The object of this volume is kindred to that of my previous book on The Temple, its Ministry and Services as they were at the Time of Jesus Christ. In both I have wished to transport the reader into the land of Palestine at the time of our Lord and of His apostles, and to show him, so far as lay within the scope of each book, as it were, the scene on which, and the persons among whom the events recorded in New Testament history had taken place. For I believe, that in measure as we realise its surroundings—so to speak, see and hear for ourselves what passed at the time, enter into its ideas, become familiar with its habits, modes of thinking, its teaching and worship—shall we not only understand many of the expressions and allusions in the New Testament, but also gain fresh evidence of the truth of its history alike from its faithfulness to the picture of society, such as we know it to have been, and from the contrast of its teaching and aims to those of the contemporaries of our Lord.
For, a careful study of the period leaves this conviction on the mind: that—with reverence be it said—Jesus Christ was strictly of His time, and that the New Testament is, in its narratives, language, and allusions, strictly true to the period and circumstances in which its events are laid. But in another, and far more important, aspect there is no similarity between Christ and His period. “Never man”—of that, or any subsequent period—“spake like this man”; never man lived or died as He. Assuredly, if He was the Son of David, He also is the Son of God, the Saviour of the world.
In my book on The Temple, its Ministry and Services, I endeavoured to carry the reader with me into the Sanctuary, and to make him witness all connected with its institutions, its priesthood, and its solemnities. In this book I have sought to take him into ordinary civil society, and to make him mingle with the men and women of that period, see them in their homes and families, learn their habits and manners, and follow them in their ordinary life—all, as illustrative of New Testament history; at the same time endeavouring to present in a popular form the scenes witnessed.
Another, and perhaps the most important part in its bearing on Christianity, yet remains to be done: to trace the progress of religious thought—as regards the canon of Scripture, the Messiah, the law, sin, and salvation—to describe the character of theological literature, and to show the state of doctrinal belief at the time of our Lord. It is here especially that we should see alike the kinship in form and the almost contrast in substance between what Judaism was at the time of Christ, and the teaching and the kingdom of our Blessed Lord. But this lay quite outside the scope of the present volume, and belongs to a larger work for which this and my previous book may, in a sense, be regarded as forestudies. Accordingly, where civil society touched, as on so many points it does, on the theological and the doctrinal, it was only possible to “sketch” it, leaving the outlines to be filled up. To give a complete representation of the times of our Lord, in all their bearings—to show not only who they were among whom Jesus Christ moved, but what they knew, thought, and believed—and this as the frame, so to speak, in which to set as a picture the life of our Blessed Lord Himself, such must now be the work, to which, with all prayerful reverence and with most earnest study, I shall henceforth set myself.
It seemed needful to state this, in order to explain both the plan of this book and the manner of its treatment. I will only add, that it embodies the results of many years’ study, in which I have availed myself of every help within my reach. It might seem affectation, were I to enumerate the names of all the authorities consulted or books read in the course of these studies. Those mentioned in the foot-notes constitute but a very small proportion of them.
Throughout, my constant object has been to illustrate the New Testament history and teaching. Even the “Scripture Index” at the close will show in how many instances this has been attempted. Most earnestly then do I hope, that these pages may be found to cast some additional light on the New Testament, and that they will convey fresh evidence—to my mind of the strongest kind—and in a new direction, of the truth “of those things which are most surely believed among us.” And now it only remains at the close of these investigations once more to express my own full and joyous belief in that grand truth to which all leads up—that “CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEVETH.”
Alfred Edersheim.
The Vicarage, Loders, Bridport:
November, 1876.
Eighteen and a half centuries ago, and the land which now lies desolate—its
bare, grey hills looking into ill-tilled or neglected valleys, its timber cut
down, its olive- and vine-clad terraces crumbled into dust, its villages
stricken with poverty and squalor, its thoroughfares insecure and deserted, its
native population well-nigh gone, and with them its industry, wealth, and
strength—presented a scene of beauty, richness, and busy life almost
unsurpassed in the then known world. The Rabbis never weary of its praises,
whether their theme be the physical or the moral pre-eminence of Palestine. It
happened, so writes one of the oldest Hebrew commentaries, that Rabbi Jonathan
was sitting under a fig-tree, surrounded by his students. Of a sudden he noticed
how the ripe fruit overhead, bursting for richness, dropped its luscious juice
on the ground, while at a little distance the distended udder of a she-goat was
no longer able to hold the milk. “Behold,” exclaimed the Rabbi, as the two
streams mingled, “the literal fulfillment of the promise: ‘a land flowing with
milk and honey.’” “The land of Israel is not lacking in any product whatever,”
argued Rabbi Meir, “as it is written (
“We
find,” writes one of the most learned Rabbinical commentators, supporting each
assertion by a reference to Scripture (R. Bechai), “that thirteen things
are in the sole ownership of the Holy One, blessed be His Name! and these are
they: the silver, the gold, the priesthood, Israel, the first-born, the altar,
the first-fruits, the anointing oil, the tabernacle of meeting, the kingship of
the house of David, the sacrifices, the land of Israel, and the eldership.” In
truth, fair as the land was, its conjunction with higher spiritual blessings
gave it its real and highest value. “Only in Palestine does the Shechinah
manifest itself,” taught the Rabbis. Outside its sacred boundaries no such
revelation was possible. It was there that rapt prophets had seen their visions,
and psalmists caught strains of heavenly hymns. Palestine was the land that had
Jerusalem for its capital, and on its highest hill that temple of snowy marble
and glittering gold for a sanctuary, around which clustered such precious
memories, hallowed thoughts, and glorious, wide-reaching hopes. There is no
religion so strictly local as that of Israel. Heathenism was indeed the worship
of national deities, and Judaism that of Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth.
But the national deities of the heathen might be transported, and their rites
adapted to foreign manners. On the other hand, while Christianity was from the
first universal in its character and design, the religious institutions
and the worship of the Pentateuch, and even the prospects opened by the prophets
were, so far as they concerned Israel, strictly of Palestine and
for Palestine. They are wholly incompatible with the permanent loss of
the land. An extra-Palestinian Judaism, without priesthood, altar, temple,
sacrifices, tithes, first-fruits, Sabbatical and Jubilee years, must first set
aside the Pentateuch, unless, as in Christianity, all these be regarded as
blossoms designed to ripen into fruit, as types pointing to, and fulfilled in
higher realities.
All this the Rabbis could not fail to perceive. Accordingly when, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, they set themselves to reconstruct their broken commonwealth, it was on a new basis indeed, but still within Palestine. Palestine was the Mount Sinai of Rabbinism. Here rose the spring of the Halachah, or traditional law, whence it flowed in ever-widening streams; here, for the first centuries, the learning, the influence, and the rule of Judaism centered; and there they would fain have perpetuated it. The first attempts at rivalry by the Babylonian schools of Jewish learning were keenly resented and sharply put down. Only the force of circumstances drove the Rabbis afterwards voluntarily to seek safety and freedom in the ancient seats of their captivity, where, politically unmolested, they could give the final development to their system. It was this desire to preserve the nation and its learning in Palestine which inspired such sentiments as we are about to quote. “The very air of Palestine makes one wise,” said the Rabbis. The Scriptural account of the borderland of Paradise, watered by the river Havilah, of which it is said that “the gold of that land is good,” was applied to their earthly Eden, and paraphrased to mean, “there is no learning like that of Palestine.” It was a saying, that “to live in Palestine was equal to the observance of all the commandments.” “He that hath his permanent abode in Palestine,” so taught the Talmud, “is sure of the life to come.” “Three things,” we read in another authority, “are Israel’s through suffering: Palestine, traditional lore, and the world to come.” Nor did this feeling abate with the desolation of their country. In the third and fourth centuries of our era they still taught, “He that dwelleth in Palestine is without sin.”
Centuries of wandering and of changes have not torn the passionate love of this
land from the heart of the people. Even superstition becomes here pathetic. If
the Talmud (Cheth. iii. a.) had already expressed the principle, “Whoever
is buried in the land of Israel, is as if he were buried under the altar,” one
of the most ancient Hebrew commentaries (Ber. Rabba) goes much farther.
From the injunction of Jacob and Joseph, and the desire of the fathers to be
buried within the sacred soil, it is argued that those who lay there were to be
the first “to walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (
Yet it is most true, as noticed by a recent writer, that no place could have been more completely swept of relics than is Palestine. Where the most solemn transactions have taken place; where, if we only knew it, every footstep might be consecrated, and rocks, and caves, and mountain-tops be devoted to the holiest remembrances—we are almost in absolute ignorance of exact localities. In Jerusalem itself even the features of the soil, the valleys, depressions, and hills have changed, or at least lie buried deep under the accumulated ruins of centuries. It almost seems as if the Lord meant to do with the land what Hezekiah had done with that relic of Moses—the brazen serpent—when he stamped it to pieces, lest its sacred memories should convert it into an occasion for idolatry. The lie of land and water, of mountain and valley, are the same; Hebron, Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives, Nazareth, the Lake of Gennesaret, the land of Galilee, are still there, but all changed in form and appearance, and with no definite spot to which one could with absolute certainty attach the most sacred events. Events, then, not places; spiritual realities, not their outward surroundings, have been given to mankind by the land of Palestine.
“So
long as Israel inhabited Palestine,” says the Babylonian Talmud, “the country
was wide; but now it has become narrow.” There is only too much historical truth
underlying this somewhat curiously-worded statement. Each successive change left
the boundaries of the Holy Land narrowed. Never as yet has it actually reached
the extent indicated in the original promise to Abraham (
When
our blessed Saviour trod the soil of Palestine, the country had already
undergone many changes. The ancient division of tribes had given way; the two
kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed no longer; and the varied foreign
domination, and the brief period of absolute national independence, had alike
ceased. Yet, with the characteristic tenacity of the East for the past, the
names of the ancient tribes still attached to some of the districts formerly
occupied by them (comp.
At the
time of Christ’s birth Palestine was governed by Herod the Great; that is, it
was nominally an independent kingdom, but under the suzerainty of Rome. On the
death of Herod—that is, very close upon the opening of the gospel story—a
fresh, though only temporary, division of his dominions took place. The events
connected with it fully illustrate the parable of our Lord, recorded in
But we
are anticipating. Our main object was to explain the division of Palestine in
the time of our Lord. Politically speaking, it consisted of Judaea and Samaria,
under Roman procurators; Galilee and Peraea (on the other side Jordan), subject
to Herod Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist—“that fox” full of cunning
and cruelty, to whom the Lord, when sent by Pilate, would give no answer; and
Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, under the rule of the tetrarch Philip. It
would require too many details to describe accurately those latter provinces.
Suffice, that they lay quite to the north-east, and that one of their principal
cities was Caesarea Philippi (called after the Roman emperor, and after Philip
himself), where Peter made that noble confession, which constituted the rock on
which the Church was to be built (
Such
was the political division of Palestine. Commonly it was arranged into Galilee,
Samaria, Judaea, and Peraea. It is scarcely necessary to say that the Jews did
not regard Samaria as belonging to the Holy Land, but as a strip of foreign
country—as the Talmud designates it (Chag. 25 a.), “a Cuthite strip,” or
“tongue,” intervening between Galilee and Judaea. From the gospels we know that
the Samaritans were not only ranked with Gentiles and strangers (
Coming
down from Syria, it would have been difficult to fix the exact spot where, in
the view of the Rabbis, “the land” itself began. The boundary lines, though
mentioned in four different documents, are not marked in anything like
geographical order, but as ritual questions connected with them came up for
theological discussion. For, to the Rabbis the precise limits of Palestine were
chiefly interesting so far as they affected the religious obligations or
privileges of a district. And in this respect the fact that a city was in
heathen possession exercised a decisive influence. Thus the environs of Ascalon,
the wall of Caesarea, and that of Acco, were reckoned within the boundaries of
Palestine, though the cities themselves were not. Indeed, viewing the question
from this point, Palestine was to the Rabbis simply “the land,”
It needed not that addition, which might have suggested a comparison with other
countries; for to the Rabbinist Palestine was not only holy, but the only holy
ground, to the utter exclusion of all other countries, although they marked
within its boundaries an ascending scale of ten degrees of sanctity, rising from
the bare soil of Palestine to the most holy place in the Temple (Chel. i.
6-9). But “outside the land” everything was darkness and death. The very dust of
a heathen country was unclean, and it defiled by contact. It was regarded like a
grave, or like the putrescence of death. If a spot of heathen dust had touched
an offering, it must at once be burnt. More than that, if by mischance any
heathen dust had been brought into Palestine, it did not and could not mingle
with that of “the land,” but remained to the end what it had been—unclean,
defiled, and defiling everything to which it adhered. This will cast light upon
the meaning conveyed by the symbolical directions of our Lord to His disciples
(
The
Mishnah (Shev, vi. 1; Chall. iv. 8) marks, in reference to certain
ordinances, “three lands” which might equally be designated as Palestine, but to
which different ritual regulations applied. The first comprised, “all which they
who came up from Babylon took possession of in the land of Israel and unto
Chezib” (about three hours north of Acre); the second, “all that they who came
up from Egypt took possession of from Chezib and unto the river (Euphrates)
eastward, and unto Amanah” (supposed to be a mountain near Antioch, in Syria);
while the third, seemingly indicating certain ideal outlines, was probably
intended to mark what “the land” would have been, according to the original
promise of God, although it was never possessed to that extent by Israel.
The term Soria, or Syria, does not include that country alone, but all the lands which, according to the Rabbis, David had subdued, such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Zobah, Achlab, etc. It would be too lengthy to explain in detail the various ordinances in regard to which Soria was assimilated to, and those by which it was distinguished from, Palestine proper. The preponderance of duty and privilege was certainly in favour of Syria, so much so, that if one could have stepped from its soil straight to that of Palestine, or joined fields in the two countries, without the interposition of any Gentile strip, the land and the dust of Syria would have been considered clean, like that of Palestine itself (Ohol. xviii. 7). There was thus around “the land” a sort of inner band, consisting of those countries supposed to have been annexed by King David, and termed Soria. But besides this, there was also what may be called an outer band, towards the Gentile world, consisting of Egypt, Babylon, Ammon and Moab, the countries in which Israel had a special interest, and which were distinguished from the rest, “outside the land,” by this, that they were liable to tithes and the Therumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared state. Of course neither of these contributions was actually brought into Palestine, but either employed by them for their sacred purposes, or else redeemed.
Maimonides arranges all countries into three classes, “so far as concerns the
precepts connected with the soil”—“the land, Soria, and outside the land”; and
he divides the land of Israel into territory possessed before and after the
Exile, while he also distinguishes between Egypt, Babylon, Moab, and Ammon, and
other lands (Hilch. Ther. i. 6). In popular estimate other distinctions
were likewise made. Thus Rabbi Jose of Galilee would have it (Bicc. i.
10), that Biccurim
But as
the Rabbinical law in this respect differed from the view expressed by Rabbi
Jose, his must have been an afterthought, probably intended to account for the
fact that they beyond Jordan did not bring their first-fruits to the Temple.
Another distinction claimed for the country west of the Jordan curiously reminds
us of the fears expressed by the two and a half tribes on their return to their
homes, after the first conquest of Palestine under Joshua (
What
has hitherto been explained from Rabbinical writings gains fresh interest when
we bring it to bear on the study of the New Testament. For, we can now
understand how those Zealots from Jerusalem, who would have bent the neck of the
Church under the yoke of the law of Moses, sought out in preference the
flourishing communities in Syria for the basis of their operations (
Properly to understand the history of the time and the circumstances indicated
in the New Testament, a correct view of the state of parties in this respect is
necessary. And here we must guard against a not unnatural mistake. If any one
had expected to find within the boundaries of “the land” itself one nationality,
one language, the same interests, or even one religion publicly professed, he
would have been bitterly disappointed. It was not merely for the presence of the
Romans and their followers, and of a more or less influential number of foreign
settlers, but the Holy Land itself was a country of mixed and hostile races, of
divided interests, where close by the side of the narrowest and most punctilious
Pharisaism heathen temples rose, and heathen rites and customs openly prevailed.
In a general way all this will be readily understood. For, those who returned
from Babylon were comparatively few in number, and confessedly did not occupy
the land in its former extent. During the troubled period which followed, there
was a constant influx of heathen, and unceasing attempts were made to introduce
and perpetuate foreign elements. Even the language of Israel had undergone a
change. In the course of time the ancient Hebrew had wholly given place to the
Aramaic dialect, except in public worship and in the learned academies of
theological doctors. Such words and names in the gospels as Raka, Abba,
Golgotha, Gabbatha, Akel-Dama, Bartholomaios, Barabbas, Bar-Jesus, and the
various verbal quotations, are all Aramaean. It was probably in that language
that Paul addressed the infuriated multitude, when standing on the top of the
steps leading from the Temple into the fortress Antonia (
In the
far north-east of the land, occupying at least in part the ancient possession of
Manasseh, were the provinces belonging to the tetrarch Philip (
But to
return. From what has been said, it will appear that there remained only Galilee
and Judaea proper, in which strictly Jewish views and manners must be sought
for. Each of these will be described in detail. For the present it will suffice
to remark, that north-eastern or Upper Galilee was in great part inhabited by
Gentiles—Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs, and Greeks (Josephus, Jewish War,
iii, 419-427), whence the name “Galilee of the Gentiles” (
And what of Judaism itself at the period? It was miserably divided, even though no
outward separation had taken place. The Pharisees and Sadducees held opposite
principles, and hated each other; the Essenes looked down upon them both. Within
Pharisaism the schools of Hillel and Shammai contradicted each other on almost
every matter. But both united in their unbounded contempt of what they
designated as “the country-people”—those who had no traditional learning, and
hence were either unable or unwilling to share the discussions, and to bear the
burdens of legal ordinances, which constituted the chief matter of
traditionalism. There was only one feeling common to all—high and low, rich and
poor, learned and unlettered: it was that of intense hatred of the foreigner.
The rude Galileans were as “national” as the most punctilious Pharisees; indeed,
in the war against Rome they furnished the most and the bravest soldiers.
Everywhere the foreigner was in sight; his were the taxes levied, the soldiery,
the courts of ultimate appeal, the government. In Jerusalem they hung over the
Temple as a guard in the fortress of Antonia, and even kept in their custody the
high-priest’s garments,
Readers of the New Testament know what separation Pharisaical Jews made between
themselves and heathens. It will be readily understood, that every contact with
heathenism and all aid to its rites should have been forbidden, and that in
social intercourse any levitical defilement, arising from the use of what was
“common or unclean,” was avoided. But Pharisaism went a great deal further than
this. Three days before a heathen festival all transactions with Gentiles were
forbidden, so as to afford them neither direct nor indirect help towards their
rites; and this prohibition extended even to private festivities, such as a
birthday, the day of return from a journey, etc. On heathen festive occasions a
pious Jew should avoid, if possible, passing through a heathen city, certainly
all dealings in shops that were festively decorated. It was unlawful for Jewish
workmen to assist in anything that might be subservient either to heathen
worship or heathen rule, including in the latter the erection of court-houses
and similar buildings. It need not be explained to what lengths or into what
details Pharisaical punctiliousness carried all these ordinances. From the New
Testament we know, that to enter the house of a heathen defiled till the evening
(
These are only general statements to show the prevalent feeling. It was easy to prove how it pervaded every relationship of life. The heathens, though often tolerant, of course retorted. Circumcision, the Sabbath-rest, the worship of an invisible God, and Jewish abstinence from pork, formed a never-ending theme of merriment to the heathen. Conquerors are not often chary in disguising their contempt for the conquered, especially when the latter presume to look down upon, and to hate them. In view of all this, what an almost incredible truth must it have seemed, when the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed it among Israel as the object of His coming and kingdom, not to make of the Gentiles Jews, but of both alike children of one Heavenly Father; not to rivet upon the heathen the yoke of the law, but to deliver from it Jew and Gentile, or rather to fulfil its demands for all! The most unexpected and unprepared-for revelation, from the Jewish point of view, was that of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, the taking away of the enmity of the law, and the nailing it to His cross. There was nothing analogous to it; not a hint of it to be found, either in the teaching or the spirit of the times. Quite the opposite. Assuredly, the most unlike thing to Christ were His times; and the greatest wonder of all—“the mystery hidden from ages and generations”—the foundation of one universal Church.
“If
any one wishes to be rich, let him go north; if he wants to be wise, let him
come south.” Such was the saying, by which Rabbinical pride distinguished
between the material wealth of Galilee and the supremacy in traditional lore
claimed for the academies of Judaea proper. Alas, it was not long before Judaea
lost even this doubtful distinction, and its colleges wandered northwards,
ending at last by the Lake of Gennesaret, and in that very city of Tiberias
which at one time had been reputed unclean! Assuredly, the history of nations
chronicles their judgment; and it is strangely significant, that the
authoritative collection of Jewish traditional law, known as the Mishnah, and
the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, which is its Palestinian commentary,
But so long as Jerusalem and Judaea were the centre of Jewish learning, no terms of
contempt were too strong to express the supercilious hauteur, with which
a regular Rabbinist regarded his northern co-religionists. The slighting speech
of Nathanael (
But if these be regarded as extremes, two instances, chosen almost at random—one from religious, the other from ordinary life—will serve to illustrate their reality. A more complete parallel to the Pharisee’s prayer could scarcely be imagined than the following. We read in the Talmud (Jer. Ber, iv. 2) that a celebrated Rabbi was wont every day, on leaving the academy, to pray in these terms: “I thank Thee, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that Thou hast cast my lot among those who frequent the schools and synagogues, and not among those who attend the theatre and the circus. For, both I and they work and watch—I to inherit eternal life, they for their destruction.” The other illustration, also taken from a Rabbinical work, is, if possible, even more offensive. It appears that Rabbi Jannai, while travelling by the way, formed acquaintance with a man, whom he thought his equal. Presently his new friend invited him to dinner, and liberally set before him meat and drink. But the suspicions of the Rabbi had been excited. He began to try his host successively by questions upon the text of Scripture, upon the Mishnah, allegorical interpretations, and lastly on Talmudical lore. Alas! on neither of these points could he satisfy the Rabbi. Dinner was over; and Rabbi Jannai, who by that time no doubt had displayed all the hauteur and contempt of a regular Rabbinist towards the unlettered, called upon his host, as customary, to take the cup of thanksgiving, and return thanks. But the latter was sufficiently humiliated to reply, with a mixture of Eastern deference and Jewish modesty, “Let Jannai himself give thanks in his own house.” “At any rate,” observed the Rabbi, “you can join with me”; and when the latter had agreed to this, Jannai said, “A dog has eaten of the bread of Jannai!”
Impartial history, however, must record a different judgment of the men of
Galilee from that pronounced by the Rabbis, and that even wherein they were
despised by those leaders in Israel. Some of their peculiarities, indeed, were
due to territorial circumstances. The province of Galilee—of which the name
might be rendered “circuit,” being derived from a verb meaning “to move in a
circle”—covered the ancient possession of four tribes: Issachar, Zebulon,
Naphtali, and Asher. The name occurs already in the Old Testament (compare
The
mountainous part in the north of Upper Galilee presented magnificent scenery,
with bracing air. Here the scene of the Song of Solomon is partly laid (
We are
now in Galilee proper, and a more fertile or beautiful region could scarcely be
conceived. It was truly the land where Asher dipped his foot in oil (
We have spoken of Nazareth; and a few brief notices of other places in Galilee,
mentioned in the New Testament, may be of interest. Along the lake lay, north,
Capernaum, a large city; and near it, Chorazin, so celebrated for its grain,
that, if it had been closer to Jerusalem, it would have been used for the
Temple; also Bethsaida,
Capernaum was the station where Matthew sat at the receipt of custom (
It can
scarcely surprise us, however interesting it may prove, that such Jewish
recollections of the early Christians as the Rabbis have preserved, should
linger chiefly around Galilee. Thus we have, in quite the apostolic age, mention
of miraculous cures made, in the name of Jesus, by one Jacob of Chefar Sechanja
(in Galilee), one of the Rabbis violently opposing on one occasion an attempt of
the kind, the patient meanwhile dying during the dispute; repeated records of
discussions with learned Christians, and other indications of contact with
Hebrew believers. Some have gone farther, and found traces of the general spread
of such views in the fact that a Galilean teacher is introduced in Babylon as
propounding the science of the Merkabah, or the mystical doctrines
connected with Ezekiel’s vision of the Divine chariot, which certainly contained
elements closely approximating the Christian doctrines of the Logos, the
Trinity, etc. Trinitarian views have also been suspected in the significance
attached to the number “three” by a Galilean teacher of the third century, in
this wise: “Blessed be God, who has given the three laws (the Pentateuch, the
Prophets, and the Hagiographa) to a people composed of three classes (Priests,
Levites, and laity), through him who was the youngest of three (Miriam, Aaron,
and Moses), on the third day (of their separation—
Indeed, what we know of the Galileans would quite prepare us for expecting, that
the gospel should have received at least a ready hearing among many of them. It
was not only, that Galilee was the great scene of our Lord’s working and
teaching, and the home of His first disciples and apostles; nor yet that the
frequent intercourse with strangers must have tended to remove narrow
prejudices, while the contempt of the Rabbinists would loosen attachment to the
strictest Pharisaism; but, as the character of the people is described to us by
Josephus, and even by the Rabbis, they seem to have been a warm-hearted,
impulsive, generous race—intensely national in the best sense, active, not
given to idle speculations or wire-drawn logico-theological distinctions, but
conscientious and earnest. The Rabbis detail certain theological differences
between Galilee and Judaea. Without here mentioning them, we have no hesitation
in saying, that they show more earnest practical piety and strictness of life,
and less adherence to those Pharisaical distinctions which so often made void
the law. The Talmud, on the other hand, charges the Galileans with neglecting
traditionalism; learning from one teacher, then from another (perhaps because
they had only wandering Rabbis, not fixed academies); and with being accordingly
unable to rise to the heights of Rabbinical distinctions and explanations. That
their hot blood made them rather quarrelsome, and that they lived in a chronic
state of rebellion against Rome, we gather not only from Josephus, but even from
the New Testament (
But
the district in Galilee to which the mind ever reverts, is that around the
shores of its lake.
But we think chiefly not of those fertile fields and orchards, nor of the deep blue of
the lake, enclosed between hills, nor of the busy towns, nor of the white sails
spread on its waters—but of Him, Whose feet trod its shores; Who taught, and
worked, and prayed there for us sinners; Who walked its waters and calmed its
storms, and Who even after His resurrection held there sweet converse with His
disciples; nay, Whose last words on earth, spoken from thence, come to us with
peculiar significance and application, as in these days we look on the
disturbing elements in the world around: “What is that to thee? Follow thou Me”
(
It was
the very busiest road in Palestine, on which the publican Levi Matthew sat at
the receipt of “custom,” when our Lord called him to the fellowship of the
Gospel, and he then made that great feast to which he invited his
fellow-publicans, that they also might see and hear Him in Whom he had found
life and peace (
It
need scarcely be said, that the roads which we have thus traced are only those
along the principal lines of communication. But a large number of secondary
roads also traversed the country in all directions. Indeed, from earliest times
much attention seems to have been given to facility of intercourse throughout
the land. Even in the days of Moses we read of “the king’s highway” (
Passing to later times, the Romans, as might have been expected, paid great attention to the modes of communication through the country. The military roads were paved, and provided with milestones. But the country roads were chiefly bridle-paths. The Talmud distinguishes between public and private roads. The former must be twenty-four, the latter six feet wide. It is added that, for the king’s highway, and for the road taken by funerals, there is no measure (Babba B. vi. 7). Roads were annually repaired in spring, preparatory for going up to the great feasts. To prevent the possibility of danger, no subterranean structure, however protected, was allowed under a public road. Overhanging branches of trees had to be cut down, so as to allow a man on a camel to pass. A similar rule applied to balconies and projections; nor were these permitted to darken a street. Any one allowing things to accumulate on the road, or dropping them from a cart, had to make good what damage might be incurred by travellers. Indeed, in towns and their neighbourhood the police regulations were even more strict; and such ordinances occur as for the removal within thirty days of rotten trees or dangerous walls; not to pour out water on the road; not to throw out anything on the street, nor to leave about building materials, or broken glass, or thorns, along with other regulations for the public safety and health.
Along
such roads passed the travellers; few at first, and mostly pilgrims, but
gradually growing in number, as commerce and social or political intercourse
increased. Journeys were performed on foot, upon asses, or in carriages (
In
such circumstances, the command, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers,” had
a special meaning. Israel was always distinguished for hospitality; and not only
the Bible, but the Rabbis, enjoin this in the strongest terms. In Jerusalem no
man was to account a house as only his own; and it was said, that during the
pilgrim-feasts none ever wanted ready reception. The tractate Aboth
(1.5), mentions these as two out of the three sayings of Jose, the son of
Jochanan, of Jerusalem: “Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be the
children of thy house.” Readers of the New Testament will be specially
interested to know, that, according to the Talmud (Pes. 53), Bethphage
and Bethany, to which in this respect such loving memories cling, were specially
celebrated for their hospitality towards the festive pilgrims. In Jerusalem it
seems to have been the custom to hang a curtain in front of the door, to
indicate that there was still room for guests. Some went so far as to suggest,
there should be four doors to every house, to bid welcome to travellers from all
directions. The host would go to meet an expected guest, and again accompany him
part of the way (
But
let there be no misunderstanding. So far as the duty of hospitality is
concerned, or the loving care for poor and sick, it were impossible to take a
higher tone than that of Rabbinism. Thus it was declared, that “the
entertainment of travellers was as great a matter as the reception of the
Shechinah.” This gives a fresh meaning to the admonition of the Epistle
addressed specially to the Hebrews (
In
treating of hospitality, the Rabbis display, as in so many relations of life,
the utmost tenderness and delicacy, mixed with a delightful amount of shrewd
knowledge of the world and quaint humour. As a rule, they enter here also into
full details. Thus the very manner in which a host is to bear himself towards
his guests is prescribed. He is to look pleased when entertaining his guests, to
wait upon them himself, to promise little and to give much, etc. At the same
time it was also caustically added: “Consider all men as if they were robbers,
but treat them as if each were Rabbi Gamaliel himself!” On the other hand, rules
of politeness and gratitude are equally laid down for the guests. “Do not throw
a stone,” it was said, “into the spring at which you have drunk” (Baba K,.
92); or this, “A proper guest acknowledges all, and saith, ‘At what trouble my
host has been, and all for my sake!’—while an evil visitor remarks: ‘Bah! what
trouble has he taken?’ Then, after enumerating how little he has had in the
house, he concludes; ‘And, after all, it was not done for me, but only for his
wife and children!’” (Ber. 58 a). Indeed, some of the sayings in this
connection are remarkably parallel to the directions which our Lord gave to His
disciples on going forth upon their mission (
All
this, of course, applied to entertainment in private families. On unfrequented
roads, where villages were at great intervals, or even outside towns (
In later times we also read of the oshpisa—evidently from hospitium,
and showing its Roman origin—as a house of public entertainment, where such
food as locusts, pickled, or fried in flour or in honey, and Median or
Babylonian beer, Egyptian drink, and home-made cider or wine, were sold; such
proverbs circulating among the boon companions as “To eat without drinking is
like devouring one’s own blood” (Shab. 41 a), and where wild noise and
games of chance were indulged in by those who wasted their substance by riotous
living. In such places the secret police, whom Herod employed, would ferret out
the opinions of the populace while over their cups. That police must have been
largely employed. According to Josephus (Anti. xv, 366) spies beset the
people, alike in town and country, watching their conversations in the
unrestrained confidence of friendly intercourse. Herod himself is said to have
acted in that capacity, and to have lurked about the streets at night-time in
disguise to overhear or entrap unwary citizens. Indeed, at one time the city
seems almost to have been under martial law, the citizens being forbidden “to
meet together, to walk or eat together,”—presumably to hold public meetings,
demonstrations, or banquets. History sufficiently records what terrible
vengeance followed the slightest suspicion. The New Testament account of the
murder of all the little children at Bethlehem (
But
whether passing through town or country, by quiet side-roads or along the great
highway, there was one sight and scene which must constantly have forced itself
upon the attention of the traveller, and, if he were of Jewish descent, would
ever awaken afresh his indignation and hatred. Whithersoever he went, he
encountered in city or country the well-known foreign tax-gatherer, and was met
by his insolence, by his vexatious intrusion, and by his exactions. The fact
that he was the symbol of Israel’s subjection to foreign domination, galling
though it was, had probably not so much to do with the bitter hatred of the
Rabbinists towards the class of tax-farmers (Moches) and tax-collectors (Gabbai),
both of whom were placed wholly outside the pale of Jewish society, as that they
were so utterly shameless and regardless in their unconscientious dealings. For,
ever since their return from Babylon, the Jews must, with a brief interval, have
been accustomed to foreign taxation. At the time of Ezra (
Heavily as these exactions must have weighed upon a comparatively poor and chiefly agricultural population, they refer only to civil taxation, not to religious dues (see The Temple). But, even so, we have not exhausted the list of contributions demanded of a Jew. For, every town and community levied its own taxes for the maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general requirements. It must, however, be admitted that the Jewish authorities distributed this burden of civic taxation both easily and kindly, and that they applied the revenues derived from it for the public welfare in a manner scarcely yet attained in the most civilized countries. The Rabbinical arrangements for public education, health, and charity were, in every respect, far in advance of modern legislation, although here also they took care themselves not to take the grievous burdens which they laid upon others, by expressly exempting from civic taxes all those who devoted themselves to the study of the law.
But
the Roman taxation, which bore upon Israel with such crushing weight, was quite
of its own kind—systematic, cruel, relentless, and utterly regardless. In
general, the provinces of the Roman Empire, and what of Palestine belonged to
them, were subject to two great taxes—poll-tax (or rather income-tax) and
ground-tax. All property and income that fell not under the ground-tax was
subject to poll-tax; which amounted, for Syria and Cilicia, to one per cent. The
“poll-tax” was really twofold, consisting of income-tax and head-money, the
latter, of course, the same in all cases, and levied on all persons (bond or
free) up to the age of sixty-five—women being liable from the age of twelve and
men from that of fourteen. Landed property was subject to a tax of one-tenth of
all grain, and one-fifth of the wine and fruit grown, partly paid in product and
partly commuted into money.
Besides these, there was tax and duty on all imports and exports, levied on the great public highways and in the seaports. Then there was bridge-money and road-money, and duty on all that was bought and sold in the towns. These, which may be called the regular taxes, were irrespective of any forced contributions, and of the support which had to be furnished to the Roman procurator and his household and court at Caesarea. To avoid all possible loss to the treasury, the proconsul of Syria, Quirinus (Cyrenius), had taken a regular census to show the number of the population and their means. This was a terrible crime in the eyes of the Rabbis, who remembers that, if numbering the people had been reckoned such great sin of old, the evil must be an hundredfold increased, if done by heathens and for their own purposes. Another offence lay in the thought, that tribute, hitherto only given to Jehovah, was now to be paid to a heathen emperor. “Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?” was a sore question, which many an Israelite put to himself as he placed the emperor’s poll-tax beside the half-shekel of the sanctuary, and the tithe of his field, vineyard, and orchard, claimed by the tax-gatherer, along with that which he had hitherto only given unto the Lord. Even the purpose with which this inquiry was brought before Christ—to entrap Him in a political denunciation—shows, how much it was agitated among patriotic Jews; and it cost rivers of blood before it was not answered, but silenced.
The
Romans had a peculiar way of levying these taxes—not directly, but
indirectly—which kept the treasury quite safe, whatever harm it might inflict
on the taxpayer, while at the same time it threw upon him the whole cost of the
collection. Senators and magistrates were prohibited from engaging in business
or trade; but the highest order, the equestrian, was largely composed of great
capitalists. These Roman knights formed joint-stock companies, which bought at
public auction the revenues of a province at a fixed price, generally for five
years. The board had its chairman, or magister, and its offices at Rome.
These were the real Publicani, or publicans, who often underlet certain of the
taxes. The Publicani, or those who held from them, employed either slaves or
some of the lower classes in the country as tax-gatherers—the publicans of the
New Testament. Similarly, all other imposts were farmed and collected; some of
them being very onerous, and amounting to an ad valorem duty of two and a
half, of five, and in articles of luxury even of twelve and a half per cent.
Harbour-dues were higher than ordinary tolls, and smuggling or a false
declaration was punished by confiscation of the goods. Thus the publicans also
levied import and export dues, bridge-toll, road-money, town-dues, etc.; and, if
the peaceable inhabitant, the tiller of the soil, the tradesman, or manufacturer
was constantly exposed to their exactions, the traveller, the caravan, or the
pedlar encountered their vexatious presence at every bridge, along the road, and
at the entrance to cities. Every bale had to be unloaded, and all its contents
tumbled about and searched; even letters were opened; and it must have taken
more than Eastern patience to bear their insolence and to submit to their
“unjust accusations” in arbitrarily fixing the return from land or income, or
the value of goods, etc. For there was no use appealing against them, although
the law allowed this, since the judges themselves were the direct beneficiaries
by the revenue; for they before whom accusations on this score would have to be
laid, belonged to the order of knights, who were the very persons implicated in
the farming of the revenue. Of course, the joint-stock company of Publicani at
Rome expected its handsome dividends; so did the tax-gatherers in the provinces,
and those to whom they on occasions sublet the imposts. All wanted to make money
of the poor people; and the cost of the collection had of course to be added to
the taxation. We can quite understand how Zaccheus, one of the supervisors of
these tax-gatherers in the district of Jericho, which, from its growth and
export of balsam, must have yielded a large revenue, should, in remembering his
past life, have at once said: “If I have taken anything from any man by false
accusation”—or, rather, “Whatever I have wrongfully exacted of any man.” For
nothing was more common than for the publican to put a fictitious value on
property or income. Another favourite trick of theirs was to advance the tax to
those who were unable to pay, and then to charge usurious interest on what had
thereby become a private debt. How summarily and harshly such debts were
exacted, appears from the New Testament itself. In
However, therefore, in far-off Rome, Cicero might describe the Publicani as “the flower of knighthood, the ornament of the state, and the strength of the republic,” or as “the most upright and respected men,” the Rabbis in distant Palestine might be excused for their intense dislike of “the publicans,” even although it went to the excess of declaring them incapable of bearing testimony in a Jewish court of law, of forbidding to receive their charitable gifts, or even to change money out of their treasury (Baba K. x. 1), of ranking them not only with harlots and heathens, but with highwaymen and murderers (Ned. iii. 4), and of even declaring them excommunicate. Indeed, it was held lawful to make false returns, to speak untruth, or almost to use any means to avoid paying taxes (Ned. 27 b; 28 a). And about the time of Christ the burden of such exactions must have been felt all the heavier on account of a great financial crisis in the Roman Empire (in the year 33 or our era), which involved so many in bankruptcy, and could not have been without its indirect influence even upon distant Palestine.
Of such men—despised Galileans, unlettered fishermen, excommunicated publicans—did the blessed Lord, in His self-humiliation, choose His closest followers, His special apostles! What a contrast to the Pharisaical notions of the Messiah and His kingdom! What a lesson to show, that it was not “by might nor by power,” but by His Spirit, and that God had chosen the base things of this world, and things that were despised, to confound things that were mighty! Assuredly, this offers a new problem, and one harder of solution than many others, to those who would explain everything by natural causes. Whatever they may say of the superiority of Christ’s teaching to account for his success, no religion could ever have been more weighted; no popular cause could ever have presented itself under more disadvantageous circumstances than did the Gospel of Christ to the Jews of Palestine. Even from this point of view, to the historical student familiar with the outer and inner life of that period, there is no other explanation of the establishment of Christ’s kingdom than the power of the Holy Ghost.
Such a custom-house officer was Matthew Levi, when the voice of our Lord, striking to the inmost depths of his heart, summoned him to far different work. It was a wonder that the Holy One should speak to such an one as he; and oh! in what different accents from what had ever fallen on his ears. But it was not merely condescension, kindness, sympathy, even familiar intercourse with one usually regarded as a social pariah; it was the closest fellowship; it was reception into the innermost circle; it was a call to the highest and holiest work which the Lord offered to Levi. And the busy road on which he sat to collect customs and dues would now no more know the familiar face of Levi, otherwise than as that of a messenger of peace, who brought glad tidings of great joy.
If
Galilee could boast of the beauty of its scenery and the fruitfulness of its
soil; of being the mart of a busy life, and the highway of intercourse with the
great world outside Palestine, Judaea would neither covet nor envy such
advantages. Hers was quite another and a peculiar claim. Galilee might be the
outer court, but Judaea was like the inner sanctuary of Israel. True, its
landscapes were comparatively barren, its hills bare and rocky, its wilderness
lonely; but around those grey limestone mountains gathered the sacred
history—one might almost say, the romance and religion of Israel. Turning his
back on the luxurious richness of Galilee, the pilgrim, even in the literal
sense, constantly went up towards Jerusalem. Higher and higher rose the
everlasting hills, till on the uppermost he beheld the sanctuary of his God,
standing out from all around, majestic in the snowy pureness of its marble and
glittering gold. As the hum of busy life gradually faded from his hearing, and
he advanced into the solemn stillness and loneliness, the well-known sites which
he successively passed must have seemed to wake the echoes of the history of his
people. First, he approached Shiloh, Israel’s earliest sanctuary, where,
according to tradition, the Ark had rested for 370 years less one. Next came
Bethel, with its sacred memorial of patriarchal history. There, as the
Rabbis had it, even the angel of death was shorn of his power. Then he stood on
the plateau of Ramah, with the neighbouring heights of Gibeon and Gibeah,
round which so many events in Jewish history had clustered. In Ramah Rachel
died, and was buried.
We know that Jacob set up a pillar on her grave. Such is the reverence of Orientals
for the resting-places of celebrated historical personages, that we may well
believe it to have been the same pillar which, according to an eye-witness,
still marked the site at the time of our Lord (Book of Jubil. cxxxii
Apud Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg. p. 26). Opposite to it were the graves of
Bilhah and of Dinah (c. p. 34). Only five miles from Jerusalem, this pillar was,
no doubt, a well-known landmark. by this memorial of Jacob’s sorrow and shame
had been the sad meeting-place of the captives when about to be carried into
Babylon (
But
westward from those scenes, where the mountains shelved down, or more abruptly
descended towards the Shephelah, or wolds by the sea, were the scenes of
former triumphs. Here Joshua had pursued the kings of the south; there Samson
had come down upon the Philistines, and here for long years had war been waged
against the arch-enemy of Israel, Philistia. Turning thence to the south, beyond
the capital was royal Bethlehem, and still farther the priest-city Hebron, with
its caves holding Israel’s most precious dust. That highland plateau was the
wilderness of Judaea, variously named from the villages which at long distances
dotted it;
This
had long been the home of outlaws, or of those who, in disgust with the world,
had retired from its fellowship. These limestone caves had been the hiding-place
of David and his followers; and many a band had since found shelter in these
wilds. Here also John the Baptist prepared for his work, and there, at the time
of which we write, was the retreat of the Essenes, whom a vain hope of finding
purity in separation from the world and its contact had brought to these
solitudes. Beyond, deep down in a mysterious hollow. stretched the smooth
surface of the Dead Sea, a perpetual memorial of God and of judgment. On its
western shore rose the castle which Herod had named after himself, and farther
south that almost inaccessible fastness of Masada, the scene of the last tragedy
in the great Jewish war. Yet from the wild desolateness of the Dead Sea it was
but a few hours to what seemed almost an earthly paradise. Flanked and defended
by four surrounding forts, lay the important city of Jericho. Herod had built
its walls, its theatre and amphitheatre; Archelaus its new palace, surrounded by
splendid gardens. Through Jericho led the pilgrim way from Galilee, followed by
our Lord Himself (
It
might be so, as the heathen historian put it in regard to Judaea, that no one
could have wished for its own sake to wage serious warfare for its possession
(Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 2). The Jew would readily concede this. It was not
material wealth which attracted him hither, although the riches brought into the
Temple from all quarters of the world ever attracted the cupidity of the
Gentiles. To the Jew this was the true home of his soul, the centre of his
inmost life, the longing of his heart. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my
right hand forget her cunning,” sang they who sat by the rivers of Babylon,
weeping as they remembered Zion. “If I do not remember thee, let my tongue
cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy”
(
Words
these, true alike in their literal and spiritual applications; highest hopes
which, for nigh two thousand years, have formed and still form part of Israel’s
daily prayer, when they plead: “Speedily cause Thou ‘the Branch of David,’ Thy
servant, to shoot forth, and exalt Thou his horn through Thy salvation” (this is
the fifteenth of the eighteen “benedictions” in the daily prayers). Alas, that
Israel knows not the fulfilment of these hopes already granted and expressed in
the thanksgiving of the father of the Baptist: “Blessed be the Lord God of
Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath raised up an horn
of salvation for us in the house of His servant David; as He spake by the mouth
of His holy prophets, which have been since the world began” (
Such
blessings, and much more, were not only objects of hope, but realities alike to
the Rabbinist and the unlettered Jew. They determined him willingly to bend the
neck under a yoke of ordinances otherwise unbearable; submit to claims and
treatment against which his nature would otherwise have rebelled, endure scorn
and persecutions which would have broken any other nationality and crushed any
other religion. To the far exiles of the Dispersion, this was the one fold, with
its promise of good shepherding, of green pastures, and quiet waters. Judaea
was, so to speak, their Campo Santo, with the Temple in the midst of it,
as the symbol and prophecy of Israel’s resurrection. To stand, if it were but
once, within its sacred courts, to mingle with its worshippers, to bring
offerings, to see the white-robed throng of ministering priests, to hear the
chant of Levites, to watch the smoke of sacrifices uprising to heaven—to be
there, to take part in it was the delicious dream of life, a very heaven upon
earth, the earnest of fulfilling prophecy. No wonder, that on the great feasts
the population of Jerusalem and of its neighbourhood, so far as reckoned within
its sacred girdle, swelled to millions, among whom were “devout men, out of
every nation under heaven” (
For,
however misdirected—so far as related to the person of the Christ and the
nature of His kingdom—not to the fact or time of His coming, nor yet to the
character of Rome—such thoughts could not be uprooted otherwise than with the
history and religion of Israel. The New Testament process upon them, as well as
the Old; Christians and Jews alike cherished them. In the language of St. Paul,
this was “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which our
twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come” (
As for
the Rabbis, the leaders of public opinion, their position towards the kingdom
was quite different. Although in the rising of Bar Cochab the great Rabbi Akiba
acted as the religious standard-bearer, he may be looked upon as almost an
exception. His character was that of an enthusiast, his history almost a
romance. But, in general, the Rabbis did not identify themselves with the
popular Messianic expectations. Alike the Gospel-history and their writings show
not merely that anti-spiritual opposition to the Church which we might have
expected, but coldness and distance in regard to all such movements. Legal
rigorism and merciless bigotry are not fanaticism. The latter is chiefly the
impulse of the ill-informed. Even their contemptuous turning away from “this
people which knoweth not the law,” as “accursed,” proves them incapable of a
fanaticism which recognises a brother in every one whose heart burns with the
same fire, no matter what his condition otherwise. The great text-book of
Rabbinism, the Mishnah, is almost entirely un-Messianic, one might say
un-dogmatical. The method of the Rabbis was purely logical. Where not a record
of facts or traditions, the Mishnah is purely a handbook of legal determinations
in their utmost logical sequences, only enlivened by discussions or the tale of
instances in point. The whole tendency of this system was anti-Messianic. Not
but that in souls so devout and natures so ardent enthusiasm might be kindled,
but that all their studies and pursuits went in the contrary direction. Besides,
they knew full well how little of power was left them, and they dreaded losing
even this. The fear of Rome constantly haunted them. Even at the destruction of
Jerusalem the leading Rabbis aimed to secure their safety, and their after
history shows, frequently recurring, curious instances of Rabbinical intimacy
with their Roman oppressors. The Sanhedrim spoke their inmost apprehensions,
when in that secret session they determined to kill Jesus from fear that, if He
were allowed to go on, and all men were to believe on Him, the Romans would come
and take away both their place and nation (
Quite other matters engrossed the attention of the Rabbis. It was the present and the past, not the future, which occupied them—the present as fixing all legal determinations, and the past as giving sanction to this. Judaea proper was the only place where the Shechinah had dwelt, the land where Jehovah had caused His temple to be reared, the seat of the Sanhedrim, the place where alone learning and real piety were cultivated. From this point of view everything was judged. Judaea was “grain, Galilee straw, and beyond Jordan chaff.” To be a Judaean was to be “an Hebrew of the Hebrews.” It has already been stated what reproach the Rabbis attached to Galilee in regard to its language, manners, and neglect of regular study. In some respects the very legal observances, as certainly social customs, were different in Judaea from Galilee. Only in Judaea could Rabbis be ordained by the laying on of hands; only there could the Sanhedrim in solemn session declare and proclaim the commencement of each month, on which the arrangement of the festive calendar depended. Even after the stress of political necessity had driven the Rabbis to Galilee, they returned to Lydda for the purpose, and it needed a sharp struggle before they transferred the privilege of Judaea to other regions in the third century of our era (Jer. Sanh. i. 1, 18). The wine for use in the Temple was brought exclusively from Judaea, not only because it was better, but because the transport through Samaria would have rendered it defiled. Indeed, the Mishnah mentions the names of the five towns whence it was obtained. Similarly, the oil used was derived either from Judaea, or, if from Peraea, the olives only were brought, to be crushed in Jerusalem.
The
question what cities were really Jewish was of considerable importance, so far
as concerned ritual questions, and it occupied the earnest attention of the
Rabbis. It is not easy to fix the exact boundaries of Judaea proper towards the
north-west. To include the sea-shore in the province of Samaria is a popular
mistake. It certainly was never reckoned with it. According to Josephus (Jewish
War, iii, 35-58) Judaea proper extended along the sea-shore as far north as
Ptolemais or Acco. The Talmud seems to exclude at least the northern cities. In
the New Testament there is a distinction made between Caesarea and the province
of Judaea (
A
brief summary of Jewish notices of certain other towns in Judaea, mentioned also
in the New Testament, may throw some additional light on the sacred narratives.
In general, the Mishnah divided Judaea proper into three parts—mountain,
Shephelah, and valley (Shev. ix 2), to which we must add the city of
Jerusalem as a separate district. And here we have another striking evidence of
the authenticity of the New Testament, and especially of the writings of St.
Luke. Only one intimately acquainted with the state of matters at the time
would, with the Rabbis, have distinguished Jerusalem as a district separate from
all the rest of Judaea, as St. Luke markedly does on several occasions (
Travelling southward from Caesarea we are in the plain of Sharon, whose beauty
and richness are so celebrated in Holy Scripture (
Another remarkable illustration of the New Testament is afforded by Lydda,
the Talmudical Lod or Lud. We read that, in consequence of the labours of St.
Peter and the miracle wrought on Aeneas, “all that dwelt at Lydda and
Saron...turned to the Lord” (
But a
much more interesting chain of evidence connects Lydda with the history of the
founding of the Church. It is in connection with Lydda and its tribunal, which
is declared to have been capable of pronouncing sentence of death, that our
blessed Lord and the Virgin Mother are introduced in certain Talmudical
passages, though with studiously and blasphemously altered names. The statements
are, in their present form, whether from ignorance, design, or in consequence of
successive alterations, confused, and they mix up different events and persons
in Gospel history; among other things representing our Lord as condemned at
Lydda.
But there can be no reasonable question that they refer to our blessed Lord and His
condemnation for supposed blasphemy and seduction of the people, and that they
at least indicate a close connection between Lydda and the founding of
Christianity. It is a curious confirmation of the gospel history, that the death
of Christ is there described as having taken place “on the eve of the Passover,”
remarkably bearing out not only the date of that event as gathered from the
synoptical gospels, but showing that the Rabbis at least knew nothing of those
Jewish scruples and difficulties, by which modern Gentile writers have tried to
prove the impossibility of Christ’s condemnation on the Paschal night. It has
already been stated that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, many and most
celebrated Rabbis chose Lydda for their residence. But the second century
witnessed a great change. The inhabitants of Lydda are now charged with pride,
ignorance, and neglect of their religion. The Midrash (
Near Lydda, eastwards, was the village of Chephar Tabi. We might be tempted to
derive from it the name of Tabitha (
If so, it had a considerable Jewish population, although it was also occupied by a Roman garrison. Its climate and waters were celebrated, as also its market-place. It is specially interesting to find that among the patrician Jewish families belonging to the laity, who took part in the instrumental music of the Temple, two—those of Pegarim and Zippariah—were from Emmaus, and also that the priesthood were wont to intermarry with the wealthy Hebrews of that place (Er. ii. 4). Gaza, on whose “desert” road Philip preached to and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, counted not fewer than eight heathen temples, besides an idol-shrine just outside the city. Still Jews were allowed to reside there, probably on account of its important market.
Only
two names yet remain to be mentioned, but those of the deepest and most solemn
interest. Bethlehem, the birthplace of our Lord, and Jerusalem, where He was
crucified. It deserves notice, that the answer which the Sanhedrists of old gave
to the inquiries of Herod (
R. Jehudah adds: “If suited for Paschal sacrifices, then they are Paschal
sacrifices, provided it be not more than thirty days before the feast” (Shekal.
vii 4; compare also Jer. Kid. ii. 9). It seems of deepest significance,
almost like the fulfilment of type, that those shepherds who first heard tidings
of the Saviour’s birth, who first listened to angels’ praises, were watching
flocks destined to be offered as sacrifices in the Temple. There was the type,
and here the reality. At all times Bethlehem was among “the least” in Judah—so
small that the Rabbis do not even refer to it in detail. The small village-inn
was over-crowded, and the guests from Nazareth found shelter only in the stable,
It was here that those who tended the sacrificial flocks, heaven-directed, found the
Divine Babe—significantly the first to see Him, to believe, and to adore. But
this is not all. It is when we remember, that presently these shepherds would be
in the Temple, and meet those who came thither to worship and to sacrifice, that
we perceive the full significance of what otherwise would have seemed scarcely
worth while noticing in connection with humble shepherds: “And when they had
seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this
child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them
by the shepherds” (
Lastly, without entering into controversy, the passage from the Mishnah above
quoted in great measure disposes of the objection against the traditional date
of our Lord’s birth, derived from the supposed fact, that the rains of December
would prevent the flocks being kept all night “in the field.” For, in the first
place, these were flocks on their way to Jerusalem, and not regularly pasturing
in the open at that season. And, secondly, the Mishnah evidently contemplates
their being thus in the open thirty days before the Passover, or in the month of
February, during which the average rainfall is quite the largest in the year.
“Ten measures of beauty,” say the Rabbis, “hath God bestowed upon the world, and nine
of these fall to the lot of Jerusalem”—and again, “A city, the fame of which
has gone out from one end of the world to the other” (Ber. 38). “Thine, O
Lord, is the greatness, the power, the glory, and eternity.” This—explains the
Talmud—“is Jerusalem.” In opposition to her rival Alexandria, which was
designated “the little,” Jerusalem was called “the great.” It almost reminds one
of the title “eternal city,” given to Rome, when we find the Rabbis speaking of
Jerusalem as the “eternal house.” Similarly, if a common proverb has it, that
“all roads lead to Rome,” it was a Jewish saying, “All coins come from
Jerusalem.” This is not the place to describe the city in its appearance and
glory (for this compare the two first chapters of my volume on
The Temple:
Its Ministry and Services). But one
almost feels as if, on such a subject, one could understand, if not condone, the
manifest exaggerations of the Rabbis. Indeed, there are indications that they
scarcely expected their statements to be taken literally. Thus, when the number
of its synagogues is mentioned as 460 or 480, it is explained that the latter
number is the numerical equivalent of the word “full” in
In
truth, every effort was used to make Jerusalem truly a city of delight. Its
police and sanitary regulations were more perfect than in any modern city; the
arrangements such as to keep the pilgrim free to give his heart and mind to
sacred subjects. If, after all, “the townspeople,” as they were called, were
regarded as somewhat proud and supercilious, it was something to be a citizen of
Jerushalaimah, as the Jerusalemites preferred to write its name. Their
constant intercourse with strangers gave them a knowledge of men and of the
world. The smartness and cleverness of the young people formed a theme of
admiration to their more shy and awkward country relatives. There was also a
grandeur in their bearing—almost luxury; and an amount of delicacy, tact, and
tenderness, which appeared in all their public dealings. Among a people whose
wit and cleverness are proverbial, it was no mean praise to be renowned for
these qualities. In short, Jerusalem was the ideal of the Jew, in whatever land
of exile he might tarry. Her rich men would lavish fortunes on the support of
Jewish learning, the promotion of piety, or the support of the national cause.
Thus one of them would, when he found the price of sacrifices exceedingly high,
introduce into the Temple-court the requisite animals at his own cost, to render
the service possible for the poor. Or on another occasion he would offer to
furnish the city for twenty-one months with certain provisions in her struggle
against Rome. In the streets of Jerusalem men from the most distant countries
met, speaking every variety of language and dialect. Jews and Greeks, Roman
soldiers and Galilean peasants, Pharisees, Sadducees, and white-robed Essenes,
busy merchants and students of abstruse theology, mingled, a motley crowd, in
the narrow streets of the city of palaces. But over all the Temple, rising above
the city, seemed to fling its shadow and its glory. Each morning the threefold
blast of the priests’ trumpets wakened the city with a call to prayer; each
evening the same blasts closed the working day, as with sounds from heaven. Turn
where you might, everywhere the holy buildings were in view, now with the smoke
of sacrifices curling over the courts, or again with solemn stillness resting
upon the sacred hills. It was the Temple which gave its character to Jerusalem,
and which decided its fate. There is a remarkable passage in the Talmud, which,
remembering that the time to which it refers was in all probability the very
year in which our Lord died on the cross, reads like an unwilling confirmation
of the Gospel narrative: “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, its
doors opened of their own accord. Jochanan,
It may be safely asserted, that the grand distinction, which divided all mankind into Jews and Gentiles, was not only religious, but also social. However near the cities of the heathen to those of Israel, however frequent and close the intercourse between the two parties, no one could have entered a Jewish town or village without feeling, so to speak, in quite another world. The aspect of the streets, the building and arrangement of the houses, the municipal and religious rule, the manners and customs of the people, their habits and ways—above all, the family life, stood in marked contrast to what would be seen elsewhere. On every side there was evidence that religion here was not merely a creed, nor a set of observances, but that it pervaded every relationship, and dominated every phase of life.
Let us
imagine a real Jewish town or village. There were many such, for Palestine had
at all times a far larger number of towns and villages than might have been
expected from its size, or from the general agricultural pursuits of its
inhabitants. Even at the time of its first occupation under Joshua we find
somewhere about six hundred towns—if we may judge by the Levitical cities, of
about an average circumference of two thousand cubits on each side, and with
probably an average population of from two to three thousand. But the number of
towns and villages, as well as their populousness, greatly increased in later
times. Thus Josephus (Life, 45) speaks of not fewer than two hundred and
forty townships in Galilee alone in his days. This progress was, no doubt, due
not only to the rapid development of society, but also to the love of building
that characterised Herod and his family, and to which so many fortresses,
palaces, temples, and towns owed their origin. Alike the New Testament,
Josephus, and the Rabbis give us three names, which may be rendered by villages,
townships, and towns—the latter being surrounded by walls, and again
distinguished into those fortified already at the time of Joshua, and those of
later date. A township might be either “great,” if it had its synagogue, or
small, if it wanted such; this being dependent on the residence of at least ten
men, who could always be reckoned upon to form a quorum for the worship of the
synagogue (the so-called Batlanin
The villages had no synagogue; but their inhabitants were supposed to go to the nearest township for market on the Monday and Thursday of every week, when service was held for them, and the local Sanhedrim also sat (Megill. i. 1-3). A very curious law provided (Cheth. 110), that a man could not oblige his wife to follow him if he moved either from a township to a town, or the reverse. The reason of the former provision was, that in a town people lived together, and the houses were close to each other; hence there was a want of fresh, free air, and of gardens, which were enjoyed in townships. On the other hand, a woman might object to exchange residence in a town for one in a township, because in a town everything was to be got, and people met in the streets and market-place from all the neighbourhood.
Statements like these will give some idea of the difference between town and
country life. Let us first think of the former. Approaching one of the ancient
fortified towns, one would come to a low wall that protected a ditch. Crossing
this moat, one would be at the city wall proper, and enter through a massive
gate, often covered with iron, and secured by strong bars and bolts. Above the
gate rose the watch-tower. “Within the gate” was the shady or sheltered retreat
where “the elders” sat. Here grave citizens discussed public affairs or the news
of the day, or transacted important business. The gates opened upon large
squares, on which the various streets converged. Here was the busy scene of
intercourse and trade. The country-people stood or moved about, hawking the
produce of field, orchard, and dairy; the foreign merchant or pedlar exposed his
wares, recommending the newest fashions from Rome or Alexandria, the latest
luxuries from the far East, or the art produce of the goldsmith and the modeller
at Jerusalem, while among them moved the crowd, idle or busy, chattering,
chaffing, good-humoured, and bandying witticisms. Now they give way respectfully
before a Pharisee; or their conversation is hushed by the weird appearance of an
Essene or of some sectary—political or religious,—while low, muttered curses
attend the stealthy steps of the publican, whose restless eyes wander around to
watch that nothing escape the close meshes of the tax-gatherer’s net. These
streets are all named, mostly after the trades or guilds which have there their
bazaars. For a guild always keeps together, whether in street or synagogue. In
Alexandria the different trades sat in the synagogue arranged into guilds; and
St. Paul could have no difficulty in meeting in the bazaar of his trade with the
like-minded Aquila and Priscilla (
Back to the town in the cool of even to listen to the delicious murmur of well or fountain, as those crowd around it who have not cisterns in their own houses. The watchman is on the top of the tower above the gateway; presently, night-watchers will patrol the streets. Nor is there absolute darkness, for it is customary to keep a light burning all night in the house, and the windows (unlike those of modern Eastern dwellings) open chiefly on street and road. Those large windows are called Tyrian, the smaller ones Egyptian. They are not filled in with glass, but contain gratings or lattices. In the houses of the rich the window-frames are elaborately carved, and richly inlaid. Generally the woodwork is of the common sycamore, sometimes of olive or cedar, and in palaces even of Indian sandal-wood. The entablature is more or less curiously carved and ornamented. Only there must be no representation of anything in heaven or on earth. So deep was the feeling on this point, that even the attempt of Pilate to introduce by night into Jerusalem the effigies of Caesar on the top of the Roman standards led to scenes in which the Jews showed themselves willing to die for their convictions (Josephus, Ant, xviii, 59); while the palace of Herod Antipas at Tiberias was burned by the mob because it was decorated with figures of animals (Josephus, Life, 62-67). These extreme views, however, gave way, first, before the tolerant example of Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul, who made use of a public bath, although adorned by a statue of Venus, since, as he put it, the statue was intended for the embellishment of the bath, and not the bath for the sake of the statue. If this argument reminds us that Gamaliel was not a stranger to Christianity, the statement of his grandson, that an idol was nothing if its worship had been disclaimed by the heathen (Ab. Sar. 52), recalls still more strongly the teaching of St. Paul. And so we gradually come down to the modern orthodox doctrine, which allows the representation of plants, animals, etc., but prohibits that of sun, moon, and stars, except for purposes of study, while, though doubtfully, it admits those of men and even angels, provided they be in sunken, not in raised workmanship.
The
rule of these towns and villages was exceedingly strict. The representatives of
Rome were chiefly either military men, or else fiscal or political agents. We
have, indeed, a notice that the Roman general Gabinius, about half a century
before Christ, divided Palestine for juridical purposes into five districts,
each presided over by a council (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 91); but that
arrangement was only of very short duration, and even while it lasted these
councils seem to have been Jewish. Then every town had is Sanhedrim,
These
Sanhedrists were appointed directly by the supreme authority, or Great
Sanhedrim, “the council,” at Jerusalem, which consisted of seventy-one members.
It is difficult to fix the limits of the actual power wielded by these
Sanhedrims in criminal cases. But the smaller Sanhedrims are referred to in such
passages as
What may be called the police and sanitary regulations were of the strictest character. Of Caesarea, for example, we know that there was a regular system of drainage into the sea, apparently similar to, but more perfect than that of any modern town (Josephus, Ant. xv, 340). The same holds true in regard to the Temple-buildings at Jerusalem. But in every town and village sanitary rules were strictly attended to. Cemeteries, tanneries, and whatever also might be prejudicial to health, had to be removed at least fifty cubits outside a town. Bakers’ and dyers’ shops, or stables, were not allowed under the dwelling of another person. Again, the line of each street had to be strictly kept in building, nor was even a projection beyond it allowed. In general the streets were wider than those of modern Eastern cities. The nature of the soil, and the circumstance that so many towns were built on hills (at least in Judaea), would, of course, be advantageous in a sanitary point of view. It would also render the paving of the streets less requisite. But we know that certain towns were paved—Jerusalem with white stones (Josephus, Ant. xx, 219-223). To obviate occasions of dispute, neighbours were not allowed to have windows looking into the courts or rooms of others nor might the principal entrance to a shop be through a court common to two or three dwellings.
These
brief notices may help us better to realise the surroundings of Jewish town
life. Looking up and down one of the streets of a town in Galilee or Judaea, the
houses would be seen to differ in size and in elegance, from the small cottage,
only eight or ten yards square, to the mansions of the rich, sometimes two or
more stories high, and embellished by rows of pillars and architectural
adornments. Suppose ourselves in front of a better-class dwelling, though not
exactly that of a patrician, for it is built of brick, or perhaps of undressed,
or even of dressed stone, but not of marble, nor yet of hewn stone; nor are its
walls painted with such delicate colours as vermilion, but simply whitewashed,
or, may be, covered with some neutral tint. A wide, sometimes costly, stair
leads from the outside straight up to the flat roof, which is made to slope a
little downwards, so as to allow the rainwater easily to flow through pipes into
the cistern below. The roof is paved with brick, stone, or other hard substance,
and surrounded by a balustrade, which, according to Jewish law, must be at least
two cubits (three feet) high, and strong enough to bear the weight of a person.
Police-regulations, conceived in the same spirit of carefulness, prohibited open
wells and pits, insufficient ladders, rickety stairs, even dangerous dogs about
a house. From roof to roof there might be a regular communication, called by the
Rabbis “the road of the roofs” (Babba Mez. 88 b). Thus a person could
make his escape, passing from roof to roof, till at the last house he would
descend the stairs that led down its outside, without having entered any
dwelling. To this “road of the roofs” our Lord no doubt referred in His warning
to His followers (
If the
guest-chamber on the roof, which could be reached from the outside, without
passing through the house, reminds us of Elisha and the Shunammite, and of the
last Passover-supper, to which the Lord and His disciples could go, and which
they could leave, without coming in contact with any in the house, the gallery
that ran round the court under the roof recalls yet another most solemn scene.
We remember how they who bore the man “sick of the palsy,” when unable to “come
nigh unto Jesus for the press,” “uncovered the roof where He was,” “and let him
down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus” (
We have been describing the arrangements and the appearance of towns and dwellings in Palestine. But it is not any of these outward things which gives a real picture of a Jewish home. Within, everything was quite peculiar. At the outset, the rite of circumcision separated the Jew from the nations around, and dedicated him to God. Private prayer, morning and evening, hallowed daily life, and family religions pervaded the home. Before every meal they washed and prayed: after it they “gave thanks.” Besides, there were what may be designated as special family feasts. The return of the Sabbath sanctified the week of labour. It was to be welcomed as a king, or with songs as a bridegroom; and each household observed it as a season of sacred rest and of joy. True, Rabbinism made all this a matter of mere externalism, converting it into an unbearable burden, by endless injunctions of what constituted work and of that which was supposed to produce joy, thereby utterly changing its sacred character. Still, the fundamental idea remained, like a broken pillar that shows where the palace had stood, and what had been its noble proportions. As the head of the house returned on the Sabbath-eve from the synagogue to his home, he found it festively adorned, the Sabbath lamp brightly burning, and the table spread with the richest each household could afford. But first he blessed each child with the blessing of Israel. And next evening, when the Sabbath light faded out, he made solemn “separation” between the hallowed day and the working week, and so commenced his labour once more in the name of the Lord. Nor were the stranger, the poor, the widow, or the fatherless forgotten. How fully they were provided for, how each shared in what was to be considered not a burden but a privilege, and with what delicacy relief was administered—for all Israel were brethren, and fellow-citizens of their Jerusalem—those know best who have closely studied Jewish life, its ordinances and practices.
But
this also is rather a sketch of religious than of family life. At the outset, we
should here say, that even the Hebrew name for “woman,” given her at her
creation (
Speaking of the relation between parents and children, it may be safely
asserted, that no crime was more severely reprobated than any breach of the
fifth commandment. The Talmud, with its usual punctiliousness, enters into
details, when it lays down as a rule that “a son is bound to feed his father, to
give him drink, to clothe him, to protect him, to lead him in, and to conduct
him out, and to wash his face, his hands, and his feet”; to which the Jerusalem
Gemara adds, that a son is even bound to beg for his father—although here also
Rabbinism would give preference to a spiritual before a natural parent, or
rather to one who teaches the law before a father! The general state of Jewish
society shows us parents as fondly watching over their children, and children as
requiting their care by bearing with the foibles, and even the trials, arising
from the caprices of old age and infirmity. Such things as undutifulness, or
want of loving consideration for parents, would have wakened a thrill of horror
in Jewish society. As for crimes against parents, which the law of God visited
with the utmost penalty, they seem happily to have been almost unknown. The
Rabbinical ordinances, however, also specified the obligation of parents, and
limited their power. Thus a son was considered independent whenever he could
gain his own living; and, although a daughter remained in the power of her
father till marriage, she could not, after she was of age, be given away without
her own express and free consent. A father might chastise his child, but only
while young, and even then not to such extent as to destroy self-respect. But to
beat a grown-up son was forbidden on pain of excommunication; and the apostolic
injunction (
A few
notices as to the reverence due to age will appropriately close this brief
sketch of Jewish home life. It was a beautiful thought—however some may doubt
its exegetical correctness—that just as the pieces of the broken tables of the
law were kept in the ark, so old age should be venerated and cherished, even
though it should be broken in mind or memory (Ber. 8 b). Assuredly,
Rabbinism went to the utmost verge in this matter when it recommended reverence
for age, even though it were in the case of one ignorant of the law, or of a
Gentile. There were, however, diverging opinions on this point. The passage,
After
having thus marked how strictly Rabbinism watched over the mutual duties of
parents and children, it will be instructive to note how at the same time
traditionalism, in its worship of the letter, really destroyed the spirit of the
Divine law. An instance will here suffice; and that which we select has the
double advantage of illustrating an otherwise difficult allusion in the New
Testament, and of exhibiting the real characteristics of traditionalism. No
commandment could be more plainly in accordance, alike with the spirit and the
letter of the law, than this: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the
death.” Yet our Lord distinctly charges traditionalism with “transgressing” it
(
The
tenderness of the bond which united Jewish parents to their children appears
even in the multiplicity and pictorialness of the expressions by which the
various stages of child-life are designated in the Hebrew. Besides such general
words as “ben” and “bath”—”son” and “daughter”—we find no fewer than nine
different terms, each depicting a fresh stage of life. The first of these simply
designates the babe as the newly—“born”—the “jeled,” or, in the feminine,
“jaldah”—as in
There is a passage in the Mishnah (Aboth. v. 21), which quaintly maps out and, as it were, labels the different periods of life according to their characteristics. It is worth reproducing, if only to serve as introduction to what we shall have to say on the upbringing of children. Rabbi Jehudah, the son of Tema, says: “At five years of age, reading of the Bible; at ten years, learning the Mishnah; at thirteen years, bound to the commandments; at fifteen years, the study of the Talmud; at eighteen years, marriage; at twenty, the pursuit of trade or business (active life); at thirty years, full vigour; at forty, maturity of reason; at fifty, of counsel; at sixty, commencement of agedness; at seventy, grey age; at eighty, advanced old age; at ninety, bowed down; at a hundred, as if he were dead and gone, and taken from the world.” In the passage just quoted the age of five is mentioned as that when a child is expected to commence reading the Bible—of course, in the original Hebrew. But different opinions also prevailed. Generally speaking, such early instruction was regarded as only safe in the case of very healthy and strong children; while those of average constitution were not to be set to regular work till six years old. There is both common sense and sound experience in this Talmudical saying (Cheth. 50), “If you set your child to regular study before it is six years old, you shall always have to run after, and yet never get hold of it.” This chiefly has reference to the irreparable injury to health caused by such early strain upon the mind. If, on the other hand, we come upon an admonition to begin teaching a child when it is three years old, this must refer to such early instructions as the of certain passages of Scripture, or of small isolated portions and prayers, which a parent would make his child repeat from tenderest years. As we shall show in the sequel, six or seven was the age at which a parent in Palestine was legally bound to attend to the schooling of his son.
But,
indeed, it would have been difficult to say when the instruction of the Hebrew
child really commenced. Looking back, a man must have felt that the teaching
which he most—indeed, one might almost say, which he exclusively—valued had
mingled with the first waking thoughts of his consciousness. Before the child
could speak—before it could almost understand what was taught, in however
elementary language—before it would even take in the domestic rites of the
recurring weekly festival, or those of the annual feasts—it must have been
attracted by the so-called “Mesusah,” which was fastened at the door-post of
every “clean” apartment,
For, not to speak of what seems an allusion to it, so early as in
But to return. As soon as the child had any knowledge, the private and the united prayers of the family, and the domestic rites, whether of the weekly Sabbath or of festive seasons, would indelibly impress themselves upon his mind. It would be difficult to say which of those feasts would have the most vivid effect upon a child’s imagination. There was “Chanukah,” the feast of the Dedication, with its illumination of each house, when (in most cases) the first evening one candle would be lit for each member of the household, the number increasing each night, till, on the eighth, it was eight times that of the first. Then there was “Purim,” the feast of Esther, with the good cheer and boisterous merriment which it brought; the feast of Tabernacles, when the very youngest of the house had to live out in the booth; and, chiefest of feasts, the week of the Passover, when, all leaven being carefully purged out, every morsel of food, by its difference from that ordinarily used, would show the child that the season was a special one. From the moment a child was at all capable of being instructed—still more, of his taking any part in the services—the impression would deepen day by day. Surely no one who had ever worshipped within the courts of Jehovah’s house at Jerusalem could ever have forgotten the scenes he had witnessed, or the words he had heard. Standing in that gorgeous, glorious building, and looking up its terraced vista, the child would watch with solemn awe, not unmingled with wonderment, as the great throng of white-robed priests busily moved about, while the smoke of the sacrifice rose from the altar of burnt-offering. Then, amid the hushed silence of that vast multitude, they had all fallen down to worship at the time of incense. Again, on those steps that led up to the innermost sanctuary the priests had lifted their hands and spoken over the people the words of blessing; and then, while the drink-offering was poured out, the Levites’ chant of Psalms had risen and swelled into a mighty volume; the exquisite treble of the Levite children’s voices being sustained by the rich round notes of the men, and accompanied by instrumental music. The Jewish child knew many of these words. They had been the earliest songs he had heard—almost his first lesson when clinging as a “taph” to his mother. But now, in those white-marbled, gold-adorned halls, under heaven’s blue canopy, and with such surroundings, they would fall upon his ear like sounds from another world, to which the prolonged threefold blasts from the silver trumpets of the priests would seem to waken him. And they were sounds from another world; for, as his father would tell him, all that he saw was after the exact pattern of heavenly things which God had shown to Moses on Mount Sinai; all that he heard was God-uttered, spoken by Jehovah Himself through the mouth of His servant David, and of the other sweet singers of Israel. Nay, that place and that house were God-chosen; and in the thick darkness of the Most Holy Place—there afar off, where the high-priest himself entered on one day of the year only, and in simple pure white vesture, not in those splendid golden garments in which he was ordinarily arrayed—had once stood the ark, with the veritable tables of the law, hewn and graven by the very hand of God; and between the cherubim had then throned in the cloud the visible presence of Jehovah. Verily this Temple with its services was heaven upon earth!
Nor would it have been easy to lose the impression of the first Paschal Supper which a child had attended. There was that about its symbols and services which appealed to every feeling, even had it not been that the law expressly enjoined full instruction to be given as to every part and rite of the service, as well as to the great event recorded in that supper. For in that night had Israel been born as a nation, and redeemed as the “congregation” of the Lord. Then also, as in a mould, had their future history been cast to all time; and there, as in type, had its eternal meaning and import for all men been outlined, and with it God’s purpose of love and work of grace foreshadowed. Indeed, at a certain part of the service it was expressly ordained, that the youngest at the Paschal table should rise and formally ask what was the meaning of all this service, and how that night was distinguished from others; to which the father was to reply, by relating, in language suited to the child’s capacity, the whole national history of Israel, from the calling of Abraham down to the deliverance from Egypt and the giving of the law; “and the more fully,” it is added, “he explains it all, the better.” In view of all this, Philo might indeed, without exaggeration, say that the Jews “were from their swaddling clothes, even before being taught either the sacred laws or the unwritten customs, trained by their parents, teachers, and instructors to recognise God as Father and as the Maker of the world” (Legat. ad. Cajum, sec. 16); and that, “having been taught the knowledge (of the laws) from earliest youth, they bore in their souls the image of the commandments” (Ibid. sec. 31). To the same effect is the testimony of Josephus, that “from their earliest consciousness” they had “learned the laws, so as to have them, as it were, engraven upon the soul” (Ag. Apion, ii, 18); although, of course, we do not believe it, when, with his usual boastful magniloquence, he declares that at the age of fourteen he had been “frequently” consulted by “the high priests and principal men of the city...about the accurate understanding of points of the law” (Life, 7-12; compare also Ant. iv, 31; Ag. Apion, i, 60-68, ii, 199-203).
But
there is no need of such testimony. The Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the
New Testament, leading us progressively from century to century, indicate the
same carefulness in the upbringing of children. One of the earliest narratives
of Scripture records how God said to Abraham, “I know him, that he will command
his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of
Jehovah to do justice and judgment” (
The book of Proverbs brings before us yet another phase of deepest interest. It contains the fullest appreciation of woman in her true dignity, and of her position and influence in the family-life. It is quite true, as we shall presently show, that the obligation to train the child rested primarily upon the father, and that both by the law of God and by the ordinances of the Rabbis. But even the patriarchal story will prepare an attentive reader to find, especially in the early upbringing of children, that constant influence of woman, which, indeed, the nature of the maternal relationship implies, provided the family-life be framed on the model of the Word of God. Lovelier pictures of this than the mother of Samuel and the pious Shunammite hostess of Elisha can scarcely be conceived. But the book of Proverbs shows us, that even in the early times of the Jewish monarchy this characteristic of Old Testament life also appeared outside the bounds of the Holy Land, wherever pious Israelites had their settlements. The subject is so deeply interesting, historically and religiously, and perhaps so new to some readers, that a slight digression may be allowed us.
Beyond
the limits of the Holy Land, close by Dumah, lay the land or district of Massa
(
Indeed, so much is this the case, that the instruction of the queen of Massa,
and the words of her two royal sons, are inserted in the book of Proverbs as
part of the inspired records of the Old Testament. According to the best
criticism,
Then
As might have been expected, the spirit of the Apocryphal books is far different
from that which breathes in the Old Testament. Still, such a composition as
Ecclesiasticus shows that even in comparatively late and degenerate times the
godly upbringing of children occupied a most prominent place in religious
thinking. But it is when we approach the New Testament, that a fresh halo of
glory seems to surround woman. And here our attention is directed to the
spiritual influence of mothers rather than of fathers. Not to mention “the
mother of Zebedee’s children,” nor the mother of John Mark, whose home at
Jerusalem seems to have been the meeting-place and the shelter of the early
disciples, and that in times of the most grievous persecution; nor yet “the
elect lady and her children,” whom not only St. John, “but also all they that
know the truth,” loved in truth (
At most then two or three Jewish families lived in that heathen city. Perhaps Lois
and Eunice were the only worshippers of Jehovah there; for we do not even read
of a meeting-place for prayer, such as that by the river-side where Paul first
met Lydia. Yet in such adverse circumstances, and as the wife of a Greek, Eunice
proved one to whom royal Lemuel’s praise applied in the fullest sense: “Her
children arise up and call her blessed,” and “Her works praise her in the
gates”— of the new Jerusalem. Not a truer nor more touching portraiture of a
pious Jewish home could have been drawn than in these words of St. Paul: “I call
to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy
grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice”; and again, “From a child thou hast
know the Holy Scriptures” (
From the Apocrypha, from Josephus, and from the Talmud we know what means of
instruction in the Scriptures were within reach of a pious mother at that time.
In a house like that of Timothy’s father there would, of course, be no
phylacteries, with the portions of Scripture which they contained, and probably
no “Mesusah,” although, according to the Mishnah (Ber. iii. 3), the
latter duty was incumbent, not only upon men but upon women. the Babylon Talmud
(Ber. 20 b) indeed gives a very unsatisfactory reason for the latter
provision. But may it not be that the Jewish law had such cases in view as that
of Eunice and her son, without expressly saying so, from fear of lending a
sanction to mixed marriages? Be this as it may, we know that at the time of the
Syrian persecutions, just before the rising of the Maccabees, the possession of
portions or of the whole of the Old Testament by private families was common in
Israel. For, part of those persecutions consisted in making search for these
Scriptures and destroying them (
And this leads us to mention, with due reverence, the other and far greater New
Testament instance of maternal influence in Israel. It is none less than that of
the mother of our blessed Lord Himself. While the fact that Jesus became subject
to His parents, and grew in wisdom and in favour both with God and man, forms
part of the unfathomable mystery of His self-humiliation, the influence exerted
upon His early education, especially by His mother, seems implied throughout the
gospel history. Of course, His was a pious Jewish home; and at Nazareth there
was a synagogue, to which, as we shall by-and-by explain, a school was probably
attached. In that synagogue Moses and the Prophets would be read, and, as
afterwards by Himself (
This familiarity from earliest childhood with the Scriptures in the Hebrew original
also explains how at the age of twelve Jesus could be found “in the Temple;
sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them
questions” (
What we have hitherto described will have conveyed to the reader that the one branch of instruction aimed after or desired by the Jews at the time of Christ was religious knowledge. What was understood by this, and how it was imparted—whether in the family or in the public schools—must form the subject of special investigation.
If a faithful picture of society in ancient Greece or Rome were to be presented to view, it is not easy to believe that even they who now most oppose the Bible could wish their aims success. For this, at any rate, may be asserted, without fear of gainsaying, that no other religion than that of the Bible has proved competent to control an advanced, or even an advancing, state of civilisation. Every other bound has been successively passed and submerged by the rising tide; how deep only the student of history knows. Two things are here undeniable. In the case of heathenism every advance in civilisation has marked a progressive lowering of public morality, the earlier stages of national life always showing a far higher tone than the later. On the contrary, the religion of the Bible (under the old as under the new dispensation) has increasingly raised, if not uniformly the public morals, yet always the tone and standard of public morality; it has continued to exhibit a standard never yet attained, and it has proved its power to control public and social life, to influence and to mould it.
Strange as it may sound, it is strictly true that, beyond the boundaries of
Israel, it would be scarcely possible to speak with any propriety of family
life, or even of the family, as we understand these terms. It is significant,
that the Roman historian Tacitus should mark it as something special among the
Jews
This is not the place to describe the exposure of children, or the various crimes by
which ancient Greece and Rome, in the days of their highest culture, sought to
rid themselves of what was regarded as superfluous population. Few of those who
have learned to admire classical antiquity have a full conception of any one
phase in its social life—whether of the position of woman, the relation of the
sexes, slavery, the education of children, their relation to their parents, or
the state of public morality. Fewer still have combined all these features into
one picture, and that not merely as exhibited by the lower orders, or even among
the higher classes, but as fully owned and approved by those whose names have
descended in the admiration of ages as the thinkers, the sages, the poets, the
historians, and the statesmen of antiquity. Assuredly, St. Paul’s description of
the ancient world in the first and second chapters of his Epistle to the Romans
must have appeared to those who lived in the midst of it as Divine even in its
tenderness, delicacy, and charity; the full picture under bright sunlight would
have been scarcely susceptible of exhibition. For such a world there was only
one alternative—either the judgment of Sodom, or the mercy of the Gospel and
the healing of the Cross.
When we pass from the heathen world into the homes of Israel, even the excess of their exclusiveness seems for the moment a relief. It is as if we turned from enervating, withering, tropical heat into a darkened room, whose grateful coolness makes us for the moment forget that its gloom is excessive, and cannot continue as the day declines. And this shutting out of all from without, this exclusiveness, applied not only to what concerned their religion, their social and family life, but also to their knowledge. In the days of Christ the pious Jew had no other knowledge, neither sought nor cared for any other—in fact, denounced it—than that of the law of God. At the outset, let it be remembered that, in heathenism, theology, or rather mythology, had no influence whatever on thinking or life—was literally submerged under their waves. To the pious Jew, on the contrary, the knowledge of God was everything; and to prepare for or impart that knowledge was the sum total, the sole object of his education. This was the life of his soul—the better, and only true life, to which all else as well as the life of the body were merely subservient, as means towards an end. His religion consisted of two things: knowledge of God, which by a series of inferences, one from the other, ultimately resolved itself into theology, as they understood it; and service, which again consisted of the proper observance of all that was prescribed by God, and of works of charity towards men—the latter, indeed, going beyond the bound of what was strictly due (the Chovoth) into special merit or “righteousness” (Zedakah). But as service presupposed knowledge, theology was again at the foundation of all, and also the crown of all, which conferred the greatest merit. This is expressed or implied in almost innumerable passages of Jewish writings. Let one suffice, not only because it sounds more rationalistic, but because it is to this day repeated each morning in his prayers by every Jew: “These are the things of which a man eats the fruit in this world, but their possession continueth for the next world: to honour father and mother, pious works, peacemaking between man and man, and the study of the law, which is equivalent to them all” (Peah. i. 1).
And
literally “equivalent to them all” was such study to the Jew. The circumstances
of the times forced him to learn Greek, perhaps also Latin, so much as was
necessary for intercourse; and to tolerate at least the Greek translation of the
Scriptures, and the use of any language in the daily prayers of the Shema, of
the eighteen benedictions, and of the grace after meat (these are the oldest
elements of the Jewish liturgy). But the blessing of the priests might not be
spoken, nor the phylacteries nor the Mesusah written, in other than the Hebrew
language (Megil. i. 8; Sotah, vii. 1, 2); while heathen science
and literature were absolutely prohibited. To this, and not to the mere learning
of Greek, which must have been almost necessary for daily life, refer such
prohibitions as that traced to the time of Titus (Sotah, ix. 14),
forbidding a man to teach his son Greek. The Talmud itself (Men. 99 b)
furnishes a clever illustration of this, when, in reply to the question of a
younger Rabbi, whether, since he knew the whole “Thorah” (the law), he might be
allowed to study “Greek wisdom,” his uncle reminded him of the words (
From
what has been stated, three inferences will be gathered, all of most material
bearing on the study of the New Testament. It will be seen how a mere knowledge
of the law came to hold such place of almost exclusive importance that its
successful prosecution seemed to be well-nigh all in all. Again, it is easy now
to understand why students and teachers of theology enjoyed such exceptional
honour (
The third inference which the reader will draw is as to the influence which such views must have exercised upon education, alike at home and in schools. It is no doubt only the echo of the most ancient mode of congratulating a parent when to this day those who are present at a circumcision, and also the priest when the first-born is redeemed from him, utter this: “As this child has been joined to the covenant” (or, as the case may be, “attained this redemption”), “so may it also be to him in reference to the ‘thorah,’ the ‘chuppah’ (the marriage-baldacchino, under which the regular marriage ceremony is performed), and to good works.” The wish marks with twofold emphasis the life that is to come, as compared with the life that now is. This quite agrees with the account of Josephus, who contrasts the heathen festivals at the birth of children with the Jewish enactments by which children were from their very infancy nourished up in the laws of God (Ag. Apion, i, 38-68, ii, 173-205).
There
can be no question that, according to the law of Moses, the early education of a
child devolved upon the father; of course, always bearing in mind that his first
training would be the mother’s (
In teaching to read, the alphabet was to be imparted by drawing the letters on a board, till the child became familiar with them. Next, the teacher would point in the copy read with his finger, or, still better, with a style, to keep up the attention of the pupil. None but well-corrected manuscripts were to be used, since, as was rightly said, mistakes impressed upon the young mind were afterwards not easily corrected. To acquire fluency, the child should be made to read aloud. Special care was to be bestowed on the choice of good language, in which respect, as we know, the inhabitants of Judaea far excelled those of Galilee, who failed not only in elegance of diction, but even in their pronunciation. At five years of age the Hebrew Bible was to be begun; commencing, however, not with the book of Genesis, but with that of Leviticus. This not to teach the child his guilt, and the need of justification, but rather because Leviticus contained those ordinances which it behoved a Jew to know as early as possible. The history of Israel would probably have been long before imparted orally, as it was continually repeated on all festive occasions, as well as in the synagogue.
It has
been stated in a former chapter that writing was not so common an accomplishment
as reading. Undoubtedly, the Israelites were familiar with it from the very
earliest period of their history, whether or not they had generally acquired the
art in Egypt. We read of the graving of words on the gems of the high-priest’s
breastplate, of the record of the various genealogies of the tribes, etc; while
such passages as
Before passing to an account of elementary schools, it may be well, once and for all, to say that the Rabbis did not approve of the same amount of instruction being given to girls as to boys. More particularly they disapproved of their engaging in legal studies—partly because they considered woman’s mission and duties as lying in other directions, partly because the subjects were necessarily not always suitable for the other sex, partly because of the familiar intercourse between the sexes to which such occupations would have necessarily led, and finally—shall we say it?—because the Rabbis regarded woman’s mind as not adapted for such investigations. The unkindest thing, perhaps, which they said on this score was, “Women are of a light mind”; though in its oft repetition the saying almost reads like a semi-jocular way of cutting short a subject on which discussion is disagreeable. However, instances of Rabbinically learned women do occur. What their Biblical knowledge and what their religious influence was, we learn not only from the Rabbis, but from the New Testament. Their attendance at all public and domestic festivals, and in the synagogues, and the circumstance that certain injunctions and observances of Rabbinic origin devolved upon them also, prove that, though not learned in the law, there must have been among them not a few who, like Lois and Eunice, could train a child in the knowledge of the Scripture, or, like Priscilla, be qualified to explain even to an Apollos the way of God more perfectly.
Supposing, then, a child to be so far educated at home; suppose him, also, to be
there continually taught the commandments and observances, and, as the Talmud
expressly states, to be encouraged to repeat the prayers aloud, so as to
accustom him to it. At six years of age he would be sent to school; not to an
academy, or “beth hammedrash,” which he would only attend if he proved apt and
promising; far less to the class-room of a great Rabbi, or the discussions of
the Sanhedrim, which marked a very advanced stage of study. We are here speaking
only of primary or elementary schools, such as even in the time of our Lord were
attached to every synagogue in the land. Passing over the supposed or real
Biblical notices of schools, and confining our attention strictly to the period
ending with the destruction of the Temple, we have first a notice in the Talmud
(Bab. B. 21 b), ascribing to Ezra an ordinance, that as many
schoolmasters as chose should be allowed to establish themselves in any place,
and that those who had formerly been settled there might not interfere with
them. In all likelihood this notice should not be taken in its literal sense,
but as an indication that the encouragement of schools and of education engaged
the attention of Ezra and of his successors. Of the Grecianised academies which
the wicked high-priest Jason tried to introduce in Jerusalem (
Every place, then, which numbered twenty-five boys of a suitable age, or, according to Maimonides, one hundred and twenty families, was bound to appoint a schoolmaster. More than twenty-five pupils or thereabouts he was not allowed to teach in a class. If there were forty, he had to employ an assistant; if fifty, the synagogue authorities appointed two teachers. This will enable us to understand the statement, no doubt greatly exaggerated, that at the destruction of Jerusalem there were no fewer than four hundred and eighty schools in the metropolis. From another passage, which ascribes the fall of the Jewish state to the neglect of the education of children, we may infer what importance popular opinion attached to it. But indeed, to the Jew, child-life was something peculiarly holy, and the duty of filling it with thoughts of God specially sacred. It almost seems as if the people generally had retained among them the echo of our Lord’s saying, that their angels continually behold the face of our Father which is in heaven. Hence the religious care connected with education. The grand object of the teacher was moral as well as intellectual training. To keep children from all intercourse with the vicious; to suppress all feelings of bitterness, even though wrong had been done to one’s parents; to punish all real wrong-doing; not to prefer one child to another; rather to show sin in its repulsiveness than to predict what punishment would follow, either in this or the next world, so as not to “discourage” the child—such are some of the rules laid down. A teacher was not even to promise a child anything which he did not mean to perform, lest its mind be familiarised with falsehood. Everything that might call up disagreeable or indelicate thoughts was to be carefully avoided. The teacher must not lose patience if his pupil understood not readily, but rather make the lesson more plain. He might, indeed, and he should, punish when necessary, and, as one of the Rabbis put it, treat the child like a young heifer whose burden was daily increased. But excessive severity was to be avoided; and we are told of one teacher who was actually dismissed from office for this reason. Where possible, try kindness; and if punishment was to be administered, let the child be beaten with a strap, but never with a rod. At ten the child began to study the Mishnah; at fifteen he must be ready for the Talmud, which would be explained to him in a more advanced academy. If after three, or at most five, years of tuition the child had not made decided progress, there was little hope of his attaining to eminence. In the study of the bible the pupil was to proceed from the book of Leviticus to the rest of the Pentateuch, thence to the Prophets, and lastly to the Hagiographa. This regulation was in accordance with the degree of value which the Rabbis attached to these divisions of the Bible. In the case of advanced pupils the day was portioned out—one part being devoted to the Bible, the other two to the Mishnah and the Talmud. Every parent was also advised to have his child taught swimming.
It has
already been stated that in general the school was held in the synagogue.
Commonly its teacher was the “chazan,” or “minister” (
A very
beautiful trait was the care bestowed on the children of the poor and on
orphans. In the Temple there was a special receptacle—that “of the secret”—for
contributions, which were privately applied for the education of the children of
the pious poor. To adopt and bring up an orphan was regarded as specially a
“good work.” This reminds us of the apostolic description of a “widow indeed,”
as one “well reported for good works”; who “had brought up children, lodged
strangers, washed the saints’ feet, relieved the afflicted, diligently followed
every good work” (
Such were the surroundings, and such the atmosphere, in which Jesus of Nazareth moved while tabernacling among men.
In
order accurately to understand the position of woman in Israel, it is only
necessary carefully to peruse the New Testament. The picture of social life
there presented gives a full view of the place which she held in private and in
public life. Here we do not find that separation, so common among Orientals at
all times, but a woman mingles freely with others both at home and abroad. So
far from suffering under social inferiority, she takes influential and often
leading part in all movements, specially those of a religious character. Above
all, we are wholly spared those sickening details of private and public
immorality with which contemporary classical literature abounds. Among Israel
woman was pure, the home happy, and the family hallowed by a religion which
consisted not only in public services, but entered into daily life, and embraced
in its observances every member of the household. It was so not only in New
Testament times but always in Israel. St. Peter’s reference to “the holy women”
“in the old time” (
Some
further details may illustrate the matter better than arguments. The creation of
woman from the rib of Adam is thus commented on (Shab. 23): “It is as if
Adam had exchanged a pot of earth for a precious jewel.” This, although Jewish
wit caustically had it: “God has cursed woman, yet all the world runs after her;
He has cursed the ground, yet all the world lives of it.” In what reverence “the
four mothers,” as the Rabbis designate Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, were
held, and what influence they exercised in patriarchal history, no attentive
reader of Scripture can fail to notice. And as we follow on the sacred story,
Miriam, who had originally saved Moses, leads the song of deliverance on the
other side of the flood, and her influence, though not always for good,
continued till her death (compare
Nor is it otherwise in New Testament times. The ministry of woman to our blessed Lord, and in the Church, has almost become proverbial. Her position there marks really not a progress upon, but the full carrying out of, the Old Testament idea; or, to put the matter in another light, we ask no better than that any one who is acquainted with classical antiquity should compare what he reads of a Dorcas, of the mother of Mark, of Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Lois, or Eunice, with what he knows of the noble women of Greece and Rome at that period.
Of
course, against all this may be set the permission of polygamy, which
undoubtedly was in force at the time of our Lord, and the ease with which
divorce might be obtained. In reference to both these, however, it must be
remembered that they were temporary concessions to “the hardness” of the
people’s heart. For, not only must the circumstances of the times and the moral
state of the Jewish and of neighbouring nations be taken into account, but there
were progressive stages of spiritual development. If these had not been taken
into account, the religion of the Old Testament would have been unnatural and an
impossibility. Suffice it, that “from the beginning it was not so,” nor yet
intended to be so in the end—the intermediate period thus marking the gradual
progress from the perfectness of the idea to the perfectness of its realisation.
Moreover, it is impossible to read the Old, and still more the New Testament
without gathering from it the conviction, that polygamy was not the rule but the
rare exception, so far as the people generally were concerned. Although the
practice in reference to divorce was certainly more lax, even the Rabbis
surrounded it with so many safeguards that, in point of fact, it must in many
cases have been difficult of accomplishment. In general, the whole tendency of
the Mosaic legislation, and even more explicitly that of later Rabbinical
ordinances, was in the direction of recognising the rights of woman, with a
scrupulousness which reached down even to the Jewish slave, and a delicacy that
guarded her most sensitive feelings. Indeed, we feel warranted in saying, that
in cases of dispute the law generally lent to her side. Of divorce we
shall have to speak in the sequel. But what the religious views and feelings
both about it and monogamy were at the time of Malachi, appears from the
pathetic description of the altar of God as covered with the tears of “the wife
of youth,” “the wife of thy covenant,” “thy companion,” who had been “put away”
or “treacherously dealt” with (
Where the social intercourse between the sexes was nearly as unrestricted as among
ourselves, so far as consistent with Eastern manners, it would, of course, be
natural for a young man to make personal choice of his bride. Of this Scripture
affords abundant evidence. But, at any rate, the woman had, in case of betrothal
or marriage, to give her own free and expressed consent, without which a union
was invalid. Minors—in the case of girls up to twelve years and one
day—might be betrothed or given away by their father. In that case, however,
they had afterwards the right of insisting upon divorce. Of course, it is not
intended to convey that woman attained her full position till under the New
Testament. But this is only to repeat what may be said of almost every social
state and relationship. Yet it is most marked how deeply the spirit of the Old
Testament, which is essentially that of the New also, had in this respect also
penetrated the life of Israel. St. Paul’s warning (
Some
further details, gathered almost at random, will give glimpses of Jewish home
life and of current views. It was by a not uncommon, though irreverent, mode of
witticism, that two forms of the same verb, sounding almost alike, were made to
express opposite experiences of marriage. It was common to ask a newly-married
husband: ”Maza or Moze?”—“findeth” or “found”; the first
expression occurring in
It is on similar grounds that the Rabbis argue, that man must seek after woman, and not a woman after a man; only the reason which they assign for it sounds strange. Man, they say, was formed from the ground—woman from man’s rib; hence, in trying to find a wife man only looks after what he had lost! This formation of man from soft clay, and of woman from a hard bone, also illustrated why man was so much more easily reconcilable than woman. Similarly, it was observed, that God had not formed woman out of the head, lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye, lest she should lust; nor out of the ear, lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth, lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart, lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand, lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot, lest she be a busybody; but out of the rib, which was always covered. Modesty was, therefore, a prime quality. It was no doubt chiefly in jealous regard for this, that women were interdicted engaging in Rabbinical studies; and a story is related to show how even the wisest of women, Beruria, was thereby brought to the brink of extreme danger. It is not so easy to explain why women were dispensed from all positive obligations (commands, but not prohibitions) that were not general in their bearing (Kidd. 1. 7,8), but fixed to certain periods of time (such as wearing the phylacteries, etc.), and from that of certain prayers, unless it be that woman was considered not her own mistress but subject to others, or else that husband and wife were regarded as one, so that his merits and prayers applied to her as well. Indeed, this view, at least so far as the meritorious nature of a man’s engagement with the law is concerned, is expressly brought forward, and women are accordingly admonished to encourage their husbands in all such studies.
We can
understand how, before the coming of the Messiah, marriage should have been
looked upon as of religious obligation. Many passages of Scripture were at least
quoted in support of this idea. Ordinarily, a young man was expected to
enter the wedded state (according to Maimonides) at the age of sixteen or
seventeen, while the age of twenty may be regarded as the utmost limit conceded,
unless study so absorbed time and attention as to leave no leisure for the
duties of married life. Still it was thought better even to neglect study than
to remain single. Yet money cares on account of wife and children were dreaded.
The same comparison is used in reference to them, which our Lord applies to
quite a different “offence,” that against the “little ones” (
We
read in the Gospel that, when the Virgin-mother “was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her
husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily” (
On the other hand, a father was bound to provide a dowry (nedan, nedanjah) for his daughter conformable to her station in life; and a second daughter could claim a portion equal to that of her elder sister, or else one-tenth of all immovable property. In case of the father’s death, the sons, who, according to Jewish law, were his sole heirs, were bound to maintain their sisters, even though this would have thrown them upon public charity, and to endow each with a tenth part of what had been left. The dowry, whether in money, property, or jewellery, was entered into the marriage contract, and really belonged to the wife, the husband being obliged to add to it one-half more, if it consisted of money or money’s value; and if of jewellery, etc., to assign to her four-fifths of its value. In case of separation (not divorce) he was bound to allow her a proper aliment, and to re-admit her to his table and house on the Sabbath-eve. A wife was entitled to one-tenth of her dowry for pin-money. If a father gave away his daughter without any distinct statement about her dowry, he was bound to allow her at least fifty sus; and if it had been expressly stipulated that she was to have no dowry at all, it was delicately enjoined that the bridegroom should, before marriage, give her sufficient for the necessary outfit. An orphan was to receive a dowry of at least fifty sus from the parochial authorities. A husband could not oblige his wife to leave the Holy Land nor the city of Jerusalem, nor yet to change a town for a country residence, or vice versa, nor a good for a bad house. These are only a few of the provisions which show how carefully the law protected the interests of women. To enter into farther details would lead beyond our present object. All this was substantially settled at the betrothal, which, in Judaea at least, seems to have been celebrated by a feast. Only a bona fide breach of these arrangements, or wilful fraud, was deemed valid ground for dissolving the bond once formed. Otherwise, as already noted, a regular divorce was necessary.
According to Rabbinical law certain formalities were requisite to make a
betrothal legally valid. These consisted either in handing to a woman, directly
or through messengers, a piece of money, however small, or else a letter,
The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which,
however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride
into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from
very ancient times. Marriage with a maiden was commonly celebrated on a
Wednesday afternoon, which allowed the first days of the week for preparation,
and enabled the husband, if he had a charge to prefer against the previous
chastity of his bride, to make immediate complaint before the local Sanhedrim,
which sat every Thursday. On the other hand, the marriage of a widow was
celebrated on Thursday afternoon, which left three days of the week for
“rejoicing with her.” This circumstance enables us, with some certainty, to
arrange the date of the events which preceded the marriage in Cana. Inferring
from the accompanying festivities that it was the marriage of a maiden, and
therefore took place on a Wednesday, we have the following succession of
events:—On Thursday (beginning as every Jewish day with the previous
evenint), testimony of the Baptist to the Sanhedrim-deputation from Jerusalem.
On Friday (
But this is not all that may be learned from the account of the marriage in Cana. Of course, there was a “marriage-feast,” as on all these occasions. For this reason, marriages were not celebrated either on the Sabbath, or on the day before or after it, lest the Sabbath-rest should be endangered. Nor was it lawful to wed on any of the three annual festivals, in order, as the Rabbis put it, “not to mingle one joy (that of the marriage) with another (that of the festival).” As it was deemed a religious duty to give pleasure to the newly-married couple, the merriment at times became greater than the more strict Rabbis approved. Accordingly, it is said of one, that to produce gravity he broke a vase worth about 25 pounds; of another, that at his son’s wedding he broke a costly glass; and of a third, that being asked to sin, he exclaimed, Woe to us, for we must all die! For, as it is added (Ber. 31 a): “It is forbidden to man, that his mouth be filled with laughter in this world (dispensation), as it is written, ‘Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing.’ When is that to be? At the time when ‘they shall sing among the heathen, The Lord hath done great things for them.’”
It
deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of “the
friends of the bridegroom,” or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was
in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in
Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon
the locality where
With
such a “benediction,” preceded by a brief formula, with which the bride was
handed over to her husband (
The
custom of a bridal veil—either for the bride alone, or spread over the
couple—was of ancient date. It was interdicted for a time by the Rabbis after
the destruction of Jerusalem. Still more ancient was the wearing of crowns (
Having entered thus fully on the subject of marriage, a few further particulars may be
of interest. The bars to marriage mentioned in the Bible are sufficiently known.
To these the Rabbis added others, which have been arranged under two heads—as
farther extending the laws of kindred (to their secondary degrees), and
as intended to guard morality. The former were extended over the whole line of
forbidden kindred, where that line was direct, and to one link farther where the
line became indirect—as, for example, to the wife of a maternal uncle, or to
the step- mother of a wife. In the category of guards to morality we include
such prohibitions as that a divorced woman might not marry her seducer, nor a
man the woman to whom he had brought her letter of divorce, or in whose case he
had borne testimony; or of marriage with those not in their right senses, or in
a state of drunkenness; or of the marriage of minors, or under fraud, etc. A
widower had to wait over three festivals, a widow three months, before
re-marrying, or if she was with child or gave suck, for two years. A woman might
not be married a third time; no marriage could take place within thirty days of
the death of a near relative, nor yet on the Sabbath, nor on a feast-day, etc.
Of the marriage to a deceased husband’s brother (or the next of kin), in case of
childlessness, it is unnecessary here to speak, since although the Mishnah
devotes a whole tractate to it (Yebamoth), and it was evidently customary
at the time of Christ (
The
fatal ease with which divorce could be obtained, and its frequency, appear from
the question addressed to Christ by the Pharisees: “Is it lawful for a man to
put away his wife for every cause?” (
According to Jewish law there were four obligations incumbent on a wife towards
her husband, and ten by which he was bound. Of the latter, three are referred to
in
What
the family life among the godly in Israel must have been, how elevated its tone,
how loving its converse, or how earnestly devoted its mothers and daughters,
appears sufficiently from the gospel story, from that in the book of Acts, and
from notices in the apostolic letters. Women, such as the Virgin-mother, or
Elisabeth, or Anna, or those who enjoyed the privilege of ministering to the
Lord, or who, after His death, tended and watched for His sacred body, could not
have been quite solitary in Palestine; we find their sisters in a Dorcas, a
Lydia, a Phoebe, and those women of whom St. Paul speaks in
A sadder picture could scarcely be drawn than that of the dying Rabbi Jochanan ben Saccai, that “light of Israel” immediately before and after the destruction of the Temple, and for two years the president of the Sanhedrim. We read in the Talmud (Ber. 28 b) that, when his disciples came to see him on his death-bed, he burst into tears. To their astonished inquiry why he, “the light of Israel, the right pillar of the Temple, and its mighty hammer,” betrayed such signs of fear, he replied: “If I were now to be brought before an earthly king, who lives to-day and dies to-morrow, whose wrath and whose bonds are not everlasting, and whose sentence of death, even, is not that to everlasting death, who can be assuaged by arguments, or perhaps bought off by money—I should tremble and weep; how much more reason have I for it, when about to be led before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, Who liveth and abideth for ever, Whose chains are chains for evermore, and Whose sentence of death killeth for ever, Whom I cannot assuage with words, nor bribe by money! And not only so, but there are before me two ways, one to paradise and the other to hell, and I know not which of the two ways I shall have to go—whether to paradise or to hell: how, then, shall I not shed tears?” Side by side with this we may place the opposite saying of R. Jehudah, called the Holy, who, when he died, lifted up both his hands to heaven, protesting that none of those ten fingers had broken the law of God! It were difficult to say which of these two is more contrary to the light and liberty of the Gospel—the utter hopelessness of the one, or the apparent presumption of the other.
And
yet these sayings also recall to us something in the Gospel. For there also we
read of two ways—the one to paradise, the other to destruction, and of fearing
not those who can kill the body, but rather Him who, after He hath killed the
body, hath power to cast into hell. Nor, on the other hand, was the assurance of
St. Stephen, of St. James, or of St. Paul, less confident than that of Jehudah,
called the Holy, though it expressed itself in a far different manner and rested
on quite other grounds. Never are the voices of the Rabbis more discordant, and
their utterances more contradictory or unsatisfying than in view of the great
problems of humanity: sin, sickness, death, and the hereafter. Most truly did
St. Paul, taught at the feet of Gamaliel in all the traditions and wisdom of the
fathers, speak the inmost conviction of every Christian Rabbinist, that it is
only our Saviour Jesus Christ Who “hath brought life and immortality to light
through the Gospel” (
When
the disciples asked our Lord, in regard to the “man which was blind from his
birth”: “master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”
(
As on
most other subjects, the Rabbis were accurate and keen observers of the laws of
health, and their regulations are often far in advance of modern practice. From
many allusions in the Old Testament we infer that the science of medicine, which
was carried to comparatively great perfection in Egypt, where every disease had
its own physician, was also cultivated in Israel. Thus the sin of Asia, in
trusting too much to earthly physicians, is specially reproved (
Ordinarily, life was expected to be protracted, and death regarded as alike the
punishment and the expiation of sin. To die within fifty years of age was to be
cut off; within fifty-two, to die the death of Samuel the prophet; at sixty
years of age, it was regarded as death at the hands of Heaven; at seventy, as
that of an old man; and at eighty, as that of strength. Premature death was
likened to the falling off of unripe fruit, or the extinction of a candle. To
depart without having a son was to die, otherwise it was to fall
asleep. The latter was stated to have been the case with David; the former
with Joab. If a person had finished his work, his was regarded as the death of
the righteous, who is gathered to his fathers. Tradition (Ber. 8 a)
inferred, by a peculiar Rabbinical mode of exegesis, from a word in
Certain signs were also noted as to the time and manner of dying. Sudden death
was called “being swallowed up,” death after one day’s illness, that of
rejection; after two days’, that of despair; after four days’, that of reproof;
after five days’, a natural death. Similarly, the posture of the dying was
carefully marked. To die with a happy smile, or at least with a bright
countenance, or looking upward, was a good omen; to look downward, to seem
disturbed, to weep, or even to turn to the wall, were evil signs. On recovering
from illness, it was enjoined to return special thanks. It was a curious
superstition (Ber. 55 b), that, if any one announced his illness on the
first day of its occurrence, it might tend to make him worse, and that only on
the second day should prayers be offered for him. Lastly, we may mention in this
connection, as possibly throwing light on the practice referred to by St. James
(
When
our Lord mentioned visitation of the sick among the evidences of that religion
which would stand the test of the judgment day (
Burial
followed generally as soon as possible after death (
The
body having been properly prepared, the funeral rites proceeded, as described in
the gospels. From the account of the funeral procession at Nain, which the Lord
of life arrested (
At the
grave, on the road to which the procession repeatedly halted, when short
addresses were occasionally delivered, there was a funeral oration. If the grave
were in a public cemetery, at least a foot and a half must intervene between
each sleeper. The caves, or rock-hewn sepulchres, consisted of an ante-chamber
in which the bier was deposited, and an inner or rather lower cave in which the
bodies were deposited, in a recumbent position, in niches. According to the
Talmud these abodes of the dead were usually six feet long, nine feet wide, and
ten feet high. Here there were niches for eight bodies: three on each side of
the entrance, and two opposite. Larger sepulchres held thirteen bodies. The
entrance to the sepulchres was guarded by a large stone or by a door (
Thus
also did our blessed Lord Himself fulfil most truly that on which the law and
Jewish tradition laid so great stress: to comfort the mourners in their
affliction (comp.
The
Rabbis distinguish between the Onen and the Avel—the sorrowing or
suffering one, and the bowed down, fading one, or mourner; the former expression
applying only to the day of the funeral, the latter to the period which
followed. It was held, that the law of God only prescribed mourning for the
first day, which was that of death and burial (
We add the following, which may be of interest. It is expressly allowed (Jer. Ber. iii. 1), on Sabbaths and feast-days to walk beyond the Sabbath limits, and to do all needful offices for the dead. This throws considerable light on the evangelical account of the offices rendered to the body of Jesus on the eve of the Passover. The chief mourning rites, indeed, were intermitted on Sabbaths and feast-days; and one of the most interesting, and perhaps the earliest Hebrew non-Biblical record—the Megillath Taanith, or roll of fasts—mentions a number of other days on which mourning was prohibited, being the anniversaries of joyous occasions. The Mishnah (Moed K. iii. 5-9) contains a number of regulations and limitations of mourning observances on greater and lesser feasts, which we do not quote, as possessing little interest save in Rabbinical casuistry. The loss of slaves was not to be mourned.
But
what after death and in the judgment? And what of that which brought in, and
which gives such terrible meaning to death and the judgment—sin? It were
idle, and could only be painful here to detail the various and discordant
sayings of the Rabbis, some of which, at least, may admit of an allegorical
interpretation. Only that which may be of use to the New Testament student shall
be briefly summarised. Both the Talmud (Pes. 54 a; Ned. 39 b), and
the Targum teach that paradise and hell were created before this world. One
quotation from the Jerusalem Targum (on
Paradise and hell were supposed to be contiguous, only separated—it was said,
perhaps allegorically—by an handbreadth. But although we may here find some
slight resemblance to the localisation of the history of the rich man and
Lazarus (
But all these are preliminary and outside questions, which only indirectly touch the great problems of the human soul concerning sin and salvation. And here we can, in this place, only state that the deeper and stronger our conviction that the language, surroundings, and whole atmosphere of the New Testament were those of Palestine at the time when our Lord trod its soil, the more startling appears the contrast between the doctrinal teaching of Christ and His apostles and that of the Rabbis. In general, it may be said that the New Testament teaching concerning original sin and its consequences finds no analogy in the Rabbinical writings of that period. As to the mode of salvation, their doctrine may be broadly summed up under the designation of work-righteousness.
In
view of this there is, strictly speaking, logical inconsistency in the
earnestness with which the Rabbis insist on universal and immediate repentance,
and the need of confession of sin, and of preparation for another world. For, a
paradise which might be entered by all on their own merits, and which yet
is to be sought by all through repentance and similar means, or else can only be
obtained after passing through a kind of purgatory, constitutes no mean moral
charge against the religion of Rabbinism. Yet such inconsistencies may be hailed
as bringing the synagogue, in another direction, nearer to biblical truth.
Indeed, we come occasionally upon much that also appears, only in quite another
setting, in the New Testament. Thus the teaching of our Lord about the
immortality of the righteous was, of course, quite consonant with that of the
Pharisees. In fact, their contention also was, that the departed saints were in
Scripture called “living” (Ber. 18 a). Similarly, it was their doctrine (Ber.
17 a, and in several other passages)—though not quite consistently held—as it
was that of our Lord (
Quotations on these, and discussions on kindred subjects might lead us far beyond our present scope. But the second of the parables above quoted will point the direction of the final conclusions at which Rabbinism arrived. It is not, as in the Gospel, pardon and peace, but labour with the “may be” of reward. As for the “after death,” paradise, hell, the resurrection, and the judgment, voices are more discordant than ever, opinions more unscriptural, and descriptions more repulsively fabulous. This is not the place farther to trace the doctrinal views of the Rabbis, to attempt to arrange and to follow them up. Work-righteousness and study of the law are the surest key to heaven. There is a kind of purgation, if not of purgatory, after death. Some seem even to have held the annihilation of the wicked. Taking the widest and most generous views of the Rabbis, they may be thus summed up: All Israel have share in the world to come; the pious among the Gentiles also have part in it. Only the perfectly just enter at once into paradise; all the rest pass through a period of purification and perfection, variously lasting, up to one year. But notorious breakers of the law, and especially apostates from the Jewish faith, and heretics, have no hope whatever, either here or hereafter! Such is the last word which the synagogue has to say to mankind.
Not thus are we taught by the Messiah, the King of the Jews. If we learn our loss, we also learn that “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Our righteousness is that freely bestowed on us by Him “Who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.” “With His stripes we are healed.” The law which we obey is that which He has put within our hearts, by which we become temples of the Holy Ghost. “The Dayspring from on high hath visited us” through the tender mercy of our God. The Gospel hath brought life and immortality to light, for we know Whom we have believed; and “perfect love casteth out fear.” Not even the problems of sickness, sorrow, suffering, and death are unnoticed. “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” The tears of earth’s night hang as dewdrops on flower and tree, presently to sparkle like diamonds in the morning sun. For, in that night of nights has Christ mingled the sweat of human toil and sorrow with the precious blood of His agony, and made it drop on earth as sweet balsam to heal its wounds, to soothe its sorrows, and to take away its death.
We read in the Mishnah (Kidd. iv. 14) as follows: “Rabbi Meir said: Let a man always teach his son a cleanly and a light trade; and let him pray to Him whose are wealth and riches; for there is no trade which has not both poverty and riches, and neither does poverty come from the trade nor yet riches, but everything according to one’s deserving (merit). Rabbi Simeon, the son of Eleazer, said: Hast thou all thy life long seen a beast or a bird which has a trade? Still they are nourished, and that without anxious care. And if they, who are created only to serve me, shall not I expect to be nourished without anxious care, who am created to serve my Maker? Only that if I have been evil in my deeds, I forfeit my support. Abba Gurjan of Zadjan said, in name of Abba Gurja: Let not a man bring up his son to be a donkey-driver, nor a camel-driver, nor a barber, nor a sailor, nor a shepherd, nor a pedlar; for their occupations are those of thieves. In his name, Rabbi Jehudah said: Donkey-drivers are mostly wicked; camel-drivers mostly honest; sailors mostly pious; the best among physicians is for Gehenna, and the most honest of butchers a companion of Amalek. Rabbi Nehorai said: I let alone every trade of this world, and teach my son nothing but the Thorah (the law of God); for a man eats of the fruit of it in this world (as it were, lives upon earth on the interest), while the capital remaineth for the world to come. But what is left over (what remains) in every trade (or worldly employment) is not so. For, if a man fall into ill-health, or come to old age or into trouble (chastisement), and is no longer able to stick to his work, lo! he dies of hunger. But the Thorah is not so, for it keeps a man from evil in youth, and in old age gives him both a hereafter and the hopeful waiting for it. What does it say about youth? ‘They that wait upon the Lord shall renew strength.’ And what about old age? ‘They shall still bring forth fruit in old age.’ And this is what is said of Abraham our father: ‘And Abraham was old, and Jehovah blessed Abraham in all things.’ But we find that Abraham our father kept the whole Thorah—the whole, even to that which had not yet been given—as it is said, ‘Because that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’”
If
this quotation has been long, it will in many respects prove instructive; for it
not only affords a favourable specimen of Mishnic teaching, but gives insight
into the principles, the reasoning, and the views of the Rabbis. At the outset,
the saying of Rabbi Simeon—which, however, we should remember, was spoken
nearly a century after the time when our Lord had been upon earth—reminds us of
His own words (
This
influence of the Jewish surroundings upon the circumstances of the gospel
history has a most important bearing. It helps us to realise what Jewish life
had been at the time of Christ, and to comprehend what might seem peculiarities
in the gospel narrative. Thus—to come to the subject of this chapter—we now
understand how so many of the disciples and followers of the Lord gained their
living by some craft; how in the same spirit the Master Himself condescended to
the trade of His adoptive father; and how the greatest of His apostles
throughout earned his bread by the labour of his hands, probably following, like
the Lord Jesus, the trade of his father. For it was a principle, frequently
expressed, if possible “not to forsake the trade of the father”—most likely not
merely from worldly considerations, but because it might be learned in the
house; perhaps even from considerations of respect for parents. And what in this
respect Paul practised, that he also preached. Nowhere is the dignity of labour
and the manly independence of honest work more clearly set forth than in his
Epistles. At Corinth, his first search seems to have been for work (
Now,
we certainly do not pretend to find a parallel to St. Paul among even the best
and the noblest of the Rabbis. Yet Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, not merely trained
at the feet of the great Gamaliel, “that sun in Israel,” but deeply imbued with
the Jewish spirit and lore; insomuch that long afterwards, when he is writing of
the deepest mysteries of Christianity, we catch again and again expressions that
remind us of some that occur in the earliest record of that secret Jewish
doctrine, which was only communicated to the most select of the select sages.
And this same love of honest labour, the same spirit of manly independence, the same horror of trafficking with the law, and using it either “as a crown or as a spade,” was certainly characteristic of the best Rabbis. Quite different in this respect also—far asunder as were the aims of their lives—were the feelings of Israel from those of the Gentiles around. The philosophers of Greece and Rome denounced manual labour as something degrading; indeed, as incompatible with the full exercise of the privileges of a citizen. Those Romans who allowed themselves not only to be bribed in their votes, but expected to be actually supported at the public expense, would not stoop to the defilement of work. The Jews had another aim in life, another pride and ambition. It is difficult to give an idea of the seeming contrasts united in them. Most aristocratic and exclusive, contemptuous of mere popular cries, yet at the same time most democratic and liberal; law-abiding, and with the profoundest reverence for authority and rank, and yet with this prevailing conviction at bottom, that all Israel were brethren, and as such stood on precisely the same level, the eventual differences arising only from this, that the mass failed to realise what Israel’s real vocation was, and how it was to be attained, viz., by theoretical and practical engagement with the law, compared to which everything else was but secondary and unimportant.
But
this combination of study with honest manual labour—the one to support the
other—had not been always equally honoured in Israel. We distinguish here three
periods. The law of Moses evidently recognised the dignity of labour, and this
spirit of the Old Testament appeared in the best times of the Jewish nation. The
book of Proverbs, which contains so many sketches of what a happy, holy home in
Israel had been, is full of the praises of domestic industry. But the Apocrypha,
notably Ecclesiasticus (
We can
scarcely wonder at this, since it was a Rabbinical principle, that “whoever does
not teach his son a trade is as if he brought him up to be a robber” (Kidd.
4.14). The Midrash gives the following curious paraphrase of
But irrespective of this, two things are plain on comparison of the saying in its Rabbinical and in its Christian form. First, in the parable as employed by our Lord, everything is referred to Him; and the essential difference ultimately depends upon our relationship towards Him. The comparison here is not between much study and little work, or little Talmudical knowledge and much work; but between coming to Him and hearing these sayings of His, and then either doing or else not doing them. Secondly, such an alternative is never presented by Christianity as, on the one hand, much knowledge and few works, and on the other, little knowledge and many works. But in Christianity the vital difference lies between works and no works; between absolute life and absolute death; all depending upon this, whether a man has digged down to the right foundation, and built upon the rock which is Christ, or has tried to build up the walls of his life without such foundation. Thus the very similarity of the saying in its Rabbinical form brings out all the more clearly the essential difference and contrariety in spirit existing between Rabbinism, even in its purest form, and the teaching of our Lord.
The question of the relation between the best teaching of the Jewish sages and some of the sayings of our Lord is of such vital importance, that this digression will not seem out of place. A few further quotations bearing on the dignity of labour may be appropriate. The Talmud has a beautiful Haggadah, which tells how, when Adam heard this sentence of his Maker: “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee,” he burst into tears, “What!” he exclaimed; “Lord of the world, am I then to eat out of the same manger with the ass?” But when he heard these additional words: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” his heart was comforted. For herein lies (according to the Rabbis) the dignity of labour, that man is not forced to, nor unconscious in, his work; but that while becoming the servant of the soil, he wins from it the precious fruits of golden harvest. And so, albeit labour may be hard, and the result doubtful, as when Israel stood by the shores of the Red Sea, yet a miracle will cleave these waters also. And still the dignity of labour is great in itself: it reflects honour; it nourisheth and cherisheth him that engageth in it. For this reason also did the law punish with fivefold restitution the theft of an ox, but only with fourfold that of a sheep; because the former was that with which a man worked.
Assuredly St. Paul spoke also as a Jew when he admonished the Ephesians (
In general, the following sound views are expressed in the Talmud (Ber. 17 a): “The Rabbi of Jabne said: I am simply a being like my neighbour. He works in the field, and I in the town. We both rise early to go to work; and there is no cause for the one setting himself up above the other. Do not think that the one does more than the other; for we have been taught that there is as much merit in doing that which is little as that which is great, provided the state of our hearts be right.” And so a story is told, how one who dug cisterns and made baths (for purification) accosted the great Rabbi Jochanan with the words: “I am as great a man as thou”; since, in his own sphere, he served the wants of the community quite as much as the most learned teacher in Israel. In the same spirit another Rabbi admonished to strict conscientiousness, since in a sense all work, however humble, was really work for God. There can be no doubt that the Jewish tradesman who worked in such a spirit would be alike happy and skilful.
It
must have been a great privilege to be engaged in any work connected with the
Temple. A large number of workmen were kept constantly employed there, preparing
what was necessary for the service. Perhaps it was only a piece of Jerusalem
jealousy of the Alexandrians which prompted such Rabbinical traditions, as,
that, when Alexandrians tried to compound the incense for the Temple, the column
of smoke did not ascend quite straight; when they repaired the large mortar in
which the incense was bruised, and again, the great cymbal with which the signal
for the commencement of the Temple music was given, in each case their work had
to be undone by Jerusalem workmen, in order to produce a proper mixture, or to
evoke the former sweet sounds. There can be no question, however,
notwithstanding Palestinian prejudices, that there were excellent Jewish workmen
in Alexandria; and plenty of them, too, as we know from their arrangement in
guilds in their great synagogue. Any poor workman had only to apply to his
guild, and he was supported till he found employment. The guild of coppersmiths
there had, as we are informed, for their device a leathern apron; and when it
members went abroad they used to carry with them a bed which could be taken to
pieces. At Jerusalem, where this guild was organised under its Rabban, or chief,
it possessed a synagogue and a burying-place of its own. But the Palestinian
workmen, though they kept by each other, had no exclusive guilds; the principles
of “free trade,” so to speak, prevailing among them. Bazaars and streets were
named after them. The workmen of Jerusalem were specially distinguished for
their artistic skill. A whole valley—that of the Tyropoeon—was occupied by
dairies; hence its name, “valley of cheesemongers.” Even in
From their love of building and splendour the Herodian princes must have kept many tradesmen in constant work. At the re-erection of the Temple no less than eighteen thousand were so employed in various handicrafts, some of them implying great artistic skill. Even before that, Herod the Great is said to have employed a large number of the most experienced masters to teach the one thousand priests who were to construct the Holy Place itself. For, in the building of that part of the Temple no laymen were engaged. As we know, neither hammer, axe, chisel, nor any tool of iron was used within the sacred precincts. The reason of this is thus explained in the Mishnah, when describing how all the stones for the altar were dug out of virgin-earth, no iron tool being employed in their preparation: “Iron is created to cut short the life of man; but the altar to prolong it. Hence it is not becoming to use that which shortens for that which lengthens” (Midd. iii. 4). Those who know the magnificence and splendour of that holy house will be best able to judge what skill in workmanship its various parts must have required. An instance may be interesting on account of its connection with the most solemn fact of New Testament history. We read in the Mishnah (Shek. viii. 5): “Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, said, in the name of Rabbi Simeon, the son of the (former) Sagan (assistant of the high-priest): The veil (of the Most Holy Place) was an handbreadth thick, and woven of seventy-two twisted plaits; each plait consisted of twenty-four threads” (according to the Talmud, six threads of each of the four Temple-colours—white, scarlet, blue, and gold). “It was forty cubits long, and twenty wide (sixty feet by thirty), and made of eighty-two myriads” (the meaning of this in the Mishnah is not plain). “Two of these veils were made every year, and it took three hundred priests to immerse one” (before use). These statements must of course be considered as dealing in “round numbers”; but they are most interesting as helping us to realise, not only how the great veil of the Temple was rent, when the Lord of that Temple died on the cross, but also how the occurrence could have been effectually concealed from the mass of the people.
To
turn to quite another subject. It is curious to notice in how many respects
times and circumstances have really not changed. The old Jewish employers of
labour seem to have had similar trouble with their men to that of which so many
in our own times loudly complain. We have an emphatic warning to this effect, to
beware of eating fine bread and giving black bread to one’s workmen or servants;
not to sleep on feathers and give them straw pallets, more especially if they
were co-religionists, for, as it is added, he who gets a Hebrew slave gets his
master! Possibly something of this kind was on the mind of St. Paul when he
wrote this most needful precept (
The
remarkable change which we have noticed in the views of Jewish authorities, from
contempt to almost affectation of manual labour, could certainly not have been
arbitrary. But as we fail to discover here any religious motive, we can only
account for it on the score of altered political and social circumstances. So
long as the people were, at least nominally, independent, and in possession of
their own land, constant engagement in a trade would probably mark an inferior
social stage, and imply either voluntary or necessary preoccupation with the
things of this world that perish with the using. It was otherwise when Judaea
was in the hands of strangers. Then honest labour afforded the means, and the
only means, of manly independence. To engage in it, just sufficient to secure
this result, to “stand in need of no one”; to be able to hold up one’s head
before friend and foe; to make unto God moral sacrifice of natural inclination,
strength and time, so as to be able freely and independently to devote oneself
to the study of the Divine law, was a noble resolve. And it brought its own
reward. If, on the one hand, the alternation of physical and mental labour was
felt to be healthy, on the other—and this had been the main object in
view—there never were men more fearlessly outspoken, more unconcerned as to
mere personality or as to consequences, more independent in thought and word
than these Rabbis. We can understand the withering scorn of St. Jude (
The Mishnah, indeed, does not in so many words inform us how the change in public feeling, to which we have referred, was brought about. But there are plenty of hints to guide us in certain short caustic sentences which would be inexplicable, unless read in the light of the history of that time. Thus, as stated in the previous chapter, Shemaajah admonished: “Love work, hate Rabbiship, and do not press on the notice of those in power.” Similarly, Avtaljon warned the sages to be cautious in their words, for fear of incurring banishment for themselves and their followers (Ab. i. 10,11). And Rabbi Gamaliel II had it (ii. 3): “Be cautious with the powers that be, for they only seek intercourse with a person for their own advantage. They are as if they loved you, when it serves for their profit, but in the hour of his need they do not stand by a man.” In the same category of sayings for the times we may rank this of Rabbi Matithja: “Meet every one with a salutation of peace, and prefer to be the tail of lions, but be not the head to foxes.” It is needless to multiply similar quotations, all expressive of an earnest desire for honourable independence through personal exertion.
Quite different form those as to trades were the Rabbinical views about commerce, as we shall immediately show. In fact, the general adoption of business, which has so often been made the subject of jeer against Israel, marks yet another social state, and a terrible social necessity. When Israel was scattered by units, hundreds, or even thousands, but still a miserable, vanquished, homeless, weak minority among the nations of the earth—avoided, down-trodden, and at the mercy of popular passion—no other course was open to them than to follow commerce. Even if Jewish talent could have identified itself with the pursuits of the Gentiles, would public life have been open to them—we shall not say, on equal, but, on any terms? Or, to descend a step lower—except in those crafts which might be peculiarly theirs, could Jewish tradesmen have competed with those around? Would they even have been allowed to enter the lists? Moreover, it was necessary for their self-defence—almost for their existence—that they should gain influence. And in their circumstances this could only be obtained by the possession of wealth, and the sole road to this was commerce.
There
can be no question that, according to the Divine purpose, Israel was not
intended to be a commercial people. The many restrictions to the intercourse
between Jews and Gentiles, which the Mosaic law everywhere presents, would alone
have sufficed to prevent it. Then there was the express enactment against taking
interest upon loans (
With this closes the Biblical history of Jewish commerce in Palestine, in the strict sense of that term. But our reference to what may be called the Scriptural indications against the pursuit of commerce brings up a kindred subject, for which, although confessedly a digression, we claim a hearing, on account of its great importance. Those most superficially acquainted with modern theological controversy are aware, that certain opponents of the Bible have specially directed their attacks against the antiquity of the Pentateuch, although they have not yet arranged among themselves what parts of the Pentateuch were written by different authors, nor by how many, nor by whom, nor at what times, nor when or by whom they were ultimately collected into one book. Now what we contend for in this connection is, that the legislation of the Pentateuch affords evidence of its composition before the people were settled in Palestine. We arrive at this conclusion in the following manner. Supposing a code of laws and institutions to be drawn up by a practical legislator—for unquestionably they were in force in Israel—we maintain, that no human lawgiver could have ordered matters for a nation in a settled state as we find it done in the Pentateuch. The world has had many speculative constitutions of society drawn up by philosophers and theorists, from Plato to Rousseau and Owen. None of these would have suited, or even been possible in a settled state of society. But no philosopher would ever have imagined or thought of such laws as some of the provisions in the Pentateuch. To select only a few, almost at random. Let the reader think of applying, for example, to England, such provisions as that all males were to appear three times a year in the place which the Lord would choose, or those connected with the Sabbatic and the Jubilee years, or those regulating religious and charitable contributions, or those concerning the corners of fields, or those prohibiting the taking of interest or those connected with the Levitical cities. Then let any one seriously ask himself, whether such institutions could have been for the first time propounded or introduced by a legislator at the time of David, or Hezekiah, or of Ezra? The more we think of the spirit and of the details of the Mosaic legislation, the stronger grows our conviction, that such laws and institutions could have been only introduced before the people actually settled in the land. So far as we are aware, this line of argument has not before been proposed; and yet it seems necessary for our opponents to meet this preliminary and, as we think, insuperable difficulty of their theory, before we can be asked to discuss their critical objections.
But to
return. Passing from Biblical, or, at least, from Old Testament to later times,
we find the old popular feeling in Palestine on the subject of commerce still
existing. For once Josephus here correctly expresses the views of his
countrymen. “As for ourselves,” he writes (Ag. Apion, i, 60-68), “we neither
inhabit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a
mixture with other men as arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote
from the sea, and having a fruitful country for our habitation, we take pains in
cultivating that only.” Nor were the opinions of the Rabbis different. We know
in what low esteem pedlars were held by the Jewish authorities. But even
commerce was not much more highly regarded. It has been rightly said that, “in
the sixty-three tractates of which the Talmud is composed, scarcely a word
occurs in honour of commerce, but much to point out the dangers attendant upon
money-making.” “Wisdom,” says Rabbi Jochanan, in explanation of
It will perhaps have been observed, that, with the changing circumstances of the people, the views as to commerce also underwent a slow process of modification, the main object now being to restrict such occupations, and especially to regulate them in accordance with religion. Inspectorships of weights and measures are of comparatively late date in our own country. The Rabbis in this, as in so many other matters, were long before us. They appointed regular inspectors, whose duty it was to go from market to market, and, more than that, to fix the current market prices (Baba B. 88). The prices for produce were ultimately determined by each community. Few merchants would submit to interference with what is called the law of supply and demand. But the Talmudical laws against buying up grain and withdrawing it from sale, especially at a time of scarcity, are exceedingly strict. Similarly, it was prohibited artificially to raise prices, especially of produce. Indeed, it was regarded as cheating to charge a higher profit than sixteen per cent. In general, some would have it that in Palestine no one should make profit out of the necessaries of life. Cheating was declared to involve heavier punishment than a breach of some of the other moral commandments. For the latter, it was argued, might be set right by repentance. But he who cheated took in not merely one or several persons, but every one; and how could that ever be set right? And all were admonished to remember, that “God punisheth even where the eye of an earthly judge cannot penetrate.”
We have spoken of a gradual modification of Rabbinical views with the changing circumstances of the nation. This probably comes out most clearly in the advice of the Talmud (Baba M. 42), to divide one’s money into three parts—to lay out one in the purchase of land, to invest the second in merchandise, and to keep the third in hand as cash. But there was always this comfort, which Rab enumerated among the blessings of the next world, that there was no commerce there (Ber. 17 a). And so far as this world was concerned, the advice was to engage in business, in order with the profit made to assist the sages in their pursuits, just as Sebua, one of the three wealthy men of Jerusalem, had assisted the great Hillel. From what has been said, it will be inferred that the views expressed as to Palestinian, or even Babylonian Jews, did not apply to those who were “dispersed abroad” among the various Gentile nations. To them, as already shown, commerce would be a necessity, and, in fact, the grand staple of their existence. If this may be said of all Jews of the dispersion, it applies specially to that community which was the richest and most influential among them—we mean the Jews of Alexandria.
Few phases, even in the ever-changeful history of the Jewish people, are more strange, more varied in interest, or more pathetic than those connected with the Jews of Alexandria. The immigration of Jews into Egypt commenced even before the Babylonish captivity. Naturally it received great increase from that event, and afterwards from the murder of Gedaliah. But the real exodus commenced under Alexander the Great. That monarch accorded to the Jews in Alexandria the same rights as its Greek inhabitants enjoyed, and so raised them to the rank of the privileged classes. Henceforth their numbers and their influence grew under successive rulers. We find them commanding Egyptian armies, largely influencing Egyptian thought and inquiry, and partially leavening it by the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek. Of the so-called Temple of Onias at Leontopolis, which rivalled that of Jerusalem, and of the magnificence of the great synagogue at Alexandria, we cannot speak in this place. There can be no doubt that, in the Providence of God, the location of so many Jews in Alexandria, and the mental influence which they acquired, were designed to have an important bearing on the later spread of the Gospel of Christ among the Greek-speaking and Grecian-thinking educated world. In this, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was also largely helpful. Indeed, humanly speaking, it would have scarcely been possible without it. At the time of Philo the number of Jews in Egypt amounted to no less than one million. In Alexandria they occupied two out of the five quarters of the town, which were called after the first five letters of the alphabet. They lived under rulers of their own, almost in a state of complete independence. Theirs was the quarter Delta, along the seashore. The supervision of navigation, both by sea and river, was wholly entrusted to them. In fact, the large export trade, especially in grain—and Egypt was the granary of the world—was entirely in their hands. The provisioning of Italy and of the world was the business of the Jews. It is a curious circumstance, as illustrating how little the history of the world changes, that during the troubles at Rome the Jewish bankers of Alexandria were able to obtain from their correspondents earlier and more trustworthy political tidings than any one else. This enabled them to declare themselves in turn for Caesar and for Octavius, and to secure the full political and financial results flowing from such policy, just as the great Jewish banking houses at the beginning of this century were similarly able to profit by earlier and more trustworthy news of events than the general public could obtain.
But no sketch of commerce among the early Jews, however brief, would be complete without some further notice both of the nature of the trade carried on, and of the legal regulations which guarded it. The business of the travelling hawker, of course, was restricted to negotiating an exchange of the products of one district for those of another, to buying and selling articles of home produce, or introducing among those who affected fashion or luxury in country districts specimens of the latest novelties from abroad. The foreign imports were, with the exception of wood and metals, chiefly articles of luxury. Fish from Spain, apples from Crete, cheese from Bithynia; lentils, beans, and gourds from Egypt and Greece; plates from Babylon, wine from Italy, beer from Media, household vessels from Sidon, baskets from Egypt, dresses from India, sandals from Laodicea, shirts from Cilicia, veils from Arabia—such were some of the goods imported. On the other hand, the exports from Palestine consisted of such produce as wheat, oil, balsam, honey, figs, etc., the value of exports and imports being nearly equal, and the balance, if any, in favour of Palestine.
Then, as to the laws regulating trade and commerce, they were so minute as almost to remind us of the Saviour’s strictures on Pharisaic punctiliousness. Several Mishnic tractates are full of determinations on these points. “The dust of the balances” is a strictly Jewish idea and phrase. So far did the law interfere, as to order that a wholesale dealer must cleanse the measures he used once every month, and a retail dealer twice a week; that all weights were to be washed once a week, and the balances wiped every time they had been used. By way of making assurance doubly sure, the seller had to give rather more than an ounce in addition to every ten pounds, if the article consisted of fluids, or half that if of solids (Baba B. v. 10, 11). Here are some of the principal ordinances relating to trade. A bargain was not considered closed until both parties had taken possession of their respective properties. But after one of them had received the money, it was deemed dishonourable and sinful for the other to draw back. In case of overcharge, or a larger than the lawful profit, a purchaser had the right of returning the article, or claiming the balance in money, provided he applied for it after an interval not longer than was needful for showing the goods to another merchant or to a relative. Similarly, the seller was also protected. Money-changers were allowed to charge a fixed discount for light money, or to return it within a certain period, if below the weight at which they had taken it. A merchant might not be pressed to name the lowest price, unless the questioner seriously intended to purchase; nor might he be even reminded of a former overcharge to induce him to lower his prices. Goods of different qualities might not be mixed, even though the articles added were of superior value. For the protection of the public, agriculturists were forbidden to sell in Palestine wine diluted with water, unless in places where such was the known usage. Indeed, one of the Rabbis went so far as to blame merchants who gave little presents to children by way of attracting the custom of their parents. It is difficult to imagine what they would have said to the modern practice of giving discount to servants. All agreed in reprobating as deceit every attempt to give a better appearance to an article exposed for sale. Purchases of corn could not be concluded till the general market-price had been fixed.
But beyond all this, every kind of speculation was regarded as akin to usury. With the delicacy characteristic of Rabbinical law, creditors were expressly prohibited from using anything belonging to a debtor without paying for it, from sending him on an errand, or even accepting a present from one who had solicited an advance. So punctilious were the Rabbis in avoiding the appearance of usury, that a woman who borrowed a loaf from her neighbour was told to fix its value at the time, lest a sudden rise in flour should make the loaf returned worth more than that borrowed! If a house or a field were rented, a somewhat higher charge might be made, if the money were not paid in advance, but not in the case of a purchase. It was regarded as an improper kind of speculation to promise a merchant one-half of the profit on the sales he effected, or to advance him money and then allow him one-half of the profits on his transactions. In either case, it was thought, a merchant would be exposed to more temptation. By law he was only entitled to a commission and to compensation for his time and trouble.
Equally strict were the regulations affecting debtor and creditor. Advances were
legally secured by regular documents, drawn out at the expense of the debtor,
and attested by witnesses, about whose signature minute directions are given. To
prevent mistakes, the sum lent was marked at the top, as well as in the body of
the document. A person was not taken as security for another after the loan was
actually contracted. In reference to interest (which among the Romans was
calculated monthly), in regard to pledges, and in dealing with insolvent
debtors, the mildness of the Jewish law has never been equalled. It was lawful,
under certain restrictions, to take a pledge, and in the event of non-payment to
sell it: but wearing apparel, bedding, the ploughshare, and all articles
required for the preparation of food were excepted. Similarly, it was unlawful,
under any circumstances, to take a pledge from a widow, or to sell that which
belonged to her. These are only some of the provisions by which the interest of
all parties were not only guarded, but a higher religious tone sought to be
imparted to ordinary life. Those who are acquainted with the state of matters
among the nations around, and the cruel exactions of the Roman law, will best
appreciate the difference in this respect also between Israel and the Gentiles.
The more the Rabbinical code is studied, the higher will be our admiration of
its provisions, characterised as these are by wisdom, kindliness, and delicacy,
we venture to say, far beyond any modern legislation. Not only the history of
the past, the present privileges, and the hope connected with the promises, but
the family, social, and public life which he found among his brethren would
attach a Jew to his people. Only one thing was awanting—but that, alas! the
“one thing needful.” For, in the language of St. Paul (
It would have been difficult to proceed far either in Galilee or in Judaea without coming into contact with an altogether peculiar and striking individuality, differing from all around, and which would at once arrest attention. This was the Pharisee. Courted or feared, shunned or flattered, reverently looked up to or laughed at, he was equally a power everywhere, both ecclesiastically and politically, as belonging to the most influential, the most zealous, and the most closely-connected religions fraternity, which in the pursuit of its objects spared neither time nor trouble, feared no danger, and shrunk from no consequences. Familiar as the name sounds to readers of the New Testament and students of Jewish history, there is no subject on which more crude or inaccurate notions prevail than that of Pharisaism, nor yet any which, rightly understood, gives fuller insight into the state of Judaism at the time of our Lord, or better illustrates His words and His deeds. Let us first view the Pharisee as, himself seemingly unmoved, he moves about among the crowd, which either respectfully gives way or curiously looks after him.
There was probably no town or village inhabited by Jews which had not its Pharisees, although they would, of course, gather in preference about Jerusalem with its Temple, and what, perhaps would have been even dearer to the heart of a genuine Pharisee—its four hundred and eighty synagogues, its Sanhedrims (great and small), and its schools of study. There could be no difficulty in recognising such an one. Walking behind him, the chances were, he would soon halt to say his prescribed prayers. If the fixed time for them had come, he would stop short in the middle of the road, perhaps say one section of them, move on, again say another part, and so on, till, whatever else might be doubted, there could be no question of the conspicuousness of his devotions in market-place or corners of streets. There he would stand, as taught by the traditional law, would draw his feet well together, compose his body and clothes, and bend so low “that every vertebra in his back would stand out separate,” or, at least, till “the skin over his heart would fall into folds” (Ber. 28 b). The workman would drop his tools, the burden-bearer his load; if a man had already one foot in the stirrup, he would withdraw it. The hour had come, and nothing could be suffered to interrupt or disturb him. The very salutation of a king, it was said, must remain unreturned; nay, the twisting of a serpent around one’s heel must remain unheeded. Nor was it merely the prescribed daily seasons of prayer which so claimed his devotions. On entering a village, and again on leaving it, he must say one or two benedictions; the same in passing through a fortress, in encountering any danger, in meeting with anything new, strange, beautiful, or unexpected. And the longer he prayed the better. In the view of the Rabbis this had a twofold advantage; for “much prayer is sure to be heard,” and “prolix prayer prolongeth life.” At the same time, as each prayer expressed, and closed with a benediction of the Divine Name, there would be special religious merit attaching to mere number, and a hundred “benedictions” said in one day was a kind of measure of great piety.
But on meeting a Pharisee face to face his identity could still less be doubted. His self-satisfied, or else mock-modest or ostentatiously meek bearing would betray him, even irrespective of his superciliousness towards others, his avoidance of every touch of persons or things which he held unclean, and his extravagant religious displays. We are, of course, speaking of the class, or, rather, the party, as such, and of its tendencies, and not of all the individuals who composed it. Besides, there were, as we shall by-and-by see, various degrees among them, from the humblest Pharisee, who was simply a member of the fraternity, only initiated in its lowest degree, or perhaps even a novice, to the most advanced chasid, or “pietist.” The latter would, for example, bring every day a trespass-offering, in case he had committed some offence of which he was doubtful. How far the punctiliousness of that class, in observing the laws of Levitical purity, would go, may be gathered from a Rabbi, who would not allow his son to remain in the room while he was in the hands of the surgeon, lest he might be defiled by contact with the amputated limb, which, of course, was thenceforth dead. Another chasid went so far in his zeal for Sabbath observance, that he would not build up again his house because he had thought about it on the Sabbath; and it was even declared by some improper to intrust a letter to a Gentile, lest he should deliver it on the holy day! These are real, but by no means extreme cases. For, a Rabbi, contemporary with the apostles, was actually obliged to denounce, as incompatible with the continuance of society, the vagaries of the so-called “Chasid Shoteh,” or silly pietist. What was meant by these will appear from such instances as the refusal to save a woman from drowning for fear of touching a female, or waiting to put off the phylacteries before stretching out a hand to rescue a child from the water!
Readers of the New Testament will remember that the very dress of the Pharisees differed from that of others. Simple as the garb of Orientals is, it must not be thought that, in those days, wealth, rank, and luxury were not recognisable quite as much, if not more, than among ourselves. No doubt the polished Grecian, the courtly Herodian, the wealthy Sadducee, as well as many of the lady patronesses of the Pharisees (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 32-45), would have been easily recognised. At any rate, Jewish writings give us such descriptions of their toilette, that we can almost transport ourselves among the fashionable society of Tiberias, Caesarea, Jerusalem, or that of “the dispersed,” who were residents of Alexandria or of the wealthy towns of Babylonia.
Altogether, it seems, eighteen garments were supposed to complete an elegant
toilette. The material, the colour, and the cut distinguished the wearer. While
the poor used the upper garment for a covering at night, the fashionable wore
the finest white, embroidered, or even purple garments, with curiously-wrought
silk girdles. It was around this upper garment that “the borders” were worn
which the Pharisees “enlarged” (
As for ornaments, gentlemen generally wore a seal, either on the ring-finger or suspended round the neck. Some of them had also bracelets above the wrist (commonly of the right arm), made of ivory, gold, or precious stones strung together. Of course, the fashionable lady was similarly adorned, adding to the bracelets finger-rings, ankle-rings, nose-rings, ear-rings, gorgeous head-dresses, necklaces, chains, and what are nowadays called “charms.” As it may interest some, we shall add a few sentences of description. The ear-ring was either plain, or had a drop, a pendant, or a little bell inserted. The nose-ring, which the traditional law ordered to be put aside on the Sabbath, hung gracefully over the upper lip, yet so as not to interfere with the salute of the privileged friend. Two kinds of necklaces were worn—one close-fitting, the other often consisting of precious stones or pearls, and hanging down over the chest, often as low as the girdle. The fashionable lady would wear two or three such chains, to which smelling-bottles and various ornaments, even heathen “charms,” were attached. Gold pendants descended from the head-ornament, which sometimes rose like a tower, or was wreathed in graceful snake-like coils. The anklets were generally so wrought as in walking to make a sound like little bells. Sometimes the two ankle-rings were fastened together, which would oblige the fair wearer to walk with small, mincing steps. If to all this we add gold and diamond pins, and say that our very brief description is strictly based upon contemporary notices, the reader will have some idea of the appearance of fashionable society.
The
sketch just given will be of some practical use if it helps us more fully to
realise the contrast presented by the appearance of the Pharisee. Whether
sternly severe, blandly meek, or zealously earnest, he would carefully avoid all
contact with one who was not of the fraternity, or even occupied an inferior
degree in it, as we shall by-and-by show. He would also be recognisable by his
very garb. For, in the language of our Lord, the Pharisees made “broad their
phylacteries,” and “enlarged the borders of their garments.” The latter
observance, at least so far as concerned the wearing of memorial fringes on the
borders of the garments—not the conspicuous enlargement of these
borders—rested really on a Divine ordinance (
If the practice of wearing borders with fringes had Scriptural authority, we are well
convinced that no such plea could be urged for the so-called “phylacteries.” The
observance arose from a literal interpretation of
The
“tephillin” were worn on the left arm, towards the heart, and on the forehead.
They consisted—to describe them roughly—of capsules, containing, on parchment
(that for the forehead on four distinct parchments), these four passages of
Scripture:
The
above may serve as a specimen alike of Rabbinical exegesis and theological
inferences. It will also help us to understand, how in such a system
inconvenient objections, arising from the plain meaning of Scripture, would be
summarily set aside by exalting the interpretations of men above the teaching of
the Bible. This brings us straight to the charge of our Lord against the
Pharisees (
Before
passing from this subject, it may be convenient to explain the meaning of the
Greek term “phylacteries” for these “tephillin,” and to illustrate its aptness.
It is now almost generally admitted, that the real meaning of phylacteries is
equivalent to amulets or charms. And as such the Rabbinists really regarded and
treated them, however much they might otherwise have disclaimed all connection
with heathen views. In this connection we are not going to enter into the
unsavoury subject of their heathen superstitions, such as where to find, how to
detect, and by what means to get rid of evil spirits, or how to conjure up
demons—as these are indicated in the Talmud. Considering the state of
civilisation at the time, and the general prevalence of superstition, we should
perhaps have scarcely wondered at all this, had it not been for the claims which
the Rabbis set up to Divine authority, and the terrible contrast exhibited
between their teaching and that—we will not say of the New, but—of the Old
Testament. In reference to the “phylacteries,” even the language of Josephus
(Ant. iv, 212-213) savours of belief in their magical efficacy; although in this
matter also he is true to himself, showing us, at the same time, that certain
proverbial views of gratitude were already in vogue in his time. For, writing of
the phylacteries, which, he maintains, the Jews wore in remembrance of their
past deliverance, he observes, that this expression of their gratitude “served
not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future
favours!” Many instances of the magical ideas attaching to these “amulets” might
be quoted; but the following will suffice. It is said that, when a certain Rabbi
left the audience of some king, he had turned his back upon the monarch. Upon
this, the courtiers would have killed the Rabbi, but were deterred by seeing
that the straps of his “tephillin” shone like bands of fire about him; thus
verifying the promise in
What has been said will in some measure prepare the reader for investigating the history and influence of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Let it be borne in mind, that patriotism and religion equally combined to raise them in popular esteem. What made Palestine a land separate and distinct from the heathen nations around, among whom the ruling families would fain have merged them, was that Jewish element which the Pharisees represented. Their very origin as a party stretched back to the great national struggle which had freed the soil of Palestine from Syrian domination. In turn, the Pharisees had deserted those Maccabees whom formerly they had supported, and dared persecution and death, when the descendants of the Maccabees declined into worldly pomp and Grecian ways, and would combine the royal crown of David with the high-priest’s mitre. And now, whoever might fear Herod or his family, the Pharisees at least would not compromise their principles. Again, were they not the representatives of the Divine law—not only of that given to Israel on Mount Sinai, but also of those more secret ordinances which were only verbally communicated to Moses, in explanation of, and addition to the law? If they had made “a hedge” around the law, it was only for the safety of Israel, and for their better separation from all that was impure, as well as from the Gentiles. As for themselves, they were bound by vows and obligations of the strictest kind. Their dealings with the world outside their fraternity, their occupations, their practices, their bearing, their very dress and appearance among that motley crowd—either careless, gay, and Grecianising, or self-condemned by a practice in sad discord with their Jewish profession and principles—would gain for them the distinction of uppermost rooms at feasts, and chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi (“my great one, my great one”), in which their hearts so much delighted.
In very truth they mostly did represent, in some one or other degree of their order, what of earnestness and religious zeal there was in the land. Their name—probably in the first instance not chosen by themselves—had become to some a byword, to others a party title. And sadly they had declined from their original tendency—at least in most cases. They were not necessarily “scribes,” nor “lawyers,” nor yet “teachers of the law.” Nor were they a sect, in the ordinary sense of the term. But they were a fraternity, which consisted of various degrees, to which there was a regular novitiate, and which was bound by special vows and obligations. This fraternity was, so to speak, hereditary; so that St. Paul could in very truth speak of himself as “a Pharisee of the Pharisees”—“a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee.” That their general principles became dominant, and that they gave its distinctiveness alike to the teaching and the practices of the Synagogue, is sufficiently know. But what tremendous influence they must have wielded to attain this position will best appear from the single fact, which has apparently been too much overlooked, of their almost incredibly small numbers. According to Josephus (Ant. xvii, 32-45), the number of the fraternity amounted at the time of Herod only to about six thousand. Yet this inconsiderable minority could cast Judaism in its mould, and for such terrible evil give its final direction to the nation! Surely the springs of such a movement must have reached down to the very heart of Jewish religious life. What these were, and how they affected the whole community, deserves and requires not merely passing notice, but special and careful attention.
To
realise the state of religious society at the time of our Lord, the fact that
the Pharisees were a regular “order,” and that there were many such
“fraternities,” in great measure the outcome of the original Pharisees, must
always be kept in view. For the New Testament simply transports us among
contemporary scenes and actors, taking the then existent state of things, so to
speak, for granted. But the fact referred to explains many seemingly strange
circumstances, and casts fresh light upon all. Thus, if, to choose an
illustration, we should wonder how so early as the morning after the long
discussion in the Sanhedrim, which must have occupied a considerable part of the
day, “more than forty men” should have been found “banded together” under an
anathema, neither to eat nor to drink “till they had killed Paul” (
Three
words of modern significance, with which of late we have all become too
familiar, will probably better help us to understand the whole state of matters
than more elaborate explanations. They are connected with that ecclesiastical
system which in so many respects seems the counterpart of Rabbinism.
Ultramontanism is a direction of religious thought; the Ultramontanes are a
party; and the Jesuits not only its fullest embodiment, but an “order,” which,
originating in a revival of the spirit of the Papacy, gave rise to the
Ultramontanes as a party, and, in the wider diffusion of their principles, to
Ultramontanism as a tendency. Now, all this applies equally to the Pharisees and
to Pharisaism. To make the analogy complete, the order of the Jesuits also
consists of four degrees
Like that of the Jesuits, the order of the Pharisees originated in a period of great
religious reaction. They themselves delighted in tracing their history up to the
time of Ezra, and there may have been substantial, though not literal truth in
their claim. For we read in
At the
time of Ezra, as already noted, there was a great religious revival among those
who had returned to the land of their fathers. The profession which had of old
only characterised individuals in Israel (
Two points in Jewish history here claim our special attention, without attempting to unravel the whole somewhat tangled web of events. The first is the period immediately after Alexander the Great. It was one of the objects of the empire which he founded to Grecianise the world; and that object was fully prosecuted by his successors. Accordingly, we find a circle of Grecian cities creeping up along the coast, from Anthedon and Gaza in the south, northwards to Tyre and Seleucia, and eastwards to Damascus, Gadara, Pella, and Philadelphia, wholly belting the land of Israel. Thence the movement advanced into the interior, taking foothold in Galilee and Samaria, and gathering a party with increasing influence and spreading numbers among the people. Now it was under these circumstances, that the “Chasidim” as a party stood out to stem the torrent, which threatened to overwhelm alike the religion and the nationality of Israel. The actual contest soon came, and with it the second grand period in the history of Judaism. Alexander the Great had died in July 323 BC. About a century and a half later, the “Chasidim” had gathered around the Maccabees for Israel’s God and for Israel. But the zeal of the Maccabees soon gave place to worldly ambition and projects. When these leaders united in their person the high-priestly with the royal dignity, the party of the “Chasidim” not only deserted them, but went into open opposition. They called on them to resign the high-priesthood, and were ready to suffer martyrdom, as many of them did, for their outspoken convictions. Thenceforth the “Chasidim” of the early type disappear as a class. They had, as a party, already given place to the Pharisees—the modern “Nivdalim”; and when we meet them again they are only a higher order or branch of the Pharisees—“the pious” of old having, so to speak, become pietists.” Tradition (Men. 40) expressly distinguished “the early Chasidim” (harishonim) from “the later” (acheronim). No doubt, those are some of their principles, although tinged with later colouring, which are handed down as the characteristics of the “chasid” in such sayings of the Mishnah as: “What is mine is thine, and what is thine remains thine as well” (P. Ab. V. 10); “Hard to make angry, but easy to reconcile” (11); “Giving alms, and inducing others to do likewise” (13); “Going to the house of learning, and at the same time doing good works” (14).
The
earliest mention of the Pharisees occurs at the time of the Maccabees. As a
“fraternity” we meet them first under the rule of John Hyrcanus, the fourth of
the Maccabees from Mattathias (135-105 BC); although Josephus speaks of them
already two reigns earlier, at the time of Jonathan (Ant. xiii, 171-173). He may
have done so by anticipation, or applying later terms to earlier circumstances,
since there can be little doubt that the Essenes, whom he names at the same
time, had not then any corporate existence. Without questioning that, to use a
modern term, “the direction” existed at the time of Jonathan,
The result showed that, while the “therumah,” (see
The Temple)
or priestly “heave-offerings,” was regularly given, neither the first or
Levitical tithe, nor yet the so-called “second” or “poor’s tithe,” was paid, as
the law enjoined. But such transgression involved mortal sin, since it implied
the personal use of what really belonged to the Lord. Then it was that the
following arrangements were made. All that the “country people” (’am ha-aretz)
sold was to be considered “demai”—a word derived from the Greek for “people,”
and so betraying the time of its introduction, but really implying that it was
“doubtful” whether or not it had been tithed. In such cases the buyer had to
regard the “therumah,” and the “poor’s tithe” as still due on what he had
purchased. On the other hand, the Pharisees formed a “Chabura,” or fraternity,
of which each member—“Chaber,” or “companion”—bound himself to pay these
tithes before use or sale. Each “Chaber” was regarded as “neeman,” or
“credited”—his produce being freely bought and sold by the rest of the
“Chaberim.” Of course, the burden of additional expense which this involved to
each non-“chaber” was very great, since he had to pay “therumah” and tithe on
all that he purchased or used, while the Pharisee who bought from another
Pharisee was free. One cannot help suspecting that this, in connection with
kindred enactments, which bore very hard upon the mass of the people, while they
left “the Pharisee” untouched, may underlie the charge of our Lord (
But
the rigorous discharge of tithes was only one part of the obligations of a
“Chaber.” The other part consisted in an equally rigorous submission to all the
laws of Levitical purity as then understood. Indeed, the varied questions as to
what was, or what made “clean,” divided the one “order” of Pharisees into
members of various degrees. Four such degrees, according to increasing
strictness in “making clean,” are mentioned. It would take too long to explain
this fourfold gradation in its details. Suffice it, that, generally speaking, a
member of the first degree was called a “Chaber,” or “Ben hacheneseth,” “son of
the union”—an ordinary Pharisee; while the other three degrees were ranked
together under the generic name of “Teharoth” (purifications). These latter were
probably the “Chasidim” of the later period. The “Chaber,” or ordinary Pharisee,
only bound himself to tithing and avoidance of all Levitical uncleanness. The
higher degrees, on the other hand, took increasingly strict vows. Any one might
enter “the order” if he took, before three members, the solemn vow of observing
the obligations of the fraternity. A novitiate of a year (which was afterwards
shortened) was, however, necessary. The wife or widow of a “Chaber,” and his
children, were regarded as members of the fraternity. Those who entered the
family of a “Pharisee” had also to seek admission into the “order.” The general
obligations of a “Chaber” towards those that were “without” the fraternity were
as follows. He was neither to buy from, nor to sell to him anything, either in a
dry or fluid state; he was neither to eat at his table (as he might thus partake
of what had not been tithed), nor to admit him to his table, unless he had put
on the garments of “Chaber” (as his own old ones might else have carried
defilement); nor to go into any burying-place; nor to give “therumah” or tithes
to any priest who was not a member of the fraternity; nor to do anything in
presence of an “am ha-aretz,” or non-“Chaber,” which brought up points connected
with the laws of purification, etc. To these, other ordinances, partly of an
ascetic character, were added at a later period. But what is specially
remarkable is that not only was a novitiate required for the higher grades,
similar to that on first entering the order; but that, just as the garment of a
non-“chaber” defiled a “Chaber” of the first degree, that of the latter equally
defiled him of the second degree, and so on.
To sum up then: the fraternity of the Pharisees were bound by these two vows—that of tithing and that in regard to purifications. As the most varied questions would here arise in practice, which certainly were not answered in the law of Moses, the “traditions,” which were supposed to explain and supplement the Divine law, became necessary. In point of fact, the Rabbis speak of them in that sense, and describe them as “a hedge” around Israel and its law. That these traditions should have been traced up to oral communications made to Moses on Mount Sinai, and also deduced by ingenious methods from the letter of Scripture, was only a further necessity of the case. The result was a system of pure externalism, which often contravened the spirit of those very ordinances, the letter of which was slavishly worshipped. To what arrant hypocrisy it often gave rise, appears from Rabbinical writings almost as much as from the New Testament. We can understand how those “blind guides” would often be as great a trouble to their own party as to others. “The plague of Pharisaism” was not an uncommon expression; and this religious sore is ranked with “a silly pietist, a cunning sinner, and a woman Pharisee,” as constituting “the troubles of life” (Sot. iii. 4). “Shall we stop to explain the opinions of Pharisees?” asks a Rabbi, in supreme contempt for “the order” as such. “It is as a tradition among the Pharisees,” we read (Ab. de R. Nathan, 5), “to torment themselves in this world, and yet they will not get anything in the next.” It was suggested by the Sadducees, that “the Pharisees would by-and-by subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications.” On the other hand, almost Epicurean sentences are quoted among their utterances, such as, “Make haste, eat and drink, for the world in which we are is like a wedding feast”; “If thou possessest anything, make good cheer of it; for there is no pleasure underneath the sod, and death gives no respite...Men are like the flowers of the field; some flourish, while others fade away.”
“Like the flowers of the field!” What far other teaching of another Rabbi, Whom these rejected with scorn, do the words recall! And when from their words we turn to the kingdom which He came to found, we can quite understand the essential antagonism of nature between the two. Assuredly, it has been a bold stretch of assertion to connect in any way the origin or characteristics of Christianity with the Rabbis. Yet, when we bring the picture of Pharisaism, as drawn in Rabbinical writings, side by side with the sketch of it given by our Lord, we are struck not only with the life-likeness, but with the selection of the distinctive features of Pharisaism presented in His reproofs. Indeed, we might almost index the history of Pharisaism by passages from the New Testament. The “tithing of mint and anise,” to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law, and “the cleansing” of the outside—these twofold obligations of the Pharisees, “hedged around,” as they were, by a traditionalism which made void the spirit of the law, and which manifested itself in gross hypocrisy and religious boasting—are they not what we have just traced in the history of “the order?”
On
taking a retrospective view of Pharisaism, as we have described it, there is a
saying of our Lord which at first sight seems almost unaccountable. Yet it is
clear and emphatic. “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe
and do” (
We have here referred to only a few of the differences in ritual between the views of the Sadducees and those of the Pharisees. The essential principle of them lay in this, that the Sadducees would hold by the simple letter of the law—do neither more nor less, whether the consequences were to make decisions more severe or more easy. The same principle they applied in their juridical and also in their doctrinal views. It would take us too much into detail to explain the former. But the reader will understand how this literality would, as a rule, make their judicial decisions (or rather such as they had proposed) far more strict than those of the Pharisees, by a rigidly literal application of the principle, “an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.” The same holds true in regard to the laws of purification, and to those which regulated inheritance. The doctrinal views of the Sadducees are sufficiently known from the New Testament. It is quite true that, in opposition to Sadducean views as to the non-existence of another world and the resurrection, the Pharisees altered the former Temple-formula into “Blessed be God from world to world” (from generation to generation; or, “world without end”), to show that after the present there was another life of blessing and punishment, of joy and sorrow. But the Talmud expressly states that the real principle of the Sadducees was not, that there was no resurrection, but only that it could not be proved from the Thorah, or Law. From this there was, of course, but a short step to the entire denial of the doctrine; and no doubt it was taken by the vast majority of the party. But here also it was again their principle of strict literality, which underlay even the most extreme of their errors.
This principle was indeed absolutely necessary to their very existence. We have traced the Pharisees not only to a definite period, but to a special event; and we have been able perfectly to explain their name as “the separated.” Not that we presume they gave it to themselves, for no sect or party ever takes a name; they all pretend to require no distinctive title, because they alone genuinely and faithfully represent the truth itself. But when they were called Pharisees, the “Chaberim,” no doubt, took kindly to the popular designation. It was to them—to use an illustration—what the name “Puritans” was to a far different and opposite party in the Church. But the name “Sadducee” is involved in quite as much obscurity as the origin of the party. Let us try to cast some fresh light upon both—only premising that the common derivations of their name, whether from the high-priest Zadok, or from a Rabbi called Zadok, whose fundamental principle of not seeking reward in religion they were thought to have misunderstood and misapplied, or from the Hebrew word “zaddikim”—the righteous—are all unsatisfactory, and yet may all contain elements of truth.
There can be no question that the “sect” of the Sadducees originated in a reaction against the Pharisees. If the latter added to the law their own glosses, interpretations, and traditions, the Sadducee took his stand upon the bare letter of the law. He would have none of their additions and supererogations; he would not be righteous overmuch. Suffice it for him to have to practise “zedakah,” “righteousness.” We can understand how this shibboleth of theirs became, in the mouth of the people, the byname of a party—some using it ironically, some approvingly. By-and-by the party no doubt took as kindly to the name as the Pharisees did to theirs. Thus far, then, we agree with those who derive the title of Sadducees from “zaddikim.” But why the grammatically-unaccountable change from “zaddikim” to “zaddukim?” May it not be that the simple but significant alteration of a letter had, after a not uncommon fashion, originated with their opponents, as if they would have said: “You are ‘zaddikim?’ Nay, rather, ‘zaddukim’” from the Aramaean word “zadu” (wasting or desolation)—meaning, you are not upholders but destroyers of righteousness? This origin of the name would in no way be inconsistent with the later attempts of the party to trace up their history either to the high-priest Zadok, or to one of the fathers of Jewish traditionalism, whose motto they ostentatiously adopted. History records not a few similar instances of attempts to trace up the origin of a religious party. Be this as it may, we can understand how the adherents of Sadducean opinions belonged chiefly to the rich, luxurious, and aristocratic party, including the wealthy families of priests; while, according to the testimony of Josephus, which is corroborated by the New Testament, the mass of the people, and especially the women, venerated and supported the Pharisaical party. Thus the “order” of the “Chaberim” gradually became a popular party, like the Ultramontanes. Finally, as from the nature of it Pharisaism was dependent upon traditional lore, it became not only the prevailing direction of Jewish theological study, but the “Chaber” by-and-by merged into the Rabbi, the “sage,” or “disciple of the sages”; while the non-“chaber,” or “am ha-aretz,” became the designation for ignorance of traditional lore, and neglect of its ordinances. This was specially the case when the dissolution of the Jewish commonwealth rendered the obligations of the “fraternity” necessarily impossible. Under such altered circumstances the old historical Pharisee would often be no small plague to the leaders of the party, as is frequently the case with the original adherents and sticklers of a sect in which the irresistible progress of time has necessarily produced changes.
The course of our investigations has shown, that neither Pharisees nor Sadducees were a sect, in the sense of separating from Temple or Synagogue; and also that the Jewish people as such were not divided between Pharisees and Sadducees. The small number of professed Pharisees (six thousand) at the time of Herod, the representations of the New Testament, and even the curious circumstance that Philo never once mentions the name of Pharisee, confirm the result of our historical inquiries, that the Pharisees were first an “order,” then gave the name to a party, and finally represented a direction of theological thought. The New Testament speaks of no other than these two parties. But Josephus and Philo also mention the “Essenes.” It is beyond our present scope either to describe their tenets and practices, or even to discuss the complex question of the origin of their name. From the nature of it, the party exercised no great influence, and was but short-lived. They seem to have combined a kind of higher grade Pharisaism with devotional views, and even practices, derived from Eastern mysticism, and more particularly from the Medo-Persian religion. Of the former, the fact that the one object of all their institutions was a higher purity, may here be regarded as sufficient evidence. The latter is apparent from a careful study of their views, as these have been preserved to us, and from their comparison with the Zoroastrian system. And of the fact that “Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences,” there are abundant indications.
As a sect the Essenes never attained a larger number than four thousand; and as they lived apart from the rest, neither mingling in their society nor in their worship, and—as a general rule—abstained from marriage, they soon became extinct. Indeed, Rabbinical writings allude to quite a number of what may probably be described as sectaries, all of them more or less distinctly belonging to the mystical and ascetic branch of Pharisaism. We here name, first, the “Vathikin,” or “strong ones,” who performed their prayers with the first dawn; secondly, the “Toble Shachrith,” or “morning baptists,” who immersed before morning prayer, so as to utter the Divine Name only in a state of purity; thirdly, the “Kehala Kadisha,” or “holy congregation,” who spent a third of the day in prayer, a third in study, and a third in labour; fourthly, the “Banaim,” or “builders,” who, besides aiming after highest purity, occupied themselves with mystical studies about God and the world; fifthly, the “Zenuim,” or “secret pious,” who besides kept their views and writings secret; sixthly, the “Nekije hadaath,” “men of a pure mind,” who were really separatists from their brethren; seventhly, the “Chashaim,” or “mysterious ones”; and lastly, the “Assiim,” “helpers” or “healers,” who professed to possess the right pronunciation of the sacred Name of Jehovah, with all that this implied.
If in any of the towns of Judaea one had met the strange apparition of a man dressed wholly in white, whose sandals and garments perhaps bore signs of age—for they might not be put away till quite worn out—but who was scrupulously clean, this man was an Essene. The passers would stop short and look after him with mingled reverence and curiosity. For he was but rarely seen in town or village—the community separating from the rest of the people, and inhabiting desert places, specially the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea; and the character of the “order” for asceticism and self-denial, as well as for purity, was universally known. However strictly they observed the Sabbath, it was in their own synagogues; and although they sent gifts to the altar, they attended not the Temple nor offered sacrifices, partly because they regarded their arrangements as not sufficiently Levitically clean, and partly because they came to consider their own table an altar, and their common meals a sacrifice. They formed an “order,” bound by the strictest vows, taken under terrible oaths, and subject to the most rigorous disciplines. The members abstained from wine, meat, and oil, and most of them also from marriage. They had community of goods; were bound to poverty, chastity, and obedience to their superiors. Purity of morals was enjoined, especially in regard to speaking the truth. To take an oath was prohibited, as also the keeping of slaves. The order consisted of four grades; contact with one of a lower always defiling him of the higher grade. The novitiate lasted two years, though at the end of the first the candidate was taken into closer fellowship. The rule was in the hands of “elders,” who had the power of admission and expulsion—the latter being almost equivalent to death by starvation, as the Essene had bound himself by a terrible oath not to associate with others. Their day began with sunrise, when they went to prayer. Before that, nothing secular might be spoken. After prayer, they betook themselves to agricultural labour—for they were not allowed to keep herds and flocks—or else to works of charity, specially the healing of the sick. At eleven o’clock they bathed, changed their dress, and then gathered for the common meal. A priest opened and closed it with prayer. They sat according to age and dignity; the eldest engaging in serious conversation, but in so quiet a tone as not to be heard outside. The young men served. Each had bread and salt handed him, also another dish; the elders being allowed the condiment of hyssop and the luxury of warm water. After the meal they put off their clothes, and returned to work till the evening, when there was another common meal, followed by mystical hymns and dances, to symbolise the rapt, ecstatic state of mind.
It is needless to follow the subject farther. Even what has been said—irrespective of their separation from the world, their punctilious Sabbath-observance, and views on purification; their opposition to sacrifices, and notably their rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection—is surely sufficient to prove that they had no connection with the origin of Christianity. Assertions of this kind are equally astonishing to the calm historical student and painful to the Christian. Yet there can be no doubt that among these mystical sects were preserved views of the Divine Being, of the Messiah and His kingdom, and of kindred doctrines, which afterwards appeared in the so-called “secret tradition” of the Synagogue, and which, as derived from the study of the prophetic writings, contain marvellous echoes of Christian truth. On this point, however, we may not here enter.
Christ and the Gospel among Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes! We can now realise the scene, and understand the mutual relations. The existing communities, the religious tendencies, the spirit of the age, assuredly offered no point of attachment—only absolute and essential contrariety to the kingdom of heaven. The “preparer of the way” could appeal to neither of them; his voice only cried “in the wilderness.” Far, far beyond the origin of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, he had to point back to the original Paschal consecration of Israel as that which was to be now exhibited in its reality: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” If the first great miracle of Christianity was the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, the second—perhaps we should have rather put it first, to realise the symbolism of the two miracles in Cana—was that it found nothing analogous in the religious communities around, nothing sympathetic, absolutely no stem on which to graft the new plant, but was literally “as a root out of a dry ground,” of which alike Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene would say: “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.”
It was
a beautiful saying of Rabbi Jochanan (Jer. Ber. v. 1), that he who prays in his
house surrounds and fortifies it, so to speak, with a wall of iron.
Nevertheless, it seems immediately contradicted by what follows. For it is
explained that this only holds good where a man is alone, but that where there
is a community prayer should be offered in the synagogue. We can readily
understand how, after the destruction of the Temple, and the cessation of its
symbolical worship, the excessive value attached to mere attendance at the
synagogue would rapidly grow in public estimation, till it exceeded all bounds
of moderation or reason. Thus, such Scriptural sayings as
Readers of the New Testament know, that at the time of our Lord synagogues were
dotted all over the land; that in them “from of old” Moses had been read (
The
origin of the synagogue is lost in the obscurity of tradition. Of course, like
so many other institutions, it is traced by the Rabbis to the patriarchs. Thus,
both the Targum Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum represent Jacob as an
attendant in the synagogue, and Rebekah as resorting thither for advice when
feeling within her the unnatural contest of her two sons. There can be no
occasion for seriously discussing such statements. For when in
Not a
town, nor a village, if it numbered only ten men, who could or would wholly give
themselves to divine things,
If it be asked, why the number ten was thus fixed upon as the smallest that could form
a congregation, the reply is that, according to
Of the
architecture of ordinary synagogues, not only the oldest still in existence, but
the recent excavations in Palestine, enable us to form a correct idea.
Internally they were simply rectangular or round buildings, with a single or
double colonnade, and more or less adorned by carvings. Externally they had
generally some sacred symbol carved on the lintels—commonly the seven-branched
candlestick, or perhaps the pot of manna.
There is one remarkable instance of the use of the latter emblem, too important to be
passed over. In Capernaum, our Lord’s “own city” (
Before parting from this most interesting subject, we may place beside the Master, as it were, the two representatives of His Church, a Gentile and a Jew, both connected with this synagogue. Of its builder, the good centurion, Canon Williams thus writes: “In what spirit the large-hearted Roman soldier had made his offering, the rich and elaborate carvings of cornices and entablatures, of columns and capitals, and niches, still attest.” As for the ruler of that same synagogue, we know that it was Jairus, whose cry of anguish and of faith brought Jesus to his house to speak the life-giving “Talitha cumi” over the one only daughter, just bursting into womanhood, who lay dead in that chamber, while the crowd outside and the hired minstrels made shrill, discordant mourning.
Thus
far as to the external appearance of synagogues. Their internal arrangement
appears to have been originally upon the plan of the Temple, or, perhaps, even
of the Tabernacle. At least, the oldest still standing synagogue, that of the
Cyrenian Jews, in the island of Gerbe, is, according to the description of a
missionary, Dr. Ewald, tripartite, after the model of the Court, the Holy, and
the Most Holy Place. And in all synagogues the body of the building, with the
space around, set apart for women, represents the Court of the Women, while the
innermost and highest place, with the Ark behind, containing the rolls of the
law, represents the sanctuary itself. In turn the synagogue seems to have been
adopted as the model for the earliest Christian churches. Hence not only the
structure of the “basilica,” but the very term “bema,” is incorporated in
Rabbinical language. This is only what might have been expected, considering
that the earliest Christians were Jews by nationality, and that heathenism could
offer no type for Christian worship. To return. As concerned the worshippers, it
was deemed wrong to pray behind a synagogue without turning the face to it; and
a story is told (Ber. 6 b) of Elijah appearing in the form of an Arab merchant,
and punishing one guilty of this sin. “Thou standest before thy Master as if
there were two Powers [or Gods],” said the seeming Arab; and with these words
“he drew his sword and killed him.” A still more curious idea prevailed, that it
was requisite to advance the length of at least “two doors” within a synagogue
before settling to prayer, which was justified by a reference to
As a
rule, synagogues were built at the expense of the congregation, though perhaps
assisted by richer neighbours. Sometimes, as we know, they were erected at the
cost of private individuals, which was supposed to involve special merit. In
other cases, more particularly when the number of Jews was small, a large room
in a private house was set apart for the purpose. This also passed into the
early Church, as we gather from
The
separation of the sexes, which was observed even in the Temple at the time of
Christ, was strictly carried out in the synagogues, such division being made
effectual by a partition, boarded off and provided with gratings, to which there
was separate access. The practice seems simply in accordance with Eastern
manners and modes of thinking. But the Rabbis, who seek Scripture authority for
every arrangement, however trivial, find in this case their warrant in
Hitherto we have chiefly described the outward arrangements of the synagogues. It will now be necessary, however rapidly in this place, to sketch their various uses, their worship, and their officials, most of which are also referred to in various parts of the New Testament.
One of
the most difficult questions in Jewish history is that connected with the
existence of a synagogue within the Temple. That such a “synagogue” existed, and
that its meeting-place was in “the hall of hewn stones,” at the south-eastern
angle of the court of the priest, cannot be called in question, in face of the
clear testimony of contemporary witnesses. Considering that “the hall of hew
stones” was also the meeting-place for the great Sanhedrim, and that not only
legal decisions, but lectures and theological discussions formed part of their
occupation, we might be tempted to conjecture that the term “synagogue” had been
employed in its wider sense, since such buildings were generally used throughout
the country for this two-fold purpose as well as for worship. Of theological
lectures and discussions in the Temple, we have an instance on the occasion when
our Lord was found by His parents “sitting in the midst of the doctors, both
hearing them, and asking them questions” (
The
subject has a far deeper than merely historical interest. For the presence of a
synagogue within the Temple, or rather, as we prefer to put it, the addition of
synagogue-worship to that of the Temple, is sadly symbolical. It is, so to
speak, one of those terribly significant utterances (by deed), in which Israel,
all unconsciously, pronounced its own doom, just as was this: “His blood be upon
us and our children,” or the cry for the release of Barabbas (the son of the
father), who had been condemned “for sedition” and “murder”—no doubt in
connection with a pseudo-Messianic rising against the Roman power—instead of
the true Son of the Father, who would indeed have “restored the kingdom to
Israel.” And yet there was nothing in the worship itself of the synagogue which
could have prevented either the Lord, or His apostles and early followers, from
attending it till the time of final separation had come. Readers of the New
Testament know what precious opportunities it offered for making known the
Gospel. Its services were, indeed, singularly elastic. For the main object of
the synagogue was the teaching of the people. The very idea of its institution,
before and at the time of Ezra, explains and conveys this, and it is confirmed
by the testimony of Josephus (Ag. Apion, ii, 157-172). But perhaps the ordinary
reader of the New Testament may have failed to notice, how prominently this
element in the synagogue is brought out in the gospel history. Yet the word
“teaching” is used so frequently in connection with our Lord’s appearance in the
synagogue, that its lesson is obvious (see
Public worship
The “Shema” was a kind of “belief,” or “creed,” composed of these three passages of
Scripture:
1. “Blessed be Thou, O Lord, King of the world, Who formest the light and createst
the darkness, Who makest peace and createst everything; Who, in mercy, givest
light to the earth and to those who dwell upon it, and in Thy goodness day by
day and every day renewest the works of creation. Blessed be the Lord our God
for the glory of His handiwork and for the light-giving lights which He has made
for His praise. Selah! Blessed be the Lord our God, Who hath formed the lights.”
2. “With great love hast Thou loved us, O Lord our God, and with much overflowing pity hast Thou pitied us, our Father and our King. For the sake of our fathers who trusted in Thee, and Thou taughtest them the statutes of life, have mercy upon us and teach us. Enlighten our eyes in Thy law; cause our hearts to cleave to Thy commandments; unite our hearts to love and fear Thy name, and we shall not be put to shame, world without end. For Thou art a God Who preparest salvation, and us hast Thou chosen from among all nations and tongues, and hast in truth brought us near to Thy great Name—Selah—that we may lovingly praise Thee and Thy Oneness. Blessed be the Lord Who in love chose His people Israel.”
After
this followed the “Shema.” The Mishnah gives the following beautiful explanation
of the order in which the portions of Scripture of which it is composed are
arranged (Ber. ii. 2). The section
The prayer after the “Shema” was as follows:
“True it is, that Thou art Jehovah our God and the God of our fathers, our King and the King of our fathers, our Saviour and the Saviour of our fathers, our Creator, the Rock of our salvation, our Help and our Deliverer. Thy Name is from everlasting, and there is no God beside Thee. A new song did they that were delivered sing to Thy Name by the seashore; together did all praise and own Thee King, and say, Jehovah shall reign world without end! Blessed be the Lord Who saveth Israel!”
The anti-Sadducean views expressed in this prayer will strike the student of that period, while he will also be much impressed with its suitableness and beauty. The special prayer for the evening is of not quite so old a date as the three just quoted. But as it is referred to in the Mishnah, and is so apt and simple, we reproduce it, as follows:
“O Lord our God! cause us to lie down in peace, and raise us up again to life, O our King! Spread over us the tabernacle of Thy peace; strengthen us before Thee in Thy good counsel, and deliver us for Thy Name’s sake. Be Thou for protection round about us; keep far from us the enemy, the pestilence, the sword, famine, and affliction. Keep Satan from before and from behind us, and hide us in the shadow of Thy wings, for Thou art a God Who helpest and deliverest us; and Thou, O God, art a gracious and merciful King. Keep Thou our going out and our coming in, for life and for peace, from henceforth and for ever!” (To this prayer a further addition was made at a later period.)
The
“Shema” and its accompanying “benedictions” seem to have been said in the
synagogue at the lectern; whereas for the next series of prayers the leader of
the devotions went forward and stood before “the ark.” Hence the expression, “to
go up before the ark,” for leading in prayer. This difference in position seems
implied in many passages of the Mishnah (specially Megillah, iv.), which makes a
distinction between saying the “Shema” and “going up before the ark.” The
prayers offered before the ark consisted of the so-called eighteen eulogies, or
benedictions, and formed the “tephillah,” or supplication, in the strictest
sense of the term. These eighteen, or rather, as they are now, nineteen,
eulogies are of various dates—the earliest being the first three and the last
three. There can be no reasonable doubt that these were said at worship in the
synagogues, when our Lord was present. Next in date are eulogies 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
and 16. Eulogy 7, which in its present position seems somewhat incongruous,
dates from a period of great national calamity—perhaps the time of Pompey. The
other eulogies, and some insertions in the older benedictions, were added after
the fall of the Jewish commonwealth—eulogy 12 especially being intended against
the early Jewish converts to Christianity. In all likelihood it had been the
practice originally to insert prayers of private composition between the
(present) first three and last three eulogies; and out of these the later
eulogies were gradually formulated. At any rate, we know that on Sabbaths and on
other festive occasions only the first three and the last three eulogies were
repeated, other petitions being inserted between them. There was thus room for
the endless repetitions and “long prayers” which the Saviour condemned (
1. “Blessed be the Lord our God and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great, the mighty, and the terrible God; the Most High God, Who showeth mercy and kindness, Who createth all things, Who remembereth the gracious promises to the fathers, and bringeth a Saviour to their children’s children, for His own Name’s sake, in love. O King, Helper, Saviour, and Shield! Blessed art Thou, O Jehovah, the Shield of Abraham.”
2. “Thou, O Lord, art mighty for ever; Thou, Who quickenest the dead, art mighty to save. In Thy mercy Thou preservest the living; Thou quickenest the dead; in Thine abundant pity Thou bearest up those who fall, and healest those who are diseased, and loosest those who are bound, and fulfillest Thy faithful word to those who sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Lord of strength, and who can be compared to Thee, Who killest and makest alive, and causest salvation to spring forth? And faithful art Thou to give life unto the dead. Blessed be Thou, Jehovah, Who quickenest the dead!”
3. “Thou art holy, and Thy Name is holy; and the holy ones praise Thee every day. Selah! Blessed art Thou, Jehovah God, the Holy One!”
It is impossible not to feel the solemnity of these prayers. They breathe the deepest hopes of Israel in simple, Scriptural language. But who can fully realise their sacred import as uttered not only in the Presence, but by the very lips of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who Himself was their answer?
The three concluding eulogies were as follows:
17. “Take gracious pleasure, O Jehovah our God, in Thy people Israel, and in their prayers. Accept the burnt-offerings of Israel, and their prayers, with thy good pleasure; and may the services of Thy people Israel be ever acceptable unto Thee. And oh that our eyes may see it, as Thou turnest in mercy to Zion! Blessed be Thou, O Jehovah, Who restoreth His Shechinah to Zion!”
18. “We praise Thee, because Thou art Jehovah our God, and the God of our fathers, for ever and ever. Thou art the Rock of our life, the Shield of our salvation, from generation to generation. We laud Thee, and declare Thy praise for our lives which are kept within Thine hand, and for our souls which are committed unto Thee, and for Thy wonders which are with us every day, and Thy wondrous deeds and Thy goodnesses, which are at all seasons—evening, morning, and mid-day. Thou gracious One, Whose compassions never end; Thou pitying One, Whose grace never ceaseth—for ever do we put our trust in Thee! And for all this Thy Name, O our King, be blessed and extolled always, for ever and ever! And all living bless Thee—Selah—and praise Thy Name in truth, O God, our Salvation and our Help. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah; Thy Name is the gracious One, to Whom praise is due.”
19. (We give this eulogy in its shorter form, as it is at present used in evening prayer.) “Oh bestow on Thy people Israel great peace, for ever; for Thou art King and Lord of all peace, and it is good in Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israel with praise at all times and in every hour. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, Who blesseth His people Israel with peace.”
Another act, hitherto, so far as we know, unnoticed, requires here to be
mentioned. It invests the prayers just quoted with a new and almost unparalleled
interest. According to the Mishnah (Megillah, iv. 5), the person who read in the
synagogue the portion from the prophets was also expected to say the “Shema,”
and to offer the prayers which have just been quoted. It follows that, in all
likelihood, our Lord Himself had led the devotions in the synagogue of Capernaum
on that Sabbath when He read the portion from the prophecies of Isaiah which was
that day “fulfilled in their hearing” (
The
prayers were conducted or repeated aloud by one individual, specially deputed
for the occasion, the congregation responding by an “Amen.” The liturgical
service concluded with the priestly benediction (
According to the present practice, the fingers of the two hands are so joined together and separated as to form five interstices; and a mystic meaning attaches to this. It was a later superstition to forbid looking at the priests’ hands, as involving physical danger. But the Mishnah already directs that priests having blemishes on their hands, or their fingers dyed, were not to pronounce the benediction, lest the attention of the people should be attracted. Of the attitude to be observed in prayer, this is perhaps scarcely the place to speak in detail. Suffice it, that the body was to be fully bent, yet so, that care was taken never to make it appear as if the service had been burdensome. One of the Rabbis tells us, that, with this object in view, he bent down as does a branch; while, in lifting himself up again, he did it like a serpent—beginning with the head! Any one deputed by the rulers of a congregation might say prayers, except a minor. This, however, applies only to the “Shema.” The eulogies or “tephillah” proper, as well as the priestly benediction, could not be pronounced by those who were not properly clothed, nor by those who were so blind as not to be able to discern daylight. If any one introduced into the prayers heretical views, or what were regarded as such, he was immediately stopped; and, if any impropriety had been committed, was put under the ban for a week. One of the most interesting and difficult questions relates to certain modes of dress and appearance, and certain expressions used in prayer, which the Mishnah (Megillah, iv. 8,9) declares either to mark heresy or to indicate that a man was not to be allowed to lead prayers in the synagogue. It may be, that some of these statements refer not only to certain Jewish “heretics,” but also to the early Jewish Christians. If so, they may indicate certain peculiarities with which they were popularly credited.
Of the
services hitherto noticed, the most important were the repetition of the
eulogies and the priestly benediction. What now followed was regarded as quite
as solemn, if, indeed, not more so. It has already been pointed out, that the
main object of the synagogue was the teaching of the people. This was specially
accomplished by the reading of the law. At present the Pentateuch is for this
purpose arranged into fifty-four sections, of which one is read on each
successive Sabbath of the year, beginning immediately after the feast of
Tabernacles. But anciently the lectionary, at least in Palestine, seems to have
been differently arranged, and the Pentateuch so divided that its reading
occupied three, or, according to some, three and a-half years (half a
Jubilee-period). The section for the day was subdivided, so that every Sabbath
at least seven persons were called up to read, each a portion, which was to
consist of not less than three verses. The first reader began, and the last
closed, with a benediction. As the Hebrew had given place to the Aramaic, a
“meturgeman,” or interpreter, stood by the side of the reader, and translated
verse by verse into the vernacular. It was customary to have service in the
synagogues, not only on Sabbaths and feast-days, but also on the second and
fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday), when the country-people came to
market, and when the local Sanhedrim also sat for the adjudication of minor
causes. At such week-day services only three persons were called up to read in
the law; on new moon’s day and on the intermediate days of a festive week, four;
on festive days—when a section from the prophets was also read—five; and on
the day of atonement, six. Even a minor was allowed to read, and, if qualified,
to act as “meturgeman.” The section describing the sin of Reuben, and that
giving a second account of the sin of the golden calf, were read, but not
interpreted; those recounting the priestly blessing, and, again, the sin of
David and of Amnon, were neither read nor interpreted. The reading of the law
was followed by a lesson from the prophets. At present there is a regular
lectionary, in which these lessons are so selected as to suit the sections from
the law appointed for the day. This arrangement has been traced to the time of
the Syrian persecutions, when all copies of the law were sought for and
destroyed; and the Jewish authorities are supposed to have selected portions
from the prophets to replace those from the law which might not be produced in
public. But it is evident that, if these persecuting measures had been rigidly
enforced, the sacred rolls of the prophets would not have escaped destruction
any more than those of the law. Besides, it is quite certain that such a
lectionary of the prophets as that presently in use did not exist at the time of
our Lord, nor even when the Mishnah was collated. Considerable liberty seems to
have been left to individuals; and the expression used by St. Luke in reference
to our Lord in the synagogue at Capernaum (
The
reading of the prophets was often followed by a sermon or address, with which
the service concluded. The preacher was called “darshan,” and his address a
“derashah” (homily, sermon, from “darash,” to ask, inquire, or discuss). When
the address was a learned theological discussion—especially in academies—it
was not delivered to the people directly, but whispered into the ear of an
“amora,” or speaker, who explained to the multitude in popular language the
weighty sayings which the Rabbi had briefly communicated to him. A more popular
sermon, on the other hand, was called a “meamar,” literally, a “speech, or
talk.” These addresses would be either Rabbinical expositions of Scripture, or
else doctrinal discussions, in which appeal would be made to tradition and to
the authority of certain great teachers. For it was laid down as a principle
(Eduj. i. 3), that “every one is bound to teach in the very language of his
teacher.” In view of this two-fold fact, we can in some measure understand the
deep impression which the words of our Lord produced, even on those who remained
permanently uninfluenced by them. The substance of His addresses was far other
than they had ever heard of, or conceived possible. It seemed as if they opened
quite a new world of thought, hope, duty, and comfort. No wonder that even in
contemptuous Capernaum “all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words
which proceeded out of His mouth”; and that the very Temple-guard sent to make
Him prisoner were overawed, and before the council could only give this account
of their strange negligence: “Never man spake like this man” (
The
arrangements of the synagogue, as hitherto described, combined in a remarkable
manner fixedness of order with liberty of the individual. Alike the seasons and
the time of public services, their order, the prayers to be offered, and the
portions of the law to be read were fixed. On the other hand, between the
eighteen “benedictions” said on ordinary days, and the seven repeated on the
Sabbaths, free prayer might be inserted; the selection from the prophets, with
which the public reading concluded—the “Haphtarah” (from “patar,” to
“conclude”)—seems to have been originally left to individual choice; while the
determination who was to read, or to conduct the prayers, or to address the
people, was in the hands of the “rulers of the synagogue” (
The
special qualifications for the office of Sanhedrist, mentioned in Rabbinical
writings, are such as to remind us of the directions of St. Paul to Timothy (
Alms were collected at regular times every week, either in money or in victuals. At least two were employed in collecting, and three in distributing charity, so as to avoid the suspicion of dishonesty or partiality. These collectors of charity, who required to be “men of good repute, and faithful,” are thought by many to have been the model for the institution of the Diaconate in the early Church. But the analogy scarcely holds good; nor, indeed, were such collectors employed in every synagogue.
In describing the conduct of public worship in the synagogues, reference was made
to the “meturgeman,” who translated into the vernacular dialect what was read
out of the Hebrew Scriptures, and also to the “darshan,” who expounded the
Scriptures or else the traditional law in an address, delivered after the
reading of the “Haphtarah,” or section from the prophets. These two terms will
have suggested names which often occur in writings on Jewish subjects, and may
fitly lead to some remarks on Jewish theology at the time of our Lord. Now the
work of the “meturgeman”
Primarily the Targum, then, was intended as a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the vernacular Aramaean. Of course, such translations might be either literal, or else more or less paraphrastic. Every Targum would also naturally represent the special views of the translator, and be interesting as affording an insight into the ideas prevalent at the time, and the manner in which Scripture was understood. But some Targumim are much more paraphrastic than others, and indeed become a kind of commentary, showing us the popular theology of the time. Strictly speaking, we have really no Targum dating from the time of our Lord, nor even from the first century of our era. There can be no doubt, however, that such a Targum did exist, although it has been lost. Still, the Targumim preserved to us, although collated, and having received their present form at later periods, contain very much that dates from the Temple-period, and even before that. Mentioning them in the order of their comparative antiquity, we have the Targum of Onkelos, on the five books of Moses; the Targum of Jonathan, on the prophets (inclusive of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and of the Kings); the so-called (or pseudo) Jonathan on the Pentateuch; and the Jerusalem Targum, which is but a fragment. Probably the latter two were intended to be supplemental to the Targum Onkelos. Late criticism has thrown doubt even on the existence of such a person as Onkelos. Whoever may have been the author, this Targum, in its present form, dates probably from the third, that of Jonathan on the prophets from the fourth century.
In some respects more interesting than the Targumim are the Midrashim, of which we
possess three, dating probably, in their present form, from the first or second
century of our era, but embodying many parts much older. These are—mentioning
them again in the order of their antiquity—“Siphra” (the book), a commentary on
Leviticus; “Siphri,” a commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy; and “Mechiltha,” a
commentary on certain portions of Exodus. But we have even a monument more
interesting than these, of the views of the ancient Pharisees, and of their
Scriptural interpretations. Some of the fathers referred to a work called
“Lesser Genesis,” or the “Book of Jubilees.” This had been lost to theological
literature, till again discovered within the present century, although not in
the original Hebrew, nor even in its first or Greek translation, but in an
Ethiopic rendering from the latter. The work, which no doubt dates from the era
of our Lord, covers the same ground as the first book of Moses, whence the name
of “Lesser Genesis.” It gives the Biblical narrative from the creation of the
world to the institution of the Passover, in the spirit in which the Judaism of
that period would view it. The legendary additions, the Rabbinical ideas
expressed, the interpretations furnished, are just such as one would expect to
find in such a work. One of the main objects of the writer seems to have been
the chronology of the book of Genesis, which it is attempted to settle. All
events are recorded according to Jubilee-periods of forty-nine years, whence the
name “Book of Jubilees,” given to the work. These “Jubilees” are again arranged
into “weeks,” each of seven years (a day for a year); and events are classified
as having taken place in a certain month of a certain year, of a certain “week”
of years, of a certain “Jubilee”-period. Another tendency of the book, which,
however, it has in common with all similar productions, is to trace up all later
institutions to the patriarchal period.
Besides these works, another class of theological literature has been preserved to us, around which of late much and most serious controversy has gathered. Most readers, of course, know about the Apocrypha; but these works are called the “pseudo-epigraphic writings.” Their subject-matter may be described as mainly dealing with unfulfilled prophecy; and they are couched in language and figures borrowed, among others, from the book of Daniel. In fact, they read like attempts at imitating certain portions of that prophecy—only that their scope is sometimes wider. This class of literature is larger than those not acquainted with the period might have expected. Yet when remembering the troubles of the time, the feverish expectations of a coming deliverance, and the peculiar cast of mind and training of those who wrote them, they scarcely seem more numerous, nor perhaps even more extravagant, than a certain kind of prophetic literature, abundant among us not long ago, which the fear of Napoleon or other political events from time to time called forth. To that kind of production, they seem, at least to us, to bear an essential likeness—only that, unlike the Western, the Oriental expounder of unfulfilled prophecy assumes rather the language of the prophet than that of the commentator, and clothes his views in mystic emblematic language. In general, this kind of literature may be arranged into Greek and Hebrew—according as the writers were either Egyptian (Hellenistic) or Palestinian Jews. Considerable difficulty exists as to the precise date of some of these writings—whether previous or subsequent to the time of Christ. These difficulties are, of course, increased when it is sought to fix the precise period when each of them was composed. Still, late historical investigations have led to much accord on general points. Without referring to the use which opponents of Christianity have of late attempted to make of these books, it may be safely asserted that their proper study and interpretation will yet be made very helpful, not only in casting light upon the period, but in showing the essential difference between the teaching of the men of that age and that of the New Testament. For each branch and department of sacred study, the more carefully, diligently, and impartially it is pursued, affords only fresh testimony to that truth which is most certainly, and on the best and surest grounds, believed among us.
It
were, however, a mistake to suppose that the Rabbinical views, extravagant as
they so often are, were propounded quite independently of Scripture. On the
contrary, every traditional ordinance, every Rabbinical institution, nay, every
legend and saying, is somehow foisted upon the text of the Old Testament. To
explain this, even in the briefest manner, it is necessary to state that, in
general, Jewish traditionalism is distinguished into the “Halachah” and the
“Haggadah.” The “Halachah” (from “halach,” to “walk”) indicates the settled
legal determinations, which constituted the “oral law,” or “Thorah shebeal peh.”
Nothing could here be altered, nor was any freedom left to the individual
teacher, save that of explanation and illustration. The object of the “Halachah”
was to state in detail, and to apply to all possible cases, the principles laid
down in the law of Moses; as also to surround it, as it were, with “a hedge,” in
order to render every unwitting transgression impossible. The “Halachah” enjoyed
not only the same authority with the law of Moses, but, as being explanatory, in
some respects was even more highly esteemed. Indeed, strictly speaking, it was
regarded as equally with the Pentateuch the revelation of God to Moses; only the
form or manner of revelation was regarded as different—the one being committed
to writing, the other handed down by word of mouth. According to tradition,
Moses explained the traditional law successively to Aaron, to his sons, to the
seventy elders, and to the people—care being taken that each class heard it
four times (Maimonides’ Preface to Seraim, 1 a). The Talmud itself
attempts to prove that the whole traditional law, as well as the writings of the
prophets and the Hagiographa, had been communicated to Moses, by quoting
If
such was the “Halachah,” it is not so easy to define the limits of the
“Haggadah.” The term, which is derived from the verb “higgid,” to “discuss,” or
“tell about,” covers all that possessed not the authority of strict legal
determinations. It was legend, or story, or moral, or exposition, or discussion,
or application—in short, whatever the fancy or predilections of a teacher might
choose to make it, so that he could somehow connect it either with Scripture or
with a “Halachah.” For this purpose some definite rules were necessary to
preserve, if not from extravagance, at least from utter absurdity. Originally
there were four such canons for connecting the “Haggadah” with Scripture.
Contracting, after the favourite manner of the Jews, the initial letters, these
four canons were designated by the word ”Pardes“ (Paradise). They
were—1. To ascertain the plain meaning of a passage (the “Peshat”); 2. To take
the single letters of a word as an indication or hint (“Remes”) of other words,
or even of whole sentences; 3. The “Derush,” or practical exposition of a
passage; and 4. To find out the “Sod” (mystery), or mystical meaning of a verse
or word. These four canons were gradually enlarged into thirty-two rules, which
gave free vent to every kind of fancifulness. Thus one of these rules—the
“Gematria” (geometry, calculation)—allowed the interpreter to find out the
numerical value of the letters in a word—the Hebrew letters, like the Roman,
being also numerals—and to substitute for a word one or more which had the same
numerical value. Thus, if in
Little objection can be taken to them; but unfortunately their practical application was generally almost as fanciful, and certainly as erroneous, as in the case of the “Haggadah.”
Probably most readers would wish to know something more of those “traditions” to
which our Lord so often referred in His teaching. We have here to distinguish,
in the first place, between the Mishnah and the Gemara. The former was, so to
speak, the text, the latter its extended commentary. At the same time, the
Mishnah contains also a good deal of commentary, and much that is not either
legal determination or the discussion thereof; while the Gemara, on the other
hand, also contains what we would call “text.” The word Mishna (from the verb
“shanah”) means “repetition”—the term referring to the supposed repetition of
the traditional law, which has been above described. The Gemara, as the very
word shows, means “discussion,” and embodies the discussions, opinions, and
saying of the Rabbis upon, or a propos of, the Mishnah. Accordingly, the text of
the Mishnah is always given in the pages of the Talmud, which reproduce those
discussions thereon of the Jewish Theological parliament or academy, which
constitute the Gemara. The authorities introduced in the Mishnah and the Gemara
range from about the year 180 BC to 430 AD (in the Babylon Talmud). The Mishnah
is, of course, the oldest work, and dates, in its present form and as a written
compilation, from the close of the second century of our era. Its contents are
chiefly “Halachah,” there being only one Tractate (Aboth) in which there is no
“Halachah” at all, and another (on the measurements of the Temple) in which it
but very rarely occurs. Yet these two Tractates are of the greatest historical
value and interest. On the other hand, there are thirteen whole Tractates in the
Mishnah which have no “Haggadah” at all, and other twenty-two in which it is but
of rare occurrence. Very much of the Mishnah must be looked upon as dating
before, and especially from the time of Christ, and its importance for the
elucidation of the New Testament is very great, though it requires to be most
judiciously used. The Gemara, or book of discussions on the Mishnah, forms the
two Talmuds—the Jerusalem and the Babylon Talmud. The former is so called
because it is the product of the Palestinian academies; the latter is that of
the Babylonian school. The completion of the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud
(“Talmud” = doctrine, lore) dates from the middle of the fourth, that of the
Babylonian from the middle of the sixth century of our era. It need scarcely be
said that the former is of much greater historical value than the latter.
Neither of these two Gemaras, as we now possess them, is quite complete—that
is, there are Tractates in the Mishnah for which we have no Gemara, either in
the Jerusalem or in the Babylon Talmud. Lastly, the Babylon Talmud is more than
four times the size of that of Jerusalem. Obviously this is not the place for
giving even the briefest outline of the contents of the Mishnah.
Suffice it here to state that it consists of six books (“sedarim,” “orders”), which are subdivided into Tractates (“Massichthoth”), and these again into chapters (“Perakim”), and single determinations or traditions (“Mishnaioth”). In quoting the Mishnah it is customary to mention not the Book (or “Seder”) but the special Tractate, the Perek (or chapter), and the Mishnah. The names of these Tractates (not those of the books) give a sufficient idea of their contents, which cover every conceivable, and well-nigh every inconceivable case, with full discussions thereon. Altogether the Mishnah contains sixty-three Tractates, consisting of 525 chapters, and 4,187 “Mishnaioth.”
There
is yet another branch of Jewish theology, which in some respects is the most
interesting to the Christian student. There can be no doubt, that so early as
the time of our Lord a series of doctrines and speculations prevailed which were
kept secret from the multitude, and even from ordinary students, probably from
fear of leading them into heresy. This class of study bears the general name of
the “Kabbalah,” and, as even the term (from “kabal,” to “receive,” or “hand
down”) implies, represents the spiritual traditions handed down from earliest
times, although mixed up, in course of time, with many foreign and spurious
elements. The “Kabbalah” grouped itself chiefly around the history of the
creation, and the mystery of God’s Presence and Kingdom in the world, as
symbolised in the vision of the chariot and of the wheels (
If now, at the close of these sketches of Jewish life, we ask ourselves, what might have been expected as to the relation between Christ and the men and the religion of His period, the answer will not be difficult. Assuredly, in one respect Christ could not have been a stranger to His period, or else His teaching would have found no response, and, indeed, have been wholly unintelligible to His contemporaries. Nor did He address them as strangers to the covenant, like the heathen. His was in every respect the continuation, the development, and the fulfilment of the Old Testament. Only, He removed the superincumbent load of traditionalism; He discarded the externalism, the formalism, and the work-righteousness, which had well-nigh obliterated the spiritual truths of the Old Testament, and substituted in their place the worship of the letter. The grand spiritual facts, which it embodied, He brought forward in all their brightness and meaning; the typical teaching of that dispensation He came to show forth and to fulfil; and its prophecies He accomplished, alike for Israel and the world. And so in Him all that was in the Old Testament—of truth, way, and life—became “Yea and Amen.” Thus we can understand how, on the one hand, the Lord could avail Himself of every spiritual element around, and adopt the sayings, parables, ideas, and customs of that period—indeed, must have done so, in order to be a true man of the period,—and yet be so wholly not of that time as to be despised, rejected, and delivered up unto death by the blind guides of His blinded fellow-countrymen. Had He entirely discarded the period in which He lived, had He not availed Himself of all in it that was true or might be useful, He would not have been of it—not the true man Christ Jesus. Had He followed it, identified Himself with its views and hopes, or headed its movements, He would not have been the Christ, the Son of the living God, the promised Deliverer from sin and guilt.
And so we can also perceive the reason of the essential enmity to Christ on the part of the Pharisees and Scribes. It was not that He was a new and a strange Teacher; it was, that He came as the Christ. Theirs was not an opposition of teaching to His; it was a contrariety of fundamental life-principles. “Light came into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light.” Closely related as the two were, the Pharisaical Judaism of that and of the present period is at the opposite pole from the religion of Christ—alike as regards the need of man, the purposes of God’s love, and the privileges of His children. There was one truth which, we are reluctantly obliged to admit, found, alas! scarcely any parallel in the teaching of Rabbinism: it was that of a suffering Messiah. Hints indeed there were, as certain passages in the prophecies of Isaiah could not be wholly ignored or misrepresented, even by Rabbinical ingenuity, just as the doctrine of vicarious suffering and substitution could not be eliminated from the practical teaching of the confession of sins over the sacrifices, when the worshipper day by day laid his hands upon, and transferred to them his guilt. Yet Judaism, except in the case of the few, saw not in all this that to which alone it could point as its real meaning: “The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
And
now, as century after century has passed, and the gladsome Gospel message has
been carried from nation to nation, while Israel is still left in the darkness
of its unbelief and the misery of its mistaken hope, we seem to realise with
ever increasing force that “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great
light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the
light shined.” Yes: “unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the
government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (
1. The priests kept watch in the Temple in three places: in the house Avtinas, and in the house Nitsuts, and in the house of Moked; and the Levites in twenty-one places: 5 at the five gates leading into the Temple (the Mountain of the House), 4 in the four angles within, 5 at the five gates of the court, 4 in its four angles without, and 1 in the chamber of offering, and 1 in the chamber of the vail, and 1 behind the Most Holy Place (the House of Atonement).
2. The Captain of the Temple (the man of the Temple Mount) visited each guard, and burning torches were carried before him. And every guard which did not stand up (which was not standing), the Captain of the Temple said to him: “Peace be to thee.” If he observed that he slept, he smote him with his stick, and he had authority to burn his dress. And they said, “What is the noise (voice) in the court?” “It is the noise of a Levite who is beaten, and his clothes are set on fire, because he slept upon his watch.” Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: “On one occasion they found the brother of my mother sleeping, and they burned his dress.”
3. There were five gates to the Temple inclosure (Temple Mount): the two gates of Huldah from the south, which served for entrance and for exit; Kipponos from the west; Tadi from the north—it did not serve for anything; the eastern gate, upon which was a representation of the city of Shushan, and by it the high-priest who burned the Red Heifer, and all who assisted, went out upon the Mount of Olives.
4. There were seven gates in the
court; three on the north, and three on the south, and one in the east. That in
the south was the gate of burning; second to it, the gate of the firstborn;
third to it, the water gate. That in the east was the gate of Nicanor, and two
chambers belonged to it, one on the right hand, and one on the left—the one the
chamber of Phineas, the wardrobe keeper, and the other the chamber of those who
made the pancake offering.
5. And that on the north was the gate Nitsuts, and it was after the form of an Exhedra, and an Alijah was built on the top of it; and the priests kept guard above, and the Levites below, and it had a door to the Chel. Second to it was the gate of offering; third to it the Beth Moked.
6. And four rooms were in the Beth Moked, like small bed chambers opening on a dining apartment; two in the place that was holy, and two in that which was not holy, and the heads of the beams separated between that which was holy and that which was not holy. And for what did they serve? That on the south-west was the chamber of offering; that on the south-east the chamber of the shew-bread; on the north-east, there the Asmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the King of Javan had defiled; on the north-west, there they went down to the bath-house.
7. There were two gates to the Beth Moked—one opened upon the Chel, the other upon the court. Rabbi Jehudah says: “That which opened upon the court had a small wicket by which they went in to explore the court.”
8. The Beth Moked was arched, and was a great house surrounded by extensions (perhaps terraces) of stone, and the elders of the house of their fathers slept there, and the keys of the court in their hand; and the young priests, every one with his pillow on the ground (perhaps his dress).
9. And there was a place there, a cubit by a cubit, and a slab of marble, and a ring was fastened on it, and the chain with the keys were hung thereon. When the time came for closing, he lifted the slab by the ring, and took the keys from the chain, and the priest closed the gates from within, and the Levite had to sleep without. When he had finished closing, he returned the keys to the chain, and the slab to its place; he placed his pillow upon it and slept there. If an accident befell one of them, he went out and had to go by the winding stair which went under the house, and lights were burning on either side, till he came to the bath-house. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: “By the winding stairs he passed under the Chel, and went out and had to go through Tadi.”
1. The Temple inclosure (the Temple Mount) was 500 cubits by 500 cubits; it was largest on the south; next largest on the east; then on the north; smallest on the west. The place where there was most measurement there was also most service.
2. All who entered the Temple inclosure entered by the right, and turned and went out by the left, except those whom something had befallen, who turned to the left. “What ails thee that thou turnest to the left?” “Because I am a mourner.” “He that dwelleth in this house comfort thee!” “Because I am under the bann.” “He that dwelleth in this house put it in their hearts, that they restore thee!” So Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Jose says to him, “This would make it, as if they had transgressed against him in judgment; but rather: ‘He that dwelleth in this house put it in thy heart, that thou hearken to the words of thy brethren, and they restore thee.’”
3. Farther on was the Sorag, ten handbreadths high. And thirteen breaches were in it, which the Kings of Javan had made. They restored and strengthened it, and they decreed towards them thirteen obeisances [in remembrance]. Again farther on the Chel, ten cubits; and twelve steps were there; the step half a cubit high, and half a cubit in extension. All the steps which were there, each step was half a cubit high, and the extension half a cubit, except those which were at the porch. All the doorways and gates which were there, were twenty cubits high, and ten cubits wide, except that in the porch. All the doorways which were there, had doors, except that in the porch. All the gates which were there, had lintels, except that in the gate Tadi, which had two stones resting, this on the back of that. All the gates which were there, were renewed to be with gold, except the gate of Nicanor, because there was wrought upon them a miracle, and some say, because the brass sparkled.
4. All the walls which were there were high, except the wall in the east, so that the priest who burned the heifer, standing on the top of the Mount of Olives, and directing himself to look, saw through the gateway of the sanctuary, at the time when he sprinkled the blood.
5. The Court of the women was 135 cubits long by 135 cubits broad, and four chambers were in the four angles, each 40 cubits square, and they were not roofed in. And so they are intended to be, as it is said: “And he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold, in every corner of the court a court. In the four corners of the court courts smoking” ...It is said, they were “smoking,” and that because they were not roofed. And for what did they serve? That on the south-east was the chamber of the Nazarites, where the Nazarites washed their peace-offerings, and polled their hair, and threw it under the pot. That on the north-east was the wood chamber, where the priests who were disqualified picked the wood, and every stick in which a worm was found, it was unfitted for the altar. That on the north-west was the chamber of the lepers. That on the south-west Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: “I have forgotten for what it served.” Abba Shaul said: “There they put the wine and the oil; it was called the chamber of the house of Schamanyah.” And it [the wall] was at first flush, and they surrounded it with a gallery, so that the women looked from above and the men from beneath, for the purpose that they might not be mixed together. And fifteen steps went up from there to the Court of Israel, like the fifteen degrees in the Psalms [Songs of Degrees in the Psalms]. Upon these the Levites stood singing the songs. They were not rectangular but rounded, like the arc of a rounded substance.
6. And there were chambers beneath the Court of Israel, and they opened upon the Court of the Women. There the Levites placed their harps, and their psalteries, and their cymbals, and all the musical instruments. The Court of Israel was 135 cubits long by 11 broad, and similarly, the Court of the Priests was 135 long by 11 broad, and the heads of the beams divided between the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: There was a step, a cubit high, and upon it the Duchan was placed, and on it were three steps, each half a cubit. It results, that the Court of the Priests was 2 1/2 cubits higher than that of Israel. The entire court was 187 cubits long and 135 cubits broad. Thirteen obeisances took place there. Abba Jose, the son of Chanan, said: “Towards the thirteen gates.” The southern were: nearest to the west, the upper gate, then the gate of burning, the gate of the first-born, and the water-gate. And why was its name called the water-gate? Because through it they brought the pitcher of water for pouring out for the “Feast of Tabernacles.” Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: “And by it the waters were flowing down, with the direction of coming out below the threshold of the Temple.” And opposite to them to the north were: (nearest to the west) the gate of Jeconiah, the gate of offering, the gate of the women, and the gate of the song. And why was it called the gate of Jeconiah? Because by it Jeconiah went out into captivity. That on the east was the gate of Nicanor, and it had two wickets, one on its right and the other on its left. And there were two [gates] to the west; they had no name.
1. The altar was 32 by 32
[cubits]. Upwards 1 cubit, and contract 1 cubit: that was the base. Remain 30 by
30. Upwards 5, and contract 1 cubit: that was the circuit. Remain 28 by 28. The
place of the horns, a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. Remain 26 by
26. The place for the tread of the priests, a cubit on this side and a cubit on
that side. Remain 24 by 24: the place where the sacrifice was laid out. Rabbi
Jose said: “At the first it was only 28 by 28; though it contracted and
went up, according to this measurement, until there remained the place for
laying the sacrifices: 20 by 20. But when the children of the Captivity came up,
they added to it 4 cubits on the south and 4 on the west like a gamma,
because it is said, ‘And Ariel shall be 12 cubits long by 12 broad, square.’
And a scarlet line girdled it in the middle to separate between the upper and the lower blood-sprinklings. And the base ran round all the north and all the west side, but was shortened a cubit on the south and on the east.
2. In the south-western angle were two apertures, like small nostrils, and the blood, poured on the base to the west, and on the base to the south, descended through them, and co-mingled in the canal, and flowed out into the brook Kedron.
3. Below in the pavement, in that angle, there was a place, a cubit by a cubit, with a tablet of marble, and a ring was fastened in it, and here they went down into the sewer to cleanse it. And there was a sloping ascent to the south of the altar, 32 cubits long by 16 broad, and it had a pit at its west side, into which they put sin-offerings of birds that were defiled.
4. Both the stones of the sloping
ascent and those of the altar were from the valley of Beth Cherem. And they dug
beneath the virgin soil, and brought out from it undamaged (whole) stones, upon
which iron had not been lifted, because iron defiles everything by contact, and
by scratching. One of these stones was scratched: it was defiled; but the rest
were lawful for use. And they whitened them twice in the year, once at the
Passover, and once at the Feast of Tabernacles; and the Sanctuary once at the
Passover. Rabbi
5. And rings were to the north of the altar: six rows, each of four; but some say, four rows, each of six; and in these they slaughtered the holy sacrifices. The house (place) of slaughtering was to the north of the altar. And there were eight short pillars and squares of cedar upon the top of them, and hooks of iron were fastened in them, and three rows were upon each of them, upon which they hung up, and they skinned upon marble tables which were between the pillars.
6. And the laver was between the porch and the altar, and inclined nearer towards the south. Between the porch and the altar were 22 cubits, and 12 steps were there, each step half a cubit high, and its extension a cubit—a cubit, a cubit, and then an extension of three (cubits); and a cubit, a cubit, and an extension of three; and the topmost, a cubit, a cubit, and an extension of four (cubits). Rabbi Jehudah said: “The topmost a cubit, a cubit, and an extension of five (cubits).”
7. The doorway to the porch was 40 cubits high and 20 broad, and five beams of ash were upon the top of it; the lowest protruded over the doorway a cubit on this and a cubit on that side; that above it protruded over it a cubit on this and a cubit on that side; it results, that the topmost [was] 30 cubits, and a buttress of stones was between each one of them.
8. And supports of cedar were
fixed from the wall of the Sanctuary to the wall of the porch, lest they should
bulge; and chains of gold were fixed in the roof of the porch, and by them the
young priests mounted, to look at the crowns, as it is written: “And crowns
shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of
Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.” A vine of gold was
standing over the entrance to the Sanctuary, and was suspended on the top of
beams. Every one who vowed a leaf, or a berry, or a bunch, brought it, and hung
it up there. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Zadok, said: “It happened (that
they had to remove it) and there were numbered for it 300 priests.”
1. The entrance to the Sanctuary
was 20 cubits high, and 10 cubits broad; and it had four doors [two
folding-doors]: two within and two without, as it is said: “And the Sanctuary
and the Holy Place had two doors.” The outer doors opened to the inside
of the doorway, to cover the thickness of the wall, and the inner doors opened
inwards into the house, to cover behind the doors. For, the whole house was
covered with gold, except behind the doors. Rabbi Jehudah said: “They [both
pairs of doors] stood within the entrance, and were like Azteramita,
2. And the great gate had two wickets, one to the north and one to the south. That to the south, no man ever passed through it; and to this clearly refers what is said in Ezekiel, as it is written: “Then the Lord said unto me, This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” He took the key, and opened the wicket, and entered the little chamber (atrium), and from the little chamber into the Sanctuary. Rabbi Jehudah said: “Along the thickness of the wall he walked, until he found himself standing between the two gates, and he opened the outer one from within and the inner one from without.”
3. And thirty-eight little chambers were there—fifteen on the north, fifteen on the south, and eight on the west. On the north and on the south, five on the top of five, and five on their top; and on the west three on the top of three, and two on the top of them. And each one of them had three entrances, one to the little chamber on the right, and one to the little chamber on the left, and one to the little chamber on the top. And at the north-western corner were five entrances, one to the little chamber at the right, and the other to the little chamber on the top, and another to the winding-stair, and another to the wicket, and another to the Sanctuary.
4. And the lowermost (chamber) was 5 cubits, and the roofing (extension, platitude) 6; the middle (chamber) 6, and the roofing 7; and the uppermost 7, as it is said: “The nethermost chamber was 5 cubits broad, and the middle 6 cubits broad, and the third 7 cubits broad, for he made rebatements in the ‘house’ round about without, that [the beams] should not be fastened within the walls of the house.”
5. And a winding-stair went up from the north-eastern angle to the north-western angle, by which they went up to the roofs of the chambers. One went up the winding-stair with his face to the west, and went all along the north side, until he came to the west. He came to the west, and turned his face to the south, and went all along the west side till he came to the south. He came to the south, and turned his face eastwards, and went along the south side, till he came to the entrance of the Alijah; for the entrance to the Alijah opened to the south, and in the entrance to the Alijah were two beams of cedar, by which they went up to the roof of the Alijah, and the heads of the beams divided in the Alijah between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And trap-doors opened in the Alijah into the Most Holy Place, by which they let down the workmen in chests, that they might not feast their eyes in the Most Holy Place.
6. And the Sanctuary was 100 by 100, by 100 high; the solid foundation 6 cubits, and the height upon it 40 cubits; 1 cubit, decorated scroll; 2 cubits, the place for the water-droppings; 1 cubit covering, and 1 cubit pavement, and the height of the Alijah 40 cubits, and 1 cubit scroll-work, and 2 cubits the place for the dropping, and 1 cubit covering, and 1 cubit pavement, and 3 cubits balustrade, and 1 cubit scare-raven. Rabbi Jehudah said: “The scare-raven was not counted from the measurement, but the balustrade was 4 cubits.”
7. From the east to the west 100 cubits—the wall of the porch 5, and the porch 11; the wall of the Sanctuary 6, and its interior space 40 cubits, 1 cubit intermediate wall, and 20 cubits the Most Holy Place, the wall of the Sanctuary 6, and the little chamber 6, and the wall of the little chamber 5. From the north to the south 70 cubits—the wall of the winding-stair 5, and the winding-stair 3, the wall of the little chamber 5, and the little chamber 6, the wall of the Sanctuary 6, and its interior space 20 cubits, the wall of the Sanctuary 6, and the little chamber 6, and the wall of the little chamber 5, and the place for the going down of the water 3 cubits, and the wall 5 cubits. The porch protruded beyond it, 15 cubits from the north and 15 cubits from the south, and it was called the house of the sacrificial knives, because there they deposited the knives. And the Sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front, and like to a lion, as it is said: “O Ariel, the lion of God, the city where David dwelt.” As the lion is narrow behind and wide in front, so is the Sanctuary narrow behind and wide in its front.
1. The whole court was 187 cubits long by 135 cubits broad. From the east to the west 187: the place for the tread of Israel 11 cubits; the place for the tread of the priests 11 cubits; the altar 32; between the porch and the altar 22 cubits; the Sanctuary 100 cubits; and 11 cubits behind the house of Atonement.
2. From the north to the south 135 cubits: the altar and the circuit 62; from the altar to the rings 8 cubits; the place of the rings 24 cubits; from the rings to the tables 4; from the tables to the pillars 4; from the pillars to the wall of the court 8 cubits; and the rest between the circuit and the wall, and the place of the pillars.
3. There were six rooms in the court—three to the north, and three to the south. Those on the north: the salt-chamber, the chamber Parvah, the chamber of those who washed out. The salt-chamber: there they put salt to the offering. The chamber of Parvah: there they salted the skins of the holy sacrifices, and on the roof was the bath-house of the high-priest on the Day of Atonement. The chamber of those who washed out, where they washed the inwards of the holy things, and thence a winding-stair went up to the roof of the house of Parvah.
4. Those on the south: the wood-chamber, the chamber of the captivity, the chamber of “hewn stones.” The wood-chamber—said Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob: “I have forgotten for what it served.” Abba Shall said: It was the chamber of the high-priest, and it lay behind the other two, and a roof was extended over the three (they had one common roof). The chamber of the captivity: a well was there which they of the captivity had digged, and a wheel was placed upon it, and thence they provided water for the whole court. The chamber of “hewn stones”: there the great Sanhedrim of Israel sat, and judged the priesthood. And the priest in whom was found disqualification was clothed in black, and veiled in black, and went out, and had to go. And if there was not found in him disqualification, he was dressed in white, and veiled in white; he went in and served with his brethren the priests. And they made a feast-day, because there was not found disqualification in the seed of Aaron the priest, and thus spake they: “Blessed be God, blessed be He, that there has not been found disqualification in the seed of Aaron, and blessed be He Who has chosen Aaron and his sons, to stand to serve before the face of the Lord in the Most Holy House.”
Mishnah—From what time is the
“Shema” said in the evening? From the hour that the priests entered to eat of
their therumah
Gemara—Fol. 3 a. To the end
of the night watch.—How does Rabbi Eliezer mean this? If he means that the
night has three watches, he should say till four hours; and if he means that the
night has four watches, he should say till three hours. Indeed, he means that
the night has three watches, but he indicates by the expression that there are
night watches in heaven, as there are night watches upon earth. For we have this
doctrine: Rabbi Eliezer says, There are three night watches in the night, and in
every one of these night watches the Holy One, blessed be His Name, sits and
roars like a lion. For it is written (
Rabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rab, “The night has three watches, and in each one of these watches does the Holy One, blessed be His Name, sit and roar like a lion, and say, ‘Woe to the children, because on account of their sins I have laid desolate My house, and burned My temple, and have driven them forth among the nations of the world.’”
We have this doctrine: Rabbi Jose
said, “On one occasion I was traveling, and I entered into one of the ruins of
Jerusalem to pray. Then came Elijah—his memory be for good—and waited for me
at the door till I had finished my prayer. After that I had finished my prayer,
he said to me, ‘Peace be to thee, Rabbi’; and I said to him, ‘Peace be to thee,
Rabbi, and my teacher.’ And he said to me, ‘My son, why didst thou enter into
this ruin?’ I said to him, ‘In order to pray.’ And he said to me, ‘Thou mightest
have prayed on the road.’ And I said to him, ‘I was afraid that those who passed
on the road might perhaps interrupt me.’ He said to me, ‘Thou shouldest have
prayed a short prayer.’ In that hour I learned from him three things. I learned
that one may not enter into a ruin, and I learned that one may pray on the road,
and I learned that he that prays on the road should pray a short prayer. He also
said to me, ‘My son, what voice hast thou heard in that ruin?’ And I said to
him, ‘I have heard the “Bath Kol,”
The Rabbis teach: On account of
three things a ruin is not to be entered. On account of suspicion,
The Rabbis taught: The night has
four watches. These are the words of Rabbi (Jehudah the Holy). Rabbi Nathan
says: Three. What is the reason of Rabbi Nathan? Because it is written (
Rabbi Serika also said, that Rabbi Ami said, that Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, said: “You must not speak before the dead anything but the words of the dead.” Rabbi Aba, the son of Cahana, said: “They do not say this except in reference to the words of the law (because every one is bound to take part in such conversation); but as to ordinary conversation it does not matter.” And some say, Rabbi Aba, the son of Cahana, said, “They do not say this merely concerning the words of Scripture, but much more also concerning ordinary conversation.”
And David rose at midnight (as
before quoted). Did he not rise in the evening? since it is written (
Fol. 16 b. Rabbi Elazar said:
“What is it that is written (
Rabbi Elazar, after he had
finished his prayer, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that Thou
wouldest cause to dwell in our lot love and brotherhood, peace and friendship,
and increase our possession with disciples, and gladden our end with a happy
end, and with hope, and place our portion in Paradise. Order us in good
fellowship, and with the inclination for good in this world, that we may rise
and find our hearts in the fear of Thy Name, and that the desire of our souls
may come before Thee for good.”
Rabbi Jochanan, after he had finished his prayer, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that Thou mayest look upon our shame and see our sorrows, and that Thou clothe thyself with mercy, and that Thou cover Thyself with Thy might, and that Thou robe Thyself with Thy grace, and that Thou gird Thyself with favour, that there come before Thee the measurement of Thy goodness and of Thy condescension.”
Rabbi Seira, after he had finished his prayers, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that we may not sin, and not be put to shame, and not be confounded before our fathers.”
Rabbi Chija, after he had finished his prayers, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that Thy Thorah be our labour, and that our hearts be not faint, and that our eyes be not darkened.”
Rab, after he had finished his prayers, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, to give us prolonged life, a life of peace, a life of good, a life of blessing, a life of nourishment, a life of vigorous strength, a life in which there shall be the fear of sin, a life in which there shall be neither shame nor confusion, a life of riches and honour, a life in which there shall be among us love of the Thorah and the fear of heaven, a life in which Thou fulfil in us all the desires of our hearts for good.”
Rabbi, after he had finished his
prayers, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our
fathers, to preserve us from the daring sinner and from daring sin, from an evil
man and an evil accident, from the evil impulse, from an evil companion, from an
evil neighbour, from Satan the destroyer, from a severe judgment, and from a
severe opponent, whether he be a son of the covenant or not.” And this, although
the officers stood around Rabbi.
Rabbi Saphra, after he had finished his prayers, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that Thou wilt put peace among the family above (the angels) and in the family below, and between the students who busy themselves with Thy Thorah, whether they busy themselves with it for its own sake or not for its own sake; and with reference to all who busy themselves with it not for its own sake, may it please Thee, that they may busy themselves with it for its own sake.”
Rabbi Alexander, after he had finished his prayer, said thus: “May it please Thee, O Lord our God, to place us in a corner of light, and not in a corner of darkness, and let not out heart become faint, nor our eyes become darkened.” But some say, it was Rab who prayed this prayer, and that Rabbi Alexander, after he had prayed, said thus: “Lord of the worlds, it is manifest and known before Thee that our pleasure is to do Thy pleasure, and who hinders it? The leaven in the bake-meat and the service of foreign domination. May it please Thee to deliver us from their hands, that we may return to do the laws of Thy good pleasure with a perfect heart.”
Raba, when he had finished his prayer, said thus: “Lord, until I was created I was nothing, and now that I am created, I am as if I were not created. Dust I am in life, and how much more when I am dead? Behold I am before Thee like a vessel filled with shame and confusion. May it please Thee, O Lord our God, that I may no more sin, and what I have sinned before Thee, blot out in Thy great mercy, but not through chastisements and evil diseases.” And the same was the confession of Rab Hamnuna the Less on the Day of Atonement.
Mar, the son of Rabina, when he had ended his prayer, said as follows: “Lord, keep our tongue from evil, and our lips from speaking guile. And towards those who curse my soul, let me be silent, and let my soul be like the dust towards all. Open my heart in Thy law, and let my soul follow after Thy commandments, and deliver me from an evil accident, from the evil disposition, and from an evil woman, and from all evil which lifts itself up to come into the world. And all who think evil against me, speedily destroy their counsel, and render vain their thoughts. May it please Thee, that the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before Thee, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.”
Rabbi Sheisheth, when he had fasted, said, after he had finished his prayer: “Lord of the world, it is evident before Thee, that at the time that the Sanctuary stood, a man sinned, and he brought an offering, nor did they offer of it anything but its fat and its blood, and he was forgiven. And now I have remained in fasting, and my fat and my blood have been diminished, may it please Thee, that my fat and my blood which have been diminished be as if I had offered them upon the altar, and be merciful to me.”
Rabbi Jochanan, when he had
finished the book of Job, said thus: “The end of a man is to die, and the end of
an animal is to be slaughtered, and all are appointed to death. Blessed is he
who has grown up in the Thorah, and busied himself with the Thorah, and labours
to have a quiet spirit towards his Creator, and who has grown big with a good
name, and who has departed from this world with a good name. And of him, says
Solomon (
It was customary in the mouth of Rabbi Meir: “Learn with all thy heart and with all thy soul, in order to know My ways, and to grow up by the gates of My Thorah. Keep My Thorah in thy heart, and let My fear be before thine eyes. Keep thy mouth from all sin, and cleanse and sanctify thyself from all transgression and sin, and I shall be with thee in every place.”
Fol. 55 a. Rabbi Chisda said:
“Every dream is without a meaning, but not if one has fasted (on account of
it).” Also Rabbi Chisda said: “A dream which is not interpreted is like a letter
which is not read.” Also Rabbi Chisda said: “Neither is there a good dream in
which everything comes to pass, nor yet a bad dream in which everything comes to
pass.” Also Rabbi Chisda said: “An evil dream is better than a good dream.” Also
Rabbi Chisda said: “An evil dream, its sorrow is sufficient; a good dream, its
pleasure is sufficient.” Rabbi Joseph said: “A good dream even the joy with me
annuls it.”
Rabbi Huna said: “To a good man a
good dream is not shown, and to an evil man an evil dream is not shown. We have
this doctrine: All the years of David he did not see a good dream, and all the
years of Ahithophel he did not see an evil dream. But yet it is written (
Rabbi Huna, the son of Ami, said,
Rabbi Pedath said, Rabbi Jochanan said: “He that seeth a dream, and his soul is
distressed, let him go and interpret it before three.” Let him interpret it? But
Rabbi Chisda said: “A dream which is not interpreted is like a letter which is
not read.” But certainly (I mean), that he give a good interpretation before
three. He summons three, and he says to them, “I have had a good dream.” And
they say to him, “Behold, it is good, and it will be good. The Merciful One turn
it to good. Seven times let it be decreed upon thee from heaven that it be good,
and it will be good.” Then they say three turnings, and three deliverances, and
three times “Peace.” Three turnings (
Ameimer, and Mar Sutra, and Rabbi
Ashi were sitting all together. They said: “Would that each one might say
something which had not been heard by his companion.” Then began one among them,
and said: “If any one has seen a dream, and does not know what he has seen, let
him place himself before the priests of his time, while they spread their hands
(in blessing), and let him say thus: ‘Lord of the world, I am Thine, and my
dreams are Thine. I have dreamt a dream, and I know not what it is, whether I
have dreamed for myself, or whether my companions have dreamt of me, or whether
I have dreamt of others. If they be good (dreams) confirm them, and strengthen
them, like the dreams of Joseph; and if they need healing, heal them, as the
waters of Marah by the hands of Moses, our teacher, and as Miriam from her
leprosy, and as Hezekiah from his sickness, and as the waters of Jericho by the
hands of Elisha. And as Thou hast turned into blessing the curse of Balaam, the
wicked one, so turn all my dreams for me to good.’ And let him finish with the
priests, that the congregation may say, ‘Amen.’ And if not, let him say thus:
‘Mighty One in the heights, Who dwellest in strength, Thou art peace, and Thy
name is peace. May it please Thee to dispense to us peace.’” The next one began,
and said: “If any one enters into a city, and is afraid of the evil eye, let him
take the thumb of his right hand into his left, and the thumb of his left hand
into his right hand, and let him say thus: ‘I, such an one, the son of such an
one, descend from the seed of Joseph, over whom an evil eye can have no power,
as it is written (
Samuel, when he had seen an evil
dream, said (
Rabbi Bisna, the son of Sabda,
said, Rabbi Akiba said, Rabbi Panda said, Rabbi Nahum said, Rabbi Birim said in
the name of an aged man—and who is he? Rabbi Banah: “There were four-and-twenty
interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem. Once I dreamed a dream, and I went before
them all, and what the one interpreted to me the other did not interpret to me,
and yet all were fulfilled to me, in order to fulfil what is written, ‘All
dreams go after the mouth.’ But is this Scripture, ‘All dreams go after the
mouth?’” Yes, and according to Rabbi Elasar. For Rabbi Elasar said, “Whence
this, that all dreams go after the mouth?” Because it is said (
Rabbi Jochanan said: “If one
rises, and a verse comes into his mouth, behold this is like a little prophecy.”
And Rabbi Jochanan said: “Three dreams are fulfilled—a morning dream, a dream
which one’s companion has dreamed, and a dream which is interpreted in the
middle of the dream” (or by a dream). And some say also, a dream which is
repeated, as it is said (
Fol. 56 a—The son of Hedja was
an interpreter of dreams. If any one gave him a reward, he interpreted his
dreams for good; if any one did not give him a reward, he interpreted for evil.
Abaje and Raba saw a dream. Abaje gave him a susa, and Raba gave him nothing.
They said to him: “We read in the dreams (
In the end Raba went alone to him. He said to him: “I have seen that the inner house-door has fallen.” He said to him: “Thy wife shall die.” He said to him: “I saw that my molar teeth and my teeth fell out.” He said to him: “Thy sons and thy daughters shall die.” He said to him: “I saw that two doves flew away.” He said to him: “Two wives shalt thou divorce.” He said to him: “I saw two heads of cabbage.” He said to him: “Two boxes on the ear shalt thou swallow.” Raba went on that day and sat in the academy all the day. Then he found two blind men who quarrelled with one another. Then Raba went to separate them, and they struck Raba twice; they lifted up to strike another time, and he said, “Hold, I have seen only two.”
In the end Raba came and gave him a reward. He said to him: “I saw that the wall fell.” He said to him: “Property without limits shalt thou obtain.” He said to him: “I saw the Palace of Abaje that it fell, and its dust covered me.” He said to him: “Abaje shall die, and his chair shall come to thee.” He said to him: “I saw my own palace that it fell, and then the whole world came and took brick by brick.” He said to him: “Thy teaching shall spread through the world.” He said to him: “I saw that my head was split and my brain came out.” He said to him: “The wool of thy pillow shall come out.” He said to him: “I read the Egyptian Hallel in the dream.” He said to him: “Miracles shall be done for thee.” He went with him upon a ship. He said: “To a man for whom miracles shall be done, what is the use of this?” As he ascended, a book fell from him. Raba found it, and saw that there was written in it: “All dreams go after the mouth.” He said to him: “Wicked One, upon thee it depended, and thou hast much afflicted me. Everything I forgive thee, except about the daughter of Rabbi Chisda (who was his wife). May it be the will (of God), that this man be given over into the hands of the government, who have no pity upon him.” He said: “What shall I do? for it is ordered, that the curse of a sage, even if it come causeless, shall happen. How much more is this the case with Raba, who has judged me with justice.” He said: “I will go and emigrate, for the master said, ‘Banishment expiates sin.’” He arose and emigrated to the Romans. He went and sat down at the door of the head treasurer of the king. The head treasurer saw a dream. He said to him: “I saw a dream, that a needle went into my finger.” He said to him: “Give me a susa”; but he gave him nothing, and hence he said nothing at all to him. He said to him: “I saw that a worm fell upon two of my fingers.” He said to him: “Give me a susa”; but he gave him nothing, and he did not say anything at all to him. He said to him: “I saw that a worm fell upon my whole hand.” He said to him: “A worm has come into all the garments” (of the king). They heard this in the house of the king, and they brought the head treasurer in order that they might kill him. He said to him: “Why I? let him be brought who knew it and did not say.” They brought the son of Hedja. He said to him: “On account of thy susa have been spoiled the garments of the king.” They bound two cedars with rope, and tied one foot to one cedar, and the other foot to the other cedar, and let go the ropes, so that his head was split; for each cedar went back and stood in its place, and he was split and fell in two.
[And so the interpretation of dreams goes on for other two and a half folio pages. These three specimen extracts may suffice to give examples of the indifferent, the good, and the absurd, which constitute the Talmud. They will show the necessity of discrimination, and how readily the Talmud, as a whole, may be either decried by enemies or unduly exalted by a judicious selection of passages.]
Genesis
2:23 3:21 3:21 3:24 3:24 15:18 18:1 18:1 18:12 18:19 20:3 25:11 25:11 25:14 34:12 35:16 35:19 37:2 37:9 40:16 41:12 41:13 41:32 41:46 42:22 42:27 43:21 48:16 49:22
Exodus
2:3 2:6 2:8 11:4 12:26 13:1-10 13:8 13:9 13:14 19:16 19:17 21:9 21:10 21:26 21:27 22:17 23:11-16 23:31 24:11 24:12
Leviticus
2:13 19:15 19:19 19:24 19:32 21:10 21:11 22:4 22:6 25:36 25:37
Numbers
5:23 6:23 6:24 6:24-26 12:1 12:6 14:27 15:37 15:37-41 15:37-41 15:37-41 15:39 20:17 20:19 21:22 24:16 33:38
Deuteronomy
4:9 4:9 4:10 6:4 6:4-9 6:4-9 6:4-9 6:4-9 6:4-9 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:9 6:20 8:5 8:7 8:9 10:17 11:13-21 11:13-21 11:13-21 11:13-21 11:13-21 11:13-21 11:18 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:20 11:20 13:1 13:2 13:4 14:22 17:10 17:11 17:18 18:21 18:22 19:3 21:11 21:15 22:10 22:12 23:5 23:20 24:1 24:1 24:3 24:5 26:12 27:21 28:10 28:10 28:10 28:31 28:32 28:41 28:58 28:58 29:28 30:12 31:13 33:2 33:24 34:5 34:6 35:6
Joshua
1:8 10:13 17:11 17:16 18:9 20:7 22:24 22:25 24:26
Judges
1 Samuel
2:36 10:2 10:3 14:45 15:22 18:25 25:6 25:29 25:29 30:17 31:10 31:12
2 Samuel
1 Kings
9:11 9:15 9:26 10:14 10:15 10:28 10:29 12:8 12:18 22:48
2 Kings
2:24 4:23 8:20 11:1 15:29 22:8
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
4:13 4:13 4:20 4:20 6:21 7:24 7:24 9:1 10:11
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
8:2 29:11 29:11 30:4 30:11 31:23 37:28 51:16 51:17 55:18 57:8 62:12 63:4 66:20 68:7 68:12 74:8 78:5 78:6 78:47 82:1 82:6 84 91:10 94 94:12 94:12 109:31 113 116:9 119 119:62 119:147 119:148 121:8 131:2 132:13-18 137:5 137:6
Proverbs
1:21 3 3:3 6:21 6:23 7:3 7:9 8:21 8:34 14:32 17:5 18:5 18:22 19:17 22:6 24:17 24:18 30:1 30:1 31 31:1 31:2-9 31:10-31
Ecclesiastes
3:14 4:13 7:1 7:26 7:26 9:7 9:9
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:11-13 1:21 2:2 2:3 2:6 3:16-24 7:3 7:14 9:1 9:2 9:6 9:6 11:8 11:8 21 21:11 21:11 21:12 28:9 29:23 31:8 35:2 35:10 48:22 49:16 50:2 53:2 55:6 57:2 57:4 57:8 57:19 57:21 61:10 62:8 65:10 65:13 66:20
Jeremiah
12:4 15:8 17:6 17:8 18:21 22:10 23:28 25:30 31:13 31:15 31:20 40:1 40:7 41:17
Lamentations
Ezekiel
1 9:6 16:2 16:12 28:13 37:12-14 43:16
Daniel
Hosea
Micah
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
1:18 1:19 2:5 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:22 4:13 4:15 4:15 4:23 4:25 5:14 5:18 5:22 5:23 5:32 6:5 6:26 7:24 7:28 7:29 8:28 8:28 9:1 9:9 9:15 9:18 9:20 9:23 10:5 10:14 10:17 10:27 11:21 11:28-30 12:3 13:54 14:3 14:36 15:4-6 15:6 15:28 16:13 16:16 18:17 18:25 18:28 19:3 19:4 19:10 20:2 20:17 20:29 21:13 21:16 21:42 22:1-14 22:20 22:30 22:31 22:45 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:5 23:6 23:6 23:6 23:7 24:15-20 24:17 25:1 25:36 26:7 26:12 26:73 27:7 27:41-43 27:51 27:52 27:53 27:66
Mark
1:21 1:21 1:29 2:4 5:1 5:20 5:22 5:26 5:26 5:35 5:36 5:38 6:2 6:17 6:45 6:56 7:7 7:8 7:13 7:24 7:29 7:31 8:22 8:22 8:29 12:19 12:38 12:39 12:40 13:9 13:15 15:40 15:46 16:1 16:4 16:5
Luke
1:41 1:44 1:63 1:68-70 2:7 2:12 2:16 2:17 2:17 2:18 2:18 2:20 2:20 2:46 2:46 3:1 3:19 4:15 4:16 4:16-21 4:17 4:17 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:17 5:19 5:29 6:6 6:47 7:3 7:3 7:5 7:11-15 8:2 8:26 8:41 8:44 8:49 9:10 9:10 9:53 10:5-11 10:13 10:30 10:34 10:34 10:35 10:35 11:43 12:3 12:58 13:2 13:10 13:14 16:17 16:25 16:26 17:2 17:6 17:11 17:31 18:11 18:15 19:1 19:1 19:4 19:12-15 19:27 19:28 20:46 20:47 23:56 24:13
John
1:29 1:35 1:43 1:44 1:46 2:1-11 2:18 3:29 4:4 4:9 4:20 4:43 4:46 4:47 6:1 6:23 6:25-28 6:30 6:31 6:59 7:46 7:52 8:48 9:1 9:2 10:22 11:30 11:31 11:31 11:38 11:39 11:44 11:47 11:48 11:54 11:55 12:21 18:20 18:28 20:1 20:1-12 20:5 20:7 21:1 21:2 21:22
Acts
1:8 2:5 2:46 5:6 5:10 5:37 5:42 6:9 6:9 7:19 8:2 8:28 9:32-43 9:35 9:36 9:37 9:39 10:23 10:24 10:28 10:39 11:3 11:20 11:21 11:26 12:13 12:14 12:19 13:15 13:15 14:6 15:1 15:13-21 15:21 15:21 16:1 16:13 18:2 18:3 18:3 18:8 18:17 20:28 20:34 20:35 21:5 21:10 21:40 21:40 22:1 23:6 23:8 23:9 23:12 23:16 23:21 23:31 23:31 26:6 26:7
Romans
7:2 7:3 8:33 9:3 10:2 11:2 11:26 16:3 16:5
1 Corinthians
7 7:14 7:39 8:7 9:18 10:25 10:27 10:28 11:1-10 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:10 11:14 16:19
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
Tobit
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Sirach