seats.
Similarly, the Talmud [d Jer. Sanb 29 c.]speaks of three
localities whither they had been banished : the district
around the river Sabbatyon; Daphne, near Antioch; while the
third was overshadowed and hidden by a cloud.

Later Jewish notices connect the final discovery and the
return of the 'lost tribes' with their conversion under that
second Messiah who, in contradistinction to 'the Son of
David' is styled 'the Son of Joseph,' to whom Jewish
tradition ascribes what it cannot reconcile with the royal
dignity of 'the Son of David,' and which, if applied to Him,
would almost inevitably lead up to the most wide concessions
in the Christian argument. [2 This is not the place to
discuss the later Jewish fiction of a second or 'suffering'
Messiah, 'the son of Joseph,' whose special mission it would
be to bring back the ten tribes, and to subject them to
Messiah, 'the son of David,' but who would perish in the war
against Gog and Magog.] As regards the ten tribes there is
this truth underlying the strange hypothesis, that, as their
persistent apostacy from the God of Israel and His worship
had cut them off from his people, so the fulfilment of the
Divine promises to them in the latter days would imply, as it
were, a second birth to make them once more Israel. Beyond
this we are travelling chiefly into the region of conjecture.
Modern investigations have pointed to the Nestorians, [3
Comp. the work of Dr. Asahel Grant on the Nestorians. His
arguments have been well summarised and expanded in an
interesting note in Mr. Nutths Sketch of Samaritan History,
pp. 2-4.] and latterly with almost convincing evidence (so
far as such is possible) to the Afghans, as descended from
the lost tribes. [4 I would here call special attention to a
most interesting paper on the subject ('A New Afghan
Question'), by Mr. H. W. Bellew, in the 'Journal of the
United Service Institution of India,' for 1881, pp. 49-97.]
Such mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalities
seems to have been before the minds of those Rabbis who
ordered that, if at present a non-Jew weds a Jewess, such a
union was to be respected, since the stranger might be a
descendant of the ten tribes. [e Yebam 16 b.] Besides, there
is reason to believe that part of them, at least, had
coalesced with their brethren of the later exile; [5 Kidd. 69
b.] while we know that individuals who had settled in
Palestine and, presumably, elsewhere, were able to trace
descent from them.[1 So Anna from the tribe of Aser, St. Luke
ii. 36. Lutterbeck (Neutest. Lehrbegr. pp. 102, 103) argues
that the ten tribes had become wholly undistinguishable from
the other two. But his arguments are not convincing, and his
opinion was certainly not that of those who lived in the time
of Christ, or who reflected their ideas.] Still the great
mass of the ten tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our
own, lost to the Hebrew nation.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST, THE HELLENISTS, ORIGIN OF
HELLENIST LITERATURE IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE,
CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

CHAPTER II.

When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to
that in the West, we seem to breathe quite a different
atmosphere. Despite their intense nationalism, all
unconsciously to themselves, their mental characteristics and
tendencies were in the opposite direction from those of their
brethren. With those of the East rested the future of
Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the
world. The one represented old Israel, stretching forth its
hands to where the dawn of a new day was about to break.
These Jews of the West are known by the term Hellenists, from
, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks.[1
Indeed, the word Alnisti (or Alunistin), 'Greek', actually
occurs, 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 a
branch separate from the Palestinians. But the passage does
not 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 there
were Hebrews and Hellenists in and out of Palestine. But this
view is untenable.]

Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, in
the nature of thing, impossible that the Jewish communities
in the West should remains unaffected by Grecian culture and
modes of though; just as, on the other hand, the Greek world,
despite popular hatred and the contempt of the higher
classes, could not wholly withdraw itself from Jewish
influences. Witness here the many converts to Judaism among
the Gentiles; [2 An account of this propaganda of Judaism and
of its results will be given in another connection.] witness
also the evident preparedness of the lands of this
'dispersion' for the new doctrine which was to come from
Judea. Many causes contributed to render the Jews of the West
accessible to Greek influences. They had not a long local
history to look back upon, nor did they form a compact body,
like their brethren in the East. They were craftsmen,
traders, merchants, settled for a time here or there, units
might combine into communities, but could not form one
people. Then their position was not favourable to the sway of
traditionalism. Their occupations, the very reasons for their
being in a 'strange land,' were purely secular. That lofty
absorption of thought and life in the study of the Law,
writtem and oral, which characterised the East, was to the,
something in the dim distance, sacred, like the soil and the
institutions of Palestine, but unattainable. In Palestine or
Babylonia numberless influences from his earliest years, all
that he saw and heard, the very force of circumstances, would
tend to make an earnest Jew a disciple of the Rabbis; in the
West it would lead him to 'hellenise.' It was, so to speak,
'in the air'; and he could no more shut his mind against
Greek thought than he could withdraw his body from
atmospheric influences. That restless, searching, subtle
Greek intellect would penetrate everywhere, and flash its
light into the innermost recesses of his home and Synagogue.

To be sure, they were intensely Jewish, these communities of
strangers. Like our scattered colonists in distant lands,
they would cling with double affection to the customs of
their home, and invest with the halo of tende memories the
sacred traditions of thir faith. The Grecian Jew might well
look with contempt, not unmingled with pity, on the
idolatrous rites practised around, from which long ago the
pitiless irony of Isaiah had torn the veil of beauty, to show
the hideousness and unreality beneath. The dissoluteness of
public and private life, the frivolity and aimlessness of
their pursuits, political aspirations, popular assemblies,
amusements, in short, the utter decay of society, in all its
phases, would lie open to his gaze. It is in terms of lofty
scorn, not unmingled with idignation, which only occasionally
gives way to the softer mood of warning, or even invitation,
that Jewish Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocrypha
or in its Apocalyptic utterances, address heathenism.

From that spectacle the Grecian Jew would turn with infinite
satisfaction, not to say, pride, to his own community, to
think of its spiritual enlightenment, and to pass in review
its exclusive privileges. [1 St, Paul fully describes these
feelings in the Epistle to the Romans.] It was with no
uncertain steps that he would go past those splendid temples
to his own humbler Synagogue, pleased to find himself there
surrounded by those who shared his descent, his faith, his
hopes; and gratified to see their number swelled by many who,
heathens by birth, had learned the error of their ways, and
now, so to speak, humbly stood as suppliant 'strangers of the
gate,' to seek admission into his sanctuary. [1 The 'Gerey
haShaar,' proselytes of the gate, a designation which some
have derived from the circumstance that Gentiles were not
allowed to advance beyond the Temple Court, but more likely
to 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, and
at the same time deeply significant, from the absurd
superstitions around. Who could have compared with the
voiceless, meaningless, blasphemous heathen worship, if it
deserved the name, that of the Synagogue, with its pathetic
hymns, its sublime liturgy, its Divine Scriptures, and those
'stated sermons' which 'instructed in virtue and piety,' of
which not only Philo, [a De Vita Mosis, p. 685; Leg ad Caj.
p. 1014.]Agrippa, [b Leg. ad Caj. p. 1035.] and Josephus, [c
Ag. Apion ii. 17.] speak as a regular institution, but whose
antiquity and general prevalence is attested in Jewish
writings, [2 Comp. here Targ. Jon. on Judg. v. 2, 9. I feel
more hesitation in appealing to such passages as Ber. 19 a,
where we read of a Rabbi in Rome, Thodos (Theudos?), who
flourished several generations before Hillel, for reasons
which the passage itself will suggest to the student. At the
time of Philo, however, such instructions in the Synagogues
at Rome were a long, established institution (Ad Caj. p.
1014).] and nowhere more strongly than in the book of the
Acts of the Apostles?

And in these Synagogues, how would 'brotherly love' be
called out, since, if one member suffered, all might soon be
affected, and the danger which threatened one community
would, unless averted, ere long overwhelm the rest. There was
little need for the admonition not to 'forget the love of
strangers.' [3 Hebr. xiii. 2.] To entertain them was not
merely a virtue; in the Hellenist dispersion it was a
religious necessity. And by such means not a few whom they
would regard as 'heavenly messengers' might be welcomed. From
the Acts of the Apostles we knew with what eagerness they
would receive, and with what readiness they would invite, the
passing Rabbi or teacher, who came from the home of their
faith, to speak, if there were in them a word of comforting
exhortation for the people. [d Acts xiii. 15.] We can
scarcely doubt, considering the state of things, that this
often bore on 'the consolation of Israel.' But, indeed, all
that came from Jerusalem, all that helped them to realise
their living connection with it, or bound it more closely,
was precious. 'Letters out of Judaea,' the tidings which some
one might bring on his return from festive pilgrimage or
business journey, especially about anything connected with
that grand expectation, the star which was to rise on the
Eastern sky, would soon spread, till the Jewish pedlar in his
wanderings had carried the news to the most distant and
isolated Jewish home, where he might find a Sabbath, welcome
and Sabbath-rest.

Such undoubtedly was the case. And yet, when the Jew stepped
out of the narrow circle which he had drawn around him, he
was confronted on every side by Grecianism. It was in the
forum, in the market, in the counting, house, in the street;
in all that he saw, and in all to whom he spoke. It was
refined; it was elegant; it was profound; it was supremely
attractive. He might resist, but he could not push it aside.
Even in resisting, he had already yielded to it. For, once
open the door to the questions which it brought, if it were
only to expel, or repel them, he must give up that principle
of simple authority on which traditionalism as a system
rested. Hellenic criticism could not so be silenced, nor its
searching light be extinguished by the breath of a Rabbi. If
he attempted this, the truth would not only be worsted before
its enemies, but suffer detriment in his own eyes. He must
meet argument with argument, and that not only for those who
were without, but in order to be himself quite sure of what
he believed. He must be able to hold it, not only in
controversy with others, where pride might bid him stand
fast, but in that much more serious contest within, where a
man meets the old adversary alone in the secret arena of his
own mind, and has to sustain that terrible hand-to-hand
fight, in which he is uncheered by outward help. But why
should he shrink from the contest, when he was sure that his
was Divine truth, and that therefore victory must be on his
side? As in our modern conflicts against the onesided
inferences from physical investigations we are wont to say
that the truths of nature cannot contradict those of
revelation, both being of God, and as we are apt to regard as
truths of nature what sometimes are only deductions from
partially ascertained facts, and as truths of revelation
what, after all, may be only our own inferences, sometimes
from imperfectly apprehended premises, so the Hellenist would
seek to conciliate the truths of Divine revelation with those
others which, he thought, he recognized in Hellenism. But
what were the truths of Divine revelation? Was it only the
substance of Scripture, or also its form, the truth itself
which was conveyed, or the manner in which it was presented
to the Jews; or, if both, then did the two stand on exactly
the same footing? On the answer to these questions would
depend 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 from
God; and if so, then its form also, its letter, must be
authentic and authoritative. Thus much on the surface, and
for all. But the student must search deeper into it, his
senses, as it were, quickened by Greek criticism; he must
'meditate' and penetrate into the Divine mysteries. The
Palestinian also searched into them, and the result was the
Midrash. But, whichever of his methods he had applied, the
Peshat, or simple criticism of the words, the Derush, or
search into the possible applications of the text, what might
be 'trodden out' of it; or the Sod, the hidden, mystical,
supranatural bearing of the words, it was still only the
letter 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 its
spiritual truths. But that needed another qualification, and
tended in another direction from those of which the Jewish
student knew. On the other hand, there was the intellectual
view of the Scriptures, their philosophical understanding,
the application to them of the results of Grecian thought and
criticism. It was this which was peculiarly Hellenistic.
Apply that method, and the deeper the explorer proceeded in
his search, the more would he feel himself alone, far from
the outside crowd; but the brighter also would that light of
criticism, which he carried, shine in the growing darkness,
or, as he held it up, would the precious ore, which he laid
bare, glitter and sparkle with a thousand varying hues of
brilliancy. What was Jewish, Palestinian, individual,
concrete in the Scriptures, was only the outside, true in
itself, but not the truth. There were depths beneath. Strip
these stories of their nationalism; idealise the individual
of the persons introduced, and you came upon abstract ideas
and realities, true to all time and to all nations. But this
deep symbolism was Pythagorean; this pre-existence of ideas
which were the types of all outward actuality, was Platonism!
Broken rays in them, but the focus of truth in the
Scriptures. Yet these were rays, and could only have come
from the Sun. All truth was of God; hence theirs must have
been of that origin. Then were the sages of the heathen also
in 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 the
easiest, yet, as we reflect upon it, that which in practice
would be most readily taken. It was simply to advance towards
Grecianism; frankly to recognise truth in the results of
Greek thought. There is that within us, name it mental
consciousness, or as you will, which, all unbidden, rises to
answer to the voice of intellectual truth, come whence it
may, just as conscience answers to the cause of moral truth
or duty. But in this case there was more. There was the
mighty spell which Greek philosophy exercised on all kindred
minds, and the special adaptation of the Jewish intellect to
such subtle, if not deep, thinking. And, in general, and more
powerful than the rest, because penetrating everywhere, was
the charm of Greek literature, with its brilliancy; of Greek
civilisation and culture, with their polish and
attractiveness; and of what, in one word, we may call the
'time-spirit,' that tyrannos, who rules all in their
thinking, speaking, doing, whether they list or not.

Why, his sway extended even to Palestine itself, and was
felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism.
We are not here referring to the fact that the very language
spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with
Greek, and even Latin, words Hebraised, since this is easily
accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities
of intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners. Nor
is it requisite to point out how impossible it would have
been, in presence of so many from the Greek and Roman world,
and after the long and persistent struggle of their rulers to
Grecianise Palestine, nay, even in view of so many
magnificent heathen temples on the very soil of Palestine, to
exclude all knowledge of, or contact with Grecianism. But not
to be able to exclude was to have in sight the dazzle of that
unknown, which as such, and in itself, must have had peculiar
attractions to the Jewish mind. It needed stern principle to
repress the curiosity thus awakened. When a young Rabbi, Ben
Dama, asked his uncle whether he might not study Greek
philosophy, since he had mastered the 'Law' in every aspect
of it, the older Rabbi replied by a reference to Josh. i. 8:
'Go and search what is the hour which is neither of the day
nor of the night, and in it thou mayest study Greek
philosophy.' [a Men. 99 b, towards the end.] Yet eventhe
Jewish patriarch, Gamaliel II., who may have sat with Saul of
Tarsus at the feet of his grandfather, was said to have
busied himself with Greek, as he certainly held liberal views
on many points connected with Grecianism. To be sure,
tradition justified him on the ground that his position
brought him into contact with the ruling powers, and,
perhaps, to further vindicate him, ascribed similar pursuits
to the elder Gamaliel, although groundlessly, to judge from
the circumstance that he was so impressed even with the wrong
of possessing a Targum on Job in Aramaean, that he had it
buried deep in the ground.

But all these are indications of a tendency existing. How
wide it must have spread, appears from the fact that the ban
had to be pronounced on all who studied 'Greek wisdom.' One
of the greatest Rabbis, Elisha ben Abujah, seems to have been
actually led to apostacy by such studies. True, he appears as
the 'Acher', the 'other', in Talmudic writings, whom it was
not proper even to name. But he was not yet an apostate from
the Synagogue when those 'Greek songs' ever flowed from his
lips; and it was in the very Beth-ha-Midrash, or theological
academy, 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 the
expression 'Siphrey Homeros' (Homeric writings), which occur
not only in the Talmud [b Jer. Sanh. x. 28 a.] but even in
the Mishnah [c Yad. iv. 6.] referred pre-eminently, if not
exclusively, to the religious or semi-religious Jewish
Hellenistic literature, outside even the Apocrypha. [1
Through this literature, which as being Jewish might have
passed unsuspected, a dangerous acquaintance might have been
introduced with Greek writings, the more readily, that for
example 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 applies
exclusively to the Judaeo-Alexandrian heretical writings;
according to First (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simply to
Homeric literature. But see the discussion in Levy, Neuhebr.
u. Chald. Worterb., vol. i. p. 476 a and b.] But its
occurrence proves, at any rate, that the Hellenists were
credited with the study of Greek literature, and that through
them, if not more directly, the Palestinians had become
acquainted with it.

This sketch will prepare us for a rapid survey of that
Hellenistic literature which Judaea so much dreaded. Its
importance, not only to the Hellenists but to the world at
large, can scarcely be over-estimated. First and foremost, we
have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament,
venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the
time of Jesus held the place of our 'Authorized Version,' and
as such is so often, although freely, quoted, in the New
Testament. Nor need we wonder that it should have been the
people's Bible, not merely among the Hellenists, but in
Galilee, and even in Judaea. It was not only, as already
explained, that Hebrew was no longer the 'vulgar tongue' in
Palestine, and that written Targumim were prohibited. but
most, if not all, at least in towns, would understand the
Greek version; it might be quoted in intercourse with
Hellenist breathren or with the Gentiles; and, what was
perhaps equally, if not more important, it was the most
readily procurable. From the extreme labour and care bestowed
on them, Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were enormously
dear, as we infer from a curious Talmudical notice, [d Gitt.
35 last line and b.] where a common wollen wrap, which of
course was very cheap, a copy of the Psalms, of Job, and torn
pieces from Proverbs, are together valued at five maneh, say,
about 19l. Although this notice dates from the third or
fourth century, it is not likely that the cost of Hebrew
Biblical MSS. was much lower at the time of Jesus. This
would, of course, put their possession well nigh out of
common reach. On the other hand, we are able to form an idea
of the cheapness of Greek manuscripts from what we know of
the price of books in Rome at the beginning of our era.
Hundreds of slaves were there engaged copying what one
dictated. The result was not only the publication of as large
editions as in our days, but their production at only about
double the cost of what are now known as 'cheap' or 'people's
editions.' Probably it would be safe to compute, that as much
matter as would cover sixteen pages of small print might, in
such cases, be sold at the rate of about sixpence, and in
that ratio. [1 Comp. Friedlander, Sitteng. Roms, vol. iii. p.
315.] Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek or Latin, although
often incorrect, must have been easily attainable, and this
would have considerable influence on making the Greek version
of the Old Testament the 'people's Bible.' [2 To these causes
there should perhaps be added the attempt to introduce
Grecianism by force into Palestine, the consequences which it
may have left, and the existence of a Grecian party in the
land.]

The Greek version, like the Targum of the Palestinians,
originated, no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national
want on the part of the Hellenists, who as a body were
ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find notices of very early Greek
versions of at least parts of the Pentateuch. [3 Aristobulus
in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. ix. 6; xiii. 12. The doubts raised
by Hody against this testimony have been generally repudiated
by critics since the treatise by Valkenaer (Diatr. de
Aristob. Jud. appended to Gaisford's ed. of the Praepar.
Evang.).] But this, of course, could not suffice. On the
other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural
curiosity on the part of students, especially in Alexandria,
which had so large a Jewish population, to know the sacred
books on which the religion and history of Israel were
founded. Even more than this, we must take into account the
literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors in
Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour
which the Jews for a time enjoyed. Ptolemy I. (Lagi) was a
great patron of learning. He projected the Museum in
Alexandria, which was a home for literature and study, and
founded the great library. In these undertakings Demetrius
Phalereus was his chief adviser. The tastes of the first
Ptolemy were inherited by his son, Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), who had for two years been co-regent. [a
286-284 B.C.] In fact, ultimately that monarch became
literally book-mad, and the sums spent on rare MSS., which
too often proved spurious, almost pass belief. The same may
be said of the third of these monarchs, Ptolemy III.
(Euergetes). It would have been strange, indeed, if these
monarchs had not sought to enrich their library with an
authentic rendering of the Jewish sacred books, or not
encouraged such a translation.

These circumstances will account for the different elements
which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament,
and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices
which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter.
Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is
a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother
Philocrates, [1 Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Havercamp, vol. ii.
App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical edition of this
letter 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 are
most fully given in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. Some of the
Fathers give the story, with additional embellishments. It
was first critically called in question by Hody (Contra
Historiam Aristeae de L. X. interpret. dissert. Oxon. 1685),
and has since been generally regarded as legendary. But its
foundation in fact has of late been recognized by well nigh
all critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, and
full of fabulous details.] in which we are told how, by the
advice 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 of
each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable
manuscript of the Old Testament. The letter then gives
further details of their splendid reception at the Egyptian
court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where
they accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when they
returned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, their
translation having received the formal approval of the Jewish
Sanhedrin at Alexandria. From this account we may at least
derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch, for to
it only the testimony refers, was translated into Greek, at
the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under
the 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.] With
this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the
translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy, the Jerusalem
Talmud [a Meg. i.] in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian [b
Meg. 9 a.] with additions apparently derived from the
Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen,
the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original
text. [3 It is scarcely worth while to refute the view of
Tychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that the
Jewish writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew words
in Greek letters. But the word cannot possibly bear that
meaning in this connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien,
p. 31.]

The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more
likely by several persons,. [4 According to Sopher. i. 8, by
five persons, but that seems a round number to correspond to
the five books of Moses. Frankel (Ueber d. Einfl. d. palast.
Exeg.) labours, however, to show in detail the differences
between the different translators. But his criticism is often
strained, and the solution of the question is apparently
impossible.] the other books of the Old Testament would
naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were
evidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very
different qualifications for their work, the translation of
the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its
place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. The
version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX., as some have
supposed from the number of its translators according to
Aristeas' account, only that in that case it should have been
seventy-two; or from the approval of the Alexandrian
Sannedrin [1 Bohl would have it, 'the Jerusalem Sanhedrin!']
although in that case it should have been seventy-one; or
perhaps because, in the popular idea, the number of the
Gentile nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded as
typical, was seventy. We have, however, one fixed date by
which to compute the completion of this translation. From the
prologue to the Apocryphal 'Wisdom of Jesus the son of
Sirach,' we learn that in his days the Canon of Scripture was
closed; and that on his arrival, in his thirty-eighth year,
[2 But the expression has also been referred to the
thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes.] In Egypt,
which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found the
so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to a
similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather.
But in the 50th chapter of that work we have a description of
the High-Priest Simon, which is evidently written by an
eye-witness. We have therefore as one term the pontificate of
Simon, during which the earlier Jesus lived; and as the
other, the reign of Euergetes, in which the grandson was at
Alexandria. Now, although there were two High-Priests who
bore the name Simon, and two Egyptian kings with the surname
Euergetes, yet on purely historical grounds, and apart from
critical prejudices, we conclude that the Simon of Ecclus. L.
was Simon I., the Just, one of the greatest names in Jewish
traditional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the
younger Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy III., who
reigned from 247 to 221 B.C. [3 To my mind, at least, the
historical evidence, apart from critical considerations,
seems very strong. Modern writers on the other side have
confessedly been influenced by the consideration that the
earlier date of the Book of Sirach would also involve a much
earlier date for the close of the O. T. Canon than they are
disposed to admit. More especially would it bear on the
question of the so-called 'Maccabean Psalms,' and the
authorship and date of the Book of Daniel. But historical
questions should be treated independently of critical
prejudices. Winex (Bibl. Realworterb. i. p. 555), and others
after him admit that the Simon of Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed
Simon the Just (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of the
Prologue was the second of that name, Ptolemy VII., popularly
nicknamed Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks of Fritzsche on this
view 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 the
Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. [1
Comp. here, besides the passages quoted in the previous note,
Baba B. 13 b and 14 b; for the cessation of revelation in the
Maccabean period, 1 Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41; and, in
general, for the Jewish view on the subject at the time of
Christ, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8.] That Canon was accepted by the
Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the
Hellenists on 'inspiration,' and the absence of that close
watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to
additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the
admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible. Unlike the
Hebrew arrangement of the tex into the Law, the Prophets, [2
Anterior: Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam. 1 and 2 Kings.
Posterior: Major: Is., Jer., and Ezek.; and the Minor
Prophets.] and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the
LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic
books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet,
instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both
these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently
knew the Jewish order of the books. [a De Vita Contempl.
section 3.] What text the translators may have used we can
only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances
from our own, though the more important deviations are
comparatively few. [3 They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, the
books of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In the
Pentateuch we find them only in four passages in the Book of
Exodus.] In the great majority of the lesser variations our
Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text. [4 There is also
a curious correspondence between the Samaritan version of the
Pentateuch and that of the LXX., which in no less than about
2,000 passages agree as against our Hebrew, although in other
instances the Greek text either agrees with the Hebrew
against the Samaritan, or else is independent of both. On the
connection between Samaritan literature and Hellenism there
are some very interesting notices in Freudenthal, Hell. Stud.
pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c.]
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making
allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we
note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek
version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its
use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident
traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and
false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in
handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy
renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of
some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably
there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish
tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics
have supposed. [5 The extravagant computations in this
respect 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 six
distinct references to Halakhoth in the following passages in
the LXX.: Gen. ix. 4; xxxii. 32; Lev. xix. 19; xxiv. 7; Deut.
xxv. 5; xxvi. 12. As instances of Haggadah we may mention the
renderings in Gen. v. 24 and Ex. x. 23.] This we can easily
understand, since only those traditions would find a place
which at that early time were not only received, but in
general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements,
however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist
of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of
Greek philosophical ideas. However few, [1 Dahne and Gfrorer
have in this respect gone to the same extreme as Frankel on
the Jewish side. But even Siegfried (Philo v. Alex. p. 8) is
obliged to admit that the LXX. rendering, Gen. i. 2), bears
undeniable mark of Grecian philosophic views. And certainly
this is not the sole instance of the kind.] even one
well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others,
and in general give to the version the character of Jewish
Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the
prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want
of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and
apologetic. Difficulties, or what seemed such, are removed by
the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it
need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More
especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all
anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the
Deity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regard
this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be
noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in
the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps such alterations had even been
introduced into the Hebrew text itself. [2 As in the
so-called 'Tiqquney Sopherim,' or 'emendations of the
scribes.' Comp. here generally the investigations of Geiger
(Urschrift u. Ueberse z. d. Bibel). But these, however
learned and ingenious, require, like so many of the dicta of
modern Jewish criticism, to be taken with the utmost caution,
and in each case subjected to fresh examination, since so
large a proportion of their writings are what is best
designated by the German Tendenz-Schriften, and their
inferences Tendenz-Schlusse. But the critic and the historian
should have no Tendenz, except towards simple fact and
historical truth.] But there is this vital difference between
Palestinainism and Alexandrianism, that, broadly speaking,
the Hebrew avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on
objective, theological and dogmatic, the Hellenistic on
subjective, philosophical and apologetic, grounds. The Hebrew
avoids them as he does what seems to him inconsistent with
the dignity of Biblical heroes and of Israel. 'Great is the
power of the prophets,' he writes, 'who liken the Creator to
the creature;' or else [a Mechilta on Ex. xix.] 'a thing is
written only to break it to the ear', to adapt it to our
human modes of speaking and understanding; and again, [b Ber.
31 b.] the 'words of the Torah are like the speech of the
children of men.' But for this very purpose the words of
Scripture may be presented in another form, if need be even
modified, so as to obviate possible misunderstanding, or
dogmatic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the same
conclusion, but from an opposite direction. They had not
theological but philosophical axioms in their minds, truths
which the highest truth could not, and, as they held, did not
contravene. Only dig deeper; get beyond the letter to that to
which it pointed; divest abstract truth of its concrete,
national, Judaistic envelope, penetrate through the dim porch
into the temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light,
of which, as its portals had been thrown open, single rays
had fallen into the night of heathendom. And so the truth
would appear glorious, more than vindicated in their own
sight, triumphant in that of others!

In such manner the LXX. version became really the people's
Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity
was afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part of
the case, that this translation should be regarded by the
Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it would
have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words
of the Greek; still less, to find in them a mystical and
allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard their views
of inspiration, except as applying to Moses, and even there
only partially, as identical with ours. To their minds
inspiration differed quantitatively, not qualitatively, from
what the rapt soul might at any time experience, so that even
heathen philosophers might ultimately be regarded as at times
inspired. So far as the version of the Bible wa concerned
(and probably on like grounds), similar views obtained at a
later period even in Hebrew circles, where it was laid down
that the Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch had been originally
spoken to Moses on Sinai, [a Ned. 37 b; Kidd. 49 a.] though
afterwards forgotten, till restored and re-introduced. [b
Meg. 3 a.]

Whether or not the LXX. was read in the Hellenist
Synagogues, and the worship conducted, wholly or partly, in
Greek, must be matter of conjecture. We find, however, a
significant notice [c Jer. Meg. iv. 3,ed. Krot. p. 75a.] to
the effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language
(not Hebrew, the term referring specially to Greek), it was
the custom for one person to read the whole Parashah (or
lesson for the day), while among the Hebrew-speaking Jews
this was done by seven persons, successively called up. This
seems to imply that either the Greek text alone was read, or
that it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Targum of the
Easterns. More probably, however, the former would be the
case, since both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to
read them, would be difficult to procure. At any rate, we
know that the Greek Scriptures were authoritatively
acknowledged in Palestine, [1 Meg. i. It is, however, fair to
confess strong doubt, on my part, whether this passage may
not refer to the Greek translation of Akylas. At the same
time it simply speaks of a translation into Greek. And before
the version of Aquila the LXX. alone held that place. It is
one of the most daring modern Jewish perversions of history
to identify this Akylas, who flourished about 130 after
Christ, with the Aquila of the Book of Acts. It wants even
the excuse of a colourable perversion of the confused story
about Akylas, which Epiphanius who is so generally
inaccurate, gives in De Pond. et Mensur. c. xiv. and that the
ordinary 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 Rabbi
vindicated the use of the 'Shema' in Greek by the argument
that the word Shema meant not only 'Hear,' but also
'understand' (Jer. Sotah vii. 1.) Comp. sotah vii. 1, 2. In
Ber. 40 b, it is said that the Parashah connected with the
woman suspected of adultery, the prayer and confession at the
bringing of the tithes, and the various benedictions over
food, may be said not only in Hebrew, but in any other
languages.] The LXX. deserved this distinction from its
general faithfulness, at least, in regard to the Pentateuch,
and from its preservation of ancient doctrine. Thus, without
further referring to its full acknowledgment of the doctrine
of Angels (comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 2), we specially
mark that is preserved the Messianic interpretation of Gen.
xlix. 10, and Numb. xxiv. 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence of
what had been the generally received view two and a half
centuries before the birth of Jesus. It must have been on the
ground of the use made of the LXX. in argument, that later
voices in the Synagogue declared this version to have been as
great calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, [a
Mass. Sopher i. Hal. 7, at the close of vol. ix. of the
Bab.Talmud.] and that is completion had been followed by the
terrible omen of an eclipse, that lasted three days. [b
Hilch. Ged. Taan.] For the Rabbis declared that upon
investigation it had been found that the Torah could be
adequately translated only into Greek, and they are most
extravagant in their praise of the Greek version of Akylas,
or Aquila, the proselyte, which was made to counteract the
influence of the LXX. [c Jer. Meg. i. 11, ed. Krot. p. 71 b
and c.] But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the
LXX. was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in
which ultimately even heathens seem to have taken part. [d
Philo, Vita Mos. ii. ed. Francf. p. 660.]

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

THE OLD FAITH PREPARING FOR THE NEW, DEVELOPMENT OF
HELLENIST THEOLOGY: THE APOCRYPHA, ARISTEAS, ARISTOBULUS, AND
THE PSEUD-EPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.

CHAPTER III.

The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be
regarded as the starting-point of Hellenism. It rendered
possible the hope that what in its original form had been
confined to the few, might become accessible to the world at
large. [a Philo, de Vita Mos. ed. Mangey, ii. p. 140.] But
much yet remained to be done. If the religion of the Old
Testament had been brought near to the Grecian world of
thought, the latter had still to be brought near to Judaism.
Some intermediate stage must be found; some common ground on
which the two might meet; some original kindredness of spirit
to which their later divergences might be carried back, and
where they might finally be reconciled. As the first attempt
in this direction, first in order, if not always in time, we
mark the so-called Apocryphal literature, most of which was
either written in Greek, or is the product of Hellenising
Jews. [1 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.'] Its
general object was twofold. First, of course, it was
apologetic, intended to fill gaps in Jewish history or
thought, but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind against
attacks from without, and generally to extol the dignity of
Israel. Thus, more withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured
on heathenism than in the apocryphal story of 'Bel and the
Dragon,' or in the so-called 'Epistle of Jeremy,' with which
the Book of 'Baruch' closes. The same strain, only in more
lofty tones, resounds through the Book of the 'Wisdom of
Solomon,' [b Comp. x. xx.] along with the constantly implied
contrast between the righteous, or Israel, and sinners, or
the heathen. But the next object was to show that the deeper
and purer thinking of heathenism in its highest philosophy
supported, nay, in some respects, was identical with, the
fundamental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course,
was apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the
way for a reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice
this especially in the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, so
long erroneously attributed to Josephus, [1 It is printed in
Havercamp's edition of Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. The
best edition is in Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test.
(Lips. 1871).] and in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' The first
postulate here would be the acknowledgment of truth among the
Gentiles, which was the outcome of Wisdom, and Wisdom was the
revelation of God. This seems already implied in so
thoroughly Jewish a book as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.
[a Comp. for ex. Ecclus. xxiv. 6.] Of coursethere could be no
alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole of
the Old Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculations
would charm, while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicism
would prove almost equally attractive. The one would show why
they believed, the other why they lived, as they did. Thus
the theology of the Old Testament would find a rational basis
in the ontology of Plato, and its ethics in the moral
philosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the very line of
argument which Josephus follows in the conclusion of his
treatise against Apion. [b ii. 39, 40.] This, then, was an
unassailable position to take:contempt poured on heathenism
as such, [c Comp. also Jos. Ag. Ap. ii. 34.] and arational
philosophical basis for Judaism. They were not deep, only
acute thinkers, these Alexandrians, and the result of their
speculations was a curious Eclecticism, in which Platonism
and Stoicism are found, often heterogeneously, side by side.
Thus, without further details, it may be said that the Fourth
Book of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical treatise on the Stoical
theme of 'the supremacy of reason', the proposition, stated
at the outset, that 'pious reason bears absolute sway over
the passions,' being illustrated by the story of the
martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the mother and her seven sons.
[d Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 18-vii. 41.] On the other hand, that
sublime work, the 'Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and
Stoic elements [2 Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. pp.
626-632) has given a glowing sketch of it. Ewald rightly says
that its Grecian elements have been exaggerated; but Bucher
(Lehre vom Logos, pp. 59-62) utterly fails in denying their
presence altogether.], chiefly perhaps the latter, the two
occurring side by side. Thus [e Ch. vii. 22-27.] 'Wisdom,'
which is so concretely presented as to be almost
hypostatised, [3 Compare especially ix. 1; xviii. 14-16,
where the idea of passes into that of the. Of course the
above remarks are not intended to depreciate the great value
of 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 revelation
of the.] is first described in the language of Stoicism, [f
Vv. 22-24.] and afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,
[g Vv. 25-29.] as 'the breath of thepower of God;' as 'a pure
influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;' 'the
brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of
the power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Similarly,
we have [a In ch. viii. 7.] a Stoical enumeration of the four
cardinal virtues, temperance, prudence, justice, and
fortitude, and close by it the Platonic idea of the soul's
pre-existence, [b In vv. 19, 20.] and of earth and matter
pressing it down. [c ix. 15.] How such views would point in
the direction of the need of a perfect revelation from on
high, as in the Bible, and of its rational possibility, need
scarcely be shown.

But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this
Apocryphal literature? We find it described by a term which
seems 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 or
congregational use. Although they were, of course, carefully
distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, as not being
sacred, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are
quoted in Talmudical writings. [1 Some Apocryphal books which
have not been preserved to us are mentioned in Talmudical
writings, among them one, 'The roll of the building of the
Temple,' alas, lost to us! Comp. Hamburger, vol. ii. pp.
66-70.] In this respect they are placed on a very different
footing from the so-called Sepharim Chitsonim, or 'outside
books,' which probably included both the products of a
certain class of Jewish Hellenistic literature, and the
Siphrey Minim, or writings of the heretics. Against these
Rabbinism can scarcely find terms of sufficient violence,
even debarring from share in the world to come those who read
them. [d Sanh 100.] This, not only because they were used
incontroversy, but because their secret influence on orthodox
Judaism was dreaded. For similar reasons, later Judaism
forbade the use of the Apocrypha in the same manner as that
of the Sepharim Chitsonim. But their influence had already
made itself felt. The Apocrypha, the more greedily perused,
not only for their glorification of Judaism, but that they
were, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded a
glimpse into that forbidden Greek world, opened the way for
other Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged but
frequent traces occur in Talmudical writings. [2 Comp.
Siegfried, Philo von Alex. pp. 275-299, who, however, perhaps
overstates the matter.]

To those who thus sought to weld Grecian thought with Hebrew
revelation, two objects would naturally present themselves.
They must try to connect their Greek philosophers with the
Bible, and they must find beneath the letter of Scripture a
deeper meaning, which would accord with philosophic truth. So
far as the text of Scripture was concerned, they had a method
ready to hand. The Stoic philosophers had busied themselves
in finding a deeper allegorical meaning, especially in the
writings of Homer. By applying it to mythical stories, or to
the popular beliefs, and by tracing the supposed symbolical
meaning of names, numbers, &c., it became easy to prove
almost anything, or to extract from these philosophical
truths ethical principles, and even the later results of
natural science. [1 Comp. Siegfried, pp. 9-16; Hartmann, Enge
Verb. d. A. Test. mit d. N., pp. 568-572.] Such a process was
peculiarly pleasing to the imagination, and the results alike
astounding and satisfactory, since as they could not be
proved, so neither could they be disproved. This allegorical
method [2 This is to be carefully distinguished from the
typical interpretation and from the mystical, the type being
prophetic, the mystery spiritually understood.] was the
welcome key by which the Hellenists might unlock the hidden
treasury of Scripture. In point of fact, we find it applied
so early as in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' [3 Not to speak of
such sounder interpretations as that of the brazen serpent
(Wisd. xvi. 6, 7), and of the Fall (ii. 24), or of the view
presented of the early history of the chosen race in ch. x.,
we may mention as instances of allegorical interpretation
that of the manna (xvi. 26-28), and of the high-priestly
dress (xviii. 24), to which, no doubt, others might be added.
But I cannot find sufficient evidence of this allegorical
method in the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The
reasoning of Hartmann (u. s., pp. 542-547) seems to me
greatly strained. Of the existence of allegorical
interpretations in the Synoptic Gospels, or of any connection
with Hellenism, such as Hartmann, Siegfried, and Loesner
(Obs. ad. N.T. e Phil. Alex) put into them, I cannot, on
examination, discover any evidence. Similarity of
expressions, or even of thought, afford no evidence of inward
connection. Of the Gospel by St. John we shall speak in the
sequel. In the Paul ne Epistles we find, as might be
expected, some allegorical interpretations, chiefly in those
to the Corinthians, perhaps owing to the connection of that
church 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 cannot
here speak.]

But as yet Hellenism had scarcely left the domain of sober
interpretation. it is otherwise in the letter of the
Pseudo-Aristeas, to which reference has already been made. [4
See p. 25.] Here the wildest symbolismis put into the mouth
of the High-Priest Eleazar, to convince Aristeas and his
fellow-ambassador that the Mosaic ordinances concerning food
had not only a political reason, to keep Israel separate from
impious nations, and a sanitary one, but chiefly a mystical
meaning. The birds allowed for food were all tame and pure,
and they fed on corn or vegetable products, the opposite
being the case with those forbidden. The first lesson which
this was intended to teach was, that Israel must be just, and
not seek to obtain aught from others by violence; but, so to
speak, imitate the habits of those birds which were allowed
them. The next lesson would be, that each must learn to
govern his passions and inclinations. Similarly, the
direction about cloven hoofs pointed to the need of making
separation, that is, between good and evil; and that about
chewing the cud to the need of remembering, viz. God and His
will. [1 A similar principle applied to the prohibition of
such species as the mouse or the weasel, not only because
they destroyed everthing, but because they latter, from its
mode of conceiving and bearing, symbolized listening to evil
tales, and exaggerated, lying, or malicious speech.] In such
manner, according to Aristeas, did the High Priest go through
the catalogue of things forbidden, and of animals to be
sacrificed, showing from their 'hidden meaning' the majesty
and sanctity of the Law. [2 Of course this method is
constantly adopted by Josephus. Comp. for example, Ant. iii.
1. 6; 7. 7.]

This was an important line to take, and it differed in
principle from the allegorical method adopted by the Eastern
Jews. Not only the Dorshey Reshumoth, [3 Or Dorshey
Chamuroth, searchers of difficult passages. Zunz. Gottesd.
Vortr. p. 323. note b.] or searches out of the subleties of
Scripture, of their indications, but even the ordinry
Haggadist employed, indeeds, allegoric interpretations.
Thereby Akiba vindicated for the 'Song of Songs' its place in
the Canon. Did not Scripture say: 'One thing spake God,
twofold is what I heard,' [a Ps. lxii. 11; Sanh. 34 a.] and
did not this imply a twofold meaning; nay, could not the
Torah be explained by many different methods? [4 The seventy
languages in which the Law was supposed to have been written
below Mount Ebal (Sotah vii. 5). I cannot help feeling this
may in part also refer to the various modes of interpreting
Holy 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 that
breaks the rock in a thousand pieces. Comp. Rashi on Gen.
xxxiii. 20.] What, for example, was the water which Israel
sought in the wilderness, or the bread and raiment which
Jacob asked in Bethel, but the Torah and the dignity which it
conferred? But in all these, and innumerable similar
instances, the allegorical interpretation was only an
application of Scripture for homiletical purposes, not a
searching into a rationale beneath, such as that of the
Hellenists. The latter the Rabbis would have utterly
repudiated, on their express principle that 'Scripture goes
not beyond its plain meaning.' [5 Perhaps we ought here to
point out one of the most important principles of Rabbinism,
which has been almost entirely overlooked in modern criticism
of the Talmud. It is this: that any ordinance, not only of
the Divine law, but of the Rabbis, even though only given for
a particular time or occasion, or for a special reason,
remains in full force for all time unless it be expressly
recalled (Betsah 5 b). Thus Maimonides (Sepher ha Mitsv.)
declares the law to extirpate the Canaanites as continuing in
its obligations. The inferences as to the perpetual
obligation, not only of the ceremonial law, but of
sacrifices, will be obvious, and their bearing on the Jewish
controversy need not be explained. Comp. Chief Rabbi
Holdheim. d. Ceremonial Gesetz in Messasreich, 1845.] They
sternly insisted, that we ought not to search into the
ulterior object and rationale of a law, but simply obey it.
But it was this very rationale of the Law which the
Alexandrians sought to find under its letter. It was in this
sense that Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, [b
About 160 B.C.] sought to explain Scripture. Only a fragment
of hwork, which seems to have been a Commentary on the
Pentateuch, dedicated to King Ptolemy (Philometor), has been
preserved to us (by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius [a
Praepar. Evang. vii. 14. 1 ; vii. 10. 1-17; xiii. 12.]).
According to Clement of Alexandria, his aim was, 'to bring
the Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out
of the other prophets.' Thus, when we read that God stood, it
meant the stable order of the world; that He created the
world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest
of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in
such manner could the whole system of Aristole be found in
the Bible. But how was this to be accounted for? Of course,
the Bible had not learned from Aristole, but he and all the
other philosphers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according
to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages
had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in
their writings were united in all their glory in the Torah.

It was a tempting path on which to enter, and one on which
there was no standing still. It only remained to give
fixedness to the allegorical method by reducing it to certain
principles, or canons of criticism, and to form the
heterogeneous mass of Grecian philosophemes and Jewish
theologumena into a compact, if not homogeneous system. This
was the work of Philo of Alexandria, born about 20 B.C. It
concerns us not here to inquire what were the intermediate
links between Aristobulus and Philo. Another and more
important point claims our attention. If ancient Greek
philosophy knew the teaching of Moses, where was the historic
evidence for it? If such did not exist, it must somehow be
invented. Orpheus was a name which had always lent itself to
literary frand, [b As Val. Kenaer puts it, Daitr. de Aristob.
Jud. p. 73.] and so Aristobulus boldl;y produces (whether of
his own or of others' making) a number of spurious citations
from Hesiod, Homer, Linus, but especially from Orpheus, all
Biblical and Jewish in their cast. Aristobulus was neither
the first nor the last to commit such fraud. The Jewish Sibyl
boldly, and, as we shall see, successfully personated the
heathen oracles. And this opens, generally, quite a vista of
Jewish-Grecia literature. In the second, and even in the
third century before Christ, there were Hellenist historians,
such as Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, and Aristeas; tragic
and epic poets, such as Ezekiel, Pseudo-Philo, and Theodotus,
who, after the manner of the ancient classical writers, but
for their own purposes, described certain periods of Jewish
history, or sang of such themes as the Exodus, Jerusalem, or
the rape of Dinah.

The mention of these spurious quotations naturally leads us
to another class of spurious literature, which, although not
Hellenistic, has many elements in common with it, and, even
when originating with Palestinian Jews is not Palestinian,
nor yet has been preserved in its language. We allude to what
are known as the Pseudepigraphic, or Pseudonymic Writings, so
called because, with one exception, they bear false names of
authorship. It is difficult to arrange them otherwise than
chronological, and even here the greatest difference of
opinions prevails. Their general character (with one
exception) may be described as anti-heathen, perhaps
missionary, but chiefly as Apocalyptic. They are attempts at
taking up the key-note struck in the prophecies of Daniel;
rather, we should say, to lift the veil only partially raised
by him, and to point, alike as concerned Israel, and the
kingdoms of the world, to the past, the present, and the
future, in the light of the Kingship of the Messiah. Here, if
anywhere, we might expect to find traces of New Testament
teaching; and yet, side by side with frequent similarity of
form, the greatest difference, we had almost said contrast,
in spirit, prevails.

Many of these works must have perished. In one of the latest
of them [a 4 Esdras xiv. 44, 46.] they are put down at
seventy, probably a roundnumber, having reference to the
supposed number of the nations of the earth, or to every
possible mode of interpreting Scripture. They are described
as intended for 'the wise among the people,' probably those
whom St. Paul, in the Christian sense, designates as 'knowing
the time' [b Rom. xiii. 11.] [1 The of St. Paul seems here
used 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 in
this light, they embody the ardent aspirataions and the
inmost hopes [2 Of course, it suits Jewish, writers, like Dr.
Jost, to deprecate the value of the Pseudepigrapha. Their
ardour of expectancy ill agrees with the modern theories,
which would eliminate, if possible, the Messianic hope from
ancient Judaism.] of those who longed for the 'consolation of
Israel,' as they understood it. Nor should we judge their
personations of authorship according to our Western ideas. [3
Comp. Dillmann in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol. xii. p. 301.]
Pseudonymic writings were common in that age, and a Jew might
perhaps plead that, even in the Old Testament, books had been
headed by names which confessedly were not those of their
authors (such as Samuel, Ruth, Esther). If those inspired
poets who sang in the spirit, and echoed the strains, of
Asaph, adopted that designation, and the sons of Korah
preferred to be known by that title, might not they, who
could no longer claim the authority of inspiration seek
attention for their utterances by adopting the names of those
in whose spirit they professed to write?

The most interesting as well as the oldest of these books
are those known as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles,
the Paler of Solomon, and the Book of Jubilees, or Little
Genesis. Only the briefest notice of them can here find a
place. [1 For a brief review of the 'Pseudepigraphic
Writings,' see Appendix I.]

The Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date a century
and a half before Christ, comes to us from Palestine. It
professes to be a vision vouchsafed to that Patriacrch, and
atells of the fall of the Angels and its consequences, and of
what he saw and heard in his rapt journeys through heaven and
earth. Of deepest, though often sad, interest, is what it
says of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the advent of Messiah and
His Kingdom, and of the last things.

On the other hand, the Sibylline Oracles, of which the
oldest portions date from about 160 B.C., come to us from
Egypt. It is to the latter only that we here refer. Their
most interesting parts are also the most characteristics. In
them the ancient heathen myths of the first ages of man are
welded together with Old Testament notices, while the heathen
Theogony is recast in a Jewish mould. Thus Noah becomes
Uranos, Shem Saturn, Ham Titan, and Japheth Japetus.
Similarly, we have fragments of ancient heathen oracles, so
to speak, recast in a Jewish edition. The strangest
circumstance is, that the utterances of this Judaising and
Jewish Sibyl seem to have passed as the oracles of the
ancient Erythraean, which had predicted the fall of Troy, and
as those of the Sibyl of Cumae, which, in the infancy of
Rome, Tarquinius Superbus had deposited in the Capitol.

The collection of eighteen hymns known as the Psalter of
Solomon dates from more than half a century before our ear.
No doubt the e original was Hebrew, though they breathe a
somewhat Hellenistic spirit. They express ardent Messianic
aspirations, and a firm faith in the Resurrection, and in
eternal rewards and punishments.

Different in character from the preceding works is The Book
of Jubilees, so called from its chronological arrangement
into 'Jubilee-periods', or 'Little Genesis.' It is chiefly a
kind of legendary supplement to the Book of Genesis, intended
to explain some of its historic difficulties, and to fill up
its historic lacunae. It was probably written about the time
of Christ, and this gives it a special interest, by a
Palestinian, and in Hebrew, or rather Aramaean. But, like the
rest of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature which
comes from Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew, we
posses it no longer in that language, but only in
translation.

If from this brief review of Hellenist and Pseudepigraphic
literature we turn to take a retrospect, we can scarcely fail
to perceive, on the one hand, the development of the old, and
on the other the preparation for the new, in other words, the
grand expectancy awakened, and the grand preparation made.
One step only remained to complete what Hellenism had already
begun. That completion came through one who, although himself
untouched by the Gospel, perhaps more than any other prepared
alike his co-religionists the Jews, and his countrymen the
Greeks, for the new teaching, which, indeed, was presented by
many of its early advocates in the forms which they had
learned from him. That man was Philo the Jew, of Alexandria.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, THE RABBIS, AND THE GOSPELS, THE FINAL
DEVELOPMENT OF HELLENISM IN ITS RELATION TO RABBINISM AND THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

CHAPTER IV.

It is strange how little we know of the personal history of
the greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old, though he
occupied so prominent a position in his time. [1 Hausrath
(N.T. Zeitg. vol. ii. p. 222 &c.) has given a highly
imaginative picture of Philo, as, indeed, of many other
persons and things.] Philo was born in Alexandria, about the
year 20 before Christ. He was a descendant of Aaron, and
belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential
families among the Jewish merchant-princes of Egypt. His
brother was the political head of that community in
Alexandria, and he himself on one occasion represented his
co-religionists, though unsuccessfully, at Rome, [a 39 or 40
A.D.] as the head of an embassy to entreat the Emperior
Caligula for protection from the persecutions consequent on
the Jewish resistance to placing statues of the Emperor in
their Synagogues. But it is not with Philo, the wealthy
aristocratic Jew of Alexandria, but with the great writer and
thinker who, so to speak, completed Jewish Hellenism, that we
have here to do. Let us see what was his relation alike to
heathen philosophy and to the Jewish faith, of both of which
he was the ardent advocate, and how in his system he combined
the teaching of the two.

To begin with, Philo united in rare measure Greek learning
with Jewish enthusiasm. In his writings he very frequently
uses classical modes of expression; [2 Siegfried has, with
immense labor, collected a vast number of parallel
expressions, chiefly from Plato and Plutarch (pp. 39-47).] he
names not fewer than sixty-four Greek writers; [3 Comp.
Grossmann, Quaest. Phil. i. p. 5 &c.] and he either alludes
to, or quotes frequently from, such sources as Homer, Hesiod,
Pindar, Solon, the great Greek tragedians, Plato, and others.
But to him these men were scarcely 'heathen.' He had sat at
their feet, and learned to weave a system from Pythagoras,
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of these
philosophers were 'holy,' and Plato was 'the great.' But
holier than all was the gathering of the true Israel; and
incomparably greater than any, Moses. From him had all sages
learned, and with him alone was all truth to be found, not,
indeed, in the letter, but under the letter, of Holy
Scripture. If in Numb. xxiii. 19 we read 'God is not a man,'
and in Deut. i. 31 that the Lord was 'as a man,' did it not
imply, on the one hand, the revelation of absolute truth by
God, and, on the other, accommodation to those who were weak?
Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation of
the Word of God, the literal and the allegorical. The letter
of the text must be held fast; and Biblical personages and
histories were real. But only narrow-minded slaves of the
letter would stop here; the more so, as sometimes the literal
meaning alone would be tame, even absurd; while the
allegorical interpretation gave the true sense, even though
it might occassionally run counter to the letter. Thus, the
patriarchs represented states of the soul; and, whatever the
letter might bear, Joseph represented one given to the
fleshly, whom his brothers rightly hated; Simeon the soul
aiming after the higher; the killing of the Egyptian by
Moses, the subjugation of passion, and so on. But this
allegorical interpretation, by the side of the literal (the
Peshat of the Palestinians), though only for the few, was not
arbitrary. It had its 'laws,' and 'canons', some of which
excluded the literal interpretation, while others admitted it
by the side of the higher meaning. [1 In this sketch of the
system of Philo I have largely availed myself of the careful
analysis of Siegfried.]

To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly
set aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity,
anything unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason.
Manifestly, this canon, if strictly applied, would do away
not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot
wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would
find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation
indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly
superfluous words, particles, or expressions. [2 It should be
noted that these are also Talmudical canons, not indeed for
allegorical interpretation, but as pointing to some special
meaning, since there was not a word or particle in Scripture
without a definite meaning and object.] These could, of
course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of the
actual inspiration of the LXX. version. Similarly, in exact
accordance with a Talmudical canon, [a Baba K 64 a.] any
repetition of what had been already stated would point to
something new. These were comparatively sober rules of
exegesis. Not so the licence which he claimed of freely
altering the punctuation [3 To illustrate what use might be
made of such alterations, the Midrash (Ber. R. 65) would have
us punctuate Gen. xxvii. 19, as follows: 'And Jacob said unto
his father, I (viz. am he who will receive the ten
commandments), (but) Esau (is) thy firstborn.' In Yalkut
there is the still more curious explanation that in heaven
the soul of Jacob was the firstborn!] of sentences, and his
notion that, if one from among several synonymous words was
chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning
attaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea, that a
word which occurred in the LXX. might be interpreted
according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the
Greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by
slightly altering the letters. However, like other of Philo's
allegorical canons, these were also adopted by the Rabbis,
and Haggadic interpretations were frequently prefaced by:
'Read not thus, but thus.' If such violence might be done to
the text, we need not wonder at interpretations based on a
play upon words, or even upon parts of a word. Of course, all
seemingly strange or peculiar modes of expression, or of
designation, occurring in Scripture, must have their special
meaning, and so also every particle, adverb, or preposition.
Again, the position of a verse, its succession by another,
the apparently unaccountable presence or absence of a word,
might furnish hints for some deeper meaning, and so would an
unexpected singular for a plural, or vice versa, the use of a
tense, even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, an
allegorical interpretation might be again employed as the
basis of another. [1 Each of these positions is capable of
ample proof from Philo's writings, as shown by Siegfried. But
only a bare statement of these canons was here possible.]

We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are
essentially the same as those of Jewish traditionalism in the
Haggadah, [2 Comp. our above outline with the 'XXV. theses de
modis et formulis quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretari
etc. soliti fuerunt,' in Surenhusius, Biblos, pp. 57-88.]
only the latter were not rationalising, and far more
brilliant in their application. [3 For a comparison between
Philo and Rabbinic theology, see Appendix II.: 'Philo and
Rabbinic Theology.' Freudenthal (Hellen. Studien, pp. 67 &c.)
aptly designates this mixture of the two as 'Hellenistic
Midrash,' it being difficult sometimes to distinguish whether
it originated in Palestine or in Egypt, or else in both
independently. Freudenthal gives a number of curious
instances in which Hellenism and Rabbinism agree in their
interpretations. For other interesting comparisons between
Haggadic interpretations and those of Philo, see Joel, Blick
in d. Religionsgesch. i. p. 38 &c.] In another respect also
the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian
exegesis. Reverently and cautiously it indicated what might
be omitted in public reading, and why; what expressions of
the original might be modified by the Meturgeman, and how; so
as to avoid alike one danger by giving a passage in its
literality, and another by adding to the sacred text, or
conveying a wrong impression of the Divine Being, or else
giving occasion to the unlearned and unwary of becoming
entangled in dangerous speculations. Jewish tradition here
lays down some principles which would be of great practical
use. Thus we are told, [a Ber. 31 b.] that Scripture uses the
modes ofexpression common among men. This would, of course,
include all anthropomorphisms. Again, sometimes with
considerable ingenuity, a suggestion is taken from a word,
such as that Moses knew the Serpent was to be made of brass
from the similarity of the two words (nachash, a serpent, and
nechosheth, brass. [b Ber. R. 31.] Similarly, it is noted
that Scripture uses euphemistic language, so as to preserve
the greatest delicacy. [c Ber. R. 70.] These instances might
be multiplied, but the above will suffice.

In his symbolical interpretations Philo only partially took
the same road as the Rabbis. The symbolism of numbers and, so
far as the Sanctuary was concerned, that of colours, and even
materials, may, indeed, be said to have its foundation in the
Old Testament itself. The same remark applies partially to
that of names. The Rabbis certainly so interpreted them. [1
Thus, to give only a few out of many examples, Ruth is
derived from ravah, to satiate to give to drink, because
David, her descendant, satiated God with his Psalms of praise
(Ber. 7 b). Here the principle of the significance of
Biblenames is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in the Hebrew):
'Come, behold the works of the Lord, who hath made names on
earth,' the word 'desolations,' SHAMOTH, being altered to
SHEMOTH, 'names.' In general, that section, from Ber. 3 b, to
the end of 8 a, is full of Haggadic Scripture
interpretations. On fol. 4 a there is the curious symbolical
derivation of Mephibosheth, who is supposed to have set David
right on halakhic questions, as Mippi bosheth: 'from my mouth
shaming,' 'because he put to shame the face of David in the
Halakhah.' Similarly in Siphre (Par. Behaalothekha, ed.
Friedmann, p. 20 a) we have very beautiful and ingenious
interpretations of the names Reuel, Hobab and Jethro.] But
the application which Philo made of this symbolism was very
different. Everything became symbolical in his hands, if it
suited his purpose: numbers (in a very arbitrary manner),
beasts, birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones,
elements, substances, conditions, even sex, and so a term or
an expression might even have several and contradictory
meanings, from which the interpreter was at liberty to
choose.

From the consideration of the method by which Philo derived
from Scriptures his theological views, we turn to a brief
analysis of these views. [2 It would be impossible here to
give the references, which would occupy too much space.]

1. Theology. In reference to God, we find, side by side, the
apparently contradictory views of the Platonic and the Stoic
schools. Following the former, the sharpest distinction was
drawn between God and the world. God existed neither in
space, nor in time; He had neither human qualities nor
afections; in fact, He was without any qualities ( ), and
even 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 hid
himself from Him. In the above sense, also, Ex. iii. 14, and
vi. 3, were explained, and the two names Elohim and Jehovah
belonged really to the two supreme Divine 'Potencies,' while
the fact of God's being uncognisable appeared from Ex. xx.
21.

But side by side with this we have, to save the Jewish, or
rather Old Testament, idea of creation and providence, the
Stoic notion of God as immanent in the world, in fact, as
that alone which is real in it, as always working: in short,
to use his own Pantheistic expression, as 'Himself one and
the all' ( ). Chief in His Being is His goodness, the
forthgoing of which was the ground of creation. Only the good
comes from Him. With matter He can have nothing to do, hence
the plural number in the account of creation. God only
created the soul, and that only of the good. In the sense of
being 'immanent,' God is everywhere, nay, all things are
really only in Him, or rather He is the real in all. But
chiefly is God the wellspring and the light of the soul, its
'Saviour' from the 'Egypt' of passion. Two things follow.
With Philo's ideas of the sepration between God and matter,
it was impossible always to account for miracles or
interpositions. Accordingly, these are sometimes allegorised,
sometimes rationalistically explained. Further, the God of
Philo, whatever he might say to the contrary, was not the God
of that Israel which was His chosen people.
2. Intermediary Beings. Potencies ( ). If, in what has
preceded, we have once and again noticed a remarkable
similarity between Philo and the Rabbis, there is a still
more curious analogy between his teaching and that of Jewish
Mysticism, as ultimately fully developed in the 'Kabbalah.'
The very term Kabbalah (from qibbel, to hand down) seems to
point out not only its descent by oral tradition, but also
its ascent to ancient sources. [1 For want of handier
material I must take leave to refer to my brief sketch of the
Kabbalah in the 'History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 434-446.]
Its existence is presupposed, and its leading ideas are
sketched in the Mishnah. [a Chag. ii. 1.]The Targums also
bear at least one remarkable trace of it. May it not be, that
as Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition, so both
Eastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from one and
the same source, we will not venture to suggest, how high up,
while each made such use of it as suited their distinctive
tendencies? At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening Scripture
to a person, compares those who study merely the letter, to
them who attend only to the dress; those who consider the
mnoral of a fact, to them who attend to the body; while the
initiated alone, who regard the hidden meaning, are those who
attend to the soul. Again, as Philo, so the oldest part of
the Mishnah [a Ab. v. 4.] designates God as Maqom, 'the
place', the, the all-comprehending, what the Kabbalists
called the EnSoph, 'the boundless,' that God, without any
quality, Who becomes cognisable only by His manifestations.
[1 In short, the of the Stoics.]

The manifestations of God! But neither Eastern mystical
Judaism, nor the philosophy of Philo, could admit of any
direct contact between God and creation. The Kabbalah solved
the difficulty by their Sephiroth, [2 Supposed to mean either
numerationes, or splendour. But why not derive the word from
? The ten are: Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Judgment,
Beauty, Triumph, Praise, Foundation, Kingdom.] or emanations
from God, through which this contact was ultimately brought
about, and of which the EnSoph, or crown, was the spring:
'the source from which the infinite light issued.' If Philo
found greater difficulties, he had also more ready help from
the philosophical systems to hand. His Sephiroth were
'Potencies' ( ), 'Words' ( ), intermediate powers.
'Potencies,' as we imagine, when viewed Godwards; 'Words,' as
viewed creationwards. They were not emanations, but,
according to Plato, 'archetypal ideas,' on the model of which
all that exists was formed; and also, according to the Stoic
idea, the cause of all, pervading all, forming all, and
sustaining all. Thus these 'Potencies' were wholly in God,
and yet wholly out of God. If we divest all this of its
philosophical colouring, did not Eastern Judaism also teach
that there was a distinction between the Unapproachable God,
and God manifest? [3 For the teaching of Eastern Judaism in
this respect, see Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic
Theology.']

Another remark will show the parallelism between Philo and
Rabbinism. [4 A very interesting question arises: how far
Philo was acquainted with, and influenced by, the Jewish
traditional 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 seems
to 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 of
Justice, and Jehovah as the God of Mercy and Grace, so Philo
places next to the Divine Word ( ), Goodness ( ), as the
Creative Potency ( ), and Power ( ), as the Ruling Potency (
), proving this by a curious etymological derivation of the
words for 'God' and 'Lord' ( ), apparently unconscious that
the LXX., in direct contradiction, translated Jehovah by Lord
( ), and Elohim by God ( )! These two potencies of goodness
and power, Philo sees in the two Cherubim, and in the two
'Angels' which accompanied God (the Divine Word), when on his
way to destroy the cities of the plain. But there were more
than these two Potencies. In one place Philo enumerates six,
according to the number of the cities of refuge. The
Potencies issued from God as the beams from the light, as the
waters from the spring, as the breath from a person; they
were immanent in God, and yet independent beings. They were
the ideal world, which in its impulse outwards, meeting
matter, produced this material world of ours. They were also
the angels of God, His messengers to man, the media through
whom He reveled Himself. [1 At the same time there is a
remarkable difference here between Philo and Rabbinism. Philo
holds that the creation of the world was brought about by the
Potencies, but the Law was given directly through Moses, and
not by the mediation of angels. But this latter was certainly
the view generally entertained in Palestine as expressed in
the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 2, in the Targumim on that
passage, and more fully still in Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3, in the
Midrashim and in the Talmud, where we are told (Macc. 24 a)
that only the opening words, 'I am the Lord thy God, thou
shalt have no other gods but Me,' were spoken by God Himself.
Comp. also Acts vii. 38, 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2.]
3. The Logos. Viewed in its bearing on New Testament
teaching, this part of Philo's system raises the most
interesting questions. But it is just here that our
difficulties are greatest. We can understand the Platonic
conception of the Logos as the 'archetypal idea,' and that of
the Stoics as the 'world-reason' pervading matter. Similarly,
we can perceive, how the Apocrypha, especially the Book of
Wisdom, following up the Old Testament typical truth
concerning "Wisdom' (as specially set forth in the Book of
Proverbs) almost arrived so far as to present 'Wisdom' as a
special 'Subsistence' (hypostatising it). More than this, in
Talmudical writings, we find mention not only of the Shem, or
'Name,' [2 Hammejuchad, 'appropriatum;' hammephorash,
'expositum,' 'separatum,' the 'tetragrammaton,' or
four-lettered name, There was also a Shem with 'twelve,' and
one with 'forty-two' letters (Kidd. 71 a).] but also of the
Shekhinah,' God as manifest and present, which is sometimes
also presented as the Ruach ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit. [a Or
Ruach 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 the
term dibbur occupies the same place and meaning. But with all
deference I cannot agree with this opinion, nor do the
passages quoted bear it out.] It is that of the Memra, Logos,
or 'Word.' Not that the term is exclusively applied to the
Divine Logos. [2 The 'word,' as spoken, is distinguished from
the 'Word' as speaking, or revealing Himself. The former is
generally designated by the term 'pithgama.' Thus in Gen. XV.
1, 'After these words (things) came the "pithgama" of Jehovah
to Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not, Abram, My "Memra"
shall be thy strength, and thy very great reward.' Still, the
term Memra, as applied not only to man, but also in reference
to God, is not always the equivalent of 'the Logos.'] But it
stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this
literature, that God, not as in His permanent manifestation,
or manifest Presence, but as revealing Himself, is designated
Memra. Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs in the
Targum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum
99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A
critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in
71 instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances in
the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only
distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as
revealing Himself. [3 The various passages in the Targum of
Onkelos, the Jerusalem, and the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the
Pentateuch will be found enumerated and classified, as those
in which it is a doubtful, a fair, or an unquestionable
inference, that the word Memra is intended for God revealing
Himself, in Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'] But
what does this imply? The distinction between God and the
Memra of Jehovah is marked in many passages. [4 As, for
example, Gen. xxviii. 21, 'the Memra of Jehovah shall be my
God.'] Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from
the Shekhinah. [5 As, for example, Num. xxiii. 21, 'the Memra
of Jehovah their God is their helper, and the Shekhinah of
their King is in the midst of them.'] Nor is the term used
instead of the sacred word Jehovah; [6 That term is often
used by Onkelos. Besides, the expression itself is 'the Memra
of 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 Metatron
of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Talmud. [8 Metatron,
either = , or In the Talmud it is applied to the Angel of
Jehovah (Ex. xxiii. 20), 'the Prince of the World,' 'the
Prince of the Face' or 'of the Presence,' as they call him;
he who sits in the innermost chamber before God, while the
other angels only hear His commands from behind the veil
(Chag. 15 a; 16 a; Toseft. ad Chull. 60 a; Jeb. 16 b). This
Metatron of the Talmud and the Kabbalah is also the Adam
Qadmon, or archetypal man.] Does it then represent an older
tradition underlying all these? [9 Of deep interest is
Onkelos' rendering of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where, instead of
'underneath are the everlasting arms,' Onkelos has, 'and by
His Memra was the world created,' exactly as in St John i.
10. Now this divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text seems
unaccountable. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation, 'De
Onkeloso ejusque paraph. Chald.' Lips. 1820, most modern
writers have followed (with amplifications, chiefly from
Luzzato's Philoxenus), makes no reference to this passage,
nor do his successors, so far as I know.
It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text of this verse
consists of three words, so does the rendering of Onkelos,
and that both end with the same word. Is the rendering of
Onkelos then a paraphrase, or does it represent another
reading? Another interesting passage is Deut. viii. 3. Its
quotation by Christ in St. Matt. iv. 4 is deeply interesting,
as read in the light of the rendering of Onkelos, 'Not by
bread alone is man sustained, but by every forthcoming Memra
from before Jehovah shall man live.' Yet another rendering of
Onkelos is significantly illustrative of 1 Cor. x. 1-4. He
renders Deut. xxxiii. 3 'with power He brought them out of
Egypt; they were led under thy cloud; they journeyed
according to (by) thy Memra.' Does this represent a
difference in Hebrew from the admittedly difficult text in
our present Bible? Winer refers to it as an instance in which
Onkelos 'suopte ingenio et copiose admodum eloquitur vatum
divinorum mentem,' adding, 'ita ut de his, quas singulis
vocibus inesse crediderit, significationibus non possit recte
judicari;' and Winer's successors say much the same. But this
is to state, not to explain, the difficulty. In general, we
may here be allowed to say that the question of the Targumim
has scarcely received as yet sufficient treatment. Mr.
Deutsch's Article in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible' (since
reprinted 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 the
subject in the Introduction to the Old Testament (Keil, De
Wette-Schrader, Bleek-kamphausen, Reuss), and the works of
Zunz, Geiger, Noldeke, and others, to whom partial reference
has already been made. Frankel's interesting and learned book
(Zu dem Targum der Propheten) deals almost exclusively with
the Targum Jonathan, on which it was impossible to enter
within our limits. As modern brochures of interest the
following three may be mentioned: Maybaum, Anthropomorphien
bei Onkelos; Gronemann, Die Jonath. Pentat. Uebers. im
Verhaltn. z. Halacha; and Singer, Onkelos im Verhaltn. z.
Halacha.] Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to
us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And
yet, if words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis,
though the distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence is
not marked. Nor yet, to complete this subject, is the Memra
identified with the Messiah. In the Targum Onkelos distinct
mention is twice made of Him, [a Gen. xlix. 10, 11; Num.
xxiv. 17.] while in the other Targumim no fewer than
seventy-one Biblical passages are rendered with explicit
reference to Him.

If we now turn to the views expressed by Philo about the
Logos we find that they are hesitating, and even
contradictory. One thing, however, is plain: the Logos of
Philo is not the Memra of the Targumim. For, the expression
Memra ultimately rests on theological, that of Logos on
philosophical grounds. Again, the Logos of Philo approximates
more closely to the Metatron of the Talmud and Kabbalah. As
they speak of him as the 'Prince of the Face,' who bore the
name of his Lord, so Philo represents the Logos as 'the
eldest Angel,' 'the many-named Archangel,' in accordance with
the Jewish view that the name JeHoVaH unfolded its meaning in
seventy names for the Godhead. [1 See the enumeration of
these 70 Names in the Baal-ha-Turim on Numb. xi. 16.] As they
speak of the 'Adam Qadmon,' so Philo of the Logos as the
human reflection of the eternal God. And in both these
respects, it is worthy of notice that he appeals to ancient
teaching. [2 Comp. Siegfried, u. s., pp. 221-223.]

What, then, is the Logos of Philo? Not a concrete
personality, and yet, from another point of view, not
strictly impersonal, nor merely a property of the Deity, but
the shadow, as it were, which the light of God casts--and if
Himself light, only the manifested reflection of God, His
spiritual, even as the world is His material, habitation.
Moreover, the Logos is 'the image of God' ( ) upon which man
was made, [a Gen. i. 27.] or, to use the platonic term, 'the
archetypal idea.' As regards the relation between the Logos
and the two fundamental Potencies (from which all others
issue), the latter are variously represented, on the one
hand, as proceeding from the Logos; and on the other, as
themselves constituting the Logos. As regards the world, the
Logos is its real being. He is also its archetype; moreover
the instrument ( ) through Whom God created all things. If
the Logos separates between God and the world, it is rather
as intermediary; He separates, but He also unites. But
chiefly does this hold true as regards the relation between
God and man. The Logos announces and interprets to man the
will and mind of God ( ) He acts as mediator; He is the real
High-Priest, and as such by His purity takes away the sins of
man, and by His intercession procures for us the mercy of
God, Hence Philo designates Him not only as the High-Priest,
but as the 'Paraclete.' He is also the sun whose rays
enlighten man, the medium of Divine revelation to the soul;
the Manna, or support of spiritual life; He Who dwells in the
soul. And so the Logos is, in the fullest sense, Melchisedek,
the priest of the most high God, the king of righteousness ,
and the king of Salem Who brings righteousness and peace to
the soul. [b De Leg. Alleg. iii 25,26.] But the Logos 'does
not come into any soul that is dead in sin.' That there is
close similarity of form between these Alexandrian views and
much in the argumentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, must
be evident to all, no less than that there is the widest
possible divergence in substance and spirit. [1 For a full
discussion of this similarity of form and divergence of
spirit, between Philo, or, rather, between Alexandrianism,
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the reader is referred to the
masterly 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 and
convincingly formulated on p. 249. We must, however, add, in
opposition to Riehm, that, by his own showing the writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews displays few traces of a
Palestinian training.] The Logos of Philo is shadowy, unreal,
not a Person; [2 On the subject of Philo's Logos generally
the 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 by
Zeller in his Philosophie der Gr. vol. iii. pt. ii. 3rd ed.
pp. 338-418.] there is no need of an atonement; the
High-Priest intercedes, but has no sacrifice to offer as the
basis of His intercession, least of all that of Himself; the
old Testament types are only typical ideas, not typical
facts; they point to a Prototypal Idea in the eternal past,
not to an Antitypal Person and Fact in history; there is no
cleansing of the soul by blood, no sprinkling of the Mercy
Seat, no access for all through the rent veil into the
immediate Presence of God; nor yet a quickening of the soul
from dead works to serve the living God. If the argumentation
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is Alexandrian, it is an
Alexandrianism which is overcome and past, which only
furnishes the form, not the substance, the vessel, not its
contents. The closer therefore the outward similarity, the
greater is the contrast in substance.

The vast difference between Alexandrianism and the New
Testament will appear still more clearly in the views of
Philo on Cosmology and Anthropology. In regard to the former,
his results in some respects run parallel to those of the
students of mysticism in the Talmud, and of the Kabbalists.
Together with the Stoic view, which represented God as 'the
active cause' of this world, and matter as 'the passive,'
Philo holds the Platonic idea, that matter was something
existent, and that is resisted God. [1 With singular and
characteristic inconsistency, Philo, however, ascribes also
to God the creation of matter (de Somn. i. 13).] Such
speculations must have been current among the Jews long
before, to judge by certain warning given by the Son of
Sirach. [a As for example Ecclus. iii. 21-24.] [2 So the
Talmudists certainly understood it, Jer. Chag. ii. 1.] And
Stoic views of the origin of the world seem implied even in
the 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 similar
conclusions, not through Greek, but through Persian teaching.
Their speculations [4 They were arranged into those
concerning the Maasey Bereshith (Creation), and the Maasey
Merkabbah, 'the chariot' of Ezekiel's vision (Providence in
the widest sense, or God's manifestation in the created
world).] boldly entered on the dangerous ground, [5 Of the
four celebrities who entered the 'Pardes,' or enclosed
Paradise of theosophic speculation, one became an apostate,
another died, a third went wrong (Ben Soma), and only Akiba
escaped unscathed, according to the Scripture saying, 'Draw
me, and we will run' (Chag. 14 b).] forbidden to the many,
scarcely allowed to the few, [6 'It is not lawful to enter
upon the Maasey Bereshith in presence of two, nor upon the
Merkabhah in presence of one, unless he be a "sage," and
understands of his own knowledge. Any one who ratiocinates on
these four things, it were better for him that he had not
been born: What is above and what is below; what was afore,
and what shall be hereafter.' (Chag. ii. 1).] where such deep
questions as the origin of our world and its connection with
God were discussed. It was, perhaps, only a beautiful poetic
figure that God had taken of the dust under the throne of His
glory, and cast it upon the waters, which thus became earth.
[b Shem. R. 13.] But so far did isolated teachers become
intoxicated [1 'Ben Soma went astray (mentally): he shook the
(Jewish) world.'] by the new wine of these strange
speculations, that they whispered it to one another that
water was the original element of the world, [2 That
criticsm, which one would designate as impertinent, which
would find this view in 2 Peter iii. 5, is, alas! not
confined to Jewish writers, but hazarded even by De Wette.]
which had successively been hardened into snow and then into
earth. [a Jer. Chag. 77a] [3 Judah bar Pazi, in the second
century. Ben Soma lived in the first century of our era.]
Other and later teachers fixed upon the air or the fire as
the original element, arguing the pre-existence of matter
from the use of the word 'made' in Gen. i. 7. instead of
'created.' Some modified this view, and suggested that God
had originally created the three elements of water, air or
spirit, and fire, from which all else was developed. [4
According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. i. I) the firmament
was at first soft, and only gradually became hard. According
to Ber. R. 10, God created the world from a mixture of fire
and snow, other Rabbis suggesting four original elements,
according to the quarters of the globe, or else six, adding
to them that which is above and that which is below. A very
curious idea is that of R. Joshua ben Levi, according to
which all the works of creation were really finished on the
first day, and only, as it were, extended on the other days.
This also represents really a doubt of the Biblical account
of creation. Strange though it may sound, the doctrine of
development was derived from the words (Gen. ii. 4). 'These
are the generations of heaven and earth when they were
created, in the day when Jahveh Elohim made earth and
heavens.' It was argued, that the expression implied, they
were developed from the day in which they had been created.
Others seem to have held, that the three principal things
that were created, earth, heaven, and water, remained, each
for three days, at the end of which they respectively
developed what is connected with them (Ber. R. 12).] Traces
also occur of the doctrine of the pre-existence of things, in
a sense similar to that of Plato. [b Ber. R. i.]

Like Plato and the Stoics, Philo regarded matter as devoid
of all quality, and even form. Matter in itself was dead,
more than that, it was evil. This matter, which was already
existing, God formed (not made), like an architect who uses
his materials according to a pre-existing plan, which in this
case was the archetypal world.

This was creation, or rather formation, brought about not by
God Himself, but by the Potencies, especially by the Logos,
Who was the connecting bond of all. As for God, His only
direct work was the soul, and that only of the good, not of
the evil. Man's immaterial part had a twofold aspect:
carthwards, as Sensuousness; and heavenwards, as Reason. The
sensuous part of the soul was connected with the body. It had
no heavenly past, and would have no future. But 'Reason' was
that breath of true life which God had breathed into man
whereby the earthy became the higher, living spirit, with its
various faculties. Before time began the soul was without
body, an archetype, the 'heavenly man,' pure spirit in
Paradise (virtue), yet even so longing after its ultimate
archetype, God. Some of these pure spirits descended into
bodies and so lost their purity. Or else, the union was
brought about by God and by powers lower than God (daemons).
To the latter is due our earthly part. God breathed on the
formation, 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 of
Philo, see Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic Theology.']
This leads us to the great question of Original Sin. Here the
views of Philo are those of the Eastern Rabbis. But both are
entirely different from those on which the argument in the
Epistle to the Romans turns. It was neither at the feet of
Gamaliel, nor yet from Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsus
learned the doctrine of original sin. The statement that as
in Adam all spiritually died, so in Messiah all should be
made alive, [2 We cannot help quoting the beautiful Haggadic
explanation 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. [3
Raymundus Martini, in his 'Pugio Fidei' (orig. ed. p. 675;
ed. Voisin et Carpzov, pp. 866, 867), quotes from the book
Siphre: 'Go and learn the merit of Messiah the King, and the
reward of the righteous from the first Adam, on whom was laid
only one commandment of a prohibitive character, and he
transgressed it. See how many deaths were appointed on him,
and on his generations, and on the generations of his
generations to the end of all generations. (Wunsche, Leiden
d. Mess. p. 65, makes here an unwarrantable addition, in his
translation.) But which attribute (measuring?) is the
greater, the attribute of goodness or the attribute of
punishment (retribution)? He answered, the attribute of
goodness is the greater, and the attribute of punishment the
less. And Messiah the King, who was chastened and suffered
for the transgressors, as it is said, "He was wounded for our
transgressions," and so on, how much more shall He justify
(make righteous, by His merit) all generations; and this is
what is meant when it is written, "And Jehovah made to meet
upon Him the sin of us all."' We have rendered this passage
as literally as possible, but we are bound to add that it is
not found in any now existing copy of Siphre.] What may be
called the starting point of Christian theology, the doctrine
of hereditary guilt and sin, through the fall of Adam, and of
the consequent entire and helplesss corruption of our nature,
is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism. The reign of
physical death was indeed traced to the sin of our first
parents. [4 Death is not considered an absolute evil. In
short, all the various consequences which Rabbinical writings
ascribe to the sin of Adam may be designated either as
physical, or, if mental, as amounting only to detriment,
loss, or imperfectness. These results had been partially
counteracted by Abraham, and would be fully removed by the
Messiah. Neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordingly
they 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 God
originally created man withtwo propensities, [5 These are
also hypostatised as Angels. Comp. Levy, Chald. Worterb. p.
342 a; Neuhebr. Worterb. p. 259, a, b.] one to good and one
to 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 impulse
began immediately after birth. [b Sanh. 91 b] [7 In a sense
its existence was necessary for the continuance of this
world. The conflict between these two impulses constituted
the moral life of man.] But it was within the power of man to
vanquish sin, and to attain perfect righteousness; in fact,
this stage had actually been attained. [1 The solitary
exception here is 4 Esdras, where the Christian doctrine of
original sin is most strongly expressed, being evidently
derived from New Testament teaching. Comp. especially 4
Esdras (our Apocryphal 2 Esdras) vii. 46-53, and other
passages. 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 would
fain 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 to
get rid of the sensuous, and to rise to the spiritual. In
this, the ethical part of his system, Philo was most under
the influence of Stoic philosophy. We might almost say, it is
no longer the Hebrew who Hellenises, but the Hellene who
Hebraises. And yet it is here also that the most ingenious
and widereaching allegorisms of Scripture are introduced. It
is scarcely possible to convey an idea of how brilliant this
method becomes in the hands of Philo, how universal its
application, or how captivating it must have proved. Philo
describes man's state as, first one of sensuousness, but also
of unrest, misery and unsatisfied longing. If persisted in,
it would end in complete spiritual insensibility. [2
Symbolised by Lot's wife.] But from this state the soul must
pass to one of devotion to reason. [3 Symbolised by Ebher,
Hebrew.] This change might be accomplished in one of three
ways: 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. The
second method was Askesis: discipline, or practice, when the
soul turned from the lower to the higher. But the best of all
was the third way: the free unfolding of that spiritual life
which cometh neither from study nor discipline, but from a
natural good disposition. And in that state the soul had true
rest [4 The Sabbath, Jerusalem.] and joy. [5 For further
details on these points see Appendix II.: 'Philo and Rabbinic
Theology.']

Here we must for the present pause. [6 The views of Philo on
the Messiah will be presented in another connection.] Brief
as this sketch of Hellenism has been, it must have brought
the question vividly before the mind, whether and how far
certain parts of the New Testament, especially the fourth
Gospel, [7 This is not the place to enter on the question of
the composition, date, and authorship of the four Gospels.
But as regards the point on which negative criticism has of
late spoken strongest, and on which, indeed (as Weiss rightly
remarks) the very existence of 'the Tubingen School' depends,
that of the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel, I
would 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 the
preceding pages. Without yielding to that school of critics,
whose perverse ingenuity discerns everywhere a sinister
motive or tendency in the Evangelic writers, [1 No one not
acquainted with this literature can imagine the character of
the arguments sometimes used by a certain class of critics.
To say that they proceed on the most forced perversion of the
natural and obvious meaning of passages, is but little. But
one cannot restrain moral indignation on finding that to
Evangelists and Apostles is imputed, on such grounds, not
only systematic falsehood, but falsehood with the most
sinister motives.] it is evident that each of them had a
special object in view in constructing his narrative of the
One Life; and primarily addressed himself to a special
audience. If, without entering into elaborate discussion, we
might, according to St. Luke i. 2, regard the narrative of
St. 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 derived
chiefly from Apostolic preaching, especially that of St.
Peter. In general, the question of the authorship and source
of the various Gospels must be reserved for separate
treatment in another place.] which was in circulation, and
the Gospel by St. Matthew as representing the 'tradition'
handed down, by the Apostolic eye-witnesses and ministers of
the Word, [3 Comp. Mangold's ed.of Bleek, Einl. in d. N.T.
(3te Aufl. 1875), p. 346.] we should reach the following
results. Our oldest Gospel-narrative is that by St. Mark,
which, addressing itself to no class in particular, sketches
in rapid outlines the picture of Jesus as the Messiah, alike
for all men. Next in order of time comes our present Gospel
by St. Matthew. It goes a step further back than that by St.
Mark, and gives not only the genealogy, but the history of
the miraculous birth of Jesus. Even if we had not the
consensus of tradition, every one must feel that this Gospel
is Hebrew in its cast, in its citations from the Old
Testament, and in its whole bearing. Taking its key-note from
the Book of Daniel, that grand Messianic text-book of Eastern
Judaism at the time, and as re-echoed in the Book of Enoch,
which expresses the popular apprehension of Daniel's
Messianic idea, it presents the Messiah chiefly as 'the Son
of Man,' 'the Son of David,' 'the Son of God.' We have here
the fulfilment of Old Testament law and prophecy; the
realisation of Old Testament life, faith, and hope. Third in
point of time is the Gospel by St. Luke, which, passing back
another step, gives us not only the history of the birth of
Jesus, but also that of John, 'the preparer of the way.' It
is Pauline, and addresses itself, or rather, we should say,
presents the Person of the Messiah, it may be 'to the Jew
first,' but certainly 'also to the Greek.' The term which St.
Luke, alone of all Gospel writers, [4 With the sole exception
of St. Matt. xii. 18, where the expression is a quotation
from the LXX. of Is. xlii. 1.] applies to Jesus, is that of
the or 'servant' of God, in the sense in which Isaiah has
spoken of the Messiah as the 'Ebhed Jehovah,' 'servant of the
Lord.' St. Luke's is, so to speak, the Isaiah-Gospel,
presenting the Christ in His bearing on the history of God's
Kingdom and of the world, as God's Elect Servant in Whom He
delighted. 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 Servant
of the Lord is set before us like a pyramid: at its base it
is all Israel, at its central section Israel after the Spirit
(the circumcised in heart), represented by David, the man
after God's own heart; while at its apex it is the 'Elect'
Servant, the Messiah. [2 The two fundamental principles in
the history of the Kingdom of God are selection and
development. It is surely remarkable, not strange, that these
are also the two fundamental truths in the history of that
other Kingdom of God, Nature, if modern science has read them
correctly. These two substantives would mark the facts as
ascertained; the adjectives, which are added to them by a
certain class of students, mark only their inferences from
these facts. These facts may be true, even if as yet
incomplete, although the inferences may be false. Theology
should not here rashly interfere. But whatever the ultimate
result, these two are certainly the fundamental facts in the
history of the Kingdom of God, and, marking them as such, the
devout philosopher may rest contented.] And these three
ideas, with their sequences, are presented in the third
Gospel as centring in Jesus the Messiah. By the side of this
pyramid is the other: the Son of Man, the Son of David, the
Son of God. The Servant of the Lord of Isaiah and of Luke is
the Enlightener, the Consoler, the victorious Deliverer; the
Messiah or Anointed: the Prophet, the Priest, the King.

Yet another tendency, shall we say, want?, remained, so to
speak, unmet and unsatisfied. That large world of latest and
most promising Jewish thought, whose task it seemed to bridge
over the chasm between heathenism and Judaism, the Western
Jewish world, must have the Christ presented to them. For in
every direction is He the Christ. And not only they, but that
larger Greek world, so far as Jewish Hellenism could bring it
to the threshold of the Church. This Hellenistic and Hellenic
world now stood in waiting to enter it, though as it were by
its northern porch, and to be baptized at its font. All this
must have forced itself on the mind of St. John, residing in
the midst of them at Ephesus, even as St. Paul's Epistles
contain almost as many allusions to Hellenism as to
Rabbinism. [3 The Gnostics, to whom, in the opinion of many,
so frequent references are made in the writings of St. John
and St. Paul, were only an offspring (rather, as the Germans
would term it, an Abart) of Alexandrianism on the one hand,
and on the other of Eastern notions, which are so largely
embodied in the later Kabbalah.] And so the fourth Gospel
became, not the supplement, but the complement, of the other
three. [1 A complement, not a supplement, as many critics put
it (Ewald, Weizsacker, and even Hengstenberg), least of all a
rectification (Godet, Evang. Joh. p. 633).] There is no other
Gospel more Palestinian than this in its modes of expression,
allusions, and references. Yet we must all feel how
thoroughly Hellenistic it also is in its cast, [2 Keim (Leben
Jesu von Nazara, i. a, pp. 112-114) fully recognises this;
but I entirely differ from the conclusions of his analytical
comparison of Philo with the fourth Gospel.] in what it
reports and what it omits, in short, in its whole aim; how
adapted to Hellenist wants its presentation of deep central
truths; how suitably, in the report of His Discourses, even
so far as their form is concerned, the promise was here
fulfilled, of bringing all things to remembrance whatsoever
He had said. [a St. John xiv. 26] It is the true Light which
shineth, of which the full meridian-blaze lies on the
Hellenist and Hellenic world. There is Alexandrian form of
thought not only in the whole conception, but in the Logos,
[3 The student who has carefully considered the views
expressed by Philo about the Logos, and analysed, as in the
Appendix, the passages in the Targumim in which the word
Memra occurs, cannot fail to perceive the immense difference
in the presentation of the Logos by St. John. Yet M. Renan,
in an article in the 'Contemporary Review' for September
1877, with utter disregard of the historical evidence on the
question, maintains not only the identity of these three sets
of ideas, but actually grounds on it his argument against the
authenticity of the fourth Gospel. Considering the importance
of the subject, it is not easy to speak with moderation of
assertions so bold based on statements so entirely
inaccurate.] and in His presentation as the Light, the Life,
the Wellspring of the world. [4 Dr. Bucher, whose book, Des
Apostels Johannes Lehre vom Logos, deserves careful perusal,
tries to trace the reason of these peculiarities as indicated
in the Prologue of the fourth Gospel. Bucher differentiates
at great length between the Logos of Philo and of the fourth
Gospel. He sums up his views by stating that in the Prologue
of St. John the Logos is presented as the fulness of Divine
Light and Life. This is, so to speak, the theme, while the
Gospel history is intended to present the Logos as the giver
of this Divine Light and Life. While the other Evangelists
ascend from the manifestation to the idea of the Son of God,
St. John descends from the idea of the Logos, as expressed in
the Prologue, to its concrete realisation in His history. The
latest tractate (at the present writing, 1882) on the Gospel
of St. John, by Dr. Muller, Die Johann. Frage, gives a good
summary of the argument on both sides, and deserves the
careful attention of students of the question.] But these
forms are filled in the fourth Gospel with quite other
substance. God is not afar off, uncognisable by man, without
properties, without name. He is the Father. Instead of a
nebulous reflection of the Deity we have the Person of the
Logos; not a Logos with the two potencies of goodness and
power, but full of grace and truth. The Gospel of St. John
also begins with a 'Bereshith', but it is the theological,
not the cosmic Bereshith, when the Logos was with God and was
God. Matter is not pre-existent; far less is it evil. St.
John strikes the pen through Alexandrianism when he lays it
down as the fundamental fact of New Testament history that
'the Logos was made flesh,' just as St. Paul does when he
proclaims the great mystery of 'God manifest in the flesh.'
Best of all, it is not by a long course of study, nor by
wearing discipline, least of all by an inborn good
disposition, that the soul attains the new life, but by a
birth from above, by the Holy Ghost, and by simple faith
which is brought within reach of the fallen and the lost. [1
I cannot agree with Weiss (u. s., p. 122) that the great
object of the fourth Gospel was to oppose the rising Gnostic
movement, This may have been present to the Apostle's mind,
as evidenced in his Epistle, but the object in view could not
have been mainly, nor even primarily, negative and
controversial.]

Philo had no successor. In him Hellenism had completed its
cycle. Its message and its mission were ended. Henceforth it
needed, like Apollos, its great representative in the
Christian Church, two things: the baptism of John to the
knowledge of sin and need, and to have the way of God more
perfectly expounded. [a Acts xviii 24-28] On the other hand,
Eastern Judaism had entered with Hillel on a new stage. This
direction led farther and farther away from that which the
New Testament had taken in following up and unfolding the
spiritual elements of the Old. That development was incapable
of transformation or renovation. It must go on to its final
completion, and be either true, or else be swept away and
destroyed.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

ALEXANDRIA AND ROME, THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN THE CAPITALS
OF WESTERN CIVILISATION.

CHAPTER V

We have spoken of Alexandria as the capital of the Jewish
world 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, the
thought, and the influence of Western Judaism centred in the
modern capital of the land of the Pharaohs. In those days
Greece was the land of the past, to which the student might
resort as the home of beauty and of art, the timehallowed
temple of thought and of poetry. But it was also the land of
desolateness and of ruins, where fields of corn waved over
the remains of classic antiquity. The ancient Greeks had in
great measure sunk to a nation of traders, in keen
competition with the Jews. Indeed, Roman sway had levelled
the ancient world, and buried its national characteristics.
It was otherwise in the far East; it was otherwise also in
Egypt. 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 than
now, was it the dream-land of untold attractions to the
traveller. The ancient, mysterious Nile still rolled its
healing waters out into the blue sea, where (so it was
supposed) they changed its taste within a radius farther than
the eye could reach. To be gently borne in bark or ship on
its waters, to watch the strange vegetation and fauna of its
banks; to gaze beyond, where they merged into the trackless
desert; to wander under the shade of its gigantic monuments,
or within the wierd avenues of its colossal temples, to see
the scroll of mysterious hieroglyphics; to note the sameness
of manner and of people as of old, and to watch the unique
rites of its ancient religion, this was indeed to be again in
the old far-away world, and that amidst a dreaminess
bewitching the senses, and a gorgeousness dazzling the
imagination. [1 What charm Egypt had for the Romans may be
gathered 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 of
Alexandria, the only safe shelter all along the coast of Asia
and Africa. Quite thirty miles out the silver sheen of the
lighthouse on the island of Pharos [1 This immense lighthous
was square up to the middle, then covered by an octagon, the
top being round. The last recorded repairs to this
magnificent structure of blocks of marble were made in the
year 1303 of our era.], connected by a mole with Alexandria,
is burning like a star on the edge of the horizon. Now we
catch sight of the palmgroves of Pharos; presently the anchor
rattles and grates on the sand, and we are ashore. What crowd
of vessels of all sizes, shapes and nationalities; what a
multitude of busy people; what a very Babel of languages;
what a commingling of old and new world civilisation; and
what a variety of wares piled up, loading or unloading!

Alexandria itself was not an old Egyptian, but a
comparatively modern, city; in Egypt and yet not of Egypt.
Everything was in character, the city, its inhabitants,
public life, art, literature, study, amusements, the very
aspect of the place. Nothing original anywhere, but
combination of all that had been in the ancient world, or
that was at the time, most fitting place therefore to be the
capital of Jewish Hellenism.

As its name indicates, the city was founded by Alexander the
Great. It was built in the form of an open fan, or rather, of
the outspread cloak of a Macedonian horseman. Altogether, it
measured (16,360 paces) 3,160 paces more than Rome; but its
houses were neither so crowded nor so many-storied. It had
been a large city when Rome was still inconsiderable, and to
the last held the second place in the Empire. One of the five
quarters into which the city was divided, and which were
named according to the first letters of the alphabet, was
wholly covered by the royal palaces, with their gardens, and
similar buildings, including the royal mausoleum, where the
body of Alexander the Great, preserved in honey, was kept in
a glass coffin. But these, and its three miles of colonnades
along the principal highway, were only some of the
magnificent architectural adornments of a city full of
palaces. The population amounted, probably, to nearly a
million, drawn from the East and West by trade, the
attractions of wealth, the facilities for study, or the
amusements of a singularly frivolous city. A strange mixture
of elements among the people, combining the quickness and
versatility 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. Above
all, it was a commercial city, furnished with an excellent
harbour, or rather with five harbours. A special fleet
carried, as tribute, from Alexandria to Italy, two-tenths of
the corn produce of Egypt, which sufficed to feed the capital
for four months of the year. A magnificent fleet it was, from
the light quick sailer to those immense corn-ships which
hoisted a special flag, and whose early arrival was awaited
at Puteoli [1 The average passage from Alexandria to Puteoli
was twelve days, the ships touching at Malta and in Sicily.
It was in such a ship, the 'Castor and Pollux' carrying
wheat, that St. Paul sailed from Malta to Puteoli, where it
would be among the first arrivals of the season.] with more
eagerness than that of any modern ocean-steamer. [2 They
bore, painted on the two sides of the prow, the emblems of
the gods to whom they were dedicated, and were navigated by
Egyptian pilots, the most reowned in the world. One of these
vessels is described as 180 by 45 feet and of about 1,575
tons, and is computed to have returned to its owner nearly
3,000l. annually. (Comp. Friedlander, u.s. vol. ii. p. 131,
&c.) And yet these were small ships compared with those built
for the conveyance of marble blocks and columns, and
especially 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.] The
commerce of India was in the hands of the Alexandrian
shippers. [3 The journey took aboutthree months, either up
the Nile, thence by caravan, and again by sea; or else
perhaps by the Ptolemy Canal and the Red Sea.] Since the days
of the Ptolemies the Indian trade alone had increased
sixfold. [4 It included gold-dust, ivory, and mother-of-pearl
from the interior of Africa, spices from Arabia, pearls from
the Gulf of Persia, precious stones and byssus from India,
and silk from China.] Nor was the native industry
inconsiderable. Linen goods, to suit the tastes or costumes
of all countries; woolen stuffs of every hue, some curiously
wrought with figures, and even scenes; glass of every shade
and in every shape; paper from the thinnest sheet to the
coarsest packing paper; essences, perfumeries, such were the
native products. However idly or luxuriously inclined, still
every one seemed busy, in a city where (as the Emperor
Hadrian expressed it) 'money was the people's god;' and every
one seemed well-to-do in his own way, from the waif in the
streets, who with little trouble to himself could pick up
sufficient to go to the restaurant and enjoy a comfortable
dinner of fresh or smoked fish with garlic, and his pudding,
washed down with the favourite Egyptian barley beer, up to
the millionaire banker, who owned a palace in the city and a
villa by the canal that connected Alexandria with Canobus.
What a jostling crowd of all nations in the streets, in the
market (where, according to the joke of a contemporary,
anything might be got except snow), or by the harbours; what
cool shades, delicious retreats, vast halls, magnificent
libraries, where the savants of Alexandria assembled and
taught every conceivable branch of learning, and its
far-famed physicians prescribed for the poor consumptive
patients sent thither from all parts of Italy! What bustle
and noise among that ever excitable, chatty conceited, vain,
pleasure-loving multitude, whose highest enjoyment was the
theatre and singers; what scenes on that long canal to
Canobus, lined with luxurious inns, where barks full of
pleasure-seekers revelled in the cool shade of the banks, or
sped to Canobus, that scene of all dissipation and luxury,
proverbial even in those days! And yet, close by, on the
shores of Lake Mareotis, as if in grim contrast, were the
chosen retreats of that sternly ascetic Jewish party, the
Therapeutae, [a On theexistence of the Therapeutes comp. Art.
Philo in Smith & Wace's Dict. of Chr. Biogr. vol. iv.] whose
views and practices in so many points were kindred to those
of the Essenes in Palestine!

This sketch of Alexandria will help us to understand the
surroundings of the large mass of Jews settled in the
Egyptian capital. Altogether more than an eighth of the
population of the country (one million in 7,800,000) was
Jewish. Whether or not a Jewish colony had gone into Egypt at
the time of Nebuchadnezzar, or even earlier, the great mass
of its residents had been attracted by Alexander the Great,
[b Mommsen (Rom. Gesch. v. p. 489) ascribes this rather to
Ptolemy I.] who had granted the Jews equally exceptional
privileges with the Macedonians. The later troubles of
Palestine under the Syrian kings greatly swelled their
number, the more so that the Ptolemies, with one exception,
favoured them. Originally a special quarter had been assigned
to the Jews in the city, the 'Delta' by the eastern harbour
and the Canobus canal, probably alike to keep the community
separate, and from its convenience for commercial purposes.
The priveleges which the Ptolemies had accorded to the Jews
were confirmed, and even enlarged, by Julius Caesar. The
export trade in grain was now in their hands, and the harbour
and river police committed to their charge. Two quarters in
the city are named as specially Jewish, not, however, in the
sense 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, of
which even the Palestinians boasted, was the great central
Synagogue, built in the shape of a basilica, with double
colonnade, and so large that it needed a signal for those
most distant to know the proper moment for the responses. The
different trade guilds sat there together, so that a stranger
would at once know where to find Jewish employers or
fellow-workmen. [c Sukk. 51 b.] In the choir of this Jewish
cathedral stood seventy chairs of state, encrusted with
precious stones, for the seventy elders who constituted the
eldership of Alexandria, on the model of the great Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem.

It is a strange, almost inexplicable fact, that the Egyptian
Jews had actually built a schismatic Temple. During the
terrible Syrian persecutions in Palestine Onias, the son of
the murdered High-Priest Onias III., had sought safety in
Egypt. Ptolemy Philometor not only received him kindly, but
gave a disused heathen temple in the town of Leontopolis for
a Jewish sanctuary. Here a new Aaronic priesthood ministered,
their support being derived from the revenues of the district
around. The new Temple, however, resembled not that of
Jerusalem either in outward appearance nor in all its
internal fittings. [1 Instead of the seven-branched golden
candlestick there was a golden lamp, suspended from a chain
of the same metal.] At first the Egyptian Jews were very
proud of their new sanctuary, and professed to see in it the
fulfilment of the prediction, [a is xix. 18.] that five
cities in the land of Egypt should speak the language of
Canaan, of which one was to be called Ir-ha-Heres, which the
LXX. (in their original form, or by some later emendation)
altered into 'the city of righteousness.' This temple
continued from about 160 B.C. to shortly after the
destruction of Jerusalem. It could scarcely be called a rival
to that on Mount Moriah, since the Egyptian Jews also owned
that of Jerusalem as their central sanctuary, to which they
made pilgrimages and brought their contributions, [b Philo,
ii, 646, ed. Mangey.] while the priests at Leontopolis,
before marrying, always consulted the official archives in
Jerusalem to ascertain the purity of descent of their
intended wives. [c Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 7.] The Palestinians
designated it contemptuously as 'the house of Chonyi'
(Onias), and declared the priesthood of Leontopolis incapable
of serving in Jerusalem, although on a par with those who
were disqualified only by some bodily defect. Offerings
brought in Leontopolis were considered null, unless in the
case of vows to which the name of this Temple had been
expressly attached. [d Men. xiii. 10, and the Gemara, 109 a
and b.] This qualified condemnation seems, however, strangely
mild, except on the supposition that the statements we have
quoted only date from a time when both Temples had long
passed away.

Nor were such feelings unreasonable. The Egyptian Jews had
spread on all sides, southward to Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and
westward to, and beyond, the province of Cyrene. In the city
of that name they formed one of the four classes into which
its inhabitants were divided. [e Strabo in Jos. Ant. xiv. 7,
2.] A Jewish inscription at Berenice, apparently dating from
the year 13 B.C., shows that the Cyrenian Jews formed a
distinct community under nine 'rulers' of their own, who no
doubt attended to the communal affairs, not always an easy
matter, since the Cyrenian Jews were noted, if not for
turbulence, yet for strong anti-Roman Roman feeling, which
more than once was cruelly quenched in blood. [1 Could there
have been any such meaning in laying the Roman cross which
Jesus had to bear upon a Cyrenian (St. Luke xxiii. 26)? A
symbolical meaning it certainly has, as we remember that the
last Jewish rebellion (132-135 A.D.), which had Bar Cochba
for its Messiah, first broke out in Cyrene. What terrible
vengeance was taken on those who followed the false Christ,
cannot here be told.] Other inscriptions prove, [2 Jewish
inscriptions have also been found in Mauritania and Algiers.]
that in other places of their dispersion also the Jews had
their own Archontes or 'rulers,' while the special direction
of public worship was always entrusted to the Archisynagogos,
or 'chief ruler of the Synagogue,' both titles occurring side
by side. [3 On a tombstone at Capua (Mommsen, Inscr. R. Neap.
3,657, apud Schurer, p 629). The subject is of great
importance as illustrating the rule of the Synagogue in the
days of Christ. Another designation on the gravestones seems
to refer solely to age, one being described as 110 years
old.] It is, to say the least, very doubtful, whether the
High-Priest at Leontopolis was ever regarded as, in any real
sense, the head of the Jewish community in Egypt. [4 Jost,
Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 345.] In Alexandria, the Jews were
under the rule of a Jewish Ethnarch, [5 Marquardt (Rom.
Staatsverwalt. vol. i. p. 297). Note 5 suggests that may here
mean 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 seem
to have been continued. (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2.)] was
transferred, 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, was
that of the Alabarch, or rather Arabarch, who was set over
the 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 may
judge of the position of the wealthy Jewish families in
Alexandria by that of this Alabarch, their influence must
have been very great. The firm of Alexander was probably as
rich as the great Jewish banking and shipping house of
Saramalla in Antioch. [c Jos. Antxiv. 13. 5; War. i. 13, 5]
Its chief was entrusted with the management of the affairs of
Antonia, the much respected sister-in-law of the Emperor
Tiberius. [d Ant. xix 5. 1] It was a small thing for such a
man to lend King Agrippa, when his fortunes were very low, a
sum of about 7,000l. with which to resort to Italy, [c Ant.
xviii. 6.3] since he advanced it on the guarantee of
Agrippa's wife, whom he highly esteemed, and at the same time
made provision that the money should not be all spent before
the Prince met the Emperor. Besides, he had his own plans in
the matter. Two of his sons married daughters of King
Agrippa; while a third, at the price of apostasy, rose
successively to the posts of Procurator of Palestine, and
finally of Governor of Egypt. [f Ant. xix. 5. 1; xx. 5. 3]
The Temple at Jerusalem bore evidence of the wealth and
munificence of this Jewish millionaire. The gold and silver
with which the nine massive gates were covered, which led
into the Temple, were the gift of the great Alexandrian
banker.

The possession of such wealth, coupled no doubt with pride
and self-assertion, and openly spoken contempt of the
superstitions around, [1 Comp.for example, such a trenchant
chapter as Baruch vi., or the 2nd Fragm. of the Erythr.
Sibyl, vv. 21-33.] would naturally excite the hatred of the
Alexandria populace against the Jews. The greater number of
those silly stories about the origin, early history, and
religion of the Jews, which even the philosophers and
historians of Rome record as genuine, originated in Egypt. A
whole series of writers, beginning with Manetho, [a Probably
about 200 B.C] made it their business to give a kind of
historical travesty of the events recorded in the books of
Moses. The boldest of these scribblers was Apion, to whom
Josephus replied, a world-famed charlatan and liar, who wrote
or lectured, with equal presumption and falseness, on every
conceivable object. He was just the man to suit the
Alexandrians, on whom his unblushing assurance imposed. In
Rome he soon found his level, and the Emperor Tiberius well
characterised the irrepressible boastful talker as the
'tinkling cymbal of the world.' He had studied, seen, and
heard everything, even, on three occasions, the mysterious
sound on the Colossus of Memnon, as the sun rose upon it! At
least, so he graved upon the Colossus itself, for the
information of all generations. [2 Comp. Friedlander, u. s.
ii. p. 155.] Such was the man on whom the Alexandrians
conferred the freedom of their city, to whom they entrusted
their most important affairs, and whom they extolled as the
victorious, the laborious, the new Homer. [3 A very good
sketch of Apion is given by Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg. vol.
ii. pp. 187-195. There can be little doubt, that the popular
favour was partly due to Apion's virulent attacks upon the
Jews. His grotesque accounts of their history and religion
held them up to contempt. But his real object was to rouse
the fanaticism of the populace against the Jews. Every year,
so he told them, it was the practice of the Jews to get hold
of some unfortunate Hellene, whom ill-chance might bring into
their hands, to fatten him for the year, and then to
sacrifice him, partaking of his entrials, and burying the
body, while during these horrible rites they took a fearful
oath of perpetual enmity to the Greeks. These were the people
who battened on the wealth of Alexandria, who had usurped
quarters of the city to which they had no right, and claimed
exceptional privileges; a people who had proved traitors to,
and the ruin of every one who had trusted them. 'If the
Jews,' he exclaimed, 'are citizens of Alexandria, why do they
not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians?' And, if they
wished to enjoy the protection of the Caesars, why did they
not erect statues, and pay Divine honor to them? [1 Jos. Ag.
Ap. ii. 4, 5, 6.] There is nothing strange in these appeals
to the fanaticism of mankind. In one form or another, they
have only too often been repeated in all lands and ages, and,
alas! by the representatives of all creeds. Well might the
Jews, as Philo mourns, [a Leg. ad Caj. ed. Frcf.] wish no
better for themselves than to be treated like other men!

We have already seen, that the ideas entertained in Rome
about the Jews were chiefly derived from Alexandrian sources.
But it is not easy to understand, how a Tacitus, Cicero, or
Pliny could have credited such absurdities as that the Jews
had come from Crete (Mount Ida, Idaei = Judaei), been
expelled on account of leprosy from Egypt, and emigrated
under an apostate priest, Moses; or that the Sabbath-rest
originated in sores, which had obliged the wanderers to stop
short on the seventh day; or that the Jews worshipped the
head of an ass, or else Bacchus; that their abstinence from
swine's flesh was due to remembrance and fear of leprosy, or
else to the worship of that animal, and other puerilities of
the like kind. [b Comp. Tacitus, Hist. v. 2-4; Plut. Sympos.
iv. 5] The educated Roman regarded the Jew with a mixture of
contempt and anger, all the more keen that, according to his
notions, the Jew had, since his subjection to Rome, no longer
a right to his religion; and all the more bitter that, do
what he might, that despised race confronted him everywhere,
with a religion so uncompromising as to form a wall of
separation, and with rites so exclusive as to make them not
only strangers, but enemies. Such a phenomenon was nowhere
else to be encountered. The Romans were intensely practical.
In their view, political life and religion were not only
intertwined, but the one formed part of the other. A religion
apart from a political organisation, or which offered not, as
a quid pro quo, some direct return from the Deity to his
votaries, seemed utterly inconceivable. Every country has its
own religion, argued Cicero, in his appeal for Flaccus. So
long as Jerusalem was unvaquished, Judaism might claim
toleration; but had not the immortal gods shown what they
thought of it, when the Jewish race was conquered? This was a
kind of logic that appealed to the humblest in the crowd,
which thronged to hear the great orator defending his client,
among others, against the charge of preventing the transport
from Asia to Jerusalem of the annual Temple-tribute. This was
not a popular accusation to bring against a man in such an
assembly. And as the Jews, who, to create a distrubance, had
(we are told) distributed themselves among the audience in
such numbers, that Cicero somewhat rhetorically declared, he
would fain have spoken with bated breath, so as to be only
audible to the judges, listened to the great orator, they
must have felt a keen pang shoot to their hearts while he
held them up to the scorn of the heathen, and touched, with
rough finger, their open sore, as he urged the ruin of their
nation as the one unanswerable argument, which Materialism
could bring against the religion of the Unseen.

And that religion, was it not, in the words of Cicero, a
'barbarous superstition,' and were not its adherents, as
Pliny had it, [a Hist. Nat. xiii. 4] 'a race distinguished
for its contempt of the gods'? To begin with their theology.
The Roman philosopher would sympathise with disbelief of all
spiritual realities, as, on the other hand, he could
understand the popular modes of worship and superstition. But
what was to be said for a worship of something quite unseen,
an adoration, as it seemed to him, of the clouds and of the
sky, without any visible symbol, conjoined with an utter
rejection of every other form of religion, Asiatic, Egyptian,
Greek, Roman, and the refusal even to pay the customary
Divine honor to the Caesars, as the incarnation of Roman
power? Next, as to their rites. Foremost among them was the
initiatory rite of circumcision, a constant subject for
coarse jests. What could be the meaning of it; or of what
seemed like some ancestral veneration for the pig, or dread
of it, since they made it a religious duty not to partake of
its flesh? Their Sabbath-observance, however it had
originated, was merely an indulgence in idleness. The fast
young Roman literati would find their amusement in wandering
on the Sabbath-eve through the tangled, narrow streets of the
Ghetto, watching how the dim lamp within shed its unsavory
light, while the inmates mumbled prayers 'with blanched
lips;' [b Persius v. 184] or they would, like Ovid, seek in
the Synagogue occasion for their dissolute amusements. The
Thursday fast was another target for their wit. In short, at
the best, the Jew was a constant theme of popular merriment,
and the theatre would resound with laughter as his religion
was lampooned, no matter how absurd the stories, or how poor
the punning. [1 Comp. the quotation of such scenes in the
Introd. to the Midrash on Lamentations.]

And then, as the proud Roman passed on the Sabbath through
the streets, Judaism would obtrude itself upon his notice, by
the shops that were shut, and by the strange figures that
idly moved about in holiday attire. They were strangers in a
strange land, not only without sympathy with what passed
around, but with marked contempt and abhorrence of it, while
there was that about their whole bearing, which expressed the
unspoken feeling, that the time of Rome's fall, and of their
own supremacy, was at hand. To put the general feeling in the
words of Tacitus, the Jews kept close together, and were ever
most liberal to one another; but they were filled with bitter
hatred of all others. They would neither eat nor sleep with
strangers; and the first thing which they taught their
proselytes was to despise the gods, to renounce their own
country, and to rend the bonds which had bound them to
parents, children or kindred. To be sure, there was some
ground of distorted truth in these charges. For, the Jew, as
such, was only intended for Palestine. By a necessity, not of
his own making, he was now, so to speak, the negative element
in the heathen world; yet one which, do what he might, would
always obtrude itself upon public notice. But the Roman
satirists went further. They accused the Jews of such hatred
of all other religionists, that they would not even show the
way to any who worshipped otherwise, nor point out the
cooling spring to the thirsty.[a Juv. Sat. xiv. 103, 104]
According to Tacitus, there was a political and religious
reason for this. In order to keep the Jews separate from all
other nations, Moses had given them rites, contrary to those
of any other race, that they might regard as unholy what was
sacred to others, and as lawful what they held in
abomination. [b Hist. v. 13] Such a people deserved neither
consideration nor pity; and when the historian tells how
thousands of their number had been banished by Tiberius to
Sardinia, he dismisses the probability of their perishing in
that severe climate with the cynical remark, that it entailed
a 'poor loss' [c Ann. ii.85, Comp. Suet. Tib. 36] (vile
damnum).

Still, the Jew was there in the midst of them. It is
impossible to fix the date when the first Jewish wanderers
found their way to the capital of the world. We know, that in
the wars under Pompey, Cassius, and Antonius, many were
brought captive to Rome, and sold as slaves. In general, the
Republican party was hostile, the Caesars were friendly, to
the Jews. The Jewish slaves in Rome proved an unprofitable
and troublesome acquisition. They clung so tenaciously to
their ancestral customs, that it was impossible to make them
conform to the ways of heathen households. [d Philo, Leg. ad
Caj. ed. Frcf. p. 101] How far they would carry their passive
resistance, appears from a story told by Josephus, [e Life 3]
about some Jewish priests of his acquaintance, who, during
their captivity in Rome, refused to eat anything but figs and
nuts, so as to avoid the defilement of Gentile food. [1
Lutterbeck (Neutest. Lehrbegr. p. 119), following up the
suggestions 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 masters
deemed 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. Of
course they were, as always, industrious, sober, pushing. In
course of time many of them acquired wealth. By-and-by Jewish
immigrants of greater distinction swelled their number. Still
their social position was inferior to that of their
co-religionists in other lands. A Jewish population so large
as 40,000 in the time of Augustus, and 60,000 in that of
Tiberius, would naturally included all ranks, merchants,
bankers, literati, even actors. [1 Comp., for example, Mart.
xi. 94; Jos. Life 3.] In a city which offered such
temptations, they would number among them those of every
degree of religious profession; nay, some who would not only
imitate the habits of those around, but try to outdo their
gross licentiousness. [2 Martialis, u. s. The 'Anchialus' by
whom the poet would have the Jew swear, is a corruption of
Anochi Elohim ('I am God') in Ex. xx. 2. Comp. Ewald, Gesch.
Isr. vol. vii. p. 27.] Yet, even so, they would vainly
endeavor to efface the hateful mark of being Jews.

Augustus had assigned to the Jews as their special quarter
the 'fourteenth region' across the Tiber, which stretched
from the slope of the Vatican onwards and across the
Tiber-island, where the boats from Ostia were wont to unload.
This seems to have been their poor quarter, chiefly inhabited
by hawkers, sellers of matches, [a Mart. i.41; xii. 57]
glass, old clothes and second-hand wares. The Jewish
burying-ground in that quarter [3 Described by Bosio, but
since unknown. Comp. Friedlander, u. s. vol. iii. pp. 510,
511.] gives evidence of their condition. The whole
appointments and the graves are mean. There is neither marble
nor any trace of painting, unless it be a rough
representation of the seven-branched candlestick in red
coloring. Another Jewish quarter was by the Porta Capena,
where the Appian Way entered the city. Close by, the ancient
sanctuary of Egeria was utilized at the time of Juvenal [4
Sat. iii.13; vi. 542.] as a Jewish hawking place. But there
must have been richer Jews also in that neighborhood, since
the burying-place there discovered has paintings, some even
of mythological figures, of which the meaning has not yet
been ascertained. A third Jewish burying-ground was near the
ancient Christian catacombs.

But indeed, the Jewish residents in Rome must have spread
over every quarter of the city, even the best, to judge by
the location of their Synagogues. From inscriptions, we have
been made acquainted not only with the existence, but with
the names, of not fewer than seven of these Synagogues. Three
of them respectively bear the names of Augustus, Agrippa, and
Volumnius, either as their patrons, or because the
worshippers were chiefly their attendants and clients; while
two of them derived their names from the Campus Martius, and
the quarter Subura in which they stood. [1 Comp. Friedlander,
u. s. vol. iii. p.510.] The 'Synagoge Elaias' may have been
so called from bearing on its front the device of an
olive-tree, a favourite, and in Rome specially significant,
emblem of Israel, whose fruit, crushed beneath heavy weight,
would yield the precious oil by which the Divine light would
shed its brightness through the night of heathendom. [2 Midr.
R. on Ex. 36.] Of course, there must have been other
Synagogues besides those whose names have been discovered.

One other mode of tracking the footsteps of Israel's
wanderings seems strangely significant. It is by tracing
their records among the dead, reading them on broken
tombstones, and in ruined monuments. They are rude, and the
inscriptions, most of them in bad Greek, or still worse
Latin, none in Hebrew, are like the stammering of strangers.
Yet what a contrast between the simple faith and earnest hope
which they express, and the grim proclamation of utter
disbelief in any future to the soul, not unmixed with
language of coarsest materialism, on the graves of so many of
the polished Romans ! Truly the pen of God in history has, as
so often, ratified the sentence which a nation had pronounced
upon itself. That civilisation was doomed which could
inscribe over its dead such words as: 'To eternal sleep;' 'To
perpetual rest;' or more coarsely express it thus, 'I was
not, and I became; I was, and am no more. Thus much is true;
who says other, lies; for I shall not be,' adding, as it were
by way of moral, 'And thou who livest, drink, play, come.'
Not so did God teach His people; and, as we pick our way
among these broken stones, we can understand how a religion,
which proclaimed a hope so different, must have spoken to the
hearts of many even at Rome, and much more, how that blessed
assurance of life and immortality, which Christianity
afterwards brought, could win its thousands, though it were
at the cost of poverty, shame, torture, and the arena.

Wandering from graveyard to graveyard, and deciphering the
records of the dead, we can almost read the history of Israel
in the days of the Caesars, or when Paul the prisoner set
foot on the soil of Italy. When St. Paul, on the journey of
the 'Castor and Pollux,' touched at Syracuse, he would,
during his stay of three days, find himself in the midst of a
Jewish community, as we learn from an inscription. When he
disembarked at Puteoli, he was in the oldest Jewish
settlement next to that of Rome, [a Jos. Ant. xvii. 12. 1;
War ii. 7. 1] where the loving hospitality of Christian
Israelites constrained him to tarry over a Sabbath. As he
'went towards Rome,' and reached Capua, he would meet Jews
there, as we infer from the tombstone of one 'Alfius Juda,'
who had been 'Archon' of the Jews, and 'Archisynagogus' in
Capua. As he neared the city, he found in Anxur (Terracina) a
Synagogue. [1 Comp. Cassel, in Ersch u. Gruber's Encyclop. 2d
sect. vol. xxvii. p. 147.] In Rome itself the Jewish
community was organized as in other places. [b Acts xxviii.
17] It sounds strange, as after these many centuries we again
read the names of the Archons of their various Synagogues,
all Roman, such as Claudius, Asteris, Julian (who was Archon
alike of the Campesian and the Agrippesian Synagogue priest,
the son of Julian the Archisynagogus, or chief of the
eldership of the Augustesian Synagogue). And so in other
places. On these tombstones we find names of Jewish
Synagogue-dignitaries, in every centre of population, in
Pompeii, in Venusia, the birthplace of Horace; in Jewish
catacombs; and similarly Jewish inscriptions in Africa, in
Asia, in the islands of the Mediterranean, in AEgina, in
Patrae, in Athens. Even where as yet records of their early
settlements have not been discovered, we still infer their
presence, as we remember the almost incredible extent of
Roman commerce, which led to such large settlements in
Britain, or as we discover among the tombstones those of
'Syrian' merchants, as in Spain (where St. Paul hoped to
preach, no doubt, also to his own countrymen), throughout
Gaul, and even in the remotest parts of Germany. [2 Comp.
Friedlander, u. s. vol. ii. pp. 17-204 passim.] Thus the
statements of Josephus and of Philo, as to the dispersion of
Israel throughout all lands of the known world, are fully
borne out.

But the special importance of the Jewish community in Rome
lay in its contiguity to the seat of the government of the
world, where every movement could be watched and influenced,
and where it could lend support to the wants and wishes of
that compact body which, however widely scattered, was one in
heart and feeling, in thought and purpose, in faith and
practice, in suffering and in prosperity. [3 It was probably
this unity of Israelitish interests which Cicero had in view
(Pro Flacco, 28) when he took such credit for his boldness in
daring to stand up against the Jews, unless, indeed, the
orator only meant to make a point in favour of his client.]
Thus, when upon the death of Herod a deputation from
Palestine appeared in the capital to seek the restoration of
their Theocracy under a Roman protectorate, [a Jos. Ant.
xvii. 11. 1; War. ii. 6. 1] no less than 8,000 of the Roman
Jews joined it. And in case of need they could find powerful
friends, not only among the Herodian princes, but among court
favourites who were Jews, like the actor of whom Josephus
speaks; [b Life 3] among those who were inclined towards
Judaism, like Poppaea, the dissolute wife of Nero, whose
coffin as that of a Jewess was laid among the urns of the
emperors; [1 Schiller (Gesch. d. Rom. Kaiserreichs, p. 583)
denies that Poppaea was a proselyte. It is, indeed, true, as
he argues, that the fact of her entombment affords no
absolute evidence of this, if taken by itself; but comp. Jos.
Ant. xx. 8. 11; Life 3.] or among real proselytes, like those
of all ranks who, from superstition or conviction, had
identified themselves with the Synagogue. [2 The question of
Jewish 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.] banished
the Jews from Rome and sent 4,000 of their number to fight
the banditti in Sardinia, the Jews enjoyed not only perfect
liberty, but exceptional privileges. In the reign of Caesar
and of Augustus we have quite a series of edicts, which
secured the full exercise of their religion and their
communal rights. [3 Comp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, passim, and xvi.
6. These edicts are collated in Krebs. Decreta Romanor. pro
Jud. facta, with long comments by the author, and by
Levyssohn.] In virtue of these they were not to be disturbed
in their religious ceremonies, nor in the observance of their
sabbaths and feasts. The annual Temple-tribute was allowed to
be transported to Jerusalem, and the alienation of these
funds by the civil magistrates treated as sacrilege. As the
Jews objected to bear arms, or march, on the Sabbath, they
were freed from military service. On similar grounds, they
were not obliged to appear in courts of law on their holy
days. Augustus even ordered that, when the public
distribution of corn or of money among the citizens fell on a
Sabbath, the Jews were to receive their share on the
following day. In a similar spirit the Roman authorities
confirmed a decree by which the founder of Antioch, Seleucus
I. (Nicator), [d Ob.280 B.C.] had granted the Jews the right
of citizenship in all the cities of Asia Minor and Syria
which he had built, and the privilege of receiving, instead
of the oil that was distributed, which their religion forbade
them to use, [e Ab. Sar ii. 6] an equivalent in money. [f
Jos. Ant. xii. 3. 1] These rights were maintained by
Vespasian and Titus even after the last Jewish war,
notwithstanding the earnest remonstrances of these cities. No
wonder, that at the death of Caesar [g 44 B.C.] the Jews of
Rome gathered for many nights, waking strange feelings of awe
in the city, as they chanted in mournful melodies their
Psalms around the pyre on which the body of their benefactor
had 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 time
against all foreign rites, which had been roused by the vile
conduct of the priests of Isis towards a Roman matron, and
was again provoked by a gross imposture upon Fulvia, a noble
Roman proselyte, on the part of some vagabond Rabbis. But
even so, there is no reason to believe that literally all
Jews had left Rome. Many would find means to remain secretly
behind. At any rate, twenty years afterwards Philo found a
large community there, ready to support him in his mission on
behalf of his Egyptian countrymen. Any temporary measures
against the Jews can, therefore, scarcely be regarded as a
serious interference with their privileges, or a cessation of
the Imperial favour shown to them.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE
WEST THEIR UNION IN THE GREAT HOPE OF THE COMING DELIVERER.

CHAPTER VI

It was not only in the capital of the Empire that the Jews
enjoyed the rights of Roman citizenship. Many in Asia Minor
could boast of the same privilege. [a Jos. Ant. xiv. 10,
passim; Acts xxii. 25-29] The Seleucidic rulers of Syria had
previously bestowed kindred privileges on the Jews in many
places. 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 a
civil government of their own, under archons of their
choosing, quite independent of the rule and tribunals of the
cities in which they lived. As instances, we may mention the
Jews of Sardis, Ephesus, Delos, and apparently also of
Antioch. But, whether legally entitled to it or not, they
probably everywhere claimed the right of self-government, and
exercised it, except in times of persecution. But, as already
stated, they also possessed, besides this, at least in many
places, the privileges of Asiatic citizenship, to the same
extent as their heathen fellow-citizens. This twofold status
and jurisdiction might have led to serious complications, if
the archons had not confined their authority to strictly
communal interests, [b Co. np. Acts xix. 14 ix. 2] without
interfering with the ordinary administration of justice, and
the Jews willingly submitted to the sentences pronounced by
their own tribunals.

But, in truth, they enjoyed even more than religious liberty
and communal privileges. It was quite in the spirit of the
times, that potentates friendly to Israel bestowed largesses
alike on the Temple in Jerusalem, and on the Synagogues in
the provinces. The magnificent porch of the Temple was
'adorned' with many such 'dedicated gifts.' Thus, we read of
repeated costly offerings by the Ptolemies, of a golden
wreath which Sosius offered after he had taken Jerusalem in
conjunction with Herod, and of rich flagons which Augustus
and 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 leaving
Jerusalem unvisited on his journey from Egypt to Syria, yet
he himself made provision for a daily sacrifice on his
behalf, which only ceased when the last war against Rome was
proclaimed. [a Jos. War ii. 10. 4; ii. 17.] Even the
circumstance that there was a 'Court of the Gentiles,' with
marble 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. 'The
Temple: its Ministry and Services in the Time of Christ,' p.
24.] proves that the Sanctuary was largely attended by others
than Jews, or, in the words of Josephus, that 'it was held in
reverence by nations from the ends of the earth.' [b War iv.
4. 3; comp. War ii. 17. 2-4]

In Syria also, where, according to Josephus, the largest
number of Jews lived, [2 War, vii. 3. 3.] they experienced
special favour. In Antioch their rights and immunities were
recorded on tables of brass. [3 War, vii. 5. 2.]

But, indeed, the capital of Syria was one of their favourite
resorts. It will be remembered what importance attached to it
in the early history of the Christian Church. Antioch was the
third city of the Empire, and lay just outside what the
Rabbinists designated as 'Syria' and still regarded as holy
ground. Thus it formed, so to speak, an advanced post between
the Palestinian and the Gentile world. Its chief Synagogue
was a magnificent building, to which the successors of
Antiochus Epiphanes had given the spoils which that monarch
had brought from the Temple. The connection between Jerusalem
and Antioch was very close. All that occurred in that city
was eagerly watched in the Jewish capital. The spread of
Christianity there must have excited deep concern. Careful as
the Talmud is not to afford unwelcome information, which
might have led to further mischief, we know that three of the
principal Rabbis went thither on a mission, we can scarcely
doubt for the purpose of arresting the progress of
Christianity. Again, we find at a later period a record of
religious controversy in Antioch between Rabbis and
Christians. [4 Comp. generally Neubauer, Geogr. du Talmud,
pp. 312, 313.] Yet the Jews of Antioch were strictly
Hellenistic, and on one occasion a great Rabbi was unable to
find among them a copy of even the Book of Esther in Hebrew,
which, accordingly, he had to write out from memory for his
use in their Synagogue. A fit place this great border-city,
crowded by Hellenists, in close connection with Jerusalem, to
be the birthplace of the name 'Christian,' to send forth a
Paul on his mission to the Gentile world, and to obtain for
it a charter of citizenship far nobler than that of which the
record was graven on tablets of brass.

But, whatever privileges Israel might enjoy, history records
an almost continuous series of attempts, on the part of the
communities among whom they lived, to deprive them not only
of their immunities, but even of their common rights.
Foremost among the reasons of this antagonism we place the
absolute contrariety between heathenism and the Synagogue,
and the social isolation which Judaism rendered necessary. It
was avowedly unlawful for the Jew even 'to keep company, or
come unto one of another nation.' [a Acts x. To quarrel with
this, was to find fault with the law and the religion which
made him a Jew. But besides, there was that pride of descent,
creed, enlightenment, and national privileges, which St. Paul
so graphically sums up as 'making boast of God and of the
law.' [b Comp. Rom. ii. 17-24 However differently they might
have expressed it, Philo and Hillel would have been at one as
to the absolute superiority of the Jew as such. Pretensions
of this kind must have been the more provocative, that the
populace at any rate envied tne prosperity which Jewish
industry, talent, and capital everywhere secured. Why should
that close, foreign corporation possess every civic right,
and yet be free from many of its burdens? Why should their
meetings be excepted from the 'collegia illicita'? why should
they alone be allowed to export part of the national wealth,
to dedicate it to their superstition in Jerusalem? The Jew
could not well feign any real interest in what gave its
greatness to Ephesus, it attractiveness to Corinth, its
influence to Athens. He was ready to profit by it; but his
inmost thought must have been contempt, and all he wanted was
quietness and protection in his own pursuits. What concern
had he with those petty squabbles, ambitions, or designs,
which agitated the turbulent populace in those Grecian
cities? what cared he for their popular meetings and noisy
discussions? The recognition of the fact that, as Jews, they
were strangers in a strange land, made them so loyal to the
ruling powers, and procured them the protection of kings and
Caesars. But it also roused the hatred of the populace.

That such should have been the case, and these widely
scattered members have been united in one body, is a unique
fact in history. Its only true explanation must be sought in
a higher Divine impulse. The links which bound them together
were: a common creed, a common life, a common centre, and a
common hope.

Wherever the Jew sojourned, or however he might differ from
his brethern, Monotheism, the Divine mission of Moses, and
the authority of the Old Testament, were equally to all
unquestioned articles of belief. It may well have been that
the Hellenistic Jew, living in the midst of a hostile,
curious, and scurrilous population, did not care to exhibit
over 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 in
Kirchheim, Septem libri Talmud. parvi Hierosol. pp. 12-17.]
which enclosed the folded parchment that, on twenty-two
lines, bore the words from Deut. iv. 4-9 and xi. 13-21, or to
call 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.] or
phylacteries on his left arm and forehead, or even to make
observable 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. [The
Tephillin enclosed a transcript of Exod. xiii. 1-10, 11-16;
Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21. The Tsitsith were worn in obedience
to 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 time
not have been deemed incumbent on every Jew. [It is
remarkable that Aristeas seems to speak only of the
phylacteries on the arm, and Philo of those for the head,
while the LXX. takes the command entirely in a metaphorical
sense. This has already been pointed out in that book of
gigantic learning, Spencer, De Leg. Heb. p. 1213. Frankel
(Uber d. Einfl. d. Pal. Exeg., pp. 89, 90) tries in vain to
controvert the statement. The insufficency of his arguments
has been fully shown by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr. vol.
iii. p. 224).] At any rate, we do not find mention of them in
heathen writers. Similarly, they could easily keep out of
view, or they may not have had conveniences for, their
prescribed purifications. But in every place, as we have
abundant evidence, where there were at least ten Batlanim -
male householders who had leisure to give themselves to
regular 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 probus
liber, 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 a
Proseuche, [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 ubi
consistas? in qua te quaero proseucha?'] open sky, after the
form of a theatre, generally outside the town, near a river
or the sea, for the sake of lustrations. These, as we know
from classical writers, were well known to the heathen, and
even frequented by them. Their Sabbath observance, their
fasting on Thursdays, their Day of Atonement, their laws
relating to food, and their pilgrimages to Jerusalem - all
found sympathiers among Judaising Gentiles. [8 Comp., among
others, Ovid, Ars Amat. i. 76; Juv. Sat. xvi. 96, 97; Hor.
Sat. i. 5. 100; 9. 70; Suet. Aug. 93.] They even watched to
see, how the Sabbath lamp was kindled, and the solemn prayers
spoken which marked the beginning of the Sabbath. [9 Persius
v. 180. But to the Jew the Synagogue was the bond of union
throughout the world. There, on Sabbath and feast days they
met to read, from the same Lectionary, the same
Scripture-lessons which their brethren read throughout the
world, and to say, in the words of the same liturgy, their
common prayers, catching echoes of the gorgeous
Temple-services in Jerusalem. The heathen must have been
struck with awe as they listened, and watched in the gloom of
the Synagogue the mysterious light at the far curtained end,
where the sacred oracles were reverently kept, wrapped in
costly coverings. Here the stranger Jew also would find
himself at home: the same arrangements as in his own land,
and the well-known services and prayers. A hospitable welcome
at the Sabbath-meal, and in many a home, would be pressed on
him, and ready aid be proffered in work or trial.

For, deepest of all convictions was that of their common
centre; strongest of all feelings was the love which bound
them to Palestine and to Jerusalem, the city of God, the joy
of all the earth, the glory of His people Isael. 'If I forget
thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning; let
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouuth,' Hellenist and
Eastern equally realised this. As the soil of his native
land, the deeds of his people, or the graves of his fathers
draw the far-off wanderer to the home of his childhood, or
fill the mountaineer in his exile with irrepressible longing,
so the sounds which the Jew heard in his Synagogue, and the
observances which he kept. Nor was it with him merely matter
of patriotism, of history, or of association. It was a
religious principle, a spiritual hope. No truth more firmly
rooted in the consciousness of all, than that in Jerusalem
alone men could truly worship. [a St. John iv. 20] As Daniel
of old had in his hour ofworship turned towards the Holy
City, so in the Synagogue and in his prayers every Jew turned
towards Jerusalem; and anything that might imply want of
reverence, when looking in that direction, was considered a
grievous sin. From every Synagogue in the Diaspora the annual
Temple-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.] no
doubt often accompanied by rich votive offerings. Few, who
could undertake or afford the journey, but had at some time
or other gone up to the Holy City to attend one of the great
feasts. [2 philo, De Monarchia, ii. p. 223.] Philo, who was
held by the same spell as the most bigoted Rabbinist, had
himself been one of those deputed by his fellow-citizens to
offer prayers and sacrifices in the great Sanctuary. [3
Philo, in a fragment preserved in Euseb., Praepar. Ev. viii.
13. What the Temple was in the estimation of Israel,] Views
and feelings of this kind help us to understand, how, on some
great feast, as Josephus states on sufficient authority, the
population of Jerusalem - within its ecclesiastical
boundaries - could have swelled to the enormous number of
nearly three millions. [a War vi. 9. 3; comp. ii. 14. 3]

And still, there was an even stronger bond in their common
hope. That hope pointed them all, wherever scattered, back to
Palestine. To them the coming of the Messiah undoubtedly
implied the restoration of Israel's kingdom, and, as a first
part in it, the return of 'the dispersed.' [1 Even
Maimonides, in spite of his desire to minimise the Messianic
expectancy, admits this. Indeed, every devout Jew prayed, day
by day: 'Proclaim by Thy loud trumpet our deliverance, and
raise up a banner to gather our dispersed, and gather us
together from the four ends of the earth. Blessed be Thou, O
Lord! Who gatherest the outcasts of Thy people Israel.' [2
This is the tenth of the eighteen (or rather nineteen)
benedictions in the daily prayers. Of these the first and the
last three are certainly the oldest. But this tenth also
dates from before the destruction of Jerusalem. Comp. Zunz,
Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden, p. 368.] That prayer included in
its generality also the lost ten tribes. So, for example, the
prophecy [b Hos. xi. 11.] was rendered: 'They hasten hither,
like a bird out of Egypt,' - referring to Israel of old; 'and
like a dove out of the land of Assyria' - referring to the
ten tribes. [c Midr. on Cant. i. 15, ed. warshau, p. 11b] [3
Comp. Jer. Sanh. x. 6; Sanh. 110 b: Yalk. Shim.] And thus
even these wanderers, so long lost, were to be reckoned in
the field of the Good Shepherd. [4 The suggestion is made by
Castelli, Il Messia, p. 253.]

It is worth while to trace, how universally and warmly both
Eastern and Western Judaism cherished this hope of all
Israel's return to their own land. The Targumim bear repeated
reference 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, in
his 'Jewish Messiah,' p. 335, quotes from the Targum on
Lamentations. But this dates from long after the Talmudic
period.] and although there may be question as to the exact
date of these paraphrases, it cannot be doubted, that in this
respect they represented the views of the Synagogue at the
time of Jesus. For the same reason we may gather from the
Talmud and earliest commentaries, what Israel's hope was in
regard to the return of the 'dispersed.' [6 As each sentence
which follows would necessitate one or more references to
different works, the reader, who may be desirous to verify
the statements in the text, is generally referred to
Castelli, u. s. pp. 251-255.] It was a beautiful idea to
liken Israel to the olive-tree, which is never stripped of
its leves. [d Men. 53 b] The storm of trial that had swept
over it was, indeed, sent in judgment, but not to destroy,
only to purify. Even so, Israel's persecutions had served to
keep them from becoming mixed with the Gentiles. Heaven and
earth might be destroyed, but not Israel; and their final
deliverance would far outstrip in marvellousness that from
Egypt. The winds would blow to bring together the dispersed;
nay, if there were a single Israelite in a land, however
distant, he would be restored. With every honour would the
nations bring them back. The patriarchs and all the just
would rise to share in the joys of the new possession of
their land; new hymns as well as the old ones would rise to
the praise of God. Nay, the bounds of the land would be
extended far beyond what they had ever been, and made as wide
as originally promised to Abraham. Nor would that possession
be ever taken from them, nor those joys be ever succeeded by
sorrows. [1 The fiction of two Messiahs, one the Son of
David, the other the Son of Joseph, the latter being
connected with the restoration of the ten tribes, has been
conclusively 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 an
explanation for Zech. xii. 10 (comp. Succ. 52 a), just as the
Socinian doctrine of the assumption of Christ into heaven at
the beginning of His ministry was invented to account for St.
John iii. 13.] In view of such general expectations we cannot
fail to mark with what wonderful sobriety the Apostles put
the question to Jesus: 'Wilt Thou at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?' [a Acts i.6]

Hopes and expectations such as these are expressed not only
in Talmudical writings. We find them throughout that very
interesting Apocalyptic class of literature, the
Pseudepigrapha, to which reference has already been made. The
two earliest of them, the Book of Enoch and the Sibylline
Oracles, are equally emphatic on this subject. The seer in
the Book of Enoch beholds Israel in the Messianic time as
coming in carriages, and as borne on the wings of the wind
from East, and West, and South. [b Book of En. ch. lvii.;
comp.xc.33] Fuller details of that happy event are furnished
by the Jewish Sibyl. In her utterances these three events are
connected together: the coming of the Messiah, the rebuilding
of the Temple, [c B. iii. 286-294; comp. B. v. 414-433] and
the restoration of the dispersed, [d iii. 732-735] when all
nations 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, and
regarded one of them as the Messiah. It implies a peculiar
reading of history, and a lively imagination, to arrive at
such a conclusion.] The latter trait specially reminds us of
their Hellenistic origin. A century later the same joyous
confidence, only perhaps more clearly worded, appears in the
so-called 'Psalter of Solomon.' Thus the seventeenth Psalm
bursts into this strain: 'Blessed are they who shall live in
those days, in the reunion of the tribes, which God brings
about.' [f Ps. of Sol. vxii. 50; comp. also Ps. xi.] And no
wonder, since they are the days when 'the King, the Son of
David,' [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 rule
with justice, and judge the tribes of His people, [d v. 28]
'dividing them over the land according to tribes;' when 'no
stranger would any longer dwell among them.' [e vv. 30,31]

Another pause, and we reach the time when Jesus the Messiah
appeared. Knowing the characteristics of that time, we
scarcely wonder that the Book of Jubilees, which dates from
that period, should have been Rabbinic in its cast rather
than Apocalyptic. Yet even there the reference to the future
glory is distinct. Thus we are told, that, though for its
wickedness Israel had been scattered, God would 'gather them
all from the midst of the heathen,' 'build among them His
Sanctuary, and dwell with them.' That Sanctuary was to 'be
for ever and ever, and God would appear to the eye of every
one, and every one acknowledge that He was the God of Israel,
and the Father of all the Children of Jacob, and King upon
Mount Zion, from everlasting to everlasting. And Zion and
Jerusalem shall be holy.' [f Book of Jub. ch. i.; comp. also
ch. xxiii.] When listening to this language of, perhaps, a
contemporary of Jesus, we can in some measure understand the
popular indignation which such a charge would call forth, as
that the Man of Nazareth had proposed to destroy the Temple,
[g St. John ii. 19] or that he thought merely of the children
of Jacob.

There is an ominous pause of a century before we come to the
next work of this class, which bears the title of the Fourth
Book of Esdras. That century had been decisive in the history
of Israel. Jesus had lived and died; His Apostles had gone
forth to bear the tidings of the new Kingdom of God; the
Church had been founded and separated from the Synagogue; and
the Temple had been destroyed, the Holy City laid waste, and
Israel undergone sufferings, compared with which the former
troubles might almost be forgotten. But already the new
doctrine had struck it roots deep alike in Eastern and in
Hellenistic soil. It were strange indeed if, in such
circumstances, this book should not have been different from
any that had preceded it; stranger still, if earnest Jewish
minds and ardent Jewish hearts had remained wholly unaffected
by the new teaching, even though the doctrine of the Cross
still continued a stumbling-block, and the Gospel
announcement a rock of offence. But perhaps we could scarcely
have been prepared to find, as in the Fourth Book of Esdras,
doctrinal views which were wholly foreign to Judaism, and
evidently derived from the New Testament, and which, in
logical consistency, would seem to lead up to it. [1 The
doctrinal part of IV. Esdras may be said to be saturated with
the dogma of original sin, which is wholly foreign to the
theology 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.] The
greater part of the book may be described as restless
tossing, the seer being agitated by the problem and the
consequences of sin, which here for the first and only time
is presented as in the New Testament; by the question, why
there are so few who are saved; and especially by what to a
Jew must have seemed the inscrutable, terrible mystery of
Israel's sufferings and banishment. [1 It almost seems as if
there were a parallelism between this book and the Epistle to
the Romans, which in its dogmatic part, seems successively to
take up these three subjects, although from quite another
point of view. How different the treatment is, need not be
told.] Yet, so far as we can see, no other way of salvation
is indicated than that by works and personal righteousness.
Throughout there is a tone of deep sadness and intense
earnestness. It almost seems sometimes, as if one heard the
wind of the new dispensation sweeping before it the withered
leaves of Israel's autumn. Thus far for the principal portion
of the book. The second, or Apocalyptic, part, endeavors to
solve the mystery of Israel's state by foretelling their
future. Here also there are echoes of New Testament
utterances. What the end is to be, we are told in
unmistakable language. His 'Son,' Whom the Highest has for a
long time preserved, to deliver 'the creature' by Him, is
suddenly to appear in the form of a Man. From His mouth shall
proceed alike woe, fire, and storm, which are the
tribulations of the last days. And as they shall gather for
war against Him, He shall stand on Mount Zion, and the Holy
City shall come down from heaven, prepared and ready, and He
shall destroy all His enemies. But a peaceable multitude
shall now be gathered to Him. These are the ten tribes, who,
to separate themselves from the ways of the heathen, had
wandered far away, miraculously helped, a journey of one and
a half years, and who were now similarly restored by God to
their own land. But as for the 'Son,' or those who
accompanied him, no one on earth would be able to see or know
them, till the day of His appearing. [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 of
testimony by referring in detail to a book, called 'The
Prophecy and Assumption of Moses,' and to what is known as
the Apocalypse of Branch, the servant of Jeremiah. Both date
from probably a somewhat later period than the Fourth Book of
Esdras, and both are fragmentary. The one distinctly
anticipates the return of the ten tribes;[b Prophet. et Ass.
Mos. iv. 7-14; vii. 20] the other, in the letter to the nine
and a half tribes, far beyond the Euphrates, [c Ap. Bar.
xxvii. 22] with which the book closes, preserves an ominous
silence on that point, or rather alludes to it in language
which so strongly reminds us of the adverse opinion expressed
in the Talmud, that we cannot help suspecting some internal
connection between the two. [1 In Sanh. 110 b we read, 'Our
Rabbisteach, that the Ten Tribes have no part in the era to
come, because it is written "The Lord drave them out of their
land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and
cast them into another land." "The Lord drave them from their
land", 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 formerly
believed,' least they should suffer 'in both eras (ab utroque
saeculo),' being led captive in the one, and tormented in the
other (Apoc. Bar. lxxxiii. 8).]

The writings to which we have referred have all a decidedly
Hellenistic tinge of thought. [2 Thus, for example, the
assertion that there had been individuals who fulfilled the
commandments of God, Vis. i. ch. iii. 36; the domain of
reason, iv. 22; v. 9; general Messianic blessings to the
world at large, Vis. i. ch. iv. 27, 28; the idea of a law
within their minds, like that of which St. Paul speaks in the
case of the heathen, Vis. iii. ch. vi. 45-47 (ed. Fritzsche,
p. 609). These are only instances, and we refer besides to
the general cast of the reasoning.] Still they are not the
outcome of pure Hellenism. It is therefore with peculiar
interest that we turn to Philo, the great representative of
that direction, to see whether he would admit an idea so
purely national and, as it might seem, exclusive. Nor are we
here left in doubt. So universal was this belief, so
deep-seated the conviction, not only in the mind, but in the
heart of Israel, that we could scarcely find it more
distinctly expressed than by the great Alexandrian. However
low the condition of Israel might be, he tells us, [a De
Execrat. ed. Frcf. pp. 936, 937] or however scattered the
people to the ends of the earth, the banished would, on a
given sign, be set free in one day. In consistency with his
system, he traces this wondrous event to their sudden
conversion to virtue, which would make their masters ashamed
to hold any longer in bondage those who were so much better
than themselves. Then, gathering as by one impulse, the
dispersed would return from Hellas, from the lands of the
barbarians, from the isles, and from the continents, led by a
Divine, superhuman apparition invisible to others, and
visible only to themselves. On their arrival in Palestine the
waste places and the wilderness would be inhabited, and the
barren land transformed into fruitfulness.

Whatever shades of difference, then, we may note in the
expression of these views, all anticipate the deliverance of
Israel, their restoration, and future pre-eminent glory, and
they all connect these events with the coming of the Messiah.
This was 'the promise' unto which, in their 'instant service
night and day, the twelve tribes,' however grievously
oppressed, hoped to come. [b Acts xxvi. 7] To this 'sure
wordof prophecy' 'the strangers scattered' throughout all
lands would 'take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a
dark place,' until the day dawned, and the day-star rose in
their hearts. [a 2 Pet. i. 19] It was this which gave meaning
to their worship, filled them with patience in suffering,
kept them separate from the nations around, and ever fixed
their hearts and thoughts upon Jerusalem. For the 'Jerusalem'
which was above was 'the mother' of them all. Yet a little
while, and He that would come should come, and not tarry, and
then all the blessing and glory would be theirs. At any
moment the gladsome tidings might burst upon them, that He
had come, when their glory would shine out from one end of
the heavens to the other. All the signs of His Advent had
come to pass. Perhaps, indeed, the Messiah might even now be
there, ready to manifest Himself, so soon as the voice of
Israel's repentance called Him from His hiding. Any hour
might that banner be planted on the top of the mountains;
that glittering sword be unsheathed; that trumpet sound.
Closer then, and still closer, must be their connection with
Jerusalem, as their salvation drew nigh; more earnest their
longing, and more eager their gaze, till the dawn of that
long expected day tinged the Eastern sky with its brightness.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

IN PALESTINE, JEWS AND GENTILES IN 'THE LAND', THEIR MUTUAL
RELATIONS 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 another
world. Manners, customs, institutions, law, life, nay, the
very intercourse between man and man, were quite different.
All was dominated by the one all-absorbing idea of religion.
It penetrated every relation of life. Moreover, it was
inseparably connected with the soil, as well as the people of
Palestine, at least so long as the Temple stood. Nowhere else
could the Shekhinah dwell or manifest itself; nor could,
unless under exceptional circumstances, and for 'the merit of
the fathers,' the spirit of prophecy be granted outside its
bounds. To the orthodox Jew the mental and spiritual horizon
was bounded by Palestine. It was 'the land'; all the rest of
the world, except Babylonia, was 'outside the land.' No need
to designate it specially as 'holy'; for all here bore the
impress of sanctity, as he understood it. Not that the soil
itself, irrespective of the people, was holy; it was Israel
that made it such. For, had not God given so many
commandments and ordinances, some of them apparently
needless, simply to call forth the righteousness of Israel;
[a Mac. 23 b] did not Israel possess the merits of 'the
fathers,' [b Rosh HaSh. 11 a] and specially that of Abraham,
itself so valuable that, even if his descendants had, morally
speaking, been as a dead body, his merit would have been
imputed to them? [c Ber. R. 44] More than that, God had
created the world on account of Israel, [d Yalkut 2] and for
their merit, making preparation for them long before their
appearance on the scene, just as a king who foresees the
birth of his son; nay, Israel had been in God's thoughts not
only before anything had actually been created, but even
before every other creative thought. [e Ber. R. 1] If these
distinctions seem excessive, they were, at least, not out of
proportion to the estimate formed of Israel's merits. In
theory, the latter might be supposed to flow from 'good
works,' of course, including the strict practice of legal
piety, and from 'study of the law.' But in reality it was
'study' alone to which such supreme merit attached. Practice
required knowledge for its direction; such as the Am-ha-arets
('country people,' plebeians, in the Jewish sense of being
unlearned) could not possess, [a Comp. Ab ii. 5] who had
bartered away the highest crown for a spade with which to
dig. And 'the school of Arum', the sages, the 'great ones of
the 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, which
engaged His chosen children on earth, equally occupied their
Almighty Father in heaven? [c Ab. Z. 3 b] Could anything,
then, be higher than the peculiar calling of Israel, or
better qualify them for being the sons of God?

It is necessary to transport oneself into this atmosphere to
understand the views entertained at the time of Jesus, or to
form any conception of their infinite contrast in spirit to
the new doctrine. The abhorrence, not unmingled with
contempt, of all Gentile ways, thoughts and associations; the
worship of the letter of the Law; the self-righteousness, and
pride of descent, and still more of knowledge, become thus
intelligible to us, and, equally so, the absolute antagonism
to the claims of a Messiah, so unlike themselves and their
own ideal. His first announcement might, indeed, excite hope,
soon felt to have been vain; and His miracles might startle
for a time. But the boundary lines of the Kingdom which He
traced were essentially different from those which they had
fixed, and within which they had arranged everything, alike
for the present and the future. Had He been content to step
within them, to complete and realise what they had indicated,
it might have been different. Nay, once admit their
fundamental ideas, and there was much that was beautiful,
true, and even grand in the details. But it was exactly in
the former that the divergence lay. Nor was there any
possibility of reform or progress here. The past, the
present, and the future, alike as regarded the Gentile world
and Israel, were irrevocably fixed; or rather, it might
almost be said, there were not such, all continuing as they
had been from the creation of the world, nay, long before it.
The Torah had really existed 2,000 years before Creation; [d
Shir haShir. R. on Cant. v. 11, ed War shau, p. 26b] the
patriarchs had had their Academies of study, and they had
known and observed all the ordinances; and traditionalism had
the same origin, both as to time and authority, as the Law
itself. As for the heathen nations, the Law had been offered
by God to them, but refused, and even their after repentance
would prove hypocritical, as all their excuses would be shown
to be futile. But as for Israel, even though their good deeds
should be few, yet, by cumulating them from among all the
people, they would appear great in the end, and God would
exact payment for their sins as a man does from his friends,
taking little sums at a time. It was in this sense, that the
Rabbis employed that sublime figure, representing the Church
as one body, of which all the members suffered and joyed
together, which St. Paul adopted and applied in a vastly
different and spiritual sense. [a Eph. iv. 16]

If, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of Israel depended on
the Land, and, on the other, that of the Land on the presence
of Israel in it, the Rabbinical complaint was, indeed, well
grounded, that its 'boundaries were becoming narrow.' We can
scarcely expect any accurate demarcation of them, since the
question, what belonged to it, was determined by ritual and
theological, not by geographical considerations. Not only the
immediate neighborhood (as in the case of Ascalon), but the
very wall of a city (as of Acco and of Caesarea) might be
Palestinian, and yet the city itself be regarded as 'outside'
the sacred limits. All depended on who had originally
possessed, and now held a place, and hence what ritual
obligations lay upon it. Ideally, as we may say, 'the land of
promise' included all which God had covenanted to give to
Israel, although never yet actually possessed by them. Then,
in a more restricted sense, the 'land' comprised what 'they
who came up from Egypt took possession of, from Chezib [about
three hours north of Acre] and unto the river [Euphrates],
and unto Amanah.' This included, of course, the conquests
made by David in the most prosperous times of the Jewish
commonwealth, supposed to have extended over Mesopotamia,
Syria, Zobah, Achlah, &c. To all these districts the general
name of Soria, or Syria, was afterwards given. This formed,
at the time of which we write, a sort of inner band around
'the land,' in its narrowest and only real sense; just as the
countries in which Israel was specially interested, such as
Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab, formed an outer band. These
lands were heathen, and yet not quite heathen, since the
dedication of the so-called Terumoth, or first-fruits in a
prepared state, was expected from them, while Soria shared
almost all the obligations of Palestine, except those of the
'second tithes,' and the fourth year's product of plants. [b
Lev. xix. 24.] But the wavesheaf at the Paschal Feast, and
the two loaves at Pentecost, could only be brought from what
had grown on the holy soil itself. This latter was roughly
defined, as 'all which they who came up from Babylon took
possession of, in the land of Israel, and unto Chezib.'
Viewed in this light, there was a special significance in the
fact that Antioch, where the name 'Christian' first marked
the new 'Sect' which had sprung up in Palestine, [c Acts xi.
26.] and where the first Gentile Church was formed, [a Acts
xi. 20, 21] lay just outside the northern boundary of 'the
land.' Similarly, we understand, why those Jewish zealots who
would fain have imposed on the new Church the yoke of the
Law, [b Acts xv.1]concentrated their first efforts on that
Soria which was regarded as a kind of outer Palestine.

But, even so, there was a gradation of sanctity in the Holy
Land itself, in accordance with ritual distinctions. Ten
degrees are here enumerated, beginning with the bare soil of
Palestine, and culminating in the Most Holy Place in the
Temple, each implying some ritual distinction, which did not
attach to a lower degree. And yet, although the very dust of
heathen soil was supposed to carry defilement, like
corruption or the grave, the spots most sacred were
everywhere surrounded by heathenism; nay, its traces were
visible in Jerusalem itself. The reasons of this are to be
sought in the political circumstances of Palestine, and in
the persistent endeavour of its rulers, with the exception of
a very brief period under the Maccabees, to Grecianise the
country, so as to eradicate that Jewish particularism which
must always be antagonistic to every foreign element. In
general, Palestine might be divided into the strictly Jewish
territory, and the so-called Hellenic cities. The latter had
been built at different periods, and were politically
constituted after the model of the Greek cities, having their
own senates (generally consisting of several hundred persons)
and magistrates, each city with its adjoining territory
forming a sort of commonwealth of its own. But it must not be
imagined, that these districts were inhabited exclusively, or
even chiefly, by Greeks. One of these groups, that towards
Peraea, was really Syrian, and formed part of Syria
Decapolis; [1 The following cities probably formed the
Decapolis, though it is difficult to feel quite sure in
reference 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, was
Phoenician. Thus 'the land' was hemmed in, east and west,
within its own borders, while south and north stretched
heathen or semi-heathen districts. The strictly Jewish
territory consisted of Judaea proper, to which Galilee,
Samaria and Peraea were joined as Toparchies. These
Toparchies consisted of a group of townships, under a
Metropolis. The villages and townships themselves had neither
magistrates of their own, nor civic constitution, nor lawful
popular assemblies. Such civil adminstration as they required
devolved on 'Scribes' (the so-called). Thus Jerusalem was
really, as well as nominally, the capital of the whole land.
Judaea itself was arranged into eleven, or rather, more
exactly, into nine Toparchies, of which Jerusalem was the
chief. While, therefore, the Hellenic cities were each
independent of the other, the whole Jewish territory formed
only one 'Civitas.' Rule, government, tribute, in short,
political life, centred in Jerusalem.

But this is not all. From motives similar to those which led
to the founding of other Hellenic cities, Herod the Great and
his immediate successors built a number of towns, which were
inhabited chiefly by Gentiles, and had independent
constitutions, like those of the Hellenic cities. Thus, Herod
himself built Sebaste (Samaria), in the centre of the
country; Caesarea in the west, commanding the sea-coast; Gaba
in Galilee, close to the great plain of Esdraelon; and
Esbonitis in Peraea. [1 Herod rebuilt or built other cities,
such as Antipatris, Cypros, Phasaelis, Anthedon, &c. Schurer
describes the two first as built, but they were only rebuilt
or fortified (comp. Ant. xiii. 15. 1; War i. 21. 8.) by
Herod.] Similarly, Philip the Tetrarch built Caesarea
Philippi and Julias (Bethsaida-Julias, on the western shore
of the lake); and Herod Antipas another Julias, and Tiberias.
[2 He also rebuilt Sepphoris.] The object of these cities was
twofold. As Herod, well knowing his unpopularity, surrounded
himself by foreign mercenaries, and reared fortresses around
his palace and the Temple which he built, so he erected these
fortified posts, which he populated with strangers, as so
many outworks, to surround and command Jerusalem and the Jews
on all sides. Again, as, despite his profession of Judaism,
he reared magnificent heathen temples in honour of Augustus
at Sebaste and Caesarca, so those cities were really intended
to form centres of Grecian influence within the sacred
territory itself. At the same time, the Herodian cities
enjoyed not the same amount of liberty as the 'Hellenic,'
which, with the exception of certain imposts, were entirely
self-governed, while in the former there were representatives
of the Herodian rulers. [3 Comp. on the subject of the civic
institutions 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 special
deities and rites, some being determined by local traditions,
their prevailing character may be described as a mixture of
Greek and Syrian worship, the former preponderating, as might
be expected. [4 A good sketch of the variousrites prevailing
in different places is given by Schurer, Neutest. Zeitg. pp.
378-385.] On the other hand, Herod and his successors
encouraged the worship of the Emperor and of Rome, which,
characteristically, was chiefly practised in the East. [5
Comp. Weiseler, Beitr. z richt. Wur dig. d. Evang. pp. 90
91.] Thus, in the temple which Herod built to Augustus in
Caesarea, 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 before
his own people on the ground of political necessity. Yet,
even if his religious inclinations had not been in that
direction, he would have earnestly striven to Grecianise the
people. Not only in Caesarea, but even in Jerusalem, he built
a theatre and amphitheatre, where at great expense games were
held every four years in honour of Augustus. [1 The Actian
games took place every fifth year, three years always
intervening. The games in Jerusalem were held in the year 28
B.C. (Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1); the first games in Caesarea in the
year 12 B.C. (Ant. xvi. 5. 1; comp. War. i. 21. 8).] Nay, he
placed over the great gate of Temple at Jerusalem a massive
golden eagle, the symbol of Roman dominion, as a sort of
counterpart to that gigantic golden vine, the symbol of
Israel, which hung above the entrance to the Holy Place.
These measures, indeed, led to popular indignation, and even
to conspiracies and tumults, [b Ant. xv. 8. 1-4; xvii. 6. 2]
though not of the same general and intense character, as
when, at a later period, Pilate sought to introduce into
Jerusalem images of the Emperor, or when the statue of
Caligula was to be placed in the Temple. In connection with
this, it is curious to notice that the Talmud, while on the
whole disapproving of attendance at theatres and
amphitheatres, chiefly on the ground that it implies 'sitting
in the seat of scorners,' and might involve contributions to
the maintenance of idol-worship, does not expressly prohibit
it, nor indeed speak very decidedly on the subject. [c So at
least in a Boraitha. Comp. the the discussion and the very
curious arguments in favour of attendance in Ab. Zar. 18 b,
and following
The views of the Rabbis in regard to pictorial
representations are still more interesting, as illustrating
their abhorrence of all contact with idolatry. We mark here
differences at two, if not at three periods, according to the
outward circumstances of the people. The earliest and
strictest opinions [d Mechilta on Ex. xx. 4 ed. Weiss, p. 75
a.] absolutely forbade any representation of things in
heaven, on earth, or in the waters. But the Mishnah [e Ab.
Zar. iii.] seems to relax these prohibitions by subtle
distinctions, which are still further carried out in the
Talmud. [2 For a full statement of the Talmudical views as to
images, representations on coins, and the most ancient Jewish
coins, see Appendix III.]

To those who held such stringent views, it must have been
peculiarly galling to see their most sacred feelings openly
outraged by their own rulers. Thus, the Asmonean princess,
Alexandra, the mother-in-law of Herod, could so far forget
the traditions of her house, as to send portraits of her son
and daughter to Mark Antony for infamous purposes, in hope of
thereby winning him for her ambitious plans. [f Jos. Ant. xv.
2. 5 and 6] One would be curious to know who painted these
pictures, for, when the statue of Caligula was to be made for
the Temple at Jerusalem, no native artist could be found, and
the work was entrusted to Phoenicians. It must have been
these foreigners also who made the 'figures,' with which
Herod adorned his palace at Jerusalem, and 'the brazen
statues' in the gardens 'through which the water ran out,' [a
Jos. Warv. 4. 4] as well as the colossal statues at Caesarea,
and those of the three daughters of Agrippa, which after his
death [b Acts xii. 23] were so shamefully abused by
thesoldiery at Sebaste and Caesarea. [cAnt. xix. 9. l]

This abhorrence of all connected with idolatry, and the
contempt entertained for all that was non-Jewish, will in
great measure explain the code of legislation intended to
keep the Jew and Gentile apart. If Judaea had to submit to
the power of Rome, it could at least avenge itself in the
Academies of its sages. Almost innumerable stories are told
in which Jewish sages, always easily, confute Roman and Greek
philosophers; and others, in which even a certain Emperor
(Antoninus) is represented as constantly in the most menial
relation of self-abasement before a Rabbi. [1 Comp. here the
interesting tractate of Dr. Bodek, 'Marc. Aur. Anton. als
Freund u. Zeitgenosse des R. Jehuda ha Nasi.'] Rome, which
was the fourth beast of Daniel, [d Dan. vii. 23.] would in
the age to come, [2 The Athidlabho, 'saeculum futurum,' to be
distinguished from the Olam habba, 'the world to come.'] when
Jerusalem would be the metropolis of all lands, [e Midr. R.
on Ex. Par. 23.] be the first to excuse herself on false
though vain pleas for her wrongs to Israel. [f Ab. Z. 2 b]
But on wordly grounds also, Rome was contemptible, having
derived her language and writing from the Greeks, and not
possessing even a hereditary succession in her empire. [g Ab.
Z. 10 a; Gitt. 80 a.] If such was the estimate of dreaded
Rome, it may be imagined in what contempt other nations were
held. Well might 'the earth tremble,' [Ps. ixxvi. 9.] for, if
Israel had not accepted the Law at Sinai, the whole world
would have been destroyed, while it once more 'was still'
when that [i Shabb. 88 a.] happy event took place, although
God in a manner forced Israel to it. And so Israel was
purified at Mount Sinai from the impurity which clung to our
race in consequence of the unclean union between Eve and the
serpent, and which still adhered to all other nations! [3 Ab.
Z. 22 b. But as in what follows the quotations would be too
numerous, they will be omitted. Each statement, however,
advanced in the text or notes is derived from part of the
Talmudic tractate Abodah Zarah.]

To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was to
be regarded as unclean. Those who actually worshipped
mountains, hills, bushes, &c., in short, gross idolaters,
should be cut down with the sword. But as it was impossible
to exterminate heathenism, Rabbinic legislation kept certain
definite objects in view, which may be thus summarised: To
prevent Jews from being inadvertenly led into idolatry; to
avoid all participation in idolatry; not to do anything which
might aid the heathen in their worship; and, beyond all this,
not to give pleasure, nor even help, to heathens. The latter
involved a most dangerous principle, capable of almost
indefinite application by fanaticism. Even the Mishnah goes
for far [a Ab. Z. ii. 1] as to forbid aid to amother in the
hour of her need, or nourishment to her babe, in order not to
bring up a child for idolatry! [1 The Talmud declares it only
lawful if done to avoid exciting hatred against the Jews.]
But this is not all. Heathens were, indeed, not to be
precipitated into danger, but yet not to be delivered from
it. Indeed, an isolated teacher ventures even upon this
statement: 'The best among the Gentiles, kill; the best among
serpents, crush its head.' [b Mechilta, ed. Weiss, p. 33 b,
line 8 from top] Still more terrible was the fanaticism which
directed, that heretics, traitors, and those who had left the
Jewish faith should be thrown into actual danger, and, if
they were in it, all means for their escape removed. No
intercourse of any kind was to be had with such, not even to
invoke their medical aid in case of danger to life, [2 There
is a well-known story told of a Rabbi who was bitten by a
serpent, and about to be cured by the invocation of the name
of Jesus by a Jewish Christian, which was, however,
interdicted.] since it was deemed, that he who had to do with
heretics was imminent peril of becoming one himself, [3 Yet,
such is the moral obliquity, that even idolatry is allowed to
save life, provided it be done in secret!] and that, if a
heretic returned to the true faith, he should die at once,
partly, probably, to expiate his guilt, and partly from fear
of relapse. Terrible as all this sounds, it was probably not
worse than the fanaticism displayed in what are called more
enlightened times. Impartial history must chronicle it,
however painful, to show the circumstances in which teaching
so far different was propounded by Christ. [4 Against this,
although somewhat doubtfully, such concessions may be put as
that, outside Palestine, Gentiles were not to be considered
as idolators, but as observing the customs of their fathers
(Chull. 13 b), and that the poor of the Gentiles were to be
equally supported with those of Israel, their sick visited,
and their dead buried; it being, however, significantly
added, 'on account of the arrangements of the world' (Gitt.
61 a). The quotation so often made (Ab. Z. 3 a), that a
Gentile who occupied himself with the Torah was to be
regarded as equal to the High-Priest, proves nothing, since
in the case supposed the Gentile acts like a Rabbinic Jew.
But, and this is a more serious point, it is difficult to
believe that those who make this quotation are not aware, how
the Talmud (Ab. Z. 3 a) immediately labours to prove that
their reward is not equal to that of Israelites. A somewhat
similar charge of one-sideness, if not of unfairness, must be
brought against Deutsch (Lecture on the Talmud, Remains, pp.
146, 147), whose sketch of Judaism should be compared, for
example, with the first Perek of the Talmudic tractate Abodah
Zarah.]

In truth, the bitter hatred which the Jew bore to the
Gentile can only be explained from the estimate entertained
of his character. The most vile, and even unnatural, crimes
were imputed to them. It was not safe to leave cattle in
their charge, to allow their women to nurse infants, or their
physicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in their company,
without taking precautions against sudden and unprovoked
attacks. They should, so far as possible, be altogether
avoided, except in cases of necessity or for the sake of
business. They and theirs were defiled; their houses unclean,
as containing idols or things dedicated to them; their
feasts, their joyous occasions, their very contact, was
polluted by idolatry; and there was no security, if a heathen
were left alone in a room, that he might not, in wantonness
or by carelessness, defile the wine or meat on the table, or
the oil and wheat in the store. Under such circumstances,
therefore, everything must be regarded as having been
rendered unclean. Three days before a heathen festival
(according to some, also three days after) every business
transaction with them was prohibited, for fear of giving
either help or pleasure. Jews were to avoid passing through a
city where there was an idolatrous feast, nay, they were not
even to sit down within the shadow of a tree dedicated to
idol-worship. Its wood was polluted; if used in baking, the
bread was unclean; if a shuttle had been made of it, not only
was all cloth woven on it forbidden, but if such had been
inadvertently mixed with other pieces of cloth, or a garment
made from it placed with other garments, the whole became
unclean. Jewish workmen were not to assist in building
basilicas, nor stadia, nor places where judicial sentences
were pronounced by the heathen. Of course, it was not lawful
to let houses or fields, nor to sell cattle to them. Milk
drawn by a heathen, if a Jew had not been present to watch
it, [a Ab. Zar. 35 b.] bread and oil prepared by them, were
unlawful. Their wine was wholly interdicted [1 According to
R. Asi, there was a threefold distinction. If wine had been
dedicated to an idol, to carry, even on a stick, so much as
the weight of an olive of it, defiled a man. Other wine, if
prepared by a heathen, was prohibited, whether for personal
use or for trading. Lastly, wine prepared by a Jew, but
deposited in custody of a Gentile, was prohibited for
personal use, but allowed for traffic.] , the mere touch of a
heathen polluted a whole cask; nay, even to put one's nose to
heathen wine was strictly prohibited!

Painful as these details are, they might be multiplied. And
yet the bigotry of these Rabbis was, perhaps, not worse than
that of other sectaries. It was a painful logical necessity
of their system, against which their heart, no doubt, often
rebelled; and, it must be truthfully added, it was in measure
accounted for by the terrible history of Israel.

INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS
OF CHRIST

TRADITIONALISM, ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTER, AND LITERATURE, THE
MISHNAH AND TALMUD, THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, THE DAWN OF A NEW
DAY.

CHAPTER VIII

In trying to picture to ourselves New Testament scenes, the
figure most prominent, next to those of the chief actors, is
that of the Scribe (literatus). He seems ubiquitous; we meet
him in Jerusalem, in Judaea, and even in Galilee. [a St. Luke
v. 17.] Indeed, he is indispensable, not only in Babylon,
which may have been the birthplace of his order, but among
the 'dispersion' also. [b Jos. Ant. xviii. 3. 5 xx. 11. 2]
Everywhere he appears as the mouthpiece and representative of
the people; he pushes to the front, the crowd respectfully
giving way, and eagerly hanging on his utterances, as those
of a recognised authority. He has been solemnly ordained by
the laying on of hands; and is the Rabbi, [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 the
personal suffix 'my,' pronouncing the Kamez in the Syriac
manner.] 'my great one,' Master, amplitudo. He puts
questions; he urges objections; he expects full explanations
and respectful demeanour. Indeed, his hyper-ingenuity in
questioning has become a proverb. There is not measure of his
dignity, nor yet limit to his importance. He is the 'lawyer,'
[c the legis Divinae peritus, St. Matt. xxii. 35; St. Luke
vii. 30; x.25; xi. 45; xiv. 3.] the well-plastered pit,'
filled with the water of knowledge'out of which not a drop
can escape,' [d Ab. ii. 8.] in opposition to the weeds of
untilled soil' of ignorance. [e Ber. 45 b 2; Ab. ii. 5;
Bemid. R. 3.] He is the Divine aristocrat, among the vulgar
herd of rude and profane 'country-people,' who 'know not the
Law' and are 'cursed.' More than that, his order constitutes
the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and
practice; 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 chief
priests' and 'elders' a judge in the ecclesiastical
tribunals, whether of the capital or in the provinces. [h St.
Matt. ii. 4; xx. 18; xxi. 15; xxvi. 57; xxvii. 41; St. Mark
xiv.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 a
religious party, while he has a status, and holds an office.
[1 The distinction between 'Pharisees' and 'Scribes,' is
marked in may passages in the N.T., for example, St. Matt.
xxiii. passim; St. Luke vii. 30; xiv. 3; and especially in
St. Luke xi. 43, comp. with v. 46. The words 'Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites,' in ver. 44, are, according to all
evidence, spurious.] In short, he is the Talmid or learned
student, the Chakham or sage, whose honour is to be great in
the future world. Each Scribe outweighed all the common
people, who must accordingly pay him every honour. Nay, they
were honoured of God Himself, and their praises proclaimed by
the angels; and in heaven also, each of them would hold the
same rank and distinction as on earth. [a Siphre or Numb. p
25 b.] Such was to be therespect paid to their sayings, that
they were to be absolutely believed, even if they were to
declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left,
or vice versa. [b Siphre on Deut. p. 105 a.]

An institution which had attained such proportions, and
wielded such power, could not have been of recent growth. In
point of fact, its rise was very gradual, and stretched back
to the time of Nehemiah, if not beyond it. Although from the
utter confusion of historical notices in Rabbinic writings
and their constant practice of antedating events, it is
impossible to furnish satisfactory details, the general
development of the institution can be traced with sufficient
precision. If Ezra is described in Holy Writ [c Ezra vii.6,
10, 11, 12.] as 'a ready (expertus) Scribe,' who had 'set his
heart to seek (seek out the full meaning of) the law of the
Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel,' this might
indicate to his successors, the Sopherim (Scribes), the
threefold direction which their studies afterwards took: the
Midrash, the Halakhah, and the Haggadah, [e Nedar. iv. 8.] [2
In Ned. iv. 3 this is the actual division. Of course, in
another sense the Midrash might be considered as the source
of both the Halakhah and the Haggadah.] of which the one
pointed to Scriptural investigation, the other to what was to
be observed, and the third to oral teaching in the widest
sense. But Ezra left his work uncompleted. On Nehemiah's
second arrival in Palestine, he found matters again in a
state of utmost confusion. [f Neh. xiii.] He must have felt
the need of establishing some permanent authority to watch
over religious affairs. This we take to have been 'the Great
Assembly,' or, as it is commonly called, the 'Great
Synagogue.' It is impossible with certainty to determine, [3
Very strange and ungrounded conjectures on this subject have
been hazarded, which need not here find a place. Comp. for
ex. the two articles of Gratz in Frankel's Montsschrift for
1857, 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 it
consisted. [4 The Talmudic notices are often inconsistent.
The number as given in them amounts to about 120. But the
modern doubts (of Kuenen and others) against the institution
itself cannot be sustained.] Probably it comprised the
leading 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. [a
Ezra x. 14; Neh. v. 7.] Probably also the term 'Great
Assembly' refers rather to a succession of men than to one
Synod; the ingenuity of later times filling such parts of the
historical canvas as had been left blank with fictitious
notices. In the nature of things such an assembly could not
exercise permanent sway in a sparsely populated country,
without a strong central authority. Nor could they have
wielded real power during the political difficulties and
troubles of foreign domination. The oldest tradition [b Ab.
i. 1.] sums up the result of their activity in this sentence
ascribed to them: 'Be careful in judgment, set up many
Talmidim, and make a hedge about the Torah (Law).'

In the course of time this rope of sand dissolved. The
High-Priest, Simon the Just, [c In the beginning of the third
century B.C.] is already designated as 'of the remnants of
the Great Assembly.' But even this expression does not
necessarily imply that he actually belonged to it. In the
troublous times which followed his Pontificate, the sacred
study seems to have been left to solitary individuals. The
Mishnic tractate Aboth, which records 'the sayings of the
Fathers,' here gives us only the name of Antigonus of Socho.
It is significant, that for the first time we now meet a
Greek name among Rabbinic authorities, together with an
indistinct allusion to his disciples. [d Ab. i. 3, 4] [1 Zunz
has well pointed out that, if in Ab. i. 4 the first 'couple'
is said to have 'received from them', while only Antigonus is
mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, it must imply Antigonus
and his unnamed disciples and followers. In general, I may
take this opportunity of stating that, except for special
reasons, I shall not refer to previous writers on this
subject, partly because it would necessitate too many
quotations, but chiefly because the line of argument I have
taken differs from that of my predecessors.] The long
interval between Simon theJust and Antigonus and his
disciples, brings us to the terrible time of Antiochus
Epiphanes and the great Syrian persecution. The very sayings
attributed to these two sound like an echo of the political
state of the country. On three things, Simon was wont to say,
the permanency of the (Jewish?) world depends: on the Torah
(faithfulness to the Law and its pursuit), on worship (the
non-participation in Grecianism), and on works of
righteousness. [e Ab. i. 2.] They were dark times, when God's
persecuted people were tempted to think, that it might be
vain to serve Him, in which Antigonus had it: 'Be not like
servants who serve their master for the sake of reward, but
be like servants who serve their lord without a view to the
getting of reward, and let the fear of heaven be upon you.'
[f Ab. i. 3.] After these two names come those of the
so-called five Zugoth, or 'couples,' of whom Hillel and
Shammai are the last. Later tradition has represented these
successive couples as, respectively, the Nasi (president),
and Ab-beth-din (vice-president, of the Sanhedrin). Of the
first three of these 'couples' it may be said that, except
significant allusions to the circumstances and dangers of
their times, their recorded utterances clearly point to the
development of purely Sopheric teaching, that is, to the
Rabbinistic part of their functions. From the fourth
'couple,' which consists of Simon ben Shetach, who figured so
largely in the political history of the later Maccabees [1
See Appendix IV.: 'Political History of the Jews from the
Reign of Alexander to the Accession of Herod.'] (as
Ab-beth-din), and his superior in learning and judgment,
Jehudah ben Tabbai (as Nasi), we have again utterances which
show, in harmony with the political history of the time, that
judicial functions had been once more restored to the Rabbis.
The last of five couples brings us to the time of Herod and
of Christ.

We have seen that, during the period of severe domestic
troubles, beginning with the persecutions under the
Seleucidae, which marked the mortal struggle between Judaism
and Grecianism, the 'Great Assembly' had disappeared from the
scene. The Sopherim had ceased to be a party in power. They
had become the Zeqenim, 'Elders,' whose task was purely
ecclesiastical, the perservation of their religion, such as
the dogmatic labours of their predecessors had made it. Yet
another period opened with the advent of the Maccabees. These
had been raised into power by the enthusiasm of the Chasidim,
or 'pious ones,' who formed the nationalist party in the
land, and who had gathered around the liberators of their
faith and country. But the later bearing of the Maccabees had
alienated the nationalists. Henceforth they sink out of view,
or, rather, the extreme section of them merged in the extreme
section of the Pharisees, till fresh national calamities
awakened a new nationalist party Instead of the Chasidim, we
see now two religious parties within the Synagogue, the
pharisees and the Sadducees. The latter originally
represented 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 time
of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabee, [a 160-143
B.C.] and with this other Jewish notices agree. Jonathan
accepted from the foreigner (the Syrian) the High-Priestly
dignity, and combined with it that of secular ruler. But this
is not all. The earlier Maccabees surrounded themselves with
a governing eldership. [b The Pepovajia, 1 Maco. xii. 6;
xiii. 36; xiv. 28; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. 9; 5. 8] [2 At the same
time some kind of ruling existed earlier than at this period,
if we may judge from Jos. Ant. xii 3.3.] On the coins of
their reigns this is designated as the Chebher, or eldership
(association) of the Jews. Thus, theirs was what Josephus
designates as an aristocratic government, [a Ant. xi. 4. 8]
and of which he somewhat vaguely says, that it lasted 'from
the Captivity until the descendants of the Asmoneans set up
kingly government.' In this aristocratic government the
High-Priest would rather be the chief of a representative
ecclesiastical body of rulers. This state of things continued
until the great breach between Hycanus, the fourth from Judas
Maccabee, and the Pharisaical party, [1 Even Ber. 48 a
furnishes evidence of this 'enmity.' On the hostile relations
between the Pharisaical party and the Maccabees see
Hamburger, 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 the
Pharisees, that Hycanus should be content with the secular
power, and resign the Pontificate. But it ended in the
persecution, and removal from power, of the Pharisees. Very
significantly, Jewish tradition introduces again at this time
those purely ecclesiastical authorities which are designated
as 'the couples.' [d Jer. Maas Sheni v. end, p. 56 d Jer.
Sot. ix. p. 24 a] In accordance with this, altered state of
things, the name 'Chebher' now disappears from the coins of
the Maccabees, and Rabbinical celebrities ('the couples' or
Zugoth) are only teachers of traditionalism, and
ecclesiastical authorities. The 'eldership,' which under the
earlier Maccabees was called 'the tribunal of the Asmoneans.'
[f Sanh 82 a; Ab. Z. 36 b.] [2 Derenbourg takes a different
view, and identifies the tribunal of the Asmoneans with the
Sanhedrin. This seems to me, historically, impossible. But
his opinion to that effect (u. s. p. 87) is apparently
contradicted at p. 93.] now passed into the Sanhedrin. [3
Schurer, following Wieseler, supposes the Sanhedrin to have
been of Roman institution. But the arguments of Wieseler on
this point [Beitr. zur richt. Wurd. d. Evang. p. 224] are
inconclusive.] [g in the N.T also once Acts v. 21 and twice
St. Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii 5.] Thus we place the origin of
this institution about the time of Hyrcanus. With this Jewish
tradition fully agrees. [4 Comp. Derenbourg, u. s. p. 95.]
The power of the Sanhedrin would, of course, vary with
political circumstances, being at times almost absolute, as
in the reign of the Pharisaic devotee-Queen, Alexandra, while
at 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 an
institution which exerted such decisive influence on the
future of Israel, it seems necessary similarly to trace the
growth of the 'traditions of the Elders, 'so as to understand
what, alas! so effectually, opposed the new doctrine of the
Kingdom. The first place must here be assigned to those legal
determinations, which traditionalism declared absolutely
binding on all, not only of equal, but even greater
obligation than Scripture itself. [5 Thus we read: 'The
sayings of the elders have more weight than those of the
prophets' (Jer. Ber. i. 7); 'an offence against the sayings
of the Scribes is worse than one against those of Scripture'
(Sanh. xi. 3). Compare also Er. 21 b The comparison between
such claims and those sometimes set up on behalf of 'creeds'
and 'articles' (Kitto's Cyclop., 2nd ed., p. 786, col a) does
not seem to me applicable. In the introduction to the Midr.
on Lament. it is inferred from Jer. ix. 12, 13, that to
forsake the law, in the Rabbinic sense, was worse than
adolatry, uncleanness, or the shedding of blood. See
generally that Introduction.] And this not illogically, since
tradition 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 generally
guarded its sanctity by extending and adding to its
provisions, drawing 'a hedge,' around its 'garden enclosed.'
Thus, in new and dangerous circumstances, would the full
meaning of God's Law, to its every title and iota, be
elicited and obeyed. Thus also would their feet be arrested,
who might stray from within, or break in from without.
Accordingly, so important was tradition, that the greatest
merit a Rabbi could claim was the strictest adherence to the
traditions, which he had received from his teacher. Nor might
one Sanhedrin annul, or set aside, the decrees of its
predecessors. To such length did they go in this worship of
the letter, that the great Hillel was actually wont to
mispronounce a word, because his teacher before him had done
so. [a Eduy. i. 3. See the comment of Maimonides.]

These traditional ordinances, as already stated, bear the
general name of the Halakhah, as indicating alike the way in
which the fathers had walked, and that which their children
were bound to follow. [1 It is so explained in the Aruch (ed
Zandau, vol. ii. p. 529, col b).] These Halakhoth were either
simply the laws laid down in Scripture; or else derived from,
or traced to it by some ingenious and artificial method of
exegesis; or added to it, by way of amplification and for
safety's sake; or, finally, legalized customs. They provided
for every possible and impossible case, entered into every
detail of private, family, and public life; and with iron
logic, unbending rigour, and most minute analysis pursued and
dominated man, turn whither he might, laying on him a yoke
which was truly unbearable. The return which it offered was
the pleasure and distinction of knowledge, the acquisition of
righteousness, and the final attainment of rewards; one of
its chief advantages over our modern traditionalism, that it
was expressly forbidden to draw inferences from these
traditions, which should have the force of fresh legal
determinations. [2 Comp. Hamburger, u.s. p 343.]

In describing the historical growth of the Halakhah, [3
Comp. here especially the detailed description by Herzfeld
(u. s. vol. iii. pp. 226, 263); also the Introduction of
Maimonides, and the very able and learned works (not
sufficiently appreciated) by Dr. H. S. Hirschfeld,
Halachische Exegese (Berlin, 1840), and Hagadische Exegese
(Berlin, 1847). Perhaps I may also take leave to refer to the
corresponding chapters in my 'History of the Jewish Nation.'
Similarly, the expressions in Ex. xxiv. 12 were thus
explained: 'the tables of stone,' the ten commandments; the
'law,' the written Law; the 'commandments,' the Mishnah;
'which I have written,' the Prophets and Hagiographa; 'that
thou mayest teach them,' the Talmud, which shows that they
were all given to Moses on Sinai' (Ber. 5 a, lines 11-16). A
like application was made of the various clauses in Cant.
vii. 12 (Erub. 21 b). Nay, by an alternation of the words in
Hos. vii. 10, it was shown that the banished had been brought
back for the merit of their study (of the sacrificial
sections) of the Mishnah (Vayyik R. 7).] we may dismiss in a
few sentences the legends of Jewish tradition about
patriarchal times. They assure us, that there was an Academy
and a Rabbinic tribunal of Shem, and they speak of traditions
delivered by that Patriarch to Jacob; of diligent attendance
by the latter on the Rabbinic College; of a tractate (in 400
sections) on idolatry by Abraham, and of his observance of
the whole traditional law; of the introduction of the three
daily times of prayer, successively by Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob; of the three benedictions in the customary 'grace at
meat,' as propounded by Moses, Joshua, and David and Solomon;
of the Mosaic introduction of the practice of reading lessons
from the law on Sabbaths, New Moons, and Feast Days, and even
on the Mondays and Thursdays; and of that, by the same
authority, of preaching on the three great festivals about
those feasts. Further, they ascribe to Moses the arrangement
of the priesthood into eight courses (that into sixteen to
Samuel, and that into twenty-four to David), as also, the
duration of the time for marriage festivities, and for
mourning. But evidently these are vague statements, with the
object of tracing traditionalism and its observances to
primaeval times, even as legend had it, that Adam was born
circumcised, [a Midr. Shochar Tobh on Ps. ix. 6. ed. Warshau,
p. 14 b; Abde R. Nath. 2.] and later writers that he had kept
all the ordinances.

But other principles apply to the traditions, from Moses
downwards. According to the Jewish view, God had given Moses
on Mount Sinai alike the oral and the written Law, that is,
the Law with all its interpretations and applications. From
Ex. xx. 1, it was inferred, that God had communicated to
Moses 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 Bible
alone had been written, it was said that Moses had proposed
to write down all the teaching entrusted to him, but the
Almighty had refused, on account of the future subjection of
Israel to the nations, who would take from them the written
Law. Then the unwritten traditions would remain to separate
between Israel and the Gentiles. Popular exegesis found this
indicated even in the language of prophecy. [b Hos. viii
12;comp. Shem. R. 47.]

But traditionalism went further, and placed the oral
actually above the written Law. The expression, [a Ex. xxxiv.
27.] 'After the tenor of these words I have made a covenant
with thee and with Israel,' was explained as meaning, that
God's covenant was founded on the spoken, in opposition to
the written words. [b Jer. Chag. p. 76 d.] If the written was
thus placed below the oral Law, we can scarcely wonder that
the reading of the Hagiographa was actually prohibited to the
people on the Sabbath, from fear that it might divert
attention from the learned discourses of the Rabbis. The
study of them on that day was only allowed for the purpose of
learned investigation and discussions. [c Tos. Shabb. xiv.]
[1. Another reason also is, however, mentioned for his
prohibition.]

But if traditionalism was not to be committed to writing by
Moses, measures had been taken to prevent oblivion or
inaccuracy. Moses had always repeated a traditional law
successively to Aaron, to his sons, and to the elders of the
people, and they again in turn to each other, in such wise,
that Aaron heard the Mishnah four times, his sons three
times, the Elders twice, and the people once. But even this
was not all, for by successive repetitions of Aaron, his
sons, and the Elders) the people also heard it four times. [d
Erub. 54b.] And, before his death, Moses had summoned any one
to come forward, if he had forgotten aught of what he had
heard and learned. [e Deut. i. 5.] But these 'Halakhoth of
Moses from Sinai' do not make up the whole of traditionalism.
According to Maimonides, it consists of five, but more
critically of three classes. [2 Hirschfeld, u. s. pp. 92-99.]
The first of these comprises both such ordinances as are
found in the Bible itself, and the so-called Halakhoth of
Moses from Sinai, that is, such laws and usages as prevailed
from time immemorial, and which, according to the Jewish
view, had been orally delivered to, but not written down by
Moses. For these, therefore, no proof was to be sought in
Scripture, at most support, or confirmatory allusion
(Asmakhtu). [3 From to lean against. At the same time the
ordinances, for which an appeal could be made to Asmakhta,
were better liked than those which rested on tradition alone
(Jer. Chag. p. 76, col d).] Nor were these open to
discussion. The second class formed the 'oral law,' [f.] or
the 'traditional teaching' [g.] in the stricter sense. To
this class belonged all that was supposed to be implied in,
or that could be deduced from, the Law of Moses. [4 In
connection with this it is very significant that R. Jochanan
ben Zaccai, who taught not many years after the Crucifixion
of Christ, was wont to say, that, in the future, Halakhahs in
regard to purity, which had not the support of Scripture,
would be repeated (Sot. 27 b, line 16 from top). In general,
the teaching of R. Jochanan should be studied to understand
the unacknowledged influence which Christianity exercised
upon the Synagogue.] The latter contained, indeed, in
substance or germ, everything; but it had not been brought
out, till circumstances successfully evolved what from the
first had been provided in principle. For this class of
ordinances reference to, and proof from, Scripture was
required. Not so for the third class of ordinances, which
were 'the hedge' drawn by the Rabbis around the Law, to
prevent any breach of the Law or customs, to ensure their
exact observance, or to meet peculiar circumstances and
dangers. These ordinances constituted 'the sayings of the
Scribes' or 'of the Rabbis' [1 But this is not always.] , and
were either positive in their character (Teqqanoth), or else
negative (Gezeroth from gazar to cut off'). Perhaps the
distinction of these two cannot always be strictly carried
out. But it was probably to this third class especially,
confessedly unsupported by Scripture, that these words of
Christ referred: [c St. Matt. xxiii. 3, 4.] 'All therefore
whatsoever they tell you, that do and observe; but do not ye
after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind
heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's
shoulders; but with their finger they will not move them away
(set in motion).' [2 To elucidate the meaning of Christ, it
seemed necessary to submit an avowedly difficult text to
fresh criticism. I have taken the word moveo in the sense of
ire facio (Grimm, Clavis N.T. ed. 2(da), p. 241 a), but I
have not adopted the inference of Meyer (Krit. Exeget. Handb.
p. 455). In classical Greek also is used for 'to remove, to
alter.' My reasons against what may be called the traditional
interpretation of St. Matt. xxiii. 3, 4, are: 1. It seems
scarcely possible to suppose that, before such an audience,
Christ would have contemplated the possiblity of not
observing either of the two first classes of Halakhoth, which
were regarded as beyond controversy. 2. It could scarcely be
truthfully charged against the Scribes and Pharisees, that
they did not attempt to keep themselves the ordinances which
they imposed upon others. The expression in the parallel
passage (St. Luke xi. 46) must be explained in accordance
with the commentation on St. Matt. xxiii. 4. Nor is there any
serious difficulty about it.] This view has two-fold
confirmation. For, this third class of Halakhic ordinances
was the only one open to the discussion of the learned, the
ultimate decision being according to the majority. Yet it
possessed practically (though not theoretically) the same
authority as the other two classes. In further confirmation
of our view the following may be quoted: 'A Gezerah (i.e.
this third class of ordinances) is not to be laid on the
congregation, unless the majority of the congregation is able
to bear it' [d B. Kam. 79.] , words which read like a
commentary on those of Jesus, and show that these burdens
could be laid on, or moved away, according to the varying
judgment or severity of a Rabbinic College. [3 For the
classification, arrangement, origin, and enumeration of these
Halakhoth, see Appendix V.: 'Rabbinic Theology and
literature.']

This body of traditional ordinances forms the subject of the
Mishnah, or second, repeated law. We have here to place on
one side the Law of Moses as recorded in the Pentateuch, as
standing by itself. All else, even the teaching of the
Prophets and of the Hagiographa, as well as the oral
traditions, bore the general name of Qabbalah, 'that which
has been received.' The sacred study, or Midrash, in the
original application of the term, concerned either the
Halakhah, traditional ordinance, which was always 'that which
was said' upon the authority of individuals, not as legal
ordinance. It was illustration, commentary, anecdote, clever
or learned saying, &c. At first the Halakhah remained
unwritten, probably owing to the disputes between Pharisees
and Sadducees. But the necessity of fixedness and order led
in course of time to more or less complete collections of the
Halakhoth. [1 See the learned remarks of Levy about the
reasons for the earlier prohibition of writing down the oral
law, and the final collection of the Mishnah (Neuhebr. u.
Chald. Worterb. vol. ii. p. 435).] The oldest of these is
ascribed to R. Akiba, in the time of the Emperor Hadrian. [a
132-135 A.D.] [2 These collections are enumerated in the
Midrash on eccles. xii. 3. They are also distinguished as
'the former' and 'the later' Mishnah (Nedar. 91 a).] But the
authoritative collection in the so-called Mishhan is the work
of Jehudah the Holy, who died about the end of the second
century of our era.

Altogether, the Mishnah comprises six 'Orders' (Sedarim),
each devoted to a special class of subjects. [3 The first
'Order' (Zeraim, 'seeds') begins with the ordinances
concerning 'benedictions,' or the time, mode, manner, and
character of the prayers prescribed. It then goes on to
detail what may be called the religio-agrarian laws (such as
tithing, Sabbatical years, first fruits, &c.). The second
'Order' (Moed, 'festive time') discusses all connected with
the Sabbath observance and the other festivals. The third
'Order' (Nashim, 'women') treats of all that concerns
betrothal, marriage and divorce, but also includes a tractate
on the Nasirate. The fourth 'Order' (Neziqin, 'damages')
contains the civil and criminal law. Characteristically, it
includes all the ordinances concerning idol-worship (in the
tractate Abhodah Zarah) and 'the sayings of the Fathers'
(Abhoth). The fifth 'Order' (Qodashim, 'holy things') treats
of the various classes of sacrifices, offerings, and things
belonging (as the first-born), or dedicated, to God, and of
all questions which can be grouped under 'sacred things'
(such as the redemption, exchange, or alienation of what had
been dedicated to God). It also includes the laws concerning
the daily morning and evening service (Tamid), and a
description of the structure and arrangements of the Temple
(Middoth, 'the measurements'). Finally, the sixth 'Order'
(Toharoth, 'cleannesses') gives every ordinance connected
with the questions of 'clean and unclean,' alike as regards
human beings, animals, and inanimate things.] These 'Orders'
are divided into tractates (Massikhtoth, Massekhtiyoth,
'textures, webs'), of which there are sixty-three (or else
sixty-two) in all. These tractates are again subdivided into
chapters (Peraqim), in all 525, which severally consist of a
certain number of verses, or Mishnahs (Mishnayoth, in all
4,187). Considering the variety and complexity of the
subjects treated, the Mishnah is arranged with remarkable
logical perspicuity. The language is Hebrew, though of course
not that of the Old Testament. The words rendered necessary
by 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 (Fremdspr
Redensart 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, or
ordinary life (such as contracts), is written, not in Hebrew,
but in Aramaean, as the language of the people.

But the traditional law embodied other materials than the
Halakhoth collected in the Mishnah. Some that had not been
recorded there, found a place in the works of certain Rabbis,
or were derived from their schools. These are called
Boraithas, that is, traditions external to the Mishnah.
Finally, there were 'additions' (or Tosephtoth), dating after
the completion of the Mishnah, but probably not later than
the third century of our era. Such there are to not fewer
than fifty-two out of the sixty-three Mishnic tractates. When
speaking of the Halakhah as distinguished from the Haggadah,
we must not, however, suppose that the latter could be
entirely separated from it. In point of fact, one whole
tractate in the Mishnah (Aboth: The Sayings of the 'Fathers')
is entirely Haggadah; a second (Middoth: the 'Measurements of
the Temple') has Halakhah in only fourteen places; while in
the rest of the tractates Haggadah occurs in not fewer than
207 places. [2 Comp. the enumeration in Pinner, u. s.] Only
thirteen out of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah are
entirely free from Haggadah.

Hitherto we have only spoken of the Mishnah. But this
comprises only a very small part of traditionalism. In course
of time the discussions, illustrations, explanations, and
additions to which the Mishnah gave rise, whether in its
application, or in the Academies of the Rabbis, were
authoritatively collected and edited in what are known as the
two Talmuds or Gemaras. [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 debating
club, all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions,
anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often of
what, from its profanity, superstition, and even obscenity,
could scarcely be quoted, we may form some general idea of
what the Talmud is. The oldest of these two Talmuds dates
from about the close of the fourth century of our era. It is
the product of the Palestinian Academies, and hence called
the Jerusalem Talmud. The second is about a century younger,
and the outcome of the Babylonian schools, hence called the
Babylon (afterwards also 'our') Talmud. We do not possess
either of these works complete. [1 The following will explain
our meaning: On the first 'order' we have the Jerusalem
Talmud complete, that is, on every tractate (comprising in
all 65 folio leaves), while the Babylon Talmud extends only
over its first tractate (Berakhoth). On the second order, the
four last chapters of one tractate (Shabbath) are wanting in
the Jerusalem, and one whole tractate (Sheqalim) in the
Babylon 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 (Eduyoth
and Abhoth) in both Gemaras. The fifth order is wholly
wanting in the Jerusalem, and two and a half tractates of it
Babylon Talmud. Of the sixth order only one tractate (Niddah)
exists in both Gemaras. The principal Halakhoth were
collected in a work (dating from about 800 A.D.) entitled
Halakhoth Gedoloth. They are arranged to correspond with the
weekly lectionary of the Pentateuch in a work entitled
Sheeltoth ('Questions:' bested. Dghernfurth, 1786). The
Jerusalem Talmud extends over 39, the Babylonian over 36 1/2
tractates, 15 1/2 tractates have no Gemara at all.] The most
defective is the Jerusalem Talmud, which is also much
briefer, and contains far fewer discussions than that of
Babylon. The Babylon Talmud, which in its present form
extends over thirty-six out of the sixty-three tractates of
the Mishnah, is about ten or eleven times the size of the
latter, and more than four times that of the Jerusalem
Talmud. It occupies (in our editions), with marginal
commentations, 2,947 folio leaves (pages a and b). Both
Talmuds are written in Aramaean; the one in its western, the
other in its eastern dialect, and in both the Mishnah is
discussed seriatim, and clause by clause. Of the character of
these discussions it would be impossible to convey an
adequate idea. When we bear in mind the many sparkling,
beautiful, and occasionally almost sublime passages in the
Talmud, but especially that its forms of thought and
expression so often recall those of the New Testament, only
prejudice and hatred could indulge in indiscriminate
vituperation. On the other hand, it seems unaccountable how
any one who has read a Talmudic tractate, or even part of
one, could compare the Talmud with the New Testament, or find
in the one the origin of the other.

To complete our brief survey, it should be added that our
editions of the Babylon Talmud contain (at the close of vol.
ix. and after the fourth 'Order') certain Boraithas. Of these
there were originally nine, but two of the smaller tractates
(on 'the memorial fringes,' and on 'non-Israelites') have not
been preserved. The first of these Boraithas is entitled
Abhoth de Rabbi Nathan, and partially corresponds with a
tractate of a similar name in the Mishnah. [2 The last ten
chapters curiously group together events or things under
numerals from 10 downwards. The most generally interesting of
these is that of the 10 Nequdoth, or passages of Scripture in
which letters are marked by dots, together with the
explanation of their reasons (ch. xxxiv.). The whole Boraitha
seems composed of parts of three different works, and
consists of forty (or forty-one) chapters, and occupies ten
folio leaves.] Next follow six minor tractates. These are
respectively entitled Sopherim (Scribes), [1 In twenty-one
chapters, each containing a number of Halakhahs, and
occupying in all four folio leaves.] detailing the ordinances
about copying the Scriptures, the ritual of the Lectionary,
and festive prayers; Ebhel Rabbathi or Semakhoth, [2 In
fourteen chapters, occupying rather more than three folio
leaves.] containing Halakhah and Haggadah about funeral and
mourning observances; Kallah, [3 It fills little more than a
folio page.] on the married relationship; Derekh Erets, [4 In
eleven chapters, covering about 1 3/4 folio leaves.]
embodying moral directions and the rules and customs of
social intercourse; Derekh Erets Zuta, [5 In nine chapters,
filling one folio leaf.] treating of similar subjects, but as
regards learned students; and, lastly, the Pereq ha Shalom,
[6 Little more than a folio column.] which is a eulogy on
peace. All these tractates date, at least in their present
form, later than the Talmudic period. [7 Besides these,
Raphael Kirchheim has published (Frankfort, 1851) the
so-called seven smaller tractates, covering altogether, with
abundant notes, only forty-four small pages, which treat of
the copying of the Bible (Sepher Torah, in five chapters), of
the Mezuzah, or memorial on the doorposts (in two chapters),
of the Tsitsith, (Tephillin, in one chapter), of the
Tsitsith, 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 on
Proselytes (Gerim, in four chapters).]

But when the Halakhah, however varied in its application,
was something fixed and stable, the utmost latitude was
claimed and given in the Haggadah. It is sadly
characteristic, that, practically, the main body of Jewish
dogmatic and moral theology is really only Haggadah, and
hence of no absolute authority. The Halakhah indicated with
the most minute and painful punctiliousness every legal
ordinance as to outward observances, and it explained every
bearing of the Law of Moses. But beyond this it left the
inner man, the spring of actions, untouched. What he was to
believe and what to feel, was chiefly matter of the Haggadah.
Of course the laws of morality, and religion, as laid down in
the Pentateuch, were fixed principles, but there was the
greatest divergence and latitude in the explanation and
application of many of them. A man might hold or propound
almost any views, so long as he contravened not the Law of
Moses, as it was understood, and adhered in teaching and
practice to the traditional ordinances. In principle it was
the same liberty which the Romish Church accords to its
professing members, only with much wider application, since
the debatable ground embraced so many matters of faith, and
the liberty given was not only that of private opinion but of
public utterance. We emphasise this, because the absence of
authoritative direction and the latitude in matters of faith
and inner feeling stand side by side, and in such sharp
contrast, with the most minute punctiliousness in all matters
of outward observance. And here we may mark the fundamental
distinction between the teaching of Jesus and Rabbinism. He
left the Halakhah untouched, putting it, as it were, on one
side, as something quite secondary, while He insisted as
primary on that which to them was chiefly matter of Haggadah.
And this rightly so, for, in His own words, 'Not that which
goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh
out of the mouth,' since 'those things which proceed out of
the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the
man.' [a St. Matt. xv. 11, 18.] The difference was one of
fundamental principle, and not merely of development, form,
or detail. The one developed the Law in its outward direction
as ordinances and commandments; the other in its inward
direction as life and liberty. Thus Rabbinism occupied one
pole, and the outcome of its tendency to pure externalism was
the Halakhah, all that was internal and higher being merely
Haggadic. The teaching of Jesus occupied the opposite pole.
Its starting-point was the inner sanctuary in which God was
known and worshipped, and it might well leave the Rabbinic
Halakhoth aside, as not worth controversy, to be in the
meantime 'done and observed,' in the firm assurance that, in
the course of its development, the spirit would create its
own appropriate forms, or, to use a New Testament figure, the
new wine burst the old bottles. And, lastly, as closely
connected with all this, and marking the climax of
contrariety: Rabbinism started with demand of outward
obedience and righteousness, and pointed to sonship as its
goal; the Gospel started with the free gift of forgiveness
through faith and of sonship, and pointed to obedience and
righteousness as its goal.

In truth, Rabbinism, as such, had no system of theology;
only what ideas, conjectures, or fancies the Haggadah yielded
concerning God, Angels, demons, man, his future destiny and
present position, and Israel, with its past history and
coming glory. Accordingly, by the side of what is noble and
pure, what a terrible mass of utter incongruities, of
conflicting statements and too often debasing superstitions,
the outcome of ignorance and narrow nationalism; of legendary
colouring of Biblical narratives and scenes, profane, coarse,
and degrading to them; the Almighty Himself and His Angels
taking part in the conversations of Rabbis, and the
discussions of Academies; nay, forming a kind of heavenly
Sanhedrin, which occasionally requires the aid of an earthly
Rabbi. [1 Thus, in B. Mez. 86 a, we read of a discussion in
the heavenly Academy on the subject of purity, when Rabbah
was summoned to heaven by death, although this required a
miracle, since he was constantly engaged in sacred study.
Shocking to write, it needed the authority of Rabbah to
attest the correctness of the Almighty's statement on the
Halakhic question discussed.] The miraculous merges into the
ridiculous, and even the revolting. Miraculous cures,
miraculous supplies, miraculous help, all for the glory of
great Rabbis, who by a look or word can kill, and restore to
life. At their bidding the eyes of a rival fall out, and are
again inserted. Nay, such was the veneration due to Rabbis,
that R. Joshua used to kiss the stone on which R. Eliezer had
sat and lectured, saying: 'This stone is like Mount Sinai,
and he who sat on it like the Ark.' Modern ingenuity has,
indeed, striven to suggest deeper symbolical meaning for such
stories. It should own the terrible contrast existing side by
side: Hebrewism and Judaism, the Old Testament and
traditionalism; and it should recognise its deeper cause in
the absence of that element of spiritual and inner life which
Christ has brought. Thus as between the two - the old and the
new - it may be fearlessly asserted that, as regards their
substance and spirit, there is not a difference, but a total
divergence, of fundamental principle between Rabbinism and
the New Testament, so that comparison between them is not
possible. Here there is absolute contrariety.

The painful fact just referred to is only too clearly
illustrated by the relation in which traditionalism places
itself to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, even though it
acknowledges their inspiration and authority. The Talmud has
it, [a Baba Mets. 33 a] that he who busies himselfwith
Scripture only (i.e. without either the Mishnah or Gemara)
has merit, and yet no merit. Even the comparative paucity of
references to the Bible in the Mishnah is significant Israel
had made void the Law by its traditions. Under a load of
outward ordinances and observances its spirit had been
crushed. The religion as well as the grand hope of the Old
Testament had become externalized. And so alike Heathenism
and Judaism - for it was no longer the pure religion of the
Old Testament - each following its own direction, had reached
its goal. All was prepared and waiting. The very porch had
been built, through which the new, and yet old, religion was
to pass into the ancient world, and the ancient world into
the new religion. Only one thing was needed: the Coming of
the Christ. As yet darkness covered the earth, and gross
darkness lay upon the people. But far away the golden light
of the new day was already tingeing the edge of the horizon.
Presently would the Lord arise upon Zion, and His glory be
seen upon her. Presently would the Voice from out the
wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; presently would it
herald the Coming of His Christ to Jew and Gentile, and that
Kingdom of heaven, which, established upon earth, is
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. [1 For
details on the Jewish views on the Canon, and historical and
mystical theology, see Appendix V.: 'Rabbinic Theology and
Literature.']

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 the
eyelids of those sleepers, and one of them who thronged
Jerusalem in the highday of its glory, during the reign of
King Solomon, had returned to its streets, he would scarcely
have recognised the once familiar city. Then, as now, a
Jewish king reigned, who bore undivided rule over the whole
land; then, as now, the city was filled with riches and
adorned with palaces and architectural monuments; then, as
now, Jerusalem was crowded with strangers from all lands.
Solomon and Herod were each the last Jewish king over the
Land of Promise; [1 I do not here reckon the brief reign of
King Agrippa.] Solomon and Herod, each, built the Temple. But
with the son of David began, and with the Idumaean ended,
'the kingdom'; or rather, having fulfilled its mission, it
gave place to the spiritual world-kingdom of 'David's greater
Son.' The sceptre departed from Judah to where the nations
were to gather under its sway. And the Temple which Solomon
built was the first. In it the Shekhinah dwelt visibly. The
Temple which Herod reared was the last. The ruins of its
burning, which the torch of the Romans had kindled, were
never to be restored. Herod was not the antitype, he was the
Barabbas, of David's Royal Son.

In other respects, also, the difference was almost equally
great. The four 'companion-like' hills on which the city was
built, [a Ps. cxxii] the deep clefts by which it was
surrounded, the Mount of Olives rising in the the east, were
the same as a thousand years ago. There, as of old were the
Pool of Siloam and the royal gardens, nay, the very wall that
had then surrounded the city. And yet all was so altered as
to be scarcely recognisable. The ancient Jebusite fort, the
City of David, Mount Zion, [2 It will be seen that, with the
most recent explorers, I locate Mount Zion not on the
traditional site, on the western hill of Jerusalem, but onthe
eastern, south of the Temple area.] was now the priests'
quarter, Ophel, andthe old royal palace and stables had been
thrown into the Temple area, now completely levelled, where
they formed the magnificent treble colonnade, known as the
Royal Porch. Passing through it, and out by the Western Gate
of the Temple, we stand on the immense bridge which spans the
'Valley of the Cheesemongers,' or the Tyropoeon, and connects
the Eastern with the Western hills of the city. It is perhaps
here that we can best mark the outstanding features, and note
the changes. On the right, as we look northward, are (on the
Eastern hill) Ophel, the Priest-quarter, and the Temple, oh,
how wondrously beautiful and enlarged, and rising terrace
upon terrace, surrounded by massive walls: a palace, a
fortress, a Sanctuary of shining marble and glittering gold.
And beyond it frowns the old fortress of Baris, rebuilt by
Herod, and named after his patron, Antonia. This is the Hill
of Zion. Right below us is the cleft of the Tyropoeon, and
here creeps up northwards the 'Lower City' or Acra, in the
form of a crescent, widening into an almost square 'suburb.'
Across the Tyropoeon, westward, rises the 'Upper City.' If
the Lower City and suburb form the business-quarter with its
markets, bazaars, and streets of trades and guilds, the
'Upper City' is that of palaces. Here, at the other end of
the great bridge which connects the Temple with the 'Upper
City,' is the palace of the Maccabees; beyond it, the Xystos,
or vast colonnaded enclosure, where popular assemblies are
held; then the Palace of Ananias the High-Priest, and nearest
to the Temple, 'the Council Chamber' and public Archives.
Behind it, westwards, rise, terrace upon terrace, the stately
mansions of the Upper City, till, quite in the north-west
corner of the old city, we reach the Palace which Herod had
built for himself, almost a city and fortress, flanked by
three high towers, and enclosing spacious gardens. Beyond it
again, and outside the city walls, both of the first and the
second, stretches all north of the city the new suburb of
Bezetha. Here on every side are gardens and villas; here
passes the great northern road; out there must they have laid
hold on Simon the Cyrenian, and here must have led the way to
the place of the Crucifixion.

Changes that marked the chequered course of Israel's history
had come even over the city walls. The first and oldest, that
of David and Solomon, ran round the west side of the Upper
City, then crossed south to the Pool of Siloam, and ran up
east, round Ophel, till it reached the eastern enclosure of
the Temple, whence it passed in a straight line to the point
from which it had started, forming the northern boundary of
the ancient city. But although this wall still existed, there
was now a marked addition to it. When the Maccabee Jonathan
finally cleared Jerusalem of the Syrian garrison that lay in
Fort Acra, [a 1 Macc. i. 33, and often; but the precise
situation 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 the
western angle of the Temple southwards, to near the pool of
Siloam, following the winding course of the Tyropoeon, but on
the other side of it, where the declivity of the Upper City
merged in the valley. Another monument of the Syrian Wars, of
the Maccabees, and of Herod, was the fortress Antonia. Part
of it had, probably, been formerly occupied by what was known
as Fort Acra, of such unhappy prominence in the wars that
preceded and marked the early Maccabean period. it had passed
from the Ptolemies to the Syrians, and always formed the
central spot round which the fight for the city turned. Judas
Maccabee had not been able to take it. Jonathan had laid
siege to it, and built the wall, to which reference has just
been made, so as to isolatc its garrison. It was at last
taken by Simon, the brother and successor of Jonathan, and
levelled with the ground. [c 141 B.C.] Fort Baris, which was
constructed by his successor Hyrcanus I., [d 135-106 B.C.]
covered a much wider space. It lay on the northwestern angle
of the Temple, slightly jutting beyond it in the west, but
not covering the whole northern area of the Temple. The rock
on which it stood was higher than the Temple, [1 It is, to
say the least, doubtful, whether the numeral 50 cubits (75
feet), 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 suburb
Bezetha crept, which, accordingly, was cut off by a deep
ditch, for the safety of the fortress. Herod greatly enlarged
and strengthened it. Within encircling walls the fort rose to
a height of sixty feet, and was flanked by four towers, of
which three had a height of seventy, the fourth (S.E.), which
jutted into the Temple area, of 105 feet, so as to command
the sacred enclosure. A subterranean passage led into the
Temple itself, [e Ant. xv. 11. 7]which was also connected
with it by colonnades and stairs. Herod had adorned as well
as strengthened and enlarged, this fort (now Antonia), and
made 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, which
had only fourteen towers, began at some point in the northern
wall at the Gate Gennath, whence it ran north, and then east,
so as to enclose Acra and the Suburb. It terminated at Fort
Antonia. Beyond, and all around this second wall stretched,
as already noticed, the new, as yet unenclosed suburb
Bezetha, rising towards the north-east. But these changes
were as nothing compared with those within the city itself.
First and foremost was the great transformation in the Temple
itself, [1 I must take leave to refer to the description of
Jerusalem, and especially of the Temple, in the 'Temple and
its Services at the Time of Jesus Christ.'] which, from a
small building, little larger than an ordinary church, in the
time of Solomon, [2 Dr. Muhlau, in Riehm's Handworterb. Part
viii. p. 682 b, speaks of the dimensions of the old Sanctuary
as little more than those of a village church.] had become
that great and glorious House which excited the admiration of
the foreigner, and kindled the enthusiasm of every son of
Israel. At the time of Christ it had been already forty-six
years in building, and workmen were still, and for a long
time, engaged on it. [3 It was only finished in 64 A.D., that
is, six years before its destruction.] But what a
heterogeneous crowd thronged its porches and courts!
Hellenists; scattered wanderers from the most distant parts
of the earth, east, west, north, and south; Galileans, quick
of temper and uncouth of Jewish speech; Judaeans and
Jerusalemites; white-robed Priests and Levites; Temple
officials; broad-phylacteried, wide-fringed Pharisees, and
courtly, ironical Sadducees; and, in the outer court, curious
Gentiles! Some had come to worship; others to pay vows, or
bring offerings, or to seek purification; some to meet
friends, and discourse on religious subjects in those
colonnaded porches, which ran round the Sanctuary; or else to
have their questions answered, or their causes heard and
decided, by the smaller Sanhedrin of twenty-three, that sat
in the entering of the gate or by the Great Sanhedrin. The
latter no longer occupied the Hall of Hewn Stones, Gazith,
but met in some chamber attached to those 'shops,' or booths,
on the Temple Mount, which belonged to the High-Priestly
family of Ananias, and where such profitable trade was driven
by those who, in their cupidity and covetousness, were worthy
successors of the sons of Eli. In the Court of the Gentiles
(or in its porches) sat the official money-changers, who for
a fixed discount changed all foreign coins into those of the
Sanctuary. Here also was that great mart for sacrificial
animals, and all that was requisite for offerings. How the
simple, earnest country people, who came to pay vows, or
bring offerings for purifying, must have wondered, and felt
oppressed in that atmosphere of strangely blended religious
rigorism and utter worldliness; and how they must have been
taxed, imposed upon, and treated with utmost curtness, nay,
rudeness, by those who laughed at their boorishness, and
despised them as cursed, ignorant country people, little
better than heathens, or, for that matter, than brute beasts.
Here also there lay about a crows of noisy beggars, unsightly
from disease, and clamorous for help. And close by passed the
luxurious scion of the High-Priestly families; the proud,
intensely self-conscious Teacher of the Law, respectfully
followed by his disciples; and the quick-witted, subtle
Scribe. These were men who, on Sabbaths and feast-days, would
come out on the Temple-terrace to teach the people, or
condescend to answer their questions; who in the Synagogues
would hold their puzzled hearers spell-bound by their
traditional lore and subtle argumentation, or tickle the
fancy of the entranced multitude, that thronged every
available space, by their ingenious frivolities, their
marvellous legends, or their clever sayings; but who would,
if occasion required, quell an opponent by well-poised
questions, or crush him beneath the sheer weight of
authority. Yet others were there who, despite the utterly
lowering influence which the frivolities of the prevalent
religion, and the elaborate trifling of its endless
observances, must have exercised on the moral and religious
feelings of all, perhaps, because of them, turned aside, and
looked back with loving gaze to the spiritual promises of the
past, and forward with longing expectancy to the near
'consolation of Israel,' waiting for it in prayerful
fellowship, and with bright, heaven-granted gleams of its
dawning light amidst the encircling gloom.

Descending from the Temple into the city, there was more
than enlargement, due to the increased population.
Altogether, Jerusalem covered, at its greatest, about 300
acres. [1 See Conder, Heth and Moab, p. 94.]As of old there
were still the same narrow streets in the business quarters;
but in close contiguity to bazaars and shops rose stately
mansions of wealthy merchants, and palaces of princes. [2
Such as the Palace of Grapte, and that of Queen Helena of
Adiabene.] And what a change in the aspect of these streets,
in the character of those shops, and, above all, in the
appearance of the restless Eastern crowd that surged to and
fro! Outside their shops in the streets, or at least in sight
of the passers, and within reach of their talk, was the
shoemaker hammering his sandals, the tailor plying his
needle, the carpenter, or the worker in iron and brass. Those
who were less busy, or more enterprising, passed along,
wearing some emblem of their trade: the dyer, variously
coloured threads; the carpenter, a rule: the writer, a reed
behind his ear; the tailor, with a needle prominently stuck
in his dress. In the side streets the less attractive
occupations of the butcher, the wool-comber, or the
flaxspinner were pursued: the elegant workmanship of the
goldsmith and jeweller; the various articles de luxe, that
adorned the houses of the rich; the work of the designer, the
moulder, or the artificer in iron or brass. In these streets
and lanes everything might be purchased: the production of
Palestine, or imported from foreign lands, nay, the rarest
articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped,
curiously designed and jewelled cups, rings and other
workmanship of precious metals; glass, silks, fine linen,
woollen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings; essences,
ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles of
food and drink from foreign lands, in short, what India,
Persia, Arabia, Media Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the
far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these
bazaars.

Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than
118 different articles of import from foreign lands, covering
more than even modern luxury has devised. Articles of luxury,
especially from abroad, fetched indeed enormous prices; and a
lady might spend 36l. on a cloak; [a Baba B. ix. 7.] silk
would be paid by its weight in gold; purple wool at 3l. 5s.
the pound, or, if double-dyed, at almost ten times that
amount; while the price of the best balsam and nard was most
exorbitant. On the other hand, the cost of common living was
very low. In the bazaars you might get a complete suit for
your slave for eighteen or nineteen shillings, [b Arakh. vi.
5.] and a tolerable outfit for yourself from 3l. to 6l.For
the same sum you might purchase an ass, [c Baba K. x. 4.] an
ox, [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 for
less than fifteen shillings, a goat for five or six. [f Men.
xiii. 8.] Sheep were dearer, and fethed from four to fifteen
or sixteen shillings, while a lamb might sometimes be had as
low as two pence. No wonder living and labour were so cheap.
Corn of all kinds, fruit, wine, and oil, cost very little.
Meat was about a penny a pound; a man might get himself a
small, of course unfurnished, lodging for about sixpence a
week. [g Tos. Baba Mets. iv.] A day labourer was paid about 7
1/2d. a day, though skilled labour would fetch a good deal
more. Indeed, the great Hillel was popularly supposed to have
supported his family on less than twopence a day, [h Yoma 35
b.] while property to the amount of about 6l., or trade with
2l. or 3l. of goods, was supposed to exclude a person from
charity, or a claim on what was left in the corners of fields
and 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 show
the two ends of society: the exceeding dearness of luxuries,
and the corresponding cheapness of necessaries. Such extremes
would meet especially at Jerusalem. Its population, computed
at from 200,000 to 250,000, [2 Ancient Jerusalem is supposed
to have covered about double the area of the modern city.
Comp. Dr. Schick in A.M. Luncz, 'Jerusalem,' for 1882.] was
enormously swelled by travellers, and by pilgrims during the
great festivals. [1 Although Jerusalem covered only about 300
acres, yet, from the narrowness of Oriental streets, it would
hold a very much larger population than any Western city of
the same extent. Besides, we must remember that its
ecclesiastical boundaries extended beyond the city.] The
great Palace was the residence of King and Court, with all
their following and luxury; in Antonia lay afterwards the
Roman garrison. The Temple called thousands of priests, many
of them with their families, to Jerusalem; while the learned
Academies were filled with hundreds, though it may have been
mostly poor, scholars and students. In Jerusalem must have
been many of the large warehouses for the near commercial
harbour of Joppa; and thence, as from the industrial centres
of busy Galilee, would the pedlar go forth to carry his wares
over the land. More especially would the markets of
Jerusalem, held, however, in bazaars and streets rather than
in squares, be thronged with noisy sellers and bargaining
buyers. Thither would Galilee send not only its manufactures,
but its provisions: fish (fresh or salted), fruit [a Maaser.
ii. 3.] known for its lusciousness, oil, grape-syrup, and
wine. There were special inspectors for these markets, the
Agardemis or Agronimos, who tested weights and measures, and
officially stamped them, [b Baba B. 89 a.] tried the
soundness 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 of
officially fixing the market-price, diverging opinions are
expressed, Baba B. 89 b. It was thought that the market-price
should leave to the producer a profit of one-sixth on the
cost (Baba B. 90 a). In general, the laws on these subjects
form a most interesting study. Bloch (Mos. Talm. Polizeir.)
holds, that there were two classes of market-officials. But
this is not supported by sufficient evidence, nor, indeed,
would such an arrangement seem likely. 3 That of Botnah was
the largest, Jer. Ab. Z. 39 d.] Not only was there an upper
and a lower market in Jerusalem, [f Sanh. 89 a.] but we read
of 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. The
original market-days were Monday and Tuesday, afterwards
Friday. [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 maritime
towns (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, and
especially cattle set out [l Kerith. iii. 7;] for sale, and
purchases made. But in Jerusalem one may suppose the sellers
to have been every day in the market; and the magazines, in
which greengrocery and all kinds of meat were sold (the Beth
haShevaqim), [m Makhsh. vi. 2] must have been always open.
Besides, there were the many shops (Chanuyoth) either
fronting the streets, or in courtyards, or else movable
wooden booths in the streets. Stangely enough, occasionally
Jewish women were employed in selling. [a Kethub. ix. 4]
Business was also done in the resturants and wineshops, of
which there were many; where you might be served with some
dish: fresh or salted fish, fried locusts, a mess of
vegetables, a dish of soup, pastry, sweetmeats, or a piece of
a fruit-cake, to be washed down with Judaean or Galilean
wine, Idumaean vinegar, or foreign beer.

If from these busy scenes we turn to the more aristocratic
quarters of the Upper City, [1 Compare here generally Unruh,
D. alte Jerusalem.] we stillsee the same narrow streets, but
tenanted by another class. First, we pass the High-Priest's
palace on the slope of the hill, with a lower story under the
principal apartments, and a porch in front. Here, on the
night of the Betrayal, Peter was 'beneath in the Palace.' [a
St. Mark xiv. 66.] Next, we come to Xystos, and thenpause for
a moment at the Palace of the Maccabees. It lies higher up
the hill, and westward from the Xytos. From its halls you can
look into the city, and even into the Temple. We know not
which of the Maccabees had built this palace. But it was
occupied, not by the actually reigning prince, who always
resided in the fortress (Baris, afterwards Antonia), but by
some other member of the family. From them it passed into the
possession of Herod. There Herod Antipas was when, on that
terrible Passover, Pilate sent Jesus from the old palace of
Herod to be examined by the Ruler of Galilee. [b St. Luke
xxiii. 6,7] If these buildings pointed to the difference
between the past and present, two structures of Herod's were,
perhaps, more eloquent than any words in their accusations of
the Idumaean. One of these, at least, would come in sight in
passing along the slopes of the Upper City. The Maccabean
rule had been preceded by that of corrupt High-Priests, who
had prostituted their office to the vilest purposes. One of
them, who had changed his Jewish name of Joshua into Jason,
had gone so far, in his attempts to Grecianise the people, as
to build a Hippodrome and Gymnasium for heathen games. We
infer, it stood where the Western hill sloped into the
Tyropoeon, to the south-west of the Temple. [c Jos. War ii.3.
1] It was probably this which Herod afterwards enlarged and
beautified, and turned into a threatre. No expense was spared
on the great games held there. The threatre itself was
magnificently adorned with gold, silver, precious stones, and
trophies of arms and records of the victories of Augustus.
But to the Jews this essentially heathen place, over against
their Temple, was cause of deep indignation and plots. [d
Ant. xv. 8. 1] Besidesthis theatre, Herod also built an
immense amphitheatre, which we must locate somewhere in the
north-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 under
ground Jerusalem also, which burrowed everywhere under the
city, under the Upper City, under the Temple, beyond the city
walls. Its extent may be gathered from the circumstance that,
after the capture of the city, besides the living who had
sought shelter there, no fewer than 2,000 dead bodies were
found in those subterranean streets.

Close by the tracks of heathenism in Jerusalem, and in sharp
contrast, was what gave to Jerusalem its intensely Jewish
character. It was not only the Temple, nor the festive
pilgrims to its feasts and services. But there were hundreds
of Synagogues, [1 Tradition exaggerates their number as 460
(Jer. Kethub. 35 c.) or even 480 (Jer. Meg. 73 d). But even
the large number (proportionally to the size of the city)
mentioned in the text need not surprise us when we remember
that ten men were sufficient to form a Synagogue, and how
many, what may be called 'private', Synagogues exist at
present in every town where there is a large and orthodox
Jewish population.] some for different nationalities, such as
the Alexandrians, or the Cyrenians; some for, or perhaps
founded by, certain trade-guilds. If possible, the Jewish
schools were even more numerous than the Synagogues. Then
there were the many Rabbinic Academies; and, besides, you
might also see in Jerusalem that mysterious sect, the
Essenes, of which the members were easily recognized by their
white dress. Essenes, Pharisees, stranger Jews of all hues,
and of many dresses and languages! One could have imagined
himself almost in another world, a sort of enchanted land, in
this Jewish metropolis, and metropolis of Judaism. When the
silver trumpets of the Priests woke the city to prayer, or
the strain of Levite music swept over it, or the smoke of the
sacrifices hung like another Shekhinah over the Temple,
against the green background of Olivet; or when in every
street, court, and housetop rose the booths at the Feast of
Tabernacles, and at night the sheen of the Temple
illumination threw long fantastic shadows over the city; or
when, at the Passover, tens of thousands crowded up the Mount
with their Paschal lambs, and hundreds of thousands sat down
to the Paschal supper, it would be almost difficult to
believe, that heathenism was so near, that the Roman was
virtually, and would soon be really, master of the land, or
that a Herod occupied the Jewish throne.

Yet there he was; in the pride of his power, and the
reckless cruelty of his ever-watchful tyranny. Everywhere was
his mark. Temples to the gods and to Caesar, magnificent, and
magnificently adorned, outside Palestine and in its
non-Jewish cities; towns rebuilt or built: Sebaste for the
acient Samaria, the splendid city and harbour of Coesarea in
the west, Antipatris (after his father) in the north, Kypros
and Phasaelis (after his mother and brother), and Agrippeion;
unconquerable fortresses, such as Essebonitis and Machoerus
in Peraea, Alexandreion, Herodeion, Hyrcania, and Masada in
Judaea, proclaimed his name and sway. But in Jerusalem it
seemed as if he had gathered up all his strength. The theatre
and amphitheatre spoke of his Grecianism; Antonia was the
representative fortress; for his religion he had built that
glorious Temple, and for his residence the noblest of
palaces, at the north-western angle of the Upper City, close
by where Milo had been in the days of David. It seems almost
incredible, that a Herod should have reared the Temple, and
yet we can understand his motives. Jewish tradition had it,
that a Rabbi (Baba ben Buta) had advised him in this manner
to conciliate the people, [a Baba B. 3 b] or else thereby to
expiate the slaughter of so many Rabbis. [b Bemid. R. 14.] [1
The occasion is said to have been, that the Rabbis, in answer
to Herod's question, quoted Deut. xvii. 15. Baba ben Buta
himself is said to have escaped the slaughter, indeed, but to
have been deprived of his eyes.] Probably a desire to gain
popularity, and supersition, may alike have contributed, as
also the wish to gratify his love for splendour and building.
At the same time, he may have wished to show himself a better
Jew than that rabble of Pharisees and Rabbis, who perpetually
would cast it in his teeth, that he was an Idumaean. Whatever
his origin, he was a true king of the Jews, as great, nay
greater, than Solomon himself. Certainly, neither labour nor
money had been spared on the Temple. A thousand vehicles
carried up the stone; 10,000 workmen, under the guidance of
1,000 priests, wrought all the costly material gathered into
that house, of which Jewish tradition could say, 'He that has
not seen the temple of Herod, has never known what beauty
is.' [c Baba B. 4a.] And yet Israel despised and abhorred the
builder! Nor could his apparent work for the God of Israel
have deceived the most credulous. In youth he had browbeaten
the venerable Sanhedrin, and threatened the city with
slaughter and destruction; again and again had he murdered
her venerable sages; he had shed like water the blood of her
Asmonean princes, and of every one who dared to be free; had
stifled every national aspiration in the groans of the
torture, and quenched it in the gore of his victims. Not
once, nor twice, but six times did he change the
High-Priesthood, to bestow it at last on one who bears no
good name in Jewish theology, a foreigner in Judaea, an
Alexandrian. And yet the power of that Idumaean was but of
yesterday, 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 sketch
of this history see Appendix IV.] in the course of which
Herod made his way to the throne. We look back nearly two and
a half centuries to where, with the empire of Alexander,
Palestine fell to his successors. For nearly a century and a
half it continued the battle-field of the Egyptian and Syrian
kings (the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae). At last it was a
corrupt High-Priesthood, with which virtually the government
of the land had all along lain, that betrayed Israel's
precious trust. The great-grandson of so noble a figure in
Jewish history as Simon the Just (compare Ecclus. 1.) bought
from the Syrians the High-Priestly office of his brother,
adopted the heathen name Jason, and sought to Grecianise the
people. The sacred office fell, if possible, even lower when,
through bribery, it was transferred to his brother Menelaus.
Then followed the brief period of the terrible persecutions
of Antiochus Epiphanes, when Judaism was all but exterminated
in Palestine. The glorious uprising of the Maccabees called
forth all the national elements left in Israel, and kindled
afresh the smouldering religious feeling. It seemed like a
revival of Old Testament times. And when Judas the Maccabee,
with a band so inferior in numbers and discipline, defeated
the best of the Syrian soldiery, led by its ablest generals,
and, on the anniversary of its desecration by heathen rites,
set up again the great altar of burnt-offering, it appeared
as if a new Theocracy were to be inaugurated. The ceremonial
of that feast of the new 'dedication of the Temple,' when
each night the number of lights grew larger in the winter's
darkness, seemed symbolic of what was before Israel. But the
Maccabees were not the Messiah; nor yet the kingdom, which
their sword would have restored , that of Heaven, with its
blessings and peace. If ever, Israel might then have learned
what Saviour to look for.

The period even of promise was more brief than might have
been expected. The fervour and purity of the movement ceased
almost with its success. It was certainly never the golden
age of Israel, not even among those who remained faithful to
its God, which those seem to imagine who, forgetful of its
history and contests, would trace to it so much that is most
precious and spiritual in the Old Testament. It may have been
the pressure of circumstances, but it was anything but a
pious, or even a 'happy' thought [1 So Schurer in his
Neutestam. Zeitgesch.] of Judas the Maccabee, to seek the
alliance of the Romans. From their entrance on the scene
dates the decline of Israel's national cause. For a time,
indeed, though after varying fortunes of war, all seemed
prosperous. The Maccabees became both High-Priests and Kings.
But partystrife and worldliness, ambition and corruption, and
Grecianism on the throne, soon brought their sequel in the
decline of morale and vigour, and led to the decay and
decadence of the Maccabean house. It is a story as old as the
Old Testament, and as wide as the history of the world.
Contention for the throne among the Maccabees led to the
interference of the foreigner. When, after capturing
Jerusalem, and violating the sanctity of the Temple, although
not plundering its treasures, Pompey placed Hyrcanus II. in
the possession of the High-Priesthood, the last of the
Maccabean rulers [2 A table of the Maccabean and Herodian
families is given in Appendix VI.] was virtually shorn of
power. The country was now tributary to Rome, and subject to
the Governor of Syria. Even the shadow of political power
passed from the feeble hands of Hyrcanus when, shortly
afterwards, Gabinius (one of the Roman governors) divided the
land into five districts, independent of each other.

But already a person had appeared on the stage of Jewish
affairs, who was to give them their last decisive turn. About
fifty years before this, the district of Idumaea had been
conquered by the Maccabean King Hyrcanus I., and its
inhabitants forced to adopt Judaism. By this Idumaea we are
not, however, to understand the ancient or Eastern Edom,
which was now in the hands of the Nabataeans, but parts of
Southern Palestine which the Edomites had occupied since the
Babylonian Exile, and especially a small district on the
northern and eastern boundary of Judaea, and below Samaria.
[a Comp. 1 Macc. vi. 31] After it became Judaean, its
administration was entrusted to a governor. In the reign of
the last of the Maccabees this office devolved on one
Antipater, a man of equal cunning and determination. He
successfully interfered in the unhappy dispute for the crown,
which was at last decided by the sword of Pompey. Antipater
took the part of the utterly weak Hyrcanus in that contest
with his energetic brother Aristobulus. He soon became the
virtual ruler, and Hyrcanus II. only a puppet in his hands.
From the accession of Judas Maccabaeus, in 166 B.C., to the
year 63 B.C., when Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, only about
a century had elapsed. Other twenty-four years, and the last
of the Maccabees had given place to the son of Antipater:
Herod, surnamed the Great.

The settlement of Pompey did not prove lasting. Aristobulus,
the brother and defeated rival of Hyrcanus, was still alive,
and his sons were even more energetic than he. The risings
attempted by them, the interference of the Parthians on
behalf of those who were hostile to Rome, and, lastly, the
contentions for supremacy in Rome itself, made this period
one of confusion, turmoil, and constant warfare in Palestine.
When Pompey was finally defeated by Caesar, the prospects of
Antipater and Hycanus seemed dark. But they quickly changed
sides; and timely help given to Caesar in Egypt brought to
Antipater the title of Procurator of Judaea, while Hycanus
was left in the High-Priesthood, and, at least, nominal head
of the people. The two sons of Antipater were now made
governors: the elder, Phasaelus, of Jerusalem; the younger,
Herod, only twenty-five years old, of Galilee. Here he
displayed the energy and determination which were his
characteristics, in crushing a guerilla warfare, of which the
deeper springs were probably nationalist. The execution of
its leader brought Herod a summons to appear before the Great
Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, for having arrogated to himself the
power of life and death. He came, but arrayed in purple,
surrounded by a body-guard, and supported by the express
direction of the Roman Governor to Hyrcanus, that he was to
be acquitted. Even so he would have fallen a victim to the
apprehensions of the Sanhedrin, only too well grounded, had
he not been persuaded to withdrawn from the city. He returned
at the head of an army, and was with difficulty persuaded by
his father to spare Jerusalem. Meantime Caesar had named him
Governor of Coelesyria.

On the murder of Caesar, and the possession of Syria by
Cassius, Antipater and Herod again changed sides. But they
rendered such substantial service as to secure favour, and
Herod was continued in the position conferred on him by
Caesar. Antipater was, indeed, poisoned by a rival, but his
sons Herod and Phasaelus repressed and extinguished all
opposition. When the battle of Philippi placed the Roman
world in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the former
obtained Asia. Once more the Idumaeans knew how to gain the
new ruler, and Phasaelus and Herod were named Tetrarchs of
Judaea. Afterwards, when Antony was held in the toils of
Cleopatra, matters seemed, indeed, to assume a different
aspect. The Parthians entered the land, in support of the
rival Maccabean prince Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus. By
treachery, Phasaelus and Hyrcanus were induced to go to the
Parthian camp, and made captives. Phasaelus shortly
afterwards destroyed himself in his prison, [1 By dashing out
his brains againstthe prison walls.] while Hyrcanus was
deprived of his ears, to unfit him for the High-Priestly
office. And so Antigonus for a short time succeeded both to
the High-Priesthood and royalty in Jerusalem. Meantime Herod,
who had in vain warned his brother and Hyrcanus against the
Parthian, had been able to make his escape from Jerusalem.
His family he left to the defence of his brother Joseph, in
the inaccessible fortress of Masada; himself fled into
Arabia, and finally made his way to Rome. There he succeeded,
not only with Antony, but obtained the consent of Octavius,
and was proclaimed by the Senate King of Judaea. A sacrifice
on the Capitol, and a banquet by Antony, celebrated the
accession of the new successor of David.

But he had yet to conquer his kingdom. At first he made way
by the help of the Romans. Such success, however, as he had
gained, was more than lost during his brief absence on a
visit to Antony. Joseph, the brother of Herod, was defeated
and slain, and Galilee, which had been subdued, revolted
again. But the aid which the Romans rendered, after Herod's
return from Antony, was much more hearty, and his losses were
more than retrieved. Soon all Palestine, with the exception
of Jerusalem, was in his hands. While laying siege to it, he
went to Samaria, there to wed the beautiful Maccabean
princess Mariamme, who had been betrothed to him five years
before. [2 He had previously been married to one Doris, the
issue of the marriage being a son, Antipater.] That ill-fated
Queen, and her elder brother Aristobulus, united in
themselves the two rival branches of the Maccabean family.
Their father was Alexander, the eldest son of Aristobulus,
and brother of that Antigonus whom Herod now besieged in
Jerusalem; and their mother, Alexandra, the daughter of
Hyrcanus II. The uncle of Mariamme was not long able to hold
out against the combined forces of Rome and Herod. The
carnage was terrible. When Herod, by rich presents, at length
induced the Romans to leave Jerusalem, they took Antigonus
with them. By desire of Herod he was executed.

This was the first of the Maccabees who fell victim to his
jealousy and cruelty. The history which now follows is one of
sickening carnage. The next to experience his vengeance were
the principal adherents in Jerusalem of his rival Antigonus.
Forty-five of the noblest and richest were executed. His next
step was to appoint an abscure Babylonian to the
High-Priesthood. This awakened the active hostility of
Alexandra, the mother of Marimme, Herod's wife. The Maccabean
princess 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 Herod
loved, though in his own mad way, prevailed. At the age of
seventeen Aristobulus was made High-Priest. But Herod, who
well knew the hatred and contempt of the Maccabean members of
his family, had his mother-in-law watched, a precaution
increased after the vain attempt of Alexandra to have herself
and her son removed in coffins from Jerusalem, to flee to
Cleopatra. Soon the jealousy and suspicions of Herod were
raised to murderous madness, by the acclamations which
greeted the young Aristobulus at the Feast of Tabernacles. So
dangerous a Maccabean rival must be got rid of; and, by
secret order of Herod, Aristobulus was drowned while bathing.
His mother denounced the murderer, and her influence with
Cleopatra, who also hated Herod, led to his being summoned
before Antony. Once more bribery, indeed, prevailed; but
other troubles awaited Herod.

When obeying the summons of Antony, Herod had committed the
government to his uncle Joseph, who was also his
brother-in-law, having wedded Salome, the sister of Herod.
His mad jealousy had prompted him to direct that, in case of
his condemnation, Mariamme was to be killed, that she might
not become the wife of another. Unfortunately, Joseph told
this to Mariamme, to show how much she was loved. But on the
return of Herod, the infamous Salome accused her old husband
of impropriety with Mariamme. When it appeared that Joseph
had told the Queen of his commission, Herod, regarding it as
confirming his sister's charge, ordered him to be executed,
without even a hearing. External complications of the gravest
kind now supervened. Herod had to cede to Cleopatra the
districts of Phoenice and Philistia, and that of Jericho with
its rich balsam plantations. Then the dissensions between
Antony and Octavius involved him, in the cause of the former,
in a war with Arabia, whose king had failed to pay tribute to
Cleopatra. Herod was victorious; but he had now to reckon
with another master. The battle of Actium [a 31 B.C.] decided
the fate on Antony, and Herod had to make his peace with
Octavius. Happily, he was able to do good service to the new
cause, ere presenting himself before Augustus. But, in order
to be secure from all possible rivals, he had the aged
Hyrcanus II. executed, on pretence of intrigues with the
Arabs. Herod was successful with Augustus; and when, in the
following summer, he furnished him supplies on his march to
Egypt, he was rewarded by a substantial addition of
territory.

When about to appear before Augustus, Herod had entrusted to
one Soemus the charge of Mariamme, with the same fatal
directions as formerly to Joseph. Again Mariamme learnt the
secret; again the old calumnies were raised, this time not
only by Salome, but also by Kypros, Herod's mother; and again
Herod imagined he had found corroborative evidence. Soemus
was slain without a hearing, and the beautiful Mariamme
executed after a mock trail. The most fearful paroxysm of
remorse, passion, and longing for his murdered wife now
seized the tyrant, and brought him to the brink of the grave.
Alexandra, the mother of Mariamme, deemed the moment
favorable for her plots, but she was discovered, and
executed. Of the Maccabean race there now remained only
distant members, the sons of Babas, who had found an asylum
with Costobarus, the Governor of Idumaea, who had wedded
Salome after the death of her first husband. Tired of him, as
she had been of Joseph, Salome denounced her second husband;
and Costobarus, as well as the sons of Babas, fell victims to
Herod. Thus perished the family of the Maccabees.

The hand of the maddened tyrant was next turned against his
own family. Of his ten wives, we mention only those whose
children occupy a place in this history. The son of Doris was
Antipater; those of the Maccabean Mariamme, Alexander and
Aristobulus; another Mariamme, whose father Herod had made
High-Priest, bore him a son named Herod (a name which other
of the sons shared); Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother of
Archelaus and Herod Antipas; and, lastly, Cleopatra of
Jerusalem bore Philip. The sons of the Maccabean princess, as
heirs presumptive, were sent to Rome for their education. On
this occasion Herod received, as reward for many services,
the country east of the Jordan, and was allowed to appoint
his still remaining brother, Pheroras, Tetrarch of Peraea. On
their return from Rome the young princes were married:
Alexander to a daughter of the King of Cappadocia, and
Aristobulus to his cousin Berenice, the daughter of Salome.
But neither kinship, nor the yet nearer relation in which
Aristobulus now stood to her, could extinguish the hatred of
Salome towards the dead Maccabean princess or her children.
Nor did the young princes, in their pride of descent,
disguise their feelings towards the house of their father. At
first, Herod gave not heed to the denunciations of his
sister. Presently he yielded to vague apprehensions. As a
first step, Antipater, the son of Doris, was recalled from
exile, and sent to Rome for education. So the breach became
open; and Herod took his sons to Italy, to lay formal
accusation against them before Augustus. The wise counsels of
the Emperor restored peace for a time. But Antipater now
returned to Plaestine, and joined his calumnies to those of
Salome. Once more the King of Cappadocia succeeded in
reconciling Herod and his sons. But in the end the intrigues
of Salome, Antipater, and of an infamous foreigner who had
made his way at Court, prevailed. Alexander and Aristobulus
were imprisoned, and an accusation of high treason laid
against them before the Emperor. Augustus gave Herod full
powers, but advised the convocation of a mixed tribunal of
Jews and Romans to try the case. As might have been expected,
the two princes were condemned to death, and when some old
soldiers ventured to intercede for them, 300 of the supposed
adherents of the cause were cut down, and the two princes
strangled in prison. This happened in Samaria, where, thirty
years before, Herod had wedded their ill-fated mother.

Antipater was now the heir presumptive. But, impatient of
the throne, he plotted with Herod's brother, Pheroras,
against his father. Again Salome denounced her nephew and her
brother. Antipater withdrew to Rome; but when, after the
death of Pheraras, Herod obtained indubitable evidence that
his son had plotted against his life, he lured Antipater to
Palestine, where on his arrival he was cast into prison. All
that was needed was the permission of Augustus for his
execution. It arrived, and was carried out only five days
before the death of Herod himself. So ended a reign almost
unparalleled for reckless cruelty and bloodshed, in which the
murder of the Innocents in Bethlehem formed but so trifling
an episode among the many deeds of blood, as to have seemed
not deserving of record on the page of the Jewish historian.

But we can understand the feelings of the people towards
such a King. They hated the Idumaean; they detested his
semi-heathen reign; they abhorred his deeds of cruelty. the
King had surrounded himself with foreign councillors, and was
protected by foreign mercenaries from Thracia, Germany, and
Gaul. [a Jos. Ant. vxii. 8. 3] So long as he lived, no
woman's honour was safe, no man's life secure. An army of
allpowerful spies pervaded Jerusalem, nay, the King himself
was said to stoop to that office. [b Ant. xv. 10. 4] If pique
or private enmity led to denunciation, the torture would
extract any confession from the most innocent. What his
relation to Judaism had been, may easily be inferred. He
would be a Jew, even build the Temple, advocate the cause of
the Jews in other lands, and, in a certain sense, conform to
the Law of Judaism. In building the Temple, he was so anxious
to conciliate national prejudice, that the Sanctuary itself
was entrusted to the workmanship of priests only. Nor did he
ever intrude into the Holy Place, nor interfere with any
functions of the priesthood. None of his coins bear devices
which could have shocked popular feeling, nor did any of the
buildings he erected in Jerusalem exhibit any forbidden
emblems. 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, and
its activity confined to ecclesiastical, or
semi-ecclesiastical, causes. Strangest of all, he seems to
have had at least the passive support of two of the greatest
Rabbis, the Pollio and Sameas of Josephus [a Ant. xiv. 9. 4;
xv. 1 1 10. 4.], supposed to represent those great figures in
Jewish tradition, Abtalion and Shemajah. [b Ab. i. 10, 11] [2
Even their recorded fundamental principles bear this out.
That of Shemajah was: 'Love labour, hate lordship, and do not
push forward to the authorities.' That of Abtalion was: 'Ye
sages, be careful in your words, lest perchance ye incur
banishment, and are exiled to a place of bad waters, and the
disciples who follow you drink of them and die, and so in the
end the name of God be profaned.' We can but conjecture, that
they preferres even his rule to what had preceded; and hoped
it might lead to a Roman Protectorate, which would leave
Judaea practically independent, or rather under Rabbinc rule.

It was also under the government of Herod, that Hillel and
Shammai lived and taught in Jerusalem: [3 On Hillel and
Shammai see the article in Herzog's Real-Encyklop.; that in
Hamburger's; Delitzscg, Jesus u. Hillel. and books on Jewish
history 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, not
unfrequently, it seems, chiefly for the sake of opposition.
But it is not correct to describe the former as consistently
the more liberal and mild. [4 A number of points on which the
ordinances of Hillel were more severe than those of Shammai
are enumerated in Eduj. iv. 1-12; v. 1-4; Ber. 36 a, end.
Comp. also Ber. R. 1.] The teaching of both was supposed to
have been declared by the 'Voice from Heaven' (the Bath-Qol)
as 'the words of the living God;' yet the Law was to be
henceforth according to the teaching of Hillel. [d Jer. Ber.
3 b, lines 3 and 2 from botton But to us Hillel is so
intensely interesting, not merely as the mild and gentle, nor
only as the earnest student who came from Babylon to learn in
the Academies of Jerusalem; who would support his family on a
third of his scanty wages as a day labourer, that he might
pay for entrance into the schools; and whose zeal and merits
were only discovered when, after a severe night, in which,
from poverty, he had been unable to gain admittance into the
Academy, his benumbed form was taken down from the
window-sill, to which he had crept up not to lose aught of
the precious instruction. And for his sake did they gladly
break on that Sabbath the sacred rest. Nor do we think of
him, as tradition fables him, the descendant of David, [a
Ber. R. 98] possessed of every great quality of body, mind,
and heart; nor yet as the second Ezra, whose learning placed
him at the head of the Sanhedrin, who laid down the
principles afterwards applied and developed by Rabbinism, and
who was the real founder of traditionalism. Still less do we
think of him, as he is falsely represented by some: as he
whose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or,
according to certain writers, were its source. By the side of
Jesus we think of him otherwise than this. We remember that,
in his extreme old age and near his end, he may have presided
over that meeting of Sanhedrin which, in answer to Herod's
inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the
Messiah. [b St.Matt. ii. 4.] [1 On the chronology of the life
of Hillel &c., see also Schmilg, Ueb. d. Entsteh. &c. der
Megillath Taanith, especially p. 34. Hillel is said to have
become Chief of the Sanhedrin in 30 B.C., and to have held
the office for forty years. These numbers, however, are no
doubt somewhat exaggerated.] We think of him also as the
grandfather of that Gamaliel, at whose feet Saul of Tarsus
sat. And to us he is the representative Jewish reformer, in
the spirit of those times, and in the sense of restoring
rather than removing; while we think of Jesus as the Messiah
of Israel, in the sense of bringing the Kingdom of God to all
men, and opening it to all believers.

And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. On
the one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre and
amphitheatre; foreigners filling the Court, and crowding the
city; foreign tendencies and ways, from the foreign King
downwards. On the other hand, was the old Jewish world,
becoming now set and ossified in the Schools of Hillel and
Shammai, and overshadowed by Temple and Synagogue. And each
was pursuing its course, by the side of the other. If Herod
had everywhere his spies, the Jewish law provided its two
police magistrates in Jerusalem, the only judges who received
renumeration. [c Jer, Kethub. 35 c; Kethub. 104 b] [2 The
police laws of the Rabbis might well serve us as a model for
all similar legislation.] If Herod judged cruelly and
despotically, the Sanhedrin weighed most deliberately, the
balance always inclining to mercy. If Greek was the language
of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood
and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people,
spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the
ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. [3 At the
same time I can scarcely agree with Delitzsch and others,
that this was the dialect called Sursi. The latter was rather
Syriac. Comp. Levy, ad voc.] It seems strange, that this
could ever have been doubted. [4 Professor Roberts has
advocated, with great ingenuity, the view that Christ and His
Apostles used the Greek language. See especially his
'Discussions on the Gospels.' The Roman Catholic Church
sometimes maintained, that Jesus and His disciples spoke
Latin, and in 1822 a work appeared by Black to prove that the
N.T. Greek showed a Latin origin.] A Jewish Messiah Who would
urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a
contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the
Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses
of the Rabbis had to be 'targumed' into the vernacular
Aramaean, and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the
Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or
that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in
that tongue, especially remembering that its study was
actually forbidden by the Rabbis? [1 For a full statement of
the arguments on this subject we refer the student to Bohl,
Forsch. n. e. Volksbibel z. Zeit Jesu, pp. 4-28; to the
latter work by the same writer (Aittestam. Citate im N.
Test.); to a very interesting article by Professor Delitzsch
in the 'Daheim' for 1874 (No. 27); to Buxtorf, sub Gelil; to
J. D. Goldberg, 'The Language of Christ'; but especially
prop. di Cristo (Parma 1772).]

Indeed, it was a peculiar mixture of two worlds in
Jerusalem: not only of the Grecian and the Jewish, but of
piety and frivolity also. The devotion of the people and the
liberality of the rich were unbounded. Fortunes were lavished
on the support of Jewish learning, the promotion of piety, or
the advance of the national cause. Thousands of votive
offerings, and the costly gifts in the Temple, bore evidence
of this. priestly avarice had artificially raised the price
of sacrificial animals, a rich man would bring into the
Temple at his own cost the number requisite for the poor.
Charity was not only open-handed, but most delicate, and one
who had been in good circumstances would actually be enabled
to live according to his former station. [2 Thus Hillel was
said to have hired a horse, and even an outrunner, for a
decayed rich man.] Then these Jerusalemites, townspeople, as
they called themselves, were so polished, so witty, so
pleasant. There was a tact in their social intercourse, and a
considerateness and delicacy in their public arrangements and
provisions, nowhere else to be found. Their very language was
different. There was a Jerusalem dialect, [a Bemid. R. 14;
ed. Warsh. p. 59a.] quicker, shorter, 'lighter' (Lishna
Qalila). [b Baba K.] And their hospitality, especially at
festive seasons, was unlimited. No one considered his house
his own, and no stranger or pilgrim but found reception. And
how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously
furnished houses, and at those sumptuous entertainments! In
the women's apartments, friends from the country would see
every novelty in dress, adornment, and jewellery, and have
the benefit of examining themselves in looking-glasses. To be
sure, as being womanish vanity, their use was interdicted to
men, except it were to the members of the family of the
President of the Sanhedrin, on account of their intercourse
with those in authority, just as for the same reason they
were allowed to learn Greek. [a Jer.Shabb. 7 d] Nor might
even women look in theglass on the Sabbath. [b Shabb. 149 a]
But that could only apply to those carried in the hand, since
one might be tempted, on the holy day, to do such servile
work as to pull out a grey hair with the pincers attached to
the end of the glass; but not to a glass fixed in the lid of
a basket; [c Kel. xiv. 6] nor to such as hung on the wall. [d
Tos. Shabb.xiii. ed. Zuckerm. p. 130] And then the
lady-visitor might get anything in Jerusalem; from a false
tooth to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an Indian
dress!

While the women so learned Jerusalem manners in the inner
apartments, the men would converse on the news of the day, or
on politics. For the Jerusalemites had friends and
correspondents in the most distant parts of the world, and
letters were carried by special messengers, [e Shabb. x.4] in
a kind of post-bag. Nay, there seem to have been some sort of
receiving-offices in towns, [f Shabb. 19a] and even something
resembling our parcel-post. [g Rosh haSh. 9 b] And, strange
as it may sound, even a species of newspapers, or
broadsheets, appears to have been circulating (Mikhtabhin),
not allowed, however, on the Sabbath, unless they treated of
public affairs. [h Tos. Shabb. xviii.]

Of course, it is difficult accurately to determine which of
these things were in use in the earliest times, or else
introduced at a later period. Perhaps, however, it was safer
to bring them into a picture of Jewish society. Undoubted,
and, alas, too painful evidence comes to us of the
luxuriousness of Jerusalem at that time, and of the moral
corruption to which it led. It seems only too clear, that
such commentations as the Talmud [i Shabb. 62 b] gives of Is.
iii. 16-24, in regard to the manners and modes of attraction
practised by a certain class of the female population in
Jerusalem, applied to a far later period than that of the
prophet. With this agrees only too well the recorded covert
lascivious expressions used by the men, which gives a
lamentable picture of the state of morals of many in the
city, [k Comp. Shabb. 62 b, last line and first of 63 a] and
the notices of the indecent dress worn not only by women, [l
Kel. xxiv. 16; xxviii. 9] but evenby corrupt High-Priestly
youths. Nor do the exaggerated descriptions of what the
Midrash on Lamentations [m On ch. iv 2] describes as the
dignity of the Jerusalemites; of the wealth which they
lavished on their marriages; of the ceremony which insisted
on repeated invitations to the guests to a banquet, and that
men inferior in rank should not be bidden to it; of the dress
in which they appeared; the manner in which the dishes were
served, the wine in white crystal vases; and the punishment
of the cook who had failed in his duty, and which was to be
commensurate to the dignity of the party, give a better
impression of the great world in Jerusalem.

And yet it was the City of God, over whose destruction not
only the Patriarch and Moses, but the Angelic hosts, nay, the
Almighty Himself and His Shekhinah, had made bitterest
lamentation. [1 See the Introduction to the Midrash on
Lamentations. But some of the descriptions are so painful,
even blasphemous , that we do not venture on quotation.] The
City of the Prophets, also, since each of them whose
birthplace had not been mentioned, must be regarded as having
sprung from it. [aMeg. 15 a] Equally, even more, marked, but
now for joy and triumph, would be the hour of Jerusalem's
uprising, when it would welcome its Messiah. Oh, when would
He come? In the feverish excitement of expectancy they were
only too ready to listen to the voice of any pretender,
however coarse and clumsy the imposture. Yet He was at hand,
even now coming: only quite other than the Messiah of their
dreams. 'He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become
children of God, even to them that believe on His Name.'

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 place
in the morning, as the principal service. But Meyer (Komm. i.
2, p. 242) is mistaken in supposing, that this follows from
the reference to the lot. It is, indeed, true that, of the
four lots for the priestly functions, three took place only
in the morning. But that for incensing was repeated in the
evening (Yoma 26 a). Even Bishop Haneberg (Die Relig.
Alterth. p. 609) is not accurate in this respect. As the
massive Temple gates slowly swung on their hinges, a
three-fold blast from the silver trumpets of the Priests
seemed to waken the City, as with the Voice of God, to the
life of another day. As its echoes came in the still air
across the cleft of the Tyropoeon, up the slopes of the Upper
City, down the busy quarters below, or away to the new suburb
beyond, they must, if but for a moment, have brought holier
thoughts to all. For, did it not seem to link the present to
the past and the future, as with the golden chain of promises
that bound the Holy City to the Jerusalem that was above,
which in type had already, and in reality would soon descend
from heaven? Patriot, saint, or stranger, he could not have
heard it unmoved, as thrice the summons from within the
Temple-gates rose and fell.

It had not come too soon. The Levites on ministry, and those
of the laity, whose 'course' it was to act as the
representatives of Israel, whether in Palestine or far away,
in a sacrifice provided by, and offered for, all Israel,
hastened to their duties. [2 For a description of the details
of that service, see 'The Temple and its Services,' &c.] For
already the blush of dawn, for which the Priest on the
highest pinnacle of the Temple had watched, to give the
signal for beginning the services of the day, had shot its
brightness far away to Hebron and beyond. Within the Courts
below all had long been busy. At some time previously,
unknown to those who waited for the morning, whether at
cockcrowing, or a little earlier or later, [a Tamid i. 2] the
superintending Priest had summoned to their sacred functions
those who had 'washed,' according to the ordinance. There
must have been each day about fifty priests on duty. [1 If we
reckon the total number in the twenty-four courses of,
presumably, the officiating priesthood, at 20,000, according
to Josephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 8), which is very much below the
exaggerated Talmudic computation of 85,000 for the smallest
course (Jer. Taan. 69 a), and suppose, that little more than
one-third of each course had come up for duty, this would
give fifty priests for each week-day, while on the Sabbath
the whole course would be on duty. This is, of course,
considerably more than the number requisite, since, except
for the incensing priest, the lot for the morning also held
good for the evening sacrifice.] Such of them as were ready
now divided into two parties, to make inspection of the
Temple courts by torchlight. Presently they met, and trooped
to the well-known Hall of Hewn Polished Stones, [a Yoma 25 a]
where formerly the Sanhedrin had been wont to sit. The
ministry for the day was there apportioned. To prevent the
disputes of carnal zeal, the 'lot' was to assign to each his
function. Four times was it resorted to: twice before, and
twice after the Temple-gates were opened. The first act of
their ministry had to be done in the grey dawn, by the fitful
red light that glowed on the altar of burnt offering, ere the
priests had stirred it into fresh flame. It was scarcely
daybreak, when a second time they met for the 'lot,' which
designated those who were to take part in the sacrifice
itself, and who were to trim the golden candlestick, and make
ready the altar of incense within the Holy Place. And now
morn had broken, and nothing remained before the admission of
worshippers but to bring out the lamb, once again to make
sure of its fitness for sacrifice, to water it from a golden
bowl, and then to lay it in mystic fashion, as tradition
described the binding of Isaac, on the north side of the
altar, with its face to the west.

All, priests and laity, were present as the Priest, standing
on the east side of the altar, from a golden bowl sprinkled
with sacrificial blood two sides of the altar, below the red
line which marked the difference between ordinary sacrifices
and those that were to be wholly consumed. While the
sacrifice was prepared for the altar, the priests, whose lot
it was, had made ready all within the Holy Place, where the
most solemn part of the day's service was to take place, that
of offering the incense, which symbolised Israel's accepted
prayers. Again was the lot (the third) cast to indicate him,
who was to be honoured with this highest mediatorial act.
Only once in a lifetime might any one enjoy that privilege.
[b Tamid v. 2] Henceforth he was called 'rich,' [2 Yoma 26 a.
The designation 'rich' is derived from the promise which, in
Deut. xxxiii. 11, follows on the service referred to in verse
10. But probably a spiritual application was also intended.]
and must leave to his brethren the hope of the distinction
which had been granted him. It was fitting that, as the
custom was, such lot should be preceded by prayer and
confession of their faith [1 The so-called Shema, consisting
of Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Num. xv. 37-41.] on the part of
the assembled priests.

It was the first week in October 748 A.U.C., [2 The question
of this date is, of course, intimately connected with that of
the Nativity of Christ, and could therefore not be treated in
the text. It is discussed in Appendix VII.: 'On the Date of
the Nativity of our Lord.'] that is, in the sixth year before
our present era, when 'the course of Abia' [3 This was the
eighth course in the ,iginal arrangement (1 Chr. xxiv. 10).]
, the eighth in the original arrangement of the weekly
service, was on duty in the Temple. True this, as indeed most
of the twenty-four 'courses' into which the Priesthood had
been arranged, could not claim identity, only continuity,
with those whose names they bore. For only three, or at most
four, of the ancient 'courses' had returned from Babylon. But
the original arrangement had been preserved, the names of the
missing courses being retained, and their number filled up by
lot from among those who had come back to Palestine. In our
ignorance of the number of 'houses of their father,' or
families,' which constituted the 'course of Abia,' it is
impossible to determine, how the services of that week had
been apportioned among them. But this is of comparatively
small importance, since there is no doubt about the central
figure in the scene.

In the group ranged that autumn morning around the
superintending Priest was one, on whom the snows of at least
sixty winters had fallen. [4 According to St. Luke i. 7, they
were both 'well stricken in years.' But from Aboth v. 21 we
learn, that sixty years was considered 'the commencement of
agedness.'] But never during these many years had he been
honoured with the office of incensing, and it was perhaps
well he should have learned, that this distinction came
direct from God. Yet the venerable figure of Zacharias must
have been well known in the Temple. For, each course was
twice a year on ministry, and, unlike the Levites, the
priests were not disqualified by age, but only by infirmity.
In many respects he seemed different from those around. His
home was not in either of the great priest-centres, the
Ophel-quarter in Jerusalem, nor in Jericho [5 According to
tradition, about one-fourth of the priesthood was resident in
Jericho. But, even limiting this to those who were in the
habit of officiating, the statement seems greatly
exaggerated.], but in some small town in those uplands, south
of Jerusalem: the historic 'hill-country of Judea.' And yet
he might have claimed distinction. To be a priest, and
married to the daughter of a priest, was supposed to convey
twofold honour. [6 Comp. Ber. 44 a; Pes. 49 a; Vayyikra R.
4.] That he was surrounded by relatives and friends, and that
he 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 in
the popular habits of thought, as well as in the office and
privileges of the Priesthood, if worthily represented, to
invest it with a veneration which the aggressive claims of
Rabbinism could not wholly monopolise. And in this instance
Zacharias and Elisabeth, his wife, were truly 'righteous,' [1
, of course not in the strict sense in which the word is
sometimes used, especially by St. Paul, but as pius et bonus.
See Vorstius (De Hebraism. N.T. pp. 55 &c.). As the account
of the Evangelist seems derived from an original Hebrew
source, the word must have corresponded to that of Tsaddiq in
the then popular signification.] in the sense of walking, so
far as man could judge, 'blamelessly,' alike in those
commandments which were specially binding on Israel, and in
those statues that were of universal bearing on mankind. [2
evidently mark an essential division of the Law at the time.
But it is almost impossible to determine their exact Hebrew
equivalents. The LXX. render by these two terms not always
the 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 their
piety assumed in some measure the form of the time, being, if
we must use the expression, Pharisaic, though in the good,
not the evil sense of it.

There is much about those earlier Rabbis, Hillel, Gamaliel,
and others, to attract us, and their spirit ofttimes sharply
contrasts with the narrow bigotry, the self-glory, and the
unspiritual externalism of their successors. We may not
unreasonably infer, that the Tsaddiq in the quiet home of the
hill-country was quite other than the self-asserting Rabbi,
whose dress and gait, voice and manner, words and even
prayers, were those of the religious parvenu, pushing his
claims to distinction before angels and men. Such a household
as that of Zacharias and Elisabeth would have all that was
beautiful in the religion of the time: devotion towards God;
a home of affection and purity; reverence towards all that
was sacred in things Divine and human; ungrudging,
self-denying, loving charity to the poor; the tenderest
regard for the feelings of others, so as not to raise a
blush, nor to wound their hearts; [3 There is, perhaps, no
point on which the Rabbinic Law is more explicit or stringent
than on that of tenderest regard for the feelings of others,
especially of the poor.] above all, intense faith and hope in
the higher and better future of Israel. Of such, indeed,
there must have been not a few in the land, the quiet, the
prayerful, the pious, who, though certainly not Sadducees nor
Essenes, but reckoned with the Pharisaic party, waited for
the consolation of Israel, and received it with joy when
manifested. Nor could aught more certainly have marked the
difference between the one and the other section than on a
matter, which must almost daily, and most painfully have
forced itself on Zacharias and Elisabeth. There were among
the Rabbis those who, remembering the words of the prophet,
[a Mal. ii. 13 16] spoke in most pathetic language of the
wrong of parting from the wife of youth, [b Gitt. 90 b] and
there were those to whom the bare fact of childlessness
rendered separation a religious duty. [c Yeb. 64 a] Elisabeth
was childless. Formany a year this must have been the burden
of Zacharias' prayer; the burden also of reproach, which
Elisabeth seemed always to carry with her. They had waited
together these many years, till in the evening of life the
flower of hope had closed its fragrant cup; and still the two
sat together in the twilight, content to wait in loneliness,
till night would close around them.

But on that bright autumn morning in the Temple no such
thoughts would come to Zacharias. For the first, and for the
last time in life the lot had marked him for incensing, and
every thought must have centred on what was before him. Even
outwardly, all attention would be requisite for the proper
performance of his office. First, he had to choose two of his
special friends or relatives, to assist in his sacred
service. Their duties were comparatively simple. One
reverently removed what had been left on the altar from the
previous evening's service; then, worshipping, retired
backwards. The second assistant now advanced, and, having
spread to the utmost verge of the golden altar the live coals
taken from that of burnt-offering, worshipped and retired.
Meanwhile the sound of the 'organ' (the Magrephah), heard to
the most distant parts of the Temple, and, according to
tradition, far beyond its precincts, had summoned priests,
Levites, and people to prepare for whatever service or duty
was before them. For, this was the innermost part of the
worship of the day. But the celebrant Priest, bearing the
golden censer, stood alone within the Holy Place, lit by the
sheen of the seven-branched candlestick. Before him, somewhat
farther away, towards the heavy Veil that hung before the
Holy of Holies, was the golden altar of incense, on which the
red coals glowed. To his right (the left of the altar, that
is, on the north side) was the table of shewbread; to his
left, on the right or south side of the altar, was the golden
candlestick. And still he waited, as instructed to do, till a
special signal indicated, that the moment had come to spread
the incense on the altar, as near as possible to the Holy of
Holies. Priests and people had reverently withdrawn from the
neighbourhood of the altar, and were prostrate before the
Lord, offering unspoken worship, in which record of past
deliverance, longing for mercies promised in the future, and
entreaty for present blessing and peace, [1 For the prayers
offered by the people during the incensing, see 'The Temple,'
pp. 139, 140.] seemed the ingredients of the incense, that
rose in a fragrant cloud of praise and prayer. Deep silence
had fallen on the worshippers, as if they watched to heaven
the prayers of Israel, ascending in the 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 incense
kindling. Then he also would have 'bowed down in worship,'
and reverently withdrawn, [b Tamid vi. 3] had not a wondrous
sight arrested his steps.

On the right (or south) side of the altar, between it and
the golden candlestick, stood what he could not but recognise
as an Angelic form. [2 The following extract from Yalkut
(vol. i. p. 113 d, close) affords a curious illustration of
this Divine communication from beside the altar of incense:
'From what place did the Shekhinah speak to Moses? R. Nathan
said: From the altar of incense, according to Ex. xxx. 6.
Simeon ben Asai said: From the side of the altar of
incense.'] Never, indeed, had even tradition reported such a
vision to an ordinary Priest in the act of incensing. The two
super-natural apparitions recorded, one of an Angel each year
of the Pontificate of Simon the Just; the other in that
blasphemous account of the vision of the Almighty by Ishmael,
the son of Elisha, and of the conversation which then ensued
[c Ber. 7 a] [3 According to the Talmud, Ishmael once went
into the innermost Sanctuary, when he had a vision of God,
Who called upon the priest to pronounce a benediction. The
token of God's acceptance had better not be quoted.] , had
bothbeen vouchsafed to High-Priests, and on the Day of
Atonement. Still, there was always uneasiness among the
people as any mortal approached the immediate Presence of
God, and every delay in his return seemed ominous. [d Jer.
Yoma 42 c] No wonder, then, that Zacharias 'was troubled, and
fear fell on him,' as of a sudden, probably just after he had
spread the incense on the altar, and was about to offer his
parting prayer, he beheld what afterwards he knew to be the
Angel Gabriel ('the might of God'). Apart from higher
considerations, there could perhaps be no better evidence of
the truth of this narrative than its accord with
psychological facts. An Apocryphal narrative would probably
have painted the scene in agreement with what, in the view of
such a writer, should have been the feelings of Zacharias,
and the language of the Angel. [4 Instances of an analogous
kind frequently occur in the Apocryphal Gospels.] The Angel
would have commenced by referring to Zacharias' prayers for
the coming of a Messiah, and Zacharias would have been
represented in a highly enthusiastic state. Instead of the
strangely prosaic objection which he offered to the Angelic
announcement, there would have been a burst of spiritual
sentiment, or what passed for such. But all this would have
been psychologically untrue. There are moments of moral
faintness, so to spseak, when the vital powers of the
spiritual heart are depressed, and, as in the case of the
Disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration and in the Garden
of Gethsemane, the physical part of our being and all that is
weakest in us assert their power.

It was true to this state of semi-consciousness, that the
Angel first awakened within Zacharias the remembrance of
life-long prayers and hopes, which had now passed into the
background of his being, and then suddenly startled him by
the promise of their realisation. But that Child of so many
prayers, who was to bear the significant name of John
(Jehochanan, or Jochanan), 'the Lord is gracious,' was to be
the source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle than
that of the family. This might be called the first rung of
the ladder by which the Angel would take the priest upwards.
Nor was even this followed by an immediate disclosure of
what, in such a place, and from such a messenger, must have
carried to a believing heart the thrill of almost unspeakable
emotion. Rather was Zacharias led upwards, step by step. The
Child was to be great before the Lord; not only an ordinary,
but a life-Nazarite, [1 On the different classes of
Nazarites, see 'The Temple, &c.,' pp. 322-331.] as Samson and
Samuel of old had been. Like them, he was not to consecrate
himself, but from the inception of life wholly to belong to
God, for His work. And, greater than either of these
representatives of the symbolical import of Nazarism, he
would combine the twofold meaning of their mission , outward
and inward might in God, only in a higher and more spiritual
sense. For this life-work he would be filled with the Holy
Ghost, from the moment life woke within him. Then, as another
Samson, would he, in the strength of God, lift the axe to
each tree to be felled, and, like another Samuel, turn many
of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. Nay,
combining these two missions, as did Elijah on Mount Carmel,
he should, in accordance with prophecy, [a Mal. iii. 1]
precede the Messianic manifestation, and, not indeed in the
person or form, but in the spirit and power of Elijah,
accomplish the typical meaning of his mission, as on that day
of decision it had risen as the burden of his prayer [b 1
Kings 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 'the
disobedient (to walk) in the wisdom of the just.' [d St. Luke
i. 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 that
time, had overwhelmed the aged priest, the words which he
heard must have filled him with such bewilderment, that for
the moment he scarcely realised their meaning. One idea
alone, which had struck its roots so long in his
consciousness, stood out: A son, while, as it were in the dim
distance beyond, stretched, as covered with a mist of glory,
all those marvellous things that were to be connected with
him. So, when age or strong feeling renders us almost
insensible to the present, it is ever that which connects
itself with the past, rather than with the present, which
emerges first and strongest in our consciousness. And so it
was the obvious doubt, that would suggest itself, which fell
from his lips, almost unconscious of what he said. Yet there
was in his words an element of faith also, or at least of
hope, as he asked for some pledge or confirmation of what he
had heard.

It is this demand of some visible sign, by which to 'know'
all that the Angel had promised, which distinguishes the
doubt of Zacharias from that of Abraham, [a Gen. xvii. 17,
18] or of Manoah and his wife,[b Judg. xiii 2-21] under
somewhat similar circumstances, although, otherwise also,
even a cursory reading must convey the impression of most
marked differences. Nor ought we perhaps to forget, that we
are on the threshold of a dispensation, to which faith is the
only entrance. This door Zacharias was now to hold ajar, a
dumb messenger. He that would not speak the praises of God,
but asked a sign, received it. His dumbness was a sign,
though the sign, as it were the dumb child of the prayer of
unbelief, was its punishment also. And yet, when rightly
applied, a sign in another sense also, a sign to the waiting
multitude in the Temple; a sign to Elisabeth; to all who knew
Zacharias in the hill-country; and to the priest himself,
during those nine months of retirement and inward solitude; a
sign also that would kindle into flame in the day when God
would loosen his tongue.

A period of unusual length had passed, since the signal for
incensing had been given. The prayers of the people had been
offered, and their anxious gaze was directed towards the Holy
Place. At last Zacharias emerged to take his stand on the top
of the steps which led from the Porch to the Court of the
Priests, waiting to lead in the priestly benediction, [c
Numb. vi. 24-26] that preceded the daily meat-offering and
the chant of the Psalms of praise, accompanied with joyous
sound of music, as the drink-offering was poured out. But
already the sign of Zacharias was to be a sign to all the
people. The pieces of the sacrifices had been ranged in due
order on the altar of burnt-offering; the priests stood on
the steps to the porch, and the people were in waiting.
Zacharias essayed to speak the words of benediction,
unconscious that the stoke had fallen. But the people knew it
by his silence, that he had seen a vision in the Temple. Yet
as he stood helpless, trying by signs to indicate it to the
awestruck assembly, he remained dumb.

Wondering, they had dispersed, people and priests. The day's
service over, another family of ministrants took the place of
those among whom Zacharias had been; and again, at the close
of the week's service, another 'course' that of Abia. They
returned to their homes, some to Ophel, some to Jericho, some
to their quiet dwellings in the country. But God fulfilled
the word which He had spoken by His Angel.

Before leaving this subject, it may be well to inquire into
the relation between the events just described, and the
customs and expectations of the time. The scene in the
Temple, and all the surroundings, are in strictest accordance
with what we know of the services of the Sanctuary. In a
narrative that lays hold on some details of a very complex
service, such entire accuracy conveys the impression of
general truthfulness. Similarly, the sketch of Zacharias and
Elisabeth is true to the history of the time, though
Zacharias could not have been one of the 'learned,' nor to
the Rabbinists, a model priest. They would have described him
as an 'idiot,' [1 The word or 'idiot,' when conjoined with
'priest' ordinarily means a common priest, in distinction to
the High priest. But the word unquestionably also signifies
vulgar, ignorant, and illiterate. See Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 3
from bottom; Sanh. 21 b. Comp. also Meg. 12 b; Ber. R. 96.]
or common, and as an Amha-arets, a 'rustic' priest, and
treated 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 wholly
unprecedented, and could therefore not have lain within range
of common expectation; though the possibility, or rather the
fear, of some contact with the Divine was always present to
the popular mind. But it is difficult to conceive how, if not
true, the invention of such a vision in such circumstances
could have suggested itself. This difficulty is enhanced by
the obvious difference between the Evangelic narrative, and
the popular ideas of the time. Far too much importance has
here been attached by a certain class of writers to a
Rabbinic 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 clever
Scriptural deduction (as the context shows), and not even an
actual tradition, but no competent critic would venture to
lay down the principle, that isolated Rabbinic sayings in the
Talmud are to be regarded as sufficient foundation for
historical facts. On the other hand, Rabbinic tradition does
lay it down, that the names of the Angels were derived from
their mission, and might be changed with it. Thus the reply
of the Angel to the inquiry of Manoah [a Judg. xiii. 18] is
explained as implying, that he knew not what other name might
be given him in the future. In the Book of Daniel, to which
the son of Lakish refers, the only two Angelic names
mentioned are Gabriel [b Dan. ix. 21] and Michael, [c x. 21]
while the appeal to the Book of Daniel, as evidence of the
Babylonish origin of Jewish Angelology, comes with strange
inconsistency from writers who date it in Maccabean times. [1
Two other Angels are mentioned, but not named, in Dan. x. 13,
20.] But the question of Angelic nomenclature is quite
secondary. The real point at issue is, whether or not the
Angelology and Demonology of the New Testament was derived
from contemporary Judaism. The opinion, that such was the
case, has been so dogmatically asserted, as to have almost
passed among a certain class as a settled fact. That
nevertheless such was not the case, is capable of the most
ample proof. Here also, with similarity of form, slighter
than usually, there os absolutely contrast of substance. [2
The Jewish ideas and teaching about angels are fully given in
Appendix XIII.: 'Jewish Angelology and Demonology.']

Admitting that the names of Gabriel and Michael must have
been familiar to the mind of ZXacharias, some not unimportant
differences must be kept in view. Thus, Gabriel was regarded
in tradition as inferior to Michael; and, though both were
connected with Israel, Gabriel was represented as chiefly the
minister of justice, and Michael of mercy; while, thirdly,
Gabriel was supposed to stand on the left, and not (as in the
Evangelic narrative) on the right, side of the throne of
glory. Small as these divergences may seem, they are
allimportant, when derivation of one set of opinions from
another is in question. Finally, as regarded the coming of
Elijah as forerunner of the Messiah, it is to be observed
that, according to Jewish notions, he was to appear
personally, and not merely 'in spirit and power.' In fact,
tradition represents his ministry and appearances as almost
continuous , not only immediately before the coming of
Messiah, but at all times. Rabbinic writings introduce him on
the scene, not only frequently, but on the most incongruous
occasions, and for the most diverse purposes. In this sense
it is said of him, that he always liveth. [d Moed k. 26a]
Sometimes, indeed, he is blamed, as for the closing words in
his prayer about the turning of the heart of the people, [e 1
Kings xviii. 37 (in Hebr. without 'that' and 'again'); see
Ber. 31 b, last two lines] and even his sacrifice on Carmel
was only excused on the ground of express command. [f
Bemidbar R. 14. Another view in Par. 13] But his great
activity as precursor of the Messiah is to resolve doubts of
all kinds; to reintroduce those who had been violently and
improperly extruded from the congregation of Israel, and
vice-versa; to make peace; while, finally, he was connected
with 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 in
Appendix VIII.] But nowhere is he prominently designated as
intended 'to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.' [2 I
should, however, remark, that that very curious chapter on
Repentance, in the Pirke de R. Elieser (c. 43), closes with
these words: 'And Israel will not make great repentance till
Elijah, 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. fur
Luther. Theol. 1875, p. 593) seems too sweeping.]

Thus, from whatever source the narrative may be supposed to
have been derived, its details certainly differ, in almost
all particulars, from the theological notions current at the
time. And the more Zacharias meditated on this in the long
solitude of his enforced silence, the more fully must new
spiritual thoughts have come to him. As for Elisabeth, those
tender feelings of woman, which ever shrink from the
disclosure of the dearest secret of motherhood, were
intensely deepened and sanctified in the knowledge of all
that had passed. Little as she might understand the full
meaning of the future, it must have been to her, as if she
also now stood in the Holy Place, gazing towards the Veil
which concealed the innermost Presence. Meantime she was
content with, nay, felt the need of, absolute retirement from
other fellowship than that of God and her own heart. Like her
husband, she too would be silent and alone, till another
voice called her forth. Whatever the future might bring,
sufficient for the present, that thus the Lord had done to
her, in days in which He looked down to remove her reproach
among men. The removal of that burden, its manner, its
meaning, its end, were all from God, and with God; and it was
fitting to be quite alone and silent, till God's voice would
again wake the echoes within. And so five months passed in
absolute retirement.

FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN

THE ANNUNCIATION OF JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND THE BIRTH OF HIS
FORERUNNER.

CHAPTER IV

(St. Matt. i.; St. Luke i. 26-80.)

FROM the Temple to Nazareth! It seems indeed most fitting
that the Evangelic story should have taken its beginning
within the Sanctuary, and at the time of sacrifice. Despite
its outward veneration for them, the Temple, its services,
and specially its sacrifices, were, by an inward logical
necessity, fast becoming a superfluity for Rabbinism. But the
new development, passing over the intruded elements, which
were, after all, of rationalistic origin, connected its
beginning directly with the Old Testament dispensation, its
sacrifices, priesthood, and promises. In the Sanctuary, in
connection with sacrifice, and through the priesthood, such
was significantly the beginning of the era of fulfillment.
And so the great religious reformation of Israel under Samuel
had also begun in the Tabernacle, which had so long been in
the background. But if, even in this Temple-beginning, and in
the communication to, and selection of an idiot 'priest,'
there was marked divergence from the Rabbinic ideal, that
difference widens into the sharpest contrast, as we pass from
the Forerunner to the Messiah, from the Temple to Galilee,
from the 'idiot' priest to the humble, unlettered family of
Nazareth. It is necessary here to recall our general
impression of Rabbinism: its conception of God, [1 Terrible
as it may sound, it is certainly the teaching of Rabbinism,
that God occupied so many hours every day in the study of the
Law. Comp. Targ. Ps.-Jonathan on Deut. xxxii. 4, and Abhod.
Z. 3 b. Nay, Rabbinism goes farther in its daring, and speaks
of the Almighty as arrayed in a white dress, or as occupying
himself by day with the study of the Bible, and by night with
that of the six tractates of the Mishnah. Comp. also the
Targum on Cant. v. 10.] and of the highest good and ultimate
object of all things, as concentrated in learned study,
pursued in Academies; and then to think of the unmitigated
contempt with which they were wont to speak of Galilee, and
of the Galileans, whose very patois was an offence; of the
utter abhorrence with which they regarded the unlettered
country-people, in order to realise, how such an household as
that of Joseph and Mary would be regarded by the leaders of
Israel. A Messianic announcement, not the result of learned
investigation, nor connected with the Academies, but in the
Sanctuary, to a 'rustic' priest; an Elijah unable to untie
the intellectual or ecclesiastical knots, of whose mission,
indeed, this formed no part at all; and a Messiah, the
offspring of a Virgin in Galilee betrothed to a humble
workman , assuredly, such a picture of the fulfillment of
Israel's hope could never have been conceived by contemporary
Judaism. There was in such a Messiah absolutely nothing,
past, present, or possible; intellectually, religiously, or
even nationally, to attract, but all to repel. And so we can,
at the very outset of this history, understand the infinite
contrast which it embodied, with all the difficulties to its
reception, even to those who became disciples, as at almost
every step of its progress they were, with ever fresh
surprise, recalled from all that they had formerly thought,
to that which was so entirely new and strange.

And yet, just as Zacharias may be described as the
representative of the good and the true in the Priesthood at
that time, so the family of Nazareth as a typical Israelitish
household. We feel, that the scantiness of particulars here
supplied by the Gospels, was intended to prevent the human
interest from overshadowing the grand central Fact, to which
alone attention was to be directed. For, the design of the
Gospels was manifestly not to furnish a biography of Jesus
the Messiah, [1 The object which the Evangelists had in view
was certainly not that of biography, even as the Old
Testament contains no biography. The twofold object of their
narratives is indicated by St. Luke i. 4, and by St. John xx.
31.] but, in organic connection with the Old Testament, to
tell the history of the long-promised establishment of the
Kingdom of God upon earth. Yet what scanty details we possess
of the 'Holy Family' and its surroundings may here find a
place.

The highlands which form the central portion of Palestine
are broken by the wide, rich plain of Jezreel, which severs
Gailee from the rest of the land. This was always the great
battle-field of Israel. Appropriately, it is shut in as
between mountain-walls. That along the north of the plain is
formed by the mountains of Lower Galilee, cleft about the
middle by a valley that widens, till, after an hour's
journey, we stand within an enclosure which seems almost one
of Nature's own sanctuaries. As in an amphitheatre, fifteen
hill-tops rise around. That to the west is the highest, about
500 feet. On its lower slopes nestles a little town, its
narrow streets ranged like terraces. This is Nazareth,
probably the ancient Sarid (or En-Sarid), which, in the time
of Joshua, marked the northern boundary of Zebulun. [a Josh.
xix. 10,11] [1 The name Nazareth may best be regarded as the
equivalent of 'watch' or 'watcheress.' The name does not
occur in the Talmud, nor in those Midrashim which have been
preserved. But the elegy of Eleazar ha Kallir, written before
the close of the Talmud, in which Nazareth is mentioned as a
Priestcentre, 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 read
and refers to Nazareth.]

Climbing this steep hill, fragrant with aromatic plants, and
bright with rich-coloured flowers, a view almost unsurpassed
opens before us. For, the Galilee of the time of Jesus was
not only of the richest fertility, cultivated to the utmost,
and thickly covered with populous towns and villages, but the
centre of every known industry, and the busy road of the
world's commerce. Northward the eye would sweep over a rich
plain; rest here and there on white towns, glittering in the
sunlight; then quickly travel over the romantic hills and
glens which form the scenes of Solomon's Song, till, passing
beyond Safed (the Tsephath of the Rabbis, the 'city set on a
hill'), the view is bounded by that giant of the far-off
mountain-chain, snow-tipped Hermon. Westward stretched a like
scene of beauty and wealth, a land not lonely, but wedded;
not desolate, but teeming with life; while, on the edge of
the horizon, lay purple Carmel; beyond it a fringe of silver
sand, and then the dazzling sheen of the Great Sea. In the
farthest distance, white sails, like wings outspread towards
the ends of the world; nearer, busy ports; then, centres of
industry; and close by, travelled roads, all bright in the
pure Eastern air and rich glow of the sun. But if you turned
eastwards, the eye would soon be arrested by the wooded
height of Tabor, yet not before attention had been riveted by
the long, narrow string of fantastic caravans, and curiosity
roused by the motley figures, of all nationalities and in all
costumes, busy binding the East to the West by that line of
commerce that passed along the route winding around Tabor.
And when, weary with the gaze, you looked once more down on
little Nazareth nestling on the breast of the mountain, the
eye would rest on a scene of tranquil, homely beauty. Just
outside the town, in the north-west, bubbled the spring or
well, the trysting-spot of townspeople, and welcome
resting-place of travellers. Beyond it stretched lines of
houses, each with its flat roof standing out distinctly
against the clear sky; watered, terraced gardens, gnarled
wide-spreading figtrees, graceful feathery palms, scented
oranges, silvery olive-trees, thick hedges, rich
pasture-land, then the bounding hills to the south; and
beyond, the seemingly unbounded expanse of the wide plain of
Esdraelon!

And yet, withdrawn from the world as, in its enclosure of
mountains, Nazareth might seem, we must not think of it as a
lonely village which only faint echoes reached of what roused
the land beyond. With reverence be it said: such a place
might have suited the training of the contemplative hermit,
not the upbringing of Him Whose sympathies were to be with
every clime and race. Nor would such an abode have furnished
what (with all due acknowledgment of the supernatural) we
mark as a constant, because a rationally necessary, element
in Scripture history: that of inward preparedness in which
the higher and the Divine afterwards find their ready points
of contact.

Nor was it otherwise in Nazareth. The two great interests
which stirred the land, the two great factors in the
religious future of Israel, constantly met in the retirement
of Nazareth. The great caravan-route which led from Acco on
the sea to Damascus divided at its commencement into three
roads: the most northern passing through Caesarea Philippi;
the Upper Galilean; and the Lower Galilean. The latter, the
ancient Via Maris led through Nazareth, and thence either by
Cana, or else along the northern shoulder of Mount Tabor, to
the Lake of Gennesaret, each of these roads soon uniting with
the Upper Galilean. [1 Comp. the detailed description of
these roads, and the references in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vol.
xv. pp. 160, 161.] Hence, although the stream of commerce
between Acco and the East was divided into three channels,
yet, as one of these passed through Nazareth, the quiet
little town was not a stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. Men
of all nations, busy with another life than that of Israel,
would appear in the streets of Nazareth; and through them
thoughts, associations, and hopes connected with the great
outside world be stirred. But, on the other hand, Nazareth
was also one of the great centers of Jewish Temple-life. It
has already been indicated that the Priesthood was divided
into twenty-four 'course' which, in turn, ministered in the
Temple. The Priests of the 'course' which was to be on duty
always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in
company to Jerusalem, while those of their number who were
unable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer. Now
Nazareth was one of these Priest-centres, [2 Comp. Neubauer,
u. s. p. 190. See a detailed account in 'sketches of Jewish
Social Life,' &c. p. 36.] and although it may well have been,
that comparatively few in distant Galilee conformed to the
Priestly regulations, some must have assembled there in
preparation for the sacred functions, or appeared in its
Synagogue. Even the fact, so well known to all, of this
living connection between Nazareth and the Temple, must have
wakened peculiar feelings. Thus, to take the wider view, a
double symbolic significance attached to Nazareth, since
through it passed alike those who carried on the traffic of
the world, and those who ministered in the Temple. [1 It is
strange, that these two circumstances have not been noticed.
Keim (Jesu von Nazari i. 2, pp. 322, 323) only cursorily
refers to the great road which passed through Nazareth.]

We may take it, that the people of Nazareth were like those
of other little towns similarly circumstanced: [2 The
inference, that the expression of Nathanael (St. John i. 46)
implies a lower state of the people of Nazareth, is
unfounded. Even Keim points out, that it only marks disbelief
that the Messiah would come from such a place.] with all the
peculiarities of the impulsive, straight-spoken, hot-blooded,
brave, intensely national Galileans; [3 Our description of
them is derived from notices by Josephus (such as War iii. 3,
2), and many passages in the Talmud,] with the deeper
feelings and almost instinctive habits of thought and life,
which were the outcome of long centuries of Old Testament
training; but also with the petty interest and jealousies of
such places, and with all the ceremonialism and punctilious
self-assertion of Orientals. The cast of Judaism prevalent in
Nazareth would, of course, be the same as in Galilee
generally. We know, that there were marked divergences from
the observances in that stronghold of Rabbinism, [4 These
differences are marked in Pes. iv. 5; Keth. iv. 12; Ned. ii.
4; Chull. 62 a; Baba K. 80 a; Keth. 12 a.] Judaea, indicating
greater simplicity and freedom from the constant intrusion of
traditional ordinances. The home-life would be all the purer,
that the veil of wedded life was not so coarsely lifted as in
Judaea, nor its sacred secrecy interfered with by an
Argus-eyed legislation. [5 The reader who wishes to
understand what we have only ventured to hint, is referred to
the Mishnic tractate Niddah.] The purity of betrothal in
Galilee wasless likely to be sullied, [a Keth. 12 a] and
weddings were more simple than in Judaea, without the dubious
institution 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.] whose
office must not unfrequently have degenerated into utter
coarseness. The bride was chosen, not as in Judaea, where
money was too often the motive, but as in Jerusalem, with
chief regard to 'a fair degree;' and widows were (as in
Jerusalem) more tenderly cared for, as we gather even from
the fact, that they had a life-right of residence in their
husband's house.

Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring the
maiden, to whom he had been betrothed. Whatever view may be
taken of the genealogies in the Gospels according to St.
Matthew and St. Luke, whether they be regarded as those of
Joseph and of Mary, [1 The best defence of this view is that
by Wieseler, Beitr. zur Wurdig. d. Evang. pp. 133 &c. It is
also virtually adopted by Weiss (Leben Jesu, vol. i. 1882).]
or, which seems the more likely, [2 This view is adopted
almost unanimously by modern writers.] as those of Joseph
only, marking his natural and his legal descent [3 This view
is defended with much skill by Mr. McClellan in his New
Testament, vol. i. pp. 409-422.] from David, or vice versa [4
So Grotius, Bishop Lord Arthur Hervey, and after him most
modern English writers.], there can be no question, that both
Joseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David. [5 The
Davidic descent of the Virgin-Mother, which is questioned by
some even among orthodox interpreters, seems implied in the
Gospel (St. Luke i. 27, 32, 69; ii. 4), and an almost
necessary inference from such passages as Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim.
ii. 8; Hebr. vii. 14. The Davidic descent of Jesus is not
only admitted, but elaborately proved, on purely
rationalistic grounds, by Keim (u. s. pp. 327-329).] Most
probably the two were nearly related, [6 This is the general
view of antiquity.] while Mary could also claim kinship with
the Priesthood, being, no doubt on her mother's side, a
'blood-relative' of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias.
[a St. Luke i. 36.] [7 Reference to this union of Levi and
Judah 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 to
have descended, through his father and mother, from the
tribes of Judah and Levi, all, however, asserting his Davidic
origin (comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 2; Ber. R. 98 and 33).] Even
this seems to imply, that Mary's family must shortly before
have held higher rank, for only with such did custom sanction
any alliance on the part of Priests. [8 Comp, Maimonides, Yad
haChaz Hil. Sanh. ii. The inference would, of course, be the
same, whether we suppose Mary's mother to have been the
sister-in-law, or the sister, of Elisabeth's father.] But at
the time of their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary were
extremely poor, as appears, not indeed from his being a
carpenter, since a trade was regarded as almost a religious
duty, but from the offering at the presentation of Jesus in
the Temple. [b St. Luke ii. 24.] Accordingly, their betrothal
must have been of the simplest, and the dowry settled the
smallest possible. [9 Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life
in 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 There
was a third mode, by cohabitation; but this was highly
disapproved of even by the Rabbis.] may have been adopted: in
the presence of witnesses, either by solemn word of mouth, in
due prescribed formality, with the added pledge of a piece of
money, however small, or of money's worth for use; or else by
writing (the so-called Shitre Erusin), there would be no
sumptuous feast to follow; and the ceremony would conclude
with some such benediction as that afterwards in use:
'Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who
hath sanctified us by His Commandments, and enjoined us about
incest, and forbidden the betrothed, but allowed us those
wedded by Chuppah (the marriage-baldachino) and betrothal.
Blessed art Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel by Chuppah and
betrothal', the whole being perhaps concluded by a
benediction over the statutory cup of wine, which was tasted
in turn by the betrothed. From that moment Mary was the
betrothed wife of Joseph; their relationship as sacred, as if
they had already been wedded. Any breach of it would be
treated as adultery; nor could the band be dissolved except,
as after marriage, by regular divorce. Yet months might
intervene between the betrothal and marriage. [1 The
assertion of Professor Wunsche (Neue Beitr. zur Erlauter. d.
Evang. p. 7) that the practice of betrothal was confined
exclusively, or almost so, to Judaea, is quite ungrounded.
The passages to which he refers (Kethub. i. 5, not 3, and
especially Keth. 12 a) are irrelevant. Keth. 12 a marks the
simpler and purer customs of Galilee, but does not refer to
betrothals.]

Five months of Elisabeth's sacred retirement had passed,
when a strange messenger brought its first tidings to her
kinswoman in far-off Galilee. It was not in the solemn
grandeur of the Temple, between the golden altar of incense
and the seven-branched candlesticks that the Angel Gabriel
now appeared, but in the privacy of a humble home at
Nazareth. The greatest honor bestowed on man was to come
amidst circumstances of deepest human lowliness, as if the
more clearly to mark the exclusively Divine character of what
was to happen. And, although the awe of the Supernatural must
unconsciously have fallen upon her, it was not so much the
sudden appearance of the mysterious stranger in her
retirement that startled the maiden, as the words of his
greeting, implying unthought blessing. The 'Peace to thee' [2
I have rendered the Greek by the Hebrew and for the
correctness of it refer the reader to Grimm's remarks on 1
Macc. x. 18 (Exeget. Handb. zu d. Apokryph. 3(tte) Lief. p.
149).] was, indeed, the well-known salutation, while the
words, 'The Lord is with thee' might waken the remembrance of
the Angelic call, to great deliverance in the past. [a Judg.
vi. 12.] But this designation of 'highly favored' [3 Bengel
aptly 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 the
best critical authorities, I have omitted the words, 'Blessed
art thou among women.'] came upon her with bewildering
surprise, perhaps not so much from its contrast to the
humbleness of her estate, as from the self-conscious humility
of her heart. And it was intended so, for of all feelings
this would now most become her. Accordingly, it is this story
of special 'favour' or grace, which the Angel traces in rapid
outline, from the conception of the Virgin-Mother to the
distinctive, Divinely-given Name, symbolic of the meaning of
His coming; His absolute greatness; His acknowledgment as the
Son of God; and the fulfillment in Him of the great Davidic
hope, with its never-ceasing royalty, [1 We here refer, as an
interesting corroboration, to the Targum on Ps. xlv. 7 (6 in
our A. V.). But this interest is intensely increased when we
read it, not as in our editions of the Targum, but as found
in 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, in
the 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 of
righteousness is the rule of Thy kingdom, O Thou King
Messiah!'] and its never-ending, boundless Kingdom. [2 In
Pirque' de R. El. c. 11, the same boundless dominion is
ascribed to Messiah the King. In that curious passage
dominion is ascribed to 'ten kings,' the first being God, the
ninth the Messiah, and the tenth again God, to Whom the
kingdom would be delivered in the end, according to Is. xliv.
6; Zechar. xiv. 9; Ezek. xxxiv. 24, with the result described
in Is. lii. 9.]

In all this, however marvellous, there could be nothing
strange to those who cherished in their hearts Israel's great
hope, not merely as an article of abstract belief, but as
matter of certain fact, least of all to the maiden of the
lineage of David, betrothed to him of the house and lineage
of David. So long as the hand of prophetic blessing rested on
the house of David, and before its finger had pointed to the
individual who 'found favor' in the highest sense, the
consciousness of possibilities, which scarce dared shape
themselves into definite thoughts, must at times have stirred
nameless feelings, perhaps the more often in circumstances of
outward depression and humility, such as those of the 'Holy
Family.' Nor was there anything strange even in the naming of
the yet unconceived Child. It sounds like a saying current
among the people of old, this of the Rabbis, [a Pirque' de R.
El. 32, at the beginning] concerning the six whose names were
given 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 Professor
Wunsche's quotation is here not exact (u. s. p. 414)] But as
for the deeper meaning of the name Jesus, [b St. Matt. i. 21]
which, like an unopened bud, enclosed the flower of His
Passion, that was mercifully yet the unthought-of secret of
that sword, which should pierce the soul of the
Virgin-Mother, and which only His future history would lay
open to her and to others.

Thus, on the supposition of the readiness of her believing
heart, and her entire self-unconsciousness, it would have
been only the glorious announcement of the impending event,
which would absorb her thinking, with nothing strange about
it, or that needed further light, than the how of her own
connection with it. [4 Weiss (Leben Jesu, 1882, vol. i. p.
213) rightly calls attention to the humility of her
self-surrender, when she willingly submitted to what her
heart would feel hardest to bear, that of incurring suspicion
of her purity in the sight of all.] And the words, which she
spake, were not of trembling doubt, that required to lean on
the staff of a 'sign,' but rather those of enquiry, for the
further guidance of a willing self-surrender. The Angel had
pointed her opened eyes to the shining path: that was not
strange; only, that She should walk in it, seemed so. And now
the Angel still further unfolded it in words which, however
little she may have understood their full meaning, had again
nothing strange about them, save once more that she should be
thus 'favoured'; words which, even to her understanding, must
have carried yet further thoughts of Divine favour, and so
deepened her humility. For, the idea of the activity of the
Holy Ghost in all great events was quite familiar to Israel
at the time, [1 So in almost innumerable Rabbinic passages.]
even though the Individuation of the Holy Ghost may not have
been fully apprehended. Only, that they expected such
influences to rest exclusively upon those who were either
mighty, or rich, or wise. [a Nedar. 38 a] And of this twofold
manifestation of miraculous 'favour,' that she, and as a
Virgin, should be its subject, Gabriel, 'the might of God,'
gave this unasked sign, in what had happened to her kinswoman
Elisabeth.

The sign was at the same time a direction. The first, but
also the ever-deepening desire in the heart of Mary, when the
Angel left her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, and
for the relief of opening her heart to a woman, in all things
like-minded, who perhaps might speak blessed words to her.
And to such an one the Angel himself seemed to have directed
her. It is only what we would have expected, that 'with
haste' she should have resorted to her kinswoman, without
loss of time, and before she would speak to her betrothed of
what even in wedded life is the first secret whispered. [2
This is answer to the objection, so pertinaciously urged, of
inconsistency with the narrative in St. Matt. i. 19 &c. It is
clear, that Mary went 'with haste' to her kinswoman, and that
any communication to Joseph could only have taken place after
that, and after the Angelic prediction was in all its parts
confirmed 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 the
Virgin-Mother, on entering the house of her kinswoman.
Elisabeth must have learnt from her husband the destiny of
their son, and hence the near Advent of the Messiah. But she
could not have known either when, or of whom He would be
born. When, by a sign not quite strange to Jewish expectancy,
[3 According to Jewish tradition, the yet unborn infants in
their mother's] she recognised in her near kinswoman the
Mother of her Lord, her salutation was that of a mother to a
mother, the mother of the 'preparer' to the mother of Him for
Whom he would prepare. To be more precise: the words which,
filled with the Holy Ghost, she spake, were the mother's
utterance, to the mother, of the homage which her unborn babe
offered to his Lord; while the answering hymn of Mary was the
offering of that homage unto God. It was the antiphonal
morning-psalmody of the Messianic day as it broke, of which
the words were still all of the old dispensation, [1 The
poetic grandeur and the Old Testament cast of the Virgin's
hymn (comp. the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10), need
scarcely be pointed out. Perhaps it would read fullest and
best by trying to recall what must have been its Hebrew
original.] but their music of the new; the keynote being that
of 'favour,' 'grace,' struck by the Angel in his first
salutation: 'favour' to the Virgin; [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, stretching
in golden line from the calling of Abraham to the glorious
future that now opened. [c 3rd stanza, vv. 54-55] Not one of
these fundamental ideas but lay strictly within the range of
the Old Testament; and yet all of them now lay beyond it,
bathed in the golden light of the new day. Miraculous it all
is, and professes to be; not indeed in the connection of
these events, which succeed each other with psycological
truthfulness; nor yet in their language, which is of the
times and the circumstances; but in the underlying facts. [2
Weiss, while denying the historical accuracy of much in the
Gospel-narrative of it, unhesitatingly accepts the fact of
the supernatural birth of Jesus.] And for these there can be
no other evidence than the Life, the Death, and the
Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. If He was such, and if He
really rose from the dead, then, with all soberness and
solemnity, such inception of His appearance seems almost a
logical necessity. But of this whole narrative it may be
said, that such inception of the Messianic appearance, such
announcement of it, and such manner of His Coming, could
never have been invented by contemporary Judaism; indeed, ran
directly counter to all its preconceptions. [3 Keim
elaborately discusses the origin of what he calls the legend
of Christ's supernatural conception. He arrives at the
conclusion that it was a Jewish-Christian legend, as if a
Jewish invention of such a 'legend' were not the most
unlikely of all possible hypotheses! But negative criticism
is at least bound to furnish some historical basis for the
origination of such an unlikely legend. Whence was the idea
of it first derived? How did it find such ready acceptance in
the Church? Weiss has, at considerable length, and very
fully, shown the impossibility of its origin either in Jewish
or heathen legend.]

Three months had passed since the Virgin-Mother entered the
home of her kinswoman. And now she must return to Nazareth.
Soon Elisabeth's neighbours and kinsfolk would gather with
sympathetic joy around a home which, as they thought, had
experienced unexpected mercy, little thinking, how
wide-reaching its consequences would be. But the
Virgin-Mother must not be exposed to the publicity of such
meetings. However conscious of what had led to her condition,
it must have been as the first sharp pang of the sword which
was to pierce her soul, when she told it all to her
betrothed. For, however deep his trust in her whom he had
chosen for wife, only a direct Divine communication could
have chased all questioning from his heart, and given him
that assurance, which was needful in the future history of
the Messiah. Brief as, with exquisite delicacy, the narrative
is, we can read in the 'thoughts' of Joseph the anxious
contending of feelings, the scarcely established, and yet
delayed, resolve to 'put her away,' which could only be done
by regular divorce; this one determination only standing out
clearly, that, if it must be, her letter of divorce shall be
handed to her privately, only in the presence of two
witnesses. The humble Tsaddiq of Nazareth would not willingly
have brought the blush to any face, least of all would he
make of her 'a public exhibition of shame.' [1 I have
thusparaphrased the verb rendered in Heb. vi. 6 'put to an
open shame.' Comp. also LXX. Num. xxv. 4; Jer. xiii. 22;
Ezek. xxviii. 17 (see Grimm, Clavis N.T. p. 333 b) Archdeacon
Farrar adopts the reading.] It was a relief that he could
legally divorce her either publicly or privately, whether
from change of feeling, or because he had found just cause
for it, but hesitated to make it known, either from regard
for his own character, or because he had not sufficient legal
evidence [2 For example, if he had not sufficient witnesses,
or if their testimony could be invalidated by any of those
provisions in favour of the accused, of which traditionalism
had not a few. Thus, as indicated in the text, Joseph might
have privately divorced Mary leaving it open to doubt on what
ground he had so acted.] of the charge. He would follow, all
unconscious of it, the truer manly feeling of R. Eliezar, [a
Keth. 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 to
shame before a Court of Justice, rather than the opposite
sentence of R. Meir.

The assurance, which Joseph could scarcely dare to hope for,
was miraculously conveyed to him in a dream-vision. All would
now be clear; even the terms in which he was addressed ('thou
son of David'), so utterly unusual in ordinary circumstances,
would prepare him for the Angel's message. The naming of the
unborn Messiah would accord with popular notions; [3 See a
former note.] the symbolism of such a name was deeply rooted
in Jewish belief; [1 Thus we read in (Shocher Tobh) the
Midrash on Prov. xix. 21 (closing part; ed. Lemberg. p. 16 b)
of eight names given to the Messiah, viz. Yinnon (Ps. 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 (He
that cometh in the clouds, Dan. vii. 13; see Tanch. Par.
Toledoth 14); Chaninah, with reference to Jer. xvi. 13; the
Leprous, with reference to Is. liii. 4 (Sanh. 96 b). It is a
curious instance of the Jewish mode of explaining a meaning
by gimatreya, or numerical calculation, that they prove
Tsemach (Branch) and Menachem (Comforter) to be the same,
because the numerical equivalents of the one word are equal
to those of the other:] while the explanation of Jehoshua or
Jeshua (Jesus), as He who would save His people (primarily,
as he would understand it, Israel) from their sins, described
at least one generally expected aspect of His Mission, [2
Professor Wunsche (Erlauter. d. Evang. p. 10) proposes to
strike out the words 'from their sins' as an un-Jewish
interpolation. In answer, it would suffice to point him to
the passages on this very subject which he has collated in a
previous work: Die Leiden des Messias, pp. 63-108. To these I
will only add a comment in the Midrash on Cant. i. 14 (ed.
Warshau, p. 11 a and b), where the reference is undoubtedly
to the Messiah (in the words of R. Berakhyah, line 8 from
bottom; and again in the words of R. Levi, 11 b, line 5 from
top, &c.). The expression is there explained as meaning 'He
Who makes expiation for the sins of Israel,' and it is
distinctly added that this expiation bears reference to the
transgressions and evil deeds of the children of Abraham, for
which God provides this Man as the Atonement.] although
Joseph may not have known that it was the basis of all the
rest. And perhaps it was not without deeper meaning and
insight into His character, that the Angel laid stress on
this very element in His communication to Joseph, and not to
Mary.

The fact that such an announcement came to Him in a dream,
would dispose Joseph all the more readily to receive it. 'A
good dream' was one of the three things [3 'A good king, a
fruitful year, and a good dream.'] popularly regarded as
marks of God's favour; and so general was the belief in their
significance, as to have passed into this popular saying: 'If
any one sleeps seven days without dreaming (or rather,
remembering his dream for interpretation), call him wicked'
(as being unremembered of God [a Ber. 55 b] [4 Rabbi Zera
proves this by a reference to Prov. xix. 23, the reading
Sabhea (satisfied) being altered into Shebha, both written,
while is understood as of spending the night. Ber. 55 a to 57
b contains a long, and sometimes very coarse, discussion of
dreams, giving their various interpretations, rules for
avoiding the consequences of evil dreams, &c. The fundamental
principle is, that 'a dream is according to its
interpretation' (Ber. 55 b). Such views about dreams would,
no doubt, have long been matter of popular belief, before
being formally expressed in the Talmud.]). Thus Divinely set
at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. The highest duty
towards the Virgin-Mother and the unborn Jesus demanded an
immediate marriage, which would afford not only outward, but
moral protection to both. [5 The objection, that the account
of Joseph and Mary's immediate marriage is inconsistent with
the designation of Mary in St. Luke ii. 5, is sufficiently
refuted by the consideration that, in any other case, Jewish
custom would not have allowed Mary to travel to Bethlehem in
company 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 the
golden chain of the history of the Kingdom of God, 'all
this', not only the birth of Jesus from a Virgin, nor even
His symbolic Name with its import, but also the unrestful
questioning of Joseph, 'happened' [1 Haupt (Alttestam. Citate
in d. vier Evang. pp. 207-215) rightly lays stress on the
words, 'all this was done.' He even extends its reference to
the threefold arrangement of the genealogy by St. Matthew, as
implying the ascending splendour of the line of David, its
midday glory, and its decline.] in fulfilment [2 The correct
Hebrew equivalent of the expression 'that it might be
fulfilled' is not, as Surenhusius (Biblos Katallages, p. 151)
and other writers have it, still loss (Wunsche) but, as
Professor Delitzsch renders it, in his new translation of St.
Matthew, The difference is important, and Delitzsch's
translation completely established by the similar rendering
of the LXX. of 1 Kings ii. 27 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.] of
what had been prefigured. [a Is. vii. 14.] The promise of a
Virginborn son as a sign of the firmness of God's covenant of
old with David and his house; the now unfolded meaning of the
former symbolic name Immanuel; even the unbief of Ahaz, with
its counterpart in the questioning of Joseph, 'all this'
could now be clearly read in the light of the breaking day.
Never had the house of David sunk morally lower than when, in
the words of Ahaz, it seemed to renounce the very foundation
of its claim to continuance; never had the fortunes of the
house of David fallen lower, than when a Herod sat on its
throne, and its lineal representative was a humble village
carpenter, from whose heart doubts of the Virgin-Mother had
to be Divinely chased. And never, not even when God gave to
the doubts of Moses this as the sign of Israel's future
deliverance, that in that mountain they should worship [b Ex.
iii. 12.] had unbelief been answered by more strange
evidence. But as, nevertheless, the stability of the Davidic
house was ensured by the future advent of Immanuel, and with
such certainty, that before even such a child could discern
between choice of good and evil, the land would be freed of
its dangers; so now all that was then prefigured was to
become literally true, and Israel to be saved from its real
danger by the Advent of Jesus, Immanuel. [3 A critical
discussion of Is. vii. 14 would here be out of place; though
I have attempted to express my views in the text. (The
nearest approach to them is that by Engelhardt in the
Zeitschr. fur Luth. Theol. fur 1872, Heft iv.). The quotation
of St. Matthew follows, with scarcely any variation, the
rendering of the LXX. That they should have translated the
Hebrew by, 'a Virgin,' is surely sufficient evidence of the
admissibility of such a rendering. The idea that the promised
Son 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). Our
difficulties of interpretation are, in great part, due to the
abruptness of Isaiah's prophetic language, and to our
ignorance of surrounding circumstances. Steinmeyer
ingeniously argues against the mythical theory that, since
Is. vii. 14 was not interpreted by the ancient Synagogue in a
Messianic sense, that passage could not have led to the
origination of 'the legend' about the 'Virgin's Son' (Gesch.
d. Geb. d. Herrn, p. 95). We add this further question,
Whence did it originate?] And so it had all been intended.
Thegolden cup of prophecy which Isaiah had placed empty on
the Holy Table, waiting for the time of the end, was now full
filled, up to its brim, with the new wine of the Kingdom.

Meanwhile the long-looked-for event had taken place in the
home of Zacharias. No domestic solemnity so important or so
joyous as that in which, by circumcision, the child had, as
it were, laid upon it the yoke of the Law, with all of duty
and privilege which this implied. Even the circumstance, that
it took place at early morning [a Pes. 4 a.] might indicate
this. It was, so tradition has it, as if the father had acted
sacrificially as High-Priest, [b Yalkut Sh. i. par. 81.]
offering his child to God in gratitude and love; [c Tanch. P
Tetsavveh, at the beginning, ed. Warshau, p. 111 a.] and it
symbolised this deeper moral truth, that man must by his own
act complete what God had first instituted. [d Tanch. u. s.]
To Zacharias and Elisabeth the rite would have even more than
this significance, as administered to the child of their old
age, so miraculously given, and who was connected with such a
future. Besides, the legend which associates circumcision
with Elijah, as the restorer of this rite in the apostate
period of the Kings of Israel, [e Pirq de R. Elies. c. 29.]
was probably in circulation at the time. [1 Probably the
designation of 'chair' or 'throne of Elijah,' for the chair
on which the godparent holding the child sits, and certainly
the invocation of Elijah, are of later date. Indeed, the
institution of godparents is itself of later origin.
Curiously enough, the Council of Terracina, in 1330 had to
interdict Christians acting as godparents at circumcision!
Even the great Buxtorf acted as godparent in 1619 to a Jewish
child, and was condemned to a fine of 100 florins for his
offence. See Low, Lebensalter, p. 86.] We can scarcely be
mistaken in supposing, that then, as now, a benediction was
spoken before circumcision, and that the ceremony closed with
the usual grace over the cup of wine, [2 According to
Josephus (Ag. Ap. ii. 26) circumcision was not followed by a
feast. But, if this be true, the practice was soon altered,
and the feast took place on the eve of circumcision (Jer.
Keth. i. 5; B. Kama 80 a; B. Bath. 60 b, &c.). Later
Midrashim traced it up to the history of Abraham and the
feast at the weaning of Isaac, which they represented as one
at circumcision (Pirqe d. R. Eliez. 29).] when the child
received his name in a prayer that probably did not much
differ from this at present in use: 'Our God, and the God of
our fathers, raise up this child to his father and mother,
and let his name be called in Israel Zacharias, the son of
Zacharias. [3 Wunsche reiterates the groundless objection of
Rabbi Low (u. s. p.96), that a family-name was only given in
remembrance of the grandfather, deceased father, or other
member of the family! Strange, that such a statement should
ever have been hazarded; stranger still, that it should be
repeated after having been fully refuted by Delitzsch. It
certainly is contrary to Josephus (War iv. 3, 9), and to the
circumstance that both the father and brother of Josephus
bore 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 in
Prov. xxiii. 25, and as it is said in Ezek. xvi. 6, and again
in Ps. cv. 8, and Gen. xxi. 4;' the passages being, of
course, quoted in full. The prayer closed with the hope that
the child might grow up, and successfully, 'attain to the
Torah, the marriagebaldachino, and good works.' [1 The reader
will find B. H. Auerbach's Berith Abraham (with a Hebrew
introduction) an interesting tractate on the subject. For
another and younger version of these prayers, see Low, u. s.
p. 102.]

Of all this Zacharias was, though a deeply interested, yet a
deaf and dumb [2 From St. Luke i. 62 we gather, that
Zacharias was what the Rabbis understood by, one deaf as well
as dumb. Accordingly they communicated with him by 'signs',
as Delitzsch correctly renders it:] witness. This only had he
noticed, that, in the benediction in which the child's name
was inserted, the mother had interrupted the prayer. Without
explaining her reason, she insisted that his name should not
be that of his aged father, as in the peculiar circumstances
might have been expected, but John (Jochanan). A reference to
the father only deepened the general astonishment, when he
also gave the same name. But this was not the sole cause for
marvel. For, forthwith the tongue of the dumb was loosed, and
he, who could not utter the name of the child, now burst into
praise of the name of the Lord. His last words had been those
of unbelief, his first were those of praise; his last words
had been a question of doubt, his first were a hymn of
assurance. Strictly Hebrew in its cast, and closely following
Old Testament prophecy, it is remarkable and yet almost
natural, that this hymn of the Priest closely follows, and,
if the expression be allowable, spiritualises a great part of
the most ancient Jewish prayer: the so-called Eighteen
Benedictions; rather perhaps, that it transforms the
expectancy of that prayer into praise of its realisation. And
if we bear in mind, that a great portion of these prayers was
said by the Priests before the lot was cast for incensing, or
by the people in the time of incesing, it almost seems as if,
during the long period of his enforced solitude, the aged
Priest had meditated on, and learned to understand, what so
often he had repeated. Opening with the common form of
benediction, his hymn struck, one by one, the deepest chords
of that prayer, specially this the most significant of all
(the fifteenth Eulogy), 'Speedily make to shoot forth the
Branch [3 Although almost all modern authorities are against
me, I cannot persuade myself that the expression (St. Luke i.
78) rendered 'dayspring' in our A. V. is here not the
equivalent of the Hebrew 'Branch.' The LXX at any rate
rendered in Jer. xxiii. 5; Ezek. xvi. 7; xvii. 10; Zech. iii.
8; vi. 12, by.] of David, Thy servant, and exalt Thou his
horn by Thy salvation, for in Thy salvation we trust all the
day long. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah! Who causeth to spring
forth the Horn of Salvation' (literally, to branch forth).
This analogy between the hymn of Zacharias and the prayers of
Israel will best appear from the benedictions with which
these eulogies closed. For, when thus examined, their leading
thoughts will be found to be as follows: God as the Shield of
Abraham; He that raises the dead, and causes salvation to
shoot forth; the Holy One; Who graciously giveth knowledge;
Who taketh pleasure in repentance; Who multiplieth
forgiveness; Who redeemeth Israel; Who healeth their
(spiritual) diseases; Who blesseth the years; Who gathereth
the outcasts of His people; Who loveth righteousness and
judgment; Who is the abode and stay of the righteous; Who
buildeth Jerusalem; Who causeth the Horn of Salvation to
shoot forth; Who heareth prayer; Who bringeth back His
Shekhinah to Zion; God the Gracious One, to Whom praise is
due; Who blesseth His people Israel with peace.

It was all most fitting. The question of unbelief had struck
the Priest dumb, for most truly unbelief cannot speak; and
the answer of faith restored to him speech, for most truly
does faith loosen the tongue. The first evidence of his
dumbness had been, that his tongue refused to speak the
benediction to the people; and the first evidence of his
restored power was, that he spoke the benediction of God in a
rapturous burst of praise and thanksgiving. The sign of the
unbeliving Priest standing before the awe-struck people,
vainly essaying to make himself understood by signs, was most
fitting; most fitting also that, when 'they made signs' to
him, the believing father should burst in their hearing into
a prophetic hymn.

But far and wide, as these marvellous tidings spread
throughout the hill-country of Judaea, fear fell on all, the
fear also of a nameless hope. The silence of a long-clouded
day had been broken, and the light which had suddenly riven
its gloom, laid itself on their hearts in expectancy: 'What
then shall this Child be? For the Hand of the Lord also was
with Him!' [2 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, to
regard the difference between Judaism and Christianity as
confined to the question of the fulfillment of certain
prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. These predictions could only
outline individual features in the Person and history of the
Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recognised, but
rather by the combination of the various features into a
unity, and by the expression which gives it meaning. So far
as we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was
ever taken to the fulfillment of individual prophecies in
Jesus. But the general conception which the Rabbis had formed
of the Messiah, differed totally from what was presented by
the Prophet of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamental
divergence between the two may be said to have existed long
before the events which finally divided them. It is the
combination of letters which constitute words, and the same
letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both
Rabbinism and, what, by anticipation, we designate,
Christianity might regard the same predictions as Messianic,
and look for their fulfillment; while at the same time the
Messianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite other than
that, to which the faith and hope of the Church have clung.

1. The most important point here is to keep in mind the
organic unity of the Old Testament. Its predictions are not
isolated, but features of one grand prophetic picture; its
ritual and institutions parts of one great system; its
history, not loosely connected events, but an organic
development tending towards a definite end. Viewed in its
innermost substance, the history of the Old Testament is not
different from its typical institutions, nor yet these two
from its predictions.The idea, underlying all, is God's
gracious manifestation in the world, the Kingdom of God; the
meaning of all, the establishment of this Kingdom upon earth.
That gracious purpose was, so to speak, individualized, and
the Kingdom actually established in the Messiah. Both the
fundamental and the final relationship in view was that of
God towards man, and of man towards God: the former as
expressed 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; [a
Gen. iii. 13 ] and in this sense also the words of Jesus hold
true: 'Before Abraham came into being, I am.'

But, narrowing our survey to where the history of the
Kingdom of God begins with that of Abraham, it was indeed as
Jesus said: 'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see
My day, and he saw it, and was glad.' [b 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; their
predictions those of the household of God. And Israel was
also the Servant of God, 'Jacob My Servant'; and its history,
institutions, and predictions those of the Servant of the
Lord. Yet not merely Servant, but Son-Servant, 'anointed' to
such service. This idea was, so to speak, crystallised in the
three great representative institutions of Israel. The
'Servant of the Lord' in relation to Israel's history was
Kingship in Israel; the 'Servant of the Lord' in relation to
Israel's ritual ordinances was the Priesthood in Israel; the
'Servant of the Lord' in relation to prediction was the
Prophetic order. But all sprang from the same fundamental
idea: that of the 'Servant of Jehovah.'

One step still remains. The Messiah and His history are not
presented in the Old Testament as something separate from, or
superadded to, Israel. The history, the institutions, and the
predictions of Israel run up into Him. [1 In this respect
there is deep significance in the Jewish legend (frequently
introduced; see, for example, Tanch. ii. 99 a; Deb. R. 1),
that all the miracles which God had shown to Israel in the
wilderness would be done again to redeemed Zion in the
'latter days.'] He is the typical Israelite, nay, typical
Israel itself, alike the crown, the completion, and the
representative of Israel. He is the Son of God and the
Servant of the Lord; but in that highest and only true sense,
which had given its meaning to all the preparatory
development. As He was 'anointed' to be the 'Servant of the
Lord,' not with the typical oil, but by 'the Spirit of
Jehovah' 'upon' Him, so was He also the 'Son' in a unique
sense. His organic connection with Israel is marked by the
designations 'Seed of Abraham' and 'Son of David,' while at
the same time He was essentially, what Israel was
subordinately and typically: 'Thou art My Son, this day have
I begotten Thee.' Hence also, in strictest truthfulness, the
Evangelist could apply to the Messiah what referred to
Israel, and see it fulfilled in His history: 'Out of Egypt
have I called my Son.' [a St. Matt. ii. 15] And this other
correlate idea, of Israel as 'the Servant of the Lord,' is
also fully concentrated in the Messiah as the Representative
Israelite, so that the Book of Isaiah, as the series of
predictions in which His picture is most fully outlined,
might be summarised as that concerning 'the Servant of
Jehovah.' Moreover, the Messiah, as Representative Israelite,
combined in Himself as 'the Servant of the Lord' the
threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, and joined
together the two ideas of 'Son' and 'Servant'. [b Phil. ii.
6-11] And the final combination and full exhibition of these
two ideas was the fulfillment of the typical mission of
Israel, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God among
men.

Thus, in its final, as in its initial, [c Gen. iii. 15]
stage it was the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon
earth, brought about by the 'Servant' of the Lord, Who was to
stricken humanity the God-sent 'Anointed Comforter' (Mashiach
ha-Menachem): in this twofold sense of 'Comforter' of
individuals ('the friend of sinners'), and 'Comforter' of
Israel and of the world, reconciling the two, and bringing to
both eternal salvation. And here the mission of Israel ended.
It had passed through three stages. The first, or historical,
was the preparation of the Kingdom of God; the second, or
ritual, the typical presentation of that Kingdom; while the
third, or prophetic, brought that Kingdom into actual contact
with the kingdoms of the world. Accordingly, it is during the
latter that the designation 'Son of David' (typical Israel)
enlarged in the visions of Daniel into that of 'Son of Man'
(the Head of redeemed humanity). It were a onesided view to
regard the Babylonish exile as only a punishment for Israel's
sin. There is, in truth, nothing in all God's dealings in
history exclusively punitive. That were a merely negative
element. But there is always a positive element also of
actual progress; a step forward, even though in the taking of
it something should have to be crushed. And this step forward
was the development of the idea of the Kingdom of God in its
relation to the world.

2. This organic unity of Israel and the Messiah explains how
events, institutions, and predictions, which initially were
purely Israelitish, could with truth be regarded as finding
their full accomplishment in the Messiah. From this point of
view the whole Old Testament becomes the perspective in which
the figure of the Messiah stands out. And perhaps the most
valuable element in Rabbinic excommentation on Messianic
times is that in which, as so frequently, it is explained,
that all the miracles and deliverances of Israel's past would
be re-enacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of
the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of
the future, the Old Testament the glass, through which the
universal blessings of the latter days were seen. It is in
this sense that we would understand the two sayings of the
Talmud: 'All the prophets prophesied only of the days of the
Messiah,' [a Sanh. 99 a] and 'The world was created only for
the Messiah.' [b Sanh. 98 b]

In accordance with all this, the ancient Synagogue found
references to the Messiah in many more passages of the Old
Testament than those verbal predictions, to which we
generally appeal; and the latter formed (as in the New
Testament) a proportionately small, and secondary, element in
the conception of the Messianic era. This is fully borne out
by a detailed analysis of those passages in the Old Testament
to which the ancient Synagogue referred as Messianic. [1 See
Appendix IX., where a detailed list is given of all the Old
Testament passages which the ancient Synagogue applied
Messianically, together with the references to the Rabbinic
works where they are quoted.] Their number amounts to upwards
of 456 (75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and
138 from the Hagiographa), and their Messianic application is
supported by more than 558 references to the most ancient
Rabbinic writings. [2 Large as this number is, I do not
present the list as complete. Thus, out of the thirty-seven
Parashahs constituting the Midrash on Leviticus, no fewer
than twenty-five close with an outlook on Messianic times.
The same may be said of the close of many of the Parashahs in
the Midrashim known as Pesiqta and Tanchuma (Zunz, u.s. pp.
181, 234). Besides, the oldest portions of the Jewish liturgy
are full of Messianic aspirations] But comparatively few of
these are what would be termed verbal predictions. Rather
would it seem as if every event were regarded as prophetic,
and every prophecy, whether by fact, or by word (prediction),
as a light to cast its sheen on the future, until the picture
of the Messianic age in the far back-ground stood out in the
hundredfold variegated brightness of prophetic events, and
prophetic utterances; or, as regarded the then state of
Israel, till the darkness of their present night was lit up
by a hundred constellations kindling in the sky overhead, and
its lonely silence broken by echoes of heavenly voices, and
strains of prophetic hymns borne on the breeze.

Of course, there was the danger that, amidst these dazzling
lights, or in the crowd of figures, each so attractive, or
else in the absorbing interest of the general picture, the
grand central Personality should not engage the attention it
claimed, and so the meaning of the whole be lost in the
contemplation of its details. This danger was the greater
from the absence of any deeper spiritual elements. All that
Israel needed: 'study of the Law and good works,' lay within
the reach of every one; and all that Israel hoped for, was
national restoration and glory. Everything else was but means
to these ends; the Messiah Himself only the grand instrument
in attaining them. Thus viewed, the picture presented would
be of Israel's exaltation, rather than of the salvation of
the world. To this, and to the idea of Israel's exclusive
spiritual position in the world, must be traced much, that
otherwise would seem utterly irrational in the Rabbinic
pictures of the latter days. But in such a picture there
would be neither room nor occasion for a Messiah-Saviour, in
the only sense in which such a heavenly mission could be
rational, or the heart of humanity respond to it. The
Rabbinic ideal of the Messiah was not that of 'a light to
lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel',
the satisfaction of the wants of humanity, and the completion
of Israel's mission but quite different, even to contrariety.
Accordingly, there was a fundamental antagonism between the
Rabbis and Christ, quite irrespective of the manner in which
He carried out His Messianic work. On the other hand, it is
equally noteworthy, that the purely national elements, which
well nigh formed the sum total of Rabbinic expectation,
scarcely entered into the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom
of God. And the more we realise, that Jesus so fundamentally
separated Himself from all the ideas of His time, the more
evidential is it of the fact, that He was not the Messiah of
Jewish conception, but derived His mission from a source
unknown to, or at least ignored by, the leaders of His
people.

3. But still, as the Rabbinic ideas were at least based on
the Old Testament, we need not wonder that they also embodied
the chief features of the Messianic history. Accordingly, a
careful perusal of their Scripture quotations [1 For these,
see Appendix IX.] shows, that the main postulates of the New
Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by
Rabbinic statements. Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane
existence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even
above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel
sufferings and derision; His violent death, and that for His
people; His work on behalf of the living and of the dead; His
redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the
Gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the
prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of the latter
days; and His Kingdom, can be clearly deduced from
unquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings. Only, as
we might expect, all is there indistinct, incoherent,
unexplained, and from a much lower standpoint. At best, it is
the lower stage of yet unfulfilled prophecy, the haze when
the sun is about to rise, not the blaze when it has risen.
Most painfully is this felt in connection with the one
element on which the New Testament most insists. There is,
indeed, in Rabbinic writings frequent reference to the
sufferings, and even the death of the Messiah, and these are
brought into connection with our sins, as how could it be
otherwise in view of Isaiah liii. and other passages, and in
one most remarkable comment [a Yalkut on Is. ix. 1] the
Messiah is represented as willingly taking upon Himself all
these sufferings, on condition that all Israel, the living,
the dead, and those yet unborn, should be saved, and that, in
consequence of His work, God and Israel should be reconciled,
and Satan cast into hell. But there is only the most
indistinct reference to the removal of sin by the Messiah, in
the sense of vicarious sufferings.

In connection with what has been stated, one most important
point must be kept in view. So far as their opinions can be
gathered from their writings, the great doctrines of Original
Sin, and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held
by the ancient Rabbis. [1 This is the view expressed by all
Jewish dogmatic writers. See also Weber, Altsynag. Theol. p.
217.] Of course, it is not meant that they denied the
consequences of sin, either as concerned Adam himself, or his
descendants; but the final result is far from that
seriousness which attaches to the Fall in the New 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 further
explanation necessary. [2 Comp. on the subject. Ber. R.
12-16.]
The fall of Adam is ascribed to the envy of the Angels [3 In
Ber. R., however, it has seemed to me, as if sometimes a
mystical and symbolical view of the history of the Fall were
insinuated, evil concupiscence being the occasion of it.] ,
not the fallen ones, for none were fallen, till God cast them
down in consequence of their seduction of man. The Angels,
having in vain tried to prevent the creation of man, at last
conspired to lead him into sin as the only means of his ruin,
the task being undertaken by Sammael (and his Angels), who in
many respects was superior to the other Angelic princes. [b
Pirqe de R. El. c. 13; Yalkut i. p. 8 c] The instrument
employed was the serpent, of whose original condition the
strangest legends are told, probably to make the Biblical
narrative appear more rational. [c Comp. Pirqe de R. El. and
Yalkut, u.s.; also Ber. R. 19] The details of the story of
the Fall, as told by the Rabbis, need not be here repeated,
save to indicate its consequences. The first of these was the
withdrawal of the Shekhinah from earth to the first heaven,
while subsequent sins successively led to its further removal
to the seventh heaven. This, however, can scarcely be
considered a permanent sequel of sin, since the good deeds of
seven righteous men, beginning with Abraham, brought it
again, in the time of Moses, to earth. [a Ber. R. 19, ed.
Warshau, p. 37a] Six things Adam is said to have lost by his
sin; but even these are to be restored to man by the Messiah.
[b Bemidb. R. 13] [1 They are: the shiningsplendour of his
person, even his heels being like suns; his gigantic size,
from east to west, from earth to heaven; the spontaneous
splendid products of the ground, and of all fruit-trees; an
infinitely greater measure of light on the part of the
heavenly bodies; and, finally, endless duration of life (Ber.
R. 12, ed. Warsh. p. 24 b; Ber. R. 21; Sanh. 38 b; Chag. 12
a; and for their restoration by the Messiah, Bem. R. 13).]
That the physical death of Adam was the consequence of his
sin, is certainly taught. Otherwise he would have lived
forever, like Enoch and Elijah. [c Vayyikra R. 27] But
although the fate which overtook Adam was to rest on all the
world, [d Ber. R. 16 21, and often] and death came not only
on our first father but on his descendants, and all creation
lost its perfectness, [e Ber. R. 5, 12, 10; comp. also Midr.
on Eccl. vii. 13; and viii. 1, and Baba B. 17 a] yet even
these temporal sequences are not universally admitted. It
rather seems taught, that death was intended to be the fate
of all, or sent to show the folly of men claiming Divine
worship, or to test whether piety was real, [f Ber. R. 9] the
more so that with death the weary struggle with our evil
inclination ceased. It was needful to die when our work was
done, that others might enter upon it. In each case death was
the consequence of our own, not of Adam's sin. [g Bemidb. R.
19] In fact, over these six, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,
Aaron, and Miriam, the Angel of Death had had no absolute
power. Nay, there was a time when all Israel were not only
free from death, but like the Angels, and even higher than
they. For, originally God had offered the Law to all Gentile
nations, [h According to Deut.xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 3] but
they had refused to submit to it. [i Ab. Zar. 2 b] But when
Israel took on themselvesthe Law at Mount Sinai, the
description 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 golden
calf,although the Talmud marks that, if Israel had continued
in that Angelic state, the nation would have ceased with that
generation. [2 By a most ingenious theological artifice the
sin of the golden calf, and that of David are made matter for
thanksgiving; the one as showing that, even if the whole
people sinned, God was willing to forgive; the other as
proving, that God graciously condescended to each individual
sinner, and that to each the door of repentance was open.]
Thus there were two divergent opinions, the one ascribing
death to personal, the other tracing it to Adam's guilt.] [3
In the Talmud (Shabb. 55 a and b) each view is supported in
discussion, the one by a reference to Ezek. xviii. 20, the
other to Eccles. ix. 2 (comp. also Siphre on Deut. xxxii.
49). The final conclusion, however, greatly inclines towards
the connection between death and the fall (see especially the
clear statement in Debar. R. 9, ed. Warsh., p. 20 a). This
view is also supported by such passages in the Apocrypha as
Wisdom ii. 23, 24; iii. 1, &c.; while, on the other hand,
Ecclus. xv. 11-17 seems rather to point in a different
direction.]

When, however, we pass from the physical to the moral
sequences of the fall, our Jewish authorities wholly fail us.
They teach, that man is created with two inclinations, that
to evil (the Yetser ha-ra), and that to good; [a Targum
Ps.-Jon. on Gen. ii. 7] the first working in him from the
beginning, 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 the
Yetser ha-ra, its existence is absolutely necessary, if the
world is to continue. [c Ber. R. 9] In fact, as the Talmud
expressly teaches, [d Ber. 61 a] the evil desire or impulse
was created by God Himself; while it is also asserted [e
Sukk. 52 a, and Yalkut ii. p. 149 b] that, on seeing the
consequences, God actually repented having done so. This
gives quite another character to sin, as due to causes for
which no blame attaches to man. [f Comp. also Jer. Targum on
Ex. xxxii. 22] On the other hand, as it is in the power of
each wholly to overcome sin, and to gain life by study and
works; [g Ab. Z. 5 b; Kidd. 30 b] as Israel at Mount Sinai
had actually got rid of the Yetser ha-ra; an